Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
Farage is a traitor to whom?
Not really a traitor, he is clearly a populist autocrat representing the global billionaires. If voters want to think he is being patriotic and representing them, that is down to the deluded voters.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
I'm not sure such an ability really exists even with the carriers as we don't have the flotilla to protect them adequately, aiui.
I agree with your overall slant on defence spending, but if we are serious about countering Russia there is no space for hopeful jingoism. We are no longer a country that can launch an expeditionary operation; we can contribute effectively to others' perhaps.
Instead, we would do well to focus on defence not offence.
The other issue is how far the carrier aircraft themselves are provided in adequate numbers. Certainly some of the time they've had to invite the US Marines to provide some of the aircraft and crews. And even at the best of times there is now a 1920s-1930s style RAF-does-it arrangement for much of the air contingent, combined with a distinct FAA. No idea how well that works in terms of training, priorities, etc.
Busy Black Friday Sunday for Santa’s little helpers
Blimey, look at all those Amazon arrow logos.
Personally I cannot understand how Amazon remains the dominant on-line retailer - their search engine is utterly, utterly shite. I assume they are giving you results you did not ask for because they are paid to do so but surely there's a market for a company returning results the user actually asked for. Even eBay is good in comparison.
Rant over. Now, where's that Amazon gizmo I ordered?
I have about £200 in amazon gift vouchers to use up and I can never find anything to spend it on. Electronics tend to be cheaper elsewhere (and easier to return), books I'd rather get from a shop, mountaineering and cycling kit is better from my local shops (particularly given the safety element).
Perhaps there is a income/wealth element to this; I used Amazon a lot more when I was a student.
Amazon have managed to make themselves seem so incredibly low-rent and seedy, that I almost wonder if they're aping Ryanair's tactic from a couple of decades ago of making themselves seem cheap and nasty in the hope that the "cheap" bit would be what would lodge in peoples' minds (to be fair, it seems that it worked for them).
As already mentioned, the search engine is dreadful - stuffed full of sponsored options that don't actually match the filters you've set. And when you manage to find an item you're interested in, the product page is often messed up, conflating different options from different vendors, amongst many other problems.
I bought a new pair of hiking boots on Friday, and they've just delivered a pair in US size 8, which is too small. Normally I'm wise to that, and go by the EU size if possible but in this case it seems the wrong info was listed in their database. This wasn't a 'fullfilled by Amazon' third party vendor either, it was from Amazon themselves.
I could have got the same pair direct from the manufacturer for £20 more, or from a local outdoors shop for £25 more - either would have been worth it, given the hassle of returning to Amazon that I now face.
Ah well, I've learned my lesson now...
Interesting.
I'm on Prime, and (checking) I have had 30 delivered orders in 2024 so far, and I have had no problems. So a fair number, but not masses.
Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
Farage is a traitor to whom?
Not really a traitor, he is clearly a populist autocrat representing the global billionaires. If voters want to think he is being patriotic and representing them, that is down to the deluded voters.
People on here were speculating earlier why not many women post on Political Betting. Then we have posters defending Gregg's comments as "just banter" and dismissing women who felt humiliated by him as "whingers". Can't people see a connection between the two?
The issue is that it could be banter with the right set of people. In the pub with your friends maybe. At the rugby club with fellow mates, maybe. At work with a very mixed set of people? No.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
But not enough ships, now, to escort them in hostile waters. Still more so, officers and matelots. That staffing shortage has to be remedied before even thinking about expansion, as I understand the situation.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
I'd be in favour of a European defensive alliance with UK-France-Poland-Scandi/Baltics as the serious countries, although we really need Germany to grow a pair and buy-in there too.
The objective should be to deploy high-tech, high-trained, high-kinetic forces of 250,000 men with all logistical and aerial capability the Americans currently supply for us. Our share of that would be 40-50k, about a corps.
With that sort of force on the central European plain the Russians could never touch us, and nor could anyone else.
That would make some sense. The idea of trying to build our own armoured capability separate from such an alliance is a non starter. We have the added complication of having a defence industry straddling both US and European markets - which leads to such disasters as Ajax, when we could simply have bought (and built here) the CV90.
At least we have NATO standards ammunition.
We can't, because what people forget is that we fought WW1 and WW2 with imperial troops from, especially, Canada, Australia, South Africa and India.
That probably multiplied "sole British" forces 3 or 4 fold.
On Greg Wallace, perhaps you could explain away the comments but does anyone want to have a go at saying being at work naked with a sock covering your penis is acceptable?
On the latest polling, BMG and Opinium have put up new polls but we're starting to see a bit of consolidation now and a new equilibrium emerging.
Labour have dropped to the upper 20s but retain a narrow lead over the Conservatives who are in the mid to upper 20s. Reform are around 20% with the LDs around 10-12% and the Greens in upper single figures.
The Labour/Conservative duopoly is holding in the mid 50s currently so not much different from July. Reform have moved forward mostly at Labour's expense while the Conservatives are up a little and the LDs about the same.
It's a fragmentation we've not seen in British politics for decades, if ever. Trying to call the next GE at this stage is the ultimate expression of hopecasting.
My EMA has: Con 27% Lab 28% LD 12% Ref 19% Grn 8%
A Labour majority of just 10 with no breakthrough for Reform (10 seats).
For now but Farage's approval rating in the latest Opinium is 29%
Put figures of Reform 38%, Labour 22% (Starmer's approval rating and Tories 22% (Badenoch's approval rating) into EC and you get Reform 277 seats, Labour 140 and Tories 97 and LDs 73.
So Farage becomes PM if he could get Tory confidence and supply in such a scenario where he gets all those who have a favourable view of him now to vote Reform which is still not happening at present
So under your scenario Farage has a weak as water minority government which would collapse if it ever had to do or tried to do anything.
I suspect Farage would then try and squeeze the Tory vote more and have a significant chance of an outright Reform majority at any subsequent GE.
The chances of Farage becoming PM are not negligible, whatever you think of him he has more charisma than Starmer or Badenoch and a little bit more than Davey too
You're similar to Leon in viewing a general election as the end result rather than the actual beginning of government.
A failed government becomes very unpopular very quickly.
There would be little likelihood of a Farage government 'squeezing' the support of other parties.
If Reform overtook the Tories on votes and seats at a GE from that point they would be the main rightwing alternative to Labour.
At which point only Tory ideologues like me would keep voting Tory, plenty of even 2024 Tories would switch to Reform to keep Labour out.
Only PR would then likely keep an independent Tory Party viable, otherwise we would have a similar result to Canada where once their Reform overtook their Tories on votes and seats in 1993 in a decade the Canadian Reform and Tory parties merged to form today's Conservative Party of Canada. A party which leans more to its Reform wing than its smaller Tory wing (a few Canadian Tories having gone Liberal at the merger as some would here too)
You are still obsessing over vote share hypotheticals rather then considering what a Farage government would actually do.
Let me explain:
1) PM Farage gives a load of orders 2) It is explained that they cannot be implemented 3) Farage has a tantrum and goes to a pub 4) Reform MPs argue among themselves 5) Financial markets go bad 6) Farage goes to see Trump or Musk 7) Reform MPs argue among themselves even more 8) Financial markets get worse 9) Government collapses
That is your hopes overriding reality.
If Farage wins most votes and seats at a GE he led the winning party at he will have a mandate for his proposals Truss never had whatever tax cuts and spending cuts and commitments in Reform's manifesto would have a mandate.
If Reform had overtaken the Tories on votes and seats that would also be it for the Tories as the main anti Labour Party and one of the 2 main parties as much as it was for the Liberals in the early 20th century once Labour overtook them as the main anti Tory Party.
From 2 to 9 is a very real possibility if in the unlikely event Farage won a GE
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
We don't have that capacity anyway. And where would we use it ?
Defence required hard choices. Unless we're providing carrier capacity to a European navy, they are a luxury we can't afford and almost certainly won't ever effectively use.
There's a long list of things we're not adequately funding. Our nuclear subs, for example, are of far more utility in projecting power globally. And less vulnerable to a WWII style Prince of Wales debacle.
On the latest polling, BMG and Opinium have put up new polls but we're starting to see a bit of consolidation now and a new equilibrium emerging.
Labour have dropped to the upper 20s but retain a narrow lead over the Conservatives who are in the mid to upper 20s. Reform are around 20% with the LDs around 10-12% and the Greens in upper single figures.
The Labour/Conservative duopoly is holding in the mid 50s currently so not much different from July. Reform have moved forward mostly at Labour's expense while the Conservatives are up a little and the LDs about the same.
It's a fragmentation we've not seen in British politics for decades, if ever. Trying to call the next GE at this stage is the ultimate expression of hopecasting.
My EMA has: Con 27% Lab 28% LD 12% Ref 19% Grn 8%
A Labour majority of just 10 with no breakthrough for Reform (10 seats).
For now but Farage's approval rating in the latest Opinium is 29%
Put figures of Reform 38%, Labour 22% (Starmer's approval rating and Tories 22% (Badenoch's approval rating) into EC and you get Reform 277 seats, Labour 140 and Tories 97 and LDs 73.
So Farage becomes PM if he could get Tory confidence and supply in such a scenario where he gets all those who have a favourable view of him now to vote Reform which is still not happening at present
So under your scenario Farage has a weak as water minority government which would collapse if it ever had to do or tried to do anything.
I suspect Farage would then try and squeeze the Tory vote more and have a significant chance of an outright Reform majority at any subsequent GE.
The chances of Farage becoming PM are not negligible, whatever you think of him he has more charisma than Starmer or Badenoch and a little bit more than Davey too
You're similar to Leon in viewing a general election as the end result rather than the actual beginning of government.
A failed government becomes very unpopular very quickly.
There would be little likelihood of a Farage government 'squeezing' the support of other parties.
If Reform overtook the Tories on votes and seats at a GE from that point they would be the main rightwing alternative to Labour.
At which point only Tory ideologues like me would keep voting Tory, plenty of even 2024 Tories would switch to Reform to keep Labour out.
Only PR would then likely keep an independent Tory Party viable, otherwise we would have a similar result to Canada where once their Reform overtook their Tories on votes and seats in 1993 in a decade the Canadian Reform and Tory parties merged to form today's Conservative Party of Canada. A party which leans more to its Reform wing than its smaller Tory wing (a few Canadian Tories having gone Liberal at the merger as some would here too)
You are still obsessing over vote share hypotheticals rather then considering what a Farage government would actually do.
Let me explain:
1) PM Farage gives a load of orders 2) It is explained that they cannot be implemented 3) Farage has a tantrum and goes to a pub 4) Reform MPs argue among themselves 5) Financial markets go bad 6) Farage goes to see Trump or Musk 7) Reform MPs argue among themselves even more 8) Financial markets get worse 9) Government collapses
That is your hopes overriding reality.
If Farage wins most votes and seats at a GE he led the winning party at he will have a mandate for his proposals Truss never had whatever tax cuts and spending cuts and commitments in Reform's manifesto would have a mandate.
If Reform had overtaken the Tories on votes and seats that would also be it for the Tories as the main anti Labour Party and one of the 2 main parties as much as it was for the Liberals in the early 20th century once Labour overtook them as the main anti Tory Party.
The financial markets decide the mandate not you putting numbers into electoral calculus.
And by the way Farage supports actual spending increases and paper spending cuts.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
I'm not sure such an ability really exists even with the carriers as we don't have the flotilla to protect them adequately, aiui.
I agree with your overall slant on defence spending, but if we are serious about countering Russia there is no space for hopeful jingoism. We are no longer a country that can launch an expeditionary operation; we can contribute effectively to others' perhaps.
Instead, we would do well to focus on defence not offence.
Carriers are not jingoism.
It's because our security and prosperity rests on the defence of the international rules-based order worldwide, and the freedom of its shipping and trade lanes.
We can't just squirrel ourselves up in Europe and hope for the best.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
But not enough ships, now, to escort them in hostile waters. Still more so, officers and matelots. That staffing shortage has to be remedied before even thinking about expansion, as I understand the situation.
Interesting thought, thinking back to the General Election. In my youth it was almost impossible to do one's National Service in the Navy as the Admiralty apparently thought two years wasn't enough to train and effectively use such recruits.
My father was trained for almost five years, and that was during WW2 - but then he was an Ordnance Artificer Apprentice where the *beginning* was to be given a lump of metal and some hand tools and told to file an accurate cube one inch all round, by hand. By the end he could maintain anything from a 14" gun to a Bofors.
TBF that also applied to the Raff, though they could use them as unskilled labour. Lots of people who wanted to fly ended up as storesmen with the snow on the east wind from Siberia drifting across their shoes on parade in some East Anglian airfield, as a former colleague of mine put it (and he was a keen glider pilot before and after). They did get some NS airmen but for things like the Vampire and Hunter which weren't *too* difficult ...
Putin's sabre rattling has unnerved people a bit and our leaders have not done a great job at allaying the public's worries. They're probably hoping it will die down as Putin can't keep playing the sabre rattling card much longer before he's exposed as a bluffer.
Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
Farage is a traitor to whom?
Not really a traitor, he is clearly a populist autocrat representing the global billionaires. If voters want to think he is being patriotic and representing them, that is down to the deluded voters.
More US billionaires voted for Harris than Trump while Trump won most voters earning under $100 000
Jailed crpyto billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried said it was obvious to donate equal amounts to both sides to get the best from your donations. Interestingly his donations to the Democrats were ones which (mostly) had to be declared but the ones to the Republican side were mostly not. In the US both sides are very much owned by a few, no surprise that most of the growth of the last decade is going to just 1% of the population.
It is perhaps surprising that the other 99% can't figure out how to stop it.
On the latest polling, BMG and Opinium have put up new polls but we're starting to see a bit of consolidation now and a new equilibrium emerging.
Labour have dropped to the upper 20s but retain a narrow lead over the Conservatives who are in the mid to upper 20s. Reform are around 20% with the LDs around 10-12% and the Greens in upper single figures.
The Labour/Conservative duopoly is holding in the mid 50s currently so not much different from July. Reform have moved forward mostly at Labour's expense while the Conservatives are up a little and the LDs about the same.
It's a fragmentation we've not seen in British politics for decades, if ever. Trying to call the next GE at this stage is the ultimate expression of hopecasting.
My EMA has: Con 27% Lab 28% LD 12% Ref 19% Grn 8%
A Labour majority of just 10 with no breakthrough for Reform (10 seats).
For now but Farage's approval rating in the latest Opinium is 29%
Put figures of Reform 38%, Labour 22% (Starmer's approval rating and Tories 22% (Badenoch's approval rating) into EC and you get Reform 277 seats, Labour 140 and Tories 97 and LDs 73.
So Farage becomes PM if he could get Tory confidence and supply in such a scenario where he gets all those who have a favourable view of him now to vote Reform which is still not happening at present
So under your scenario Farage has a weak as water minority government which would collapse if it ever had to do or tried to do anything.
I suspect Farage would then try and squeeze the Tory vote more and have a significant chance of an outright Reform majority at any subsequent GE.
The chances of Farage becoming PM are not negligible, whatever you think of him he has more charisma than Starmer or Badenoch and a little bit more than Davey too
You're similar to Leon in viewing a general election as the end result rather than the actual beginning of government.
A failed government becomes very unpopular very quickly.
There would be little likelihood of a Farage government 'squeezing' the support of other parties.
If Reform overtook the Tories on votes and seats at a GE from that point they would be the main rightwing alternative to Labour.
At which point only Tory ideologues like me would keep voting Tory, plenty of even 2024 Tories would switch to Reform to keep Labour out.
Only PR would then likely keep an independent Tory Party viable, otherwise we would have a similar result to Canada where once their Reform overtook their Tories on votes and seats in 1993 in a decade the Canadian Reform and Tory parties merged to form today's Conservative Party of Canada. A party which leans more to its Reform wing than its smaller Tory wing (a few Canadian Tories having gone Liberal at the merger as some would here too)
You are still obsessing over vote share hypotheticals rather then considering what a Farage government would actually do.
Let me explain:
1) PM Farage gives a load of orders 2) It is explained that they cannot be implemented 3) Farage has a tantrum and goes to a pub 4) Reform MPs argue among themselves 5) Financial markets go bad 6) Farage goes to see Trump or Musk 7) Reform MPs argue among themselves even more 8) Financial markets get worse 9) Government collapses
That is your hopes overriding reality.
If Farage wins most votes and seats at a GE he led the winning party at he will have a mandate for his proposals Truss never had whatever tax cuts and spending cuts and commitments in Reform's manifesto would have a mandate.
If Reform had overtaken the Tories on votes and seats that would also be it for the Tories as the main anti Labour Party and one of the 2 main parties as much as it was for the Liberals in the early 20th century once Labour overtook them as the main anti Tory Party.
The financial markets decide the mandate not you putting numbers into electoral calculus.
And by the way Farage supports actual spending increases and paper spending cuts.
Only to an extent and much more difficult with a newly elected government with a mandate almost all of whose MPs will be ultra loyal to him in a way Tory MPs weren't to Truss.
Farage's economic policies anyway would be little different to Milei's, Meloni's and Trump's and financial markets haven't removed them.
On Greg Wallace, perhaps you could explain away the comments but does anyone want to have a go at saying being at work naked with a sock covering your penis is acceptable?
There are a few specialist jobs where that is a requirement but, otherwise...
Transform Politics 🦋 @tf_politics Damning verdict on Starmer’s government from pollster Sir John Curtice.
“The fundamental question is whether a politician who has shown so far absolutely no ability to construct a narrative can suddenly construct a narrative”.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
We had no operational carriers between 2011 and 2021, and the best you can say about the period since is that they're partly operational. A full F35 wing will be deployed for the first time next year, but it's hard to see how much actual use it'll be whilst the PoW is on a flag-flying jolly around the Indian and Pacific oceans and the QE remains plagued by problems with its engines and propellers.
If we believe that we primarily face non-conventional threats from Russia and Iran and limited spillover from the war in Ukraine, then why is our biggest expenditure on things that are of, at best, marginal use for any of those?
Meanwhile, we have no air or missile defences apart from the very limited cover that could be provided if a Type 45 were to be stationed permanently in home waters. Our cyber warfare and infra resilience capabilities are deeply underfunded and mired in inter-agency and inter-departmental disputes. Our ability to face either a direct or indirect attack from Russia is somewhat less than Ukraine's was circa 2012.
Busy Black Friday Sunday for Santa’s little helpers
Blimey, look at all those Amazon arrow logos.
Personally I cannot understand how Amazon remains the dominant on-line retailer - their search engine is utterly, utterly shite. I assume they are giving you results you did not ask for because they are paid to do so but surely there's a market for a company returning results the user actually asked for. Even eBay is good in comparison.
Rant over. Now, where's that Amazon gizmo I ordered?
I have about £200 in amazon gift vouchers to use up and I can never find anything to spend it on. Electronics tend to be cheaper elsewhere (and easier to return), books I'd rather get from a shop, mountaineering and cycling kit is better from my local shops (particularly given the safety element).
Perhaps there is a income/wealth element to this; I used Amazon a lot more when I was a student.
Amazon have managed to make themselves seem so incredibly low-rent and seedy, that I almost wonder if they're aping Ryanair's tactic from a couple of decades ago of making themselves seem cheap and nasty in the hope that the "cheap" bit would be what would lodge in peoples' minds (to be fair, it seems that it worked for them).
As already mentioned, the search engine is dreadful - stuffed full of sponsored options that don't actually match the filters you've set. And when you manage to find an item you're interested in, the product page is often messed up, conflating different options from different vendors, amongst many other problems.
I bought a new pair of hiking boots on Friday, and they've just delivered a pair in US size 8, which is too small. Normally I'm wise to that, and go by the EU size if possible but in this case it seems the wrong info was listed in their database. This wasn't a 'fullfilled by Amazon' third party vendor either, it was from Amazon themselves.
I could have got the same pair direct from the manufacturer for £20 more, or from a local outdoors shop for £25 more - either would have been worth it, given the hassle of returning to Amazon that I now face.
Ah well, I've learned my lesson now...
Interesting.
I'm on Prime, and (checking) I have had 30 delivered orders in 2024 so far, and I have had no problems. So a fair number, but not masses.
The music and the vids are a bonus.
We have had 18 orders this month alone and of course with Prime you receive access to films and football
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
We don't have that capacity anyway. And where would we use it ?
Defence required hard choices. Unless we're providing carrier capacity to a European navy, they are a luxury we can't afford and almost certainly won't ever effectively use.
In a small way we do. We have an arrangement with the French that they can borrow one of ours if theirs is in for refit and a war starts (when you're doing a major service on a nuclear reactor you can't just pop it back togther - it takes weeks).
Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
Farage is a traitor to whom?
Not really a traitor, he is clearly a populist autocrat representing the global billionaires. If voters want to think he is being patriotic and representing them, that is down to the deluded voters.
More US billionaires voted for Harris than Trump while Trump won most voters earning under $100 000
Jailed crpyto billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried said it was obvious to donate equal amounts to both sides to get the best from your donations. Interestingly his donations to the Democrats were ones which (mostly) had to be declared but the ones to the Republican side were mostly not. In the US both sides are very much owned by a few, no surprise that most of the growth of the last decade is going to just 1% of the population.
It is perhaps surprising that the other 99% can't figure out how to stop it.
Trump's tariffs are certainly not what most of the 1% richest want, nor even his immigration deportations, they are much more what most of the 99% voted for.
Even if the 1% like Trump's tax cuts and regulation cutbacks
Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
Farage is a traitor to whom?
To the UK if he accepts money from Musk for political purposes.
That’s just xenophobia.
No it isn't. I know you're fully MAGA these days, but the idea that billionaire should be able to buy elections in the UK is both unacceptable and in this case illegal.
Mrs J made a comment about the Greggggg's 'excuse' that interested me. The reason why the complaints might be coming from middle-class women of a 'certain age' might be because they had had decades of putting up with this sort of shite from men, and may have the finances and support to survive if they never work in the industry again.
Younger women might be much more frightened of what a backlash might do to their formative careers to speak out.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
But not enough ships, now, to escort them in hostile waters. Still more so, officers and matelots. That staffing shortage has to be remedied before even thinking about expansion, as I understand the situation.
Interesting thought, thinking back to the General Election. In my youth it was almost impossible to do one's National Service in the Navy as the Admiralty apparently thought two years wasn't enough to train and effectively use such recruits.
My father was trained for almost five years, and that was during WW2 - but then he was an Ordnance Artificer Apprentice where the *beginning* was to be given a lump of metal and some hand tools and told to file an accurate cube one inch all round, by hand. By the end he could maintain anything from a 14" gun to a Bofors.
TBF that also applied to the Raff, though they could use them as unskilled labour. Lots of people who wanted to fly ended up as storesmen with the snow on the east wind from Siberia drifting across their shoes on parade in some East Anglian airfield, as a former colleague of mine put it (and he was a keen glider pilot before and after). They did get some NS airmen but for things like the Vampire and Hunter which weren't *too* difficult ...
An acquaintance of mine was a National Service Air Traffic Controller which sounds quite interesting. Especially when compared with other friends who guarded the perimeters of East Anglian airfields in winter with pickaxe handles.
On the latest polling, BMG and Opinium have put up new polls but we're starting to see a bit of consolidation now and a new equilibrium emerging.
Labour have dropped to the upper 20s but retain a narrow lead over the Conservatives who are in the mid to upper 20s. Reform are around 20% with the LDs around 10-12% and the Greens in upper single figures.
The Labour/Conservative duopoly is holding in the mid 50s currently so not much different from July. Reform have moved forward mostly at Labour's expense while the Conservatives are up a little and the LDs about the same.
It's a fragmentation we've not seen in British politics for decades, if ever. Trying to call the next GE at this stage is the ultimate expression of hopecasting.
My EMA has: Con 27% Lab 28% LD 12% Ref 19% Grn 8%
A Labour majority of just 10 with no breakthrough for Reform (10 seats).
For now but Farage's approval rating in the latest Opinium is 29%
Put figures of Reform 38%, Labour 22% (Starmer's approval rating and Tories 22% (Badenoch's approval rating) into EC and you get Reform 277 seats, Labour 140 and Tories 97 and LDs 73.
So Farage becomes PM if he could get Tory confidence and supply in such a scenario where he gets all those who have a favourable view of him now to vote Reform which is still not happening at present
So under your scenario Farage has a weak as water minority government which would collapse if it ever had to do or tried to do anything.
I suspect Farage would then try and squeeze the Tory vote more and have a significant chance of an outright Reform majority at any subsequent GE.
The chances of Farage becoming PM are not negligible, whatever you think of him he has more charisma than Starmer or Badenoch and a little bit more than Davey too
You're similar to Leon in viewing a general election as the end result rather than the actual beginning of government.
A failed government becomes very unpopular very quickly.
There would be little likelihood of a Farage government 'squeezing' the support of other parties.
If Reform overtook the Tories on votes and seats at a GE from that point they would be the main rightwing alternative to Labour.
At which point only Tory ideologues like me would keep voting Tory, plenty of even 2024 Tories would switch to Reform to keep Labour out.
Only PR would then likely keep an independent Tory Party viable, otherwise we would have a similar result to Canada where once their Reform overtook their Tories on votes and seats in 1993 in a decade the Canadian Reform and Tory parties merged to form today's Conservative Party of Canada. A party which leans more to its Reform wing than its smaller Tory wing (a few Canadian Tories having gone Liberal at the merger as some would here too)
You are still obsessing over vote share hypotheticals rather then considering what a Farage government would actually do.
Let me explain:
1) PM Farage gives a load of orders 2) It is explained that they cannot be implemented 3) Farage has a tantrum and goes to a pub 4) Reform MPs argue among themselves 5) Financial markets go bad 6) Farage goes to see Trump or Musk 7) Reform MPs argue among themselves even more 8) Financial markets get worse 9) Government collapses
That is your hopes overriding reality.
If Farage wins most votes and seats at a GE he led the winning party at he will have a mandate for his proposals Truss never had whatever tax cuts and spending cuts and commitments in Reform's manifesto would have a mandate.
If Reform had overtaken the Tories on votes and seats that would also be it for the Tories as the main anti Labour Party and one of the 2 main parties as much as it was for the Liberals in the early 20th century once Labour overtook them as the main anti Tory Party.
The financial markets decide the mandate not you putting numbers into electoral calculus.
And by the way Farage supports actual spending increases and paper spending cuts.
Only to an extent and much more difficult with a newly elected government with a mandate almost all of whose MPs will be ultra loyal to him in a way Tory MPs weren't to Truss.
Farage's economic policies anyway would be little different to Milei's, Meloni's and Trump's and financial markets haven't removed them.
They haven't upset the financial markets.
Farage wants big tax cuts and big spending increases.
It didn't work for Truss and it wouldn't work for Farage.
Mess up people's mortgages and pensions and Farage would be removed by his own supporters.
The only way a PM Farage gets to do his anti-immigration bit is to be financially responsible.
Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
Farage is a traitor to whom?
Not really a traitor, he is clearly a populist autocrat representing the global billionaires. If voters want to think he is being patriotic and representing them, that is down to the deluded voters.
More US billionaires voted for Harris than Trump while Trump won most voters earning under $100 000
Jailed crpyto billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried said it was obvious to donate equal amounts to both sides to get the best from your donations. Interestingly his donations to the Democrats were ones which (mostly) had to be declared but the ones to the Republican side were mostly not. In the US both sides are very much owned by a few, no surprise that most of the growth of the last decade is going to just 1% of the population.
It is perhaps surprising that the other 99% can't figure out how to stop it.
Trump's tariffs are certainly not what most of the 1% richest want, nor even his immigration deportations, they are much more what most of the 99% voted for.
Even if the 1% like Trump's tax cuts and regulation cutbacks
We have little idea what level of tariffs Trump will implement. It could be anything from virtually none to loads. Best guess would be similar to last time, lots of annoucements with high numbers vs some but much less implementation with moderate numbers.
Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
Farage is a traitor to whom?
Not really a traitor, he is clearly a populist autocrat representing the global billionaires. If voters want to think he is being patriotic and representing them, that is down to the deluded voters.
More US billionaires voted for Harris than Trump while Trump won most voters earning under $100 000
Jailed crpyto billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried said it was obvious to donate equal amounts to both sides to get the best from your donations. Interestingly his donations to the Democrats were ones which (mostly) had to be declared but the ones to the Republican side were mostly not. In the US both sides are very much owned by a few, no surprise that most of the growth of the last decade is going to just 1% of the population.
It is perhaps surprising that the other 99% can't figure out how to stop it.
They tried - and then the Supreme Court said no. Money = free speech in the US, now, and those who have more of the latter have more of the former.
As I and others have pointed out to the doubters, Reform are organised, well funded and very serious about replacing the Tories as the party of the right.
I know what Reform stand for. I don’t know what the Tories stand for. We can all see the enthusiastic surge of interest in Reform. Where is the enthusiastic surge of true blue Tories coming back with your amazing new leader and dynamic vision for the future?
You may know what Reform "stand for" but I haven't a clue.
The leadership (Farage, Tice) are unreconstructed Thatcherites who want big tax and spending cuts. However, many of those who joined Reform and vote for Reform want something else - some, a lot I'd imagine, were big fans of Boris Johnson and the "levelling up" agenda which meant lots more public funding for the north and especially the WWC north. They also want more resources on law and order, local services and the NHS to remove the perceived or actual stigma of feeling "left behind" against the south.
In time, this will cause problems but the glue which holds them all together is immigration but even that is nuanced. I suspect there are plenty of Reform voters whose view on immigration is nearer that of Britain First, others will simply want net zero migration and others to see the net migration number sharply lower (and there's obviously racial and cultural overtones to all of that as well).
Like every other party, Reform is a messy coalition of often very different interest groups and factions whose broad level of concensus is quite limited and whose policy differences below the surface are substantial.
Yes. Overwhelmingly there is only one place Reform votes can come from: from those who accept the post 1945 social democratic deal, (regulated private enterprise, NATO and a cradle to grave state) unchanged in essentials from that day to this and compared with which all modern UK political disagreements are minor.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
But not enough ships, now, to escort them in hostile waters. Still more so, officers and matelots. That staffing shortage has to be remedied before even thinking about expansion, as I understand the situation.
Interesting thought, thinking back to the General Election. In my youth it was almost impossible to do one's National Service in the Navy as the Admiralty apparently thought two years wasn't enough to train and effectively use such recruits.
My father was trained for almost five years, and that was during WW2 - but then he was an Ordnance Artificer Apprentice where the *beginning* was to be given a lump of metal and some hand tools and told to file an accurate cube one inch all round, by hand. By the end he could maintain anything from a 14" gun to a Bofors.
TBF that also applied to the Raff, though they could use them as unskilled labour. Lots of people who wanted to fly ended up as storesmen with the snow on the east wind from Siberia drifting across their shoes on parade in some East Anglian airfield, as a former colleague of mine put it (and he was a keen glider pilot before and after). They did get some NS airmen but for things like the Vampire and Hunter which weren't *too* difficult ...
An acquaintance of mine was a National Service Air Traffic Controller which sounds quite interesting. Especially when compared with other friends who guarded the perimeters of East Anglian airfields in winter with pickaxe handles.
One of my very distant relatives was/is an air traffic controller at Swanwick. He met the woman who is now his wife there, and AIU they are not allowed to work the same shifts together.
Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
Farage is a traitor to whom?
Not really a traitor, he is clearly a populist autocrat representing the global billionaires. If voters want to think he is being patriotic and representing them, that is down to the deluded voters.
More US billionaires voted for Harris than Trump while Trump won most voters earning under $100 000
Jailed crpyto billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried said it was obvious to donate equal amounts to both sides to get the best from your donations. Interestingly his donations to the Democrats were ones which (mostly) had to be declared but the ones to the Republican side were mostly not. In the US both sides are very much owned by a few, no surprise that most of the growth of the last decade is going to just 1% of the population.
It is perhaps surprising that the other 99% can't figure out how to stop it.
Well it didn't do him much good.
I'd be sceptical about his claims of donations to the GOP unless he actually gives names and numbers with some evidence.
Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
Farage is a traitor to whom?
Not really a traitor, he is clearly a populist autocrat representing the global billionaires. If voters want to think he is being patriotic and representing them, that is down to the deluded voters.
Whereas in the U.K. we have elected a govt that is there to represent the whims of Esther Rantzen.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
I'm not sure such an ability really exists even with the carriers as we don't have the flotilla to protect them adequately, aiui.
I agree with your overall slant on defence spending, but if we are serious about countering Russia there is no space for hopeful jingoism. We are no longer a country that can launch an expeditionary operation; we can contribute effectively to others' perhaps.
Instead, we would do well to focus on defence not offence.
The other issue is how far the carrier aircraft themselves are provided in adequate numbers. Certainly some of the time they've had to invite the US Marines to provide some of the aircraft and crews. And even at the best of times there is now a 1920s-1930s style RAF-does-it arrangement for much of the air contingent, combined with a distinct FAA. No idea how well that works in terms of training, priorities, etc.
AFAIK that's mainly to do with delays to F35, and cost efficiency.
We either waited for Block-4, which has been delayed for years from I think 2026 to 2029 (not sure if that is the date for UK orders of F-35B), or get more of the current Block-3F version (if the capacity is available) and then pay a significant chunk to upgrade them, involving an out of service period, later. On current numbers, we have 37 coming, reaching 48 by eoy 2025.
Given that we are due to get another at least another 2-3 dozen after the current batch of 48, the decision looks OK as the best (or least worst) option to me.
What I do wonder is if we will have a pre-WW2 style scrimmage about control of the fleet between the navy and the air force.
People on here were speculating earlier why not many women post on Political Betting. Then we have posters defending Gregg's comments as "just banter" and dismissing women who felt humiliated by him as "whingers". Can't people see a connection between the two?
Thanks for saying that, Sandra.
I know that the attitude of some male posters can be very discouraging for female posters, and I wish this were not so.
Transform Politics 🦋 @tf_politics Damning verdict on Starmer’s government from pollster Sir John Curtice.
“The fundamental question is whether a politician who has shown so far absolutely no ability to construct a narrative can suddenly construct a narrative”.
Putin's sabre rattling has unnerved people a bit and our leaders have not done a great job at allaying the public's worries. They're probably hoping it will die down as Putin can't keep playing the sabre rattling card much longer before he's exposed as a bluffer.
My worry is that it's the West in general that's been exposed as bluffing. We apparently don't have the industrial capacity or funding to produce more artillery ammunition than Russia, more than 1,000 days into a major land war in Europe.
Mrs J made a comment about the Greggggg's 'excuse' that interested me. The reason why the complaints might be coming from middle-class women of a 'certain age' might be because they had had decades of putting up with this sort of shite from men, and may have the finances and support to survive if they never work in the industry again.
Younger women might be much more frightened of what a backlash might do to their formative careers to speak out.
Mrs J made a comment about the Greggggg's 'excuse' that interested me. The reason why the complaints might be coming from middle-class women of a 'certain age' might be because they had had decades of putting up with this sort of shite from men, and may have the finances and support to survive if they never work in the industry again.
Younger women might be much more frightened of what a backlash might do to their formative careers to speak out.
I reckon there might be something to that.
AFAICS, that's just Wallace's spin anyway. We don't actually know who some of his accusers are - though we do know at least one is male. But your point is certainly true of those who've spoken out in public.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
I'm not sure such an ability really exists even with the carriers as we don't have the flotilla to protect them adequately, aiui.
I agree with your overall slant on defence spending, but if we are serious about countering Russia there is no space for hopeful jingoism. We are no longer a country that can launch an expeditionary operation; we can contribute effectively to others' perhaps.
Instead, we would do well to focus on defence not offence.
The other issue is how far the carrier aircraft themselves are provided in adequate numbers. Certainly some of the time they've had to invite the US Marines to provide some of the aircraft and crews. And even at the best of times there is now a 1920s-1930s style RAF-does-it arrangement for much of the air contingent, combined with a distinct FAA. No idea how well that works in terms of training, priorities, etc.
The US marines are there because they want out from under the US Navy, as much as anything else.
The Joint RAF/RN thing was because it was politically impossible for the RAF to allow the Fleet Air Arm expand to have (potentially) a hundred strike aircraft. And the most advanced in UK service as well.
The actual operations are going quite well. And the RAF is slowly dropping the attempt to convert the last part of the F35 buy into non-V/STOL - which was about making them incompatible with the carriers. And the screams of “treason to the RAF” from certain clowns have died away.
History repeats itself with these dictators, Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Tito, etc....they did horrific things, but was it better that they were in charge than not?
No.
Keep turning the kaleidoscope until something good turns up.
Instability is better than bad stability, instability gives an opportunity (no guarantee, just an opportunity) for something good to happen - bad stability gives no chance.
Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
Farage is a traitor to whom?
Not really a traitor, he is clearly a populist autocrat representing the global billionaires. If voters want to think he is being patriotic and representing them, that is down to the deluded voters.
Whereas in the U.K. we have elected a govt that is there to represent the whims of Esther Rantzen.
Not really, no. AIUI it was a Private Member's Bill that the government allowed a free vote for.
A much better claim can be made for Boris Johnson and Rantzen, as she was heavily backing the ludicrous Garden Bridge idea that Johnson spent tens of millions of Londoner's money on.
Putin's sabre rattling has unnerved people a bit and our leaders have not done a great job at allaying the public's worries. They're probably hoping it will die down as Putin can't keep playing the sabre rattling card much longer before he's exposed as a bluffer.
My worry is that it's the West in general that's been exposed as bluffing. We apparently don't have the industrial capacity or funding to produce more artillery ammunition than Russia, more than 1,000 days into a major land war in Europe.
We do, though. We've just been very slow in paying to get it to do so.
On Greg Wallace, perhaps you could explain away the comments but does anyone want to have a go at saying being at work naked with a sock covering your penis is acceptable?
Unless you are in a niche job I assume it is better than being at work naked without even a sock covering your penis.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
But not enough ships, now, to escort them in hostile waters. Still more so, officers and matelots. That staffing shortage has to be remedied before even thinking about expansion, as I understand the situation.
Recruitment has imo been withering on the vine from about 2020-2023, with spending flat in cash terms (ie real terms cut of ~15-20%), and performance against target fell from 84% to 60%.
I'm not sure whether, like army recruitment, it had been handed to Capita.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
I'm not sure such an ability really exists even with the carriers as we don't have the flotilla to protect them adequately, aiui.
I agree with your overall slant on defence spending, but if we are serious about countering Russia there is no space for hopeful jingoism. We are no longer a country that can launch an expeditionary operation; we can contribute effectively to others' perhaps.
Instead, we would do well to focus on defence not offence.
Carriers are not jingoism.
It's because our security and prosperity rests on the defence of the international rules-based order worldwide, and the freedom of its shipping and trade lanes.
We can't just squirrel ourselves up in Europe and hope for the best.
But those carriers were designed in my opinion to be absorbed into a European navy. We didn't even have planes for them. In terms of support vessels etc. they don't make sense as the UK navy independently is currently constituted imo (though I'll happily be schooled on this as I'm not an expert). I'm afraid that going back decades, probably many decades, our defence procurement hasn't been run according to the interests of the UK. Our strategic nuclear deterrent is part of the US nuclear arsenal that we simply pay for, and Tony Blair (afaicr) abolished our independent tactical nuke programme.
Does anyone know the story behind Lawrence Newport and "crush crime"? All over my social media feeds the last few weeks, and now doing a piece on bicycle theft in the Telegraph. He has history as a campaigner on XL Bully attacks, been on GB News a few times.
I think crime is a serious weakness for Labour, and I wonder if something is going on here.
The UK government has been accused of undermining the foundations of the economy with its autumn budget, after business confidence plunged to its lowest level since the early months of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Institute of Directors’ economic confidence index, which measures business leader optimism in prospects for the UK economy, fell to -65 in November from -52 in October, the fourth monthly fall in a row.
That is the lowest reading since the record low of -69 in April 2020, and the second worst since the index began in July 2016.
Anna Leach, the chief economist at the Institute of Directors (IoD), warned that the extent of the hit to the private sector through tax rises in the budget would undermine growth and ultimately the public finances as well.
Does anyone know the story behind Lawrence Newport and "crush crime"? All over my social media feeds the last few weeks, and now doing a piece on bicycle theft in the Telegraph. He has history as a campaigner on XL Bully attacks, been on GB News a few times.
I think crime is a serious weakness for Labour, and I wonder if something is going on here.
I can't see your original post, but why not spend your Amazon voucher on a health supplement you were thinking of getting into? £200 is enough to give something a good try.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
But not enough ships, now, to escort them in hostile waters. Still more so, officers and matelots. That staffing shortage has to be remedied before even thinking about expansion, as I understand the situation.
Recruitment has imo been withering on the vine from about 2020-2023, with spending flat in cash terms (ie real terms cut of ~15-20%), and performance against target fell from 84% to 60%.
I'm not sure whether, like army recruitment, it had been handed to Capita.
Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
Farage is a traitor to whom?
Not really a traitor, he is clearly a populist autocrat representing the global billionaires. If voters want to think he is being patriotic and representing them, that is down to the deluded voters.
Whereas in the U.K. we have elected a govt that is there to represent the whims of Esther Rantzen.
Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
Farage is a traitor to whom?
Not really a traitor, he is clearly a populist autocrat representing the global billionaires. If voters want to think he is being patriotic and representing them, that is down to the deluded voters.
Whereas in the U.K. we have elected a govt that is there to represent the whims of Esther Rantzen.
Not really, no. AIUI it was a Private Member's Bill that the government allowed a free vote for.
A much better claim can be made for Boris Johnson and Rantzen, as she was heavily backing the ludicrous Garden Bridge idea that Johnson spent tens of millions of Londoner's money on.
Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
Farage is a traitor to whom?
Not really a traitor, he is clearly a populist autocrat representing the global billionaires. If voters want to think he is being patriotic and representing them, that is down to the deluded voters.
Whereas in the U.K. we have elected a govt that is there to represent the whims of Esther Rantzen.
Not really, no. AIUI it was a Private Member's Bill that the government allowed a free vote for.
A much better claim can be made for Boris Johnson and Rantzen, as she was heavily backing the ludicrous Garden Bridge idea that Johnson spent tens of millions of Londoner's money on.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
I'm not sure such an ability really exists even with the carriers as we don't have the flotilla to protect them adequately, aiui.
I agree with your overall slant on defence spending, but if we are serious about countering Russia there is no space for hopeful jingoism. We are no longer a country that can launch an expeditionary operation; we can contribute effectively to others' perhaps.
Instead, we would do well to focus on defence not offence.
Carriers are not jingoism.
It's because our security and prosperity rests on the defence of the international rules-based order worldwide, and the freedom of its shipping and trade lanes.
We can't just squirrel ourselves up in Europe and hope for the best.
But those carriers were designed in my opinion to be absorbed into a European navy. We didn't even have planes for them. In terms of support vessels etc. they don't make sense as the UK navy independently is currently constituted imo (though I'll happily be schooled on this as I'm not an expert). I'm afraid that going back decades, probably many decades, our defence procurement hasn't been run according to the interests of the UK. Our strategic nuclear deterrent is part of the US nuclear arsenal that we simply pay for, and Tony Blair (afaicr) abolished our independent tactical nuke programme.
You do realise that the 'UK military to be subsumed into a European army!!!!" has been a Russian talking point for some years, designed to weaken us?
Does anyone know the story behind Lawrence Newport and "crush crime"? All over my social media feeds the last few weeks, and now doing a piece on bicycle theft in the Telegraph. He has history as a campaigner on XL Bully attacks, been on GB News a few times.
I think crime is a serious weakness for Labour, and I wonder if something is going on here.
He’s moved his campaign to crime and the Police.
His latest wheeze.
He’s got a point too. In many areas it feels like some serious crimes are just decriminalised. I’ve mentioned here before my own town where anti social behaviour by a gang of youths on Fridays and Saturdays has been a real problem for businesses and residents alike in the town centre and the Police have been totally ineffective in dealing with it.
I doubt my area is unique. This really could run and run and put political pressure on the govt.
Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
Farage is a traitor to whom?
Not really a traitor, he is clearly a populist autocrat representing the global billionaires. If voters want to think he is being patriotic and representing them, that is down to the deluded voters.
Whereas in the U.K. we have elected a govt that is there to represent the whims of Esther Rantzen.
It wasn't a government bill.
Also doesn't do justice to the sober, serious nature of the debate to talk about people's "whims".
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
I'm not sure such an ability really exists even with the carriers as we don't have the flotilla to protect them adequately, aiui.
I agree with your overall slant on defence spending, but if we are serious about countering Russia there is no space for hopeful jingoism. We are no longer a country that can launch an expeditionary operation; we can contribute effectively to others' perhaps.
Instead, we would do well to focus on defence not offence.
Carriers are not jingoism.
It's because our security and prosperity rests on the defence of the international rules-based order worldwide, and the freedom of its shipping and trade lanes.
We can't just squirrel ourselves up in Europe and hope for the best.
Vanilla is playing up for me so I'll (hopefully) just say: yeah okay, good point, but that might be a spending commitment too far for the public at present.
Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
Farage is a traitor to whom?
Not really a traitor, he is clearly a populist autocrat representing the global billionaires. If voters want to think he is being patriotic and representing them, that is down to the deluded voters.
Whereas in the U.K. we have elected a govt that is there to represent the whims of Esther Rantzen.
Not really, no. AIUI it was a Private Member's Bill that the government allowed a free vote for.
A much better claim can be made for Boris Johnson and Rantzen, as she was heavily backing the ludicrous Garden Bridge idea that Johnson spent tens of millions of Londoner's money on.
Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
Farage is a traitor to whom?
Not really a traitor, he is clearly a populist autocrat representing the global billionaires. If voters want to think he is being patriotic and representing them, that is down to the deluded voters.
Whereas in the U.K. we have elected a govt that is there to represent the whims of Esther Rantzen.
Not really, no. AIUI it was a Private Member's Bill that the government allowed a free vote for.
A much better claim can be made for Boris Johnson and Rantzen, as she was heavily backing the ludicrous Garden Bridge idea that Johnson spent tens of millions of Londoner's money on.
That was Joanna Lumley.
You are absolutely right. Apologies.
Wasn't Lumley also involved with the Gurkha campaign back in Brown's days?
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
I'm not sure such an ability really exists even with the carriers as we don't have the flotilla to protect them adequately, aiui.
I agree with your overall slant on defence spending, but if we are serious about countering Russia there is no space for hopeful jingoism. We are no longer a country that can launch an expeditionary operation; we can contribute effectively to others' perhaps.
Instead, we would do well to focus on defence not offence.
The other issue is how far the carrier aircraft themselves are provided in adequate numbers. Certainly some of the time they've had to invite the US Marines to provide some of the aircraft and crews. And even at the best of times there is now a 1920s-1930s style RAF-does-it arrangement for much of the air contingent, combined with a distinct FAA. No idea how well that works in terms of training, priorities, etc.
The US marines are there because they want out from under the US Navy, as much as anything else.
The Joint RAF/RN thing was because it was politically impossible for the RAF to allow the Fleet Air Arm expand to have (potentially) a hundred strike aircraft. And the most advanced in UK service as well.
The actual operations are going quite well. And the RAF is slowly dropping the attempt to convert the last part of the F35 buy into non-V/STOL - which was about making them incompatible with the carriers. And the screams of “treason to the RAF” from certain clowns have died away.
In exchange for range crippling the RAF fleet. Which significantly limits its air defence capability.
Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
Farage is a traitor to whom?
To the UK if he accepts money from Musk for political purposes.
That’s just xenophobia.
No, it's treason.
You have to imagine me pulling out a blackboard, with "British" on one side and "Not British" on the other, holding up cards with faces, and pointing with a pointer. Musk is not British. It's not difficult.
Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
Farage is a traitor to whom?
Not really a traitor, he is clearly a populist autocrat representing the global billionaires. If voters want to think he is being patriotic and representing them, that is down to the deluded voters.
Whereas in the U.K. we have elected a govt that is there to represent the whims of Esther Rantzen.
Not really, no. AIUI it was a Private Member's Bill that the government allowed a free vote for.
A much better claim can be made for Boris Johnson and Rantzen, as she was heavily backing the ludicrous Garden Bridge idea that Johnson spent tens of millions of Londoner's money on.
Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
Farage is a traitor to whom?
Not really a traitor, he is clearly a populist autocrat representing the global billionaires. If voters want to think he is being patriotic and representing them, that is down to the deluded voters.
Whereas in the U.K. we have elected a govt that is there to represent the whims of Esther Rantzen.
Not really, no. AIUI it was a Private Member's Bill that the government allowed a free vote for.
A much better claim can be made for Boris Johnson and Rantzen, as she was heavily backing the ludicrous Garden Bridge idea that Johnson spent tens of millions of Londoner's money on.
That was Joanna Lumley.
You are absolutely right. Apologies.
Wasn't Lumley also involved with the Gurkha campaign back in Brown's days?
Yes that's right. In 2008. She is a charmer. I mean that in the nicest possible way.
Does anyone know the story behind Lawrence Newport and "crush crime"? All over my social media feeds the last few weeks, and now doing a piece on bicycle theft in the Telegraph. He has history as a campaigner on XL Bully attacks, been on GB News a few times.
I think crime is a serious weakness for Labour, and I wonder if something is going on here.
He’s moved his campaign to crime and the Police.
His latest wheeze.
He’s got a point too. In many areas it feels like some serious crimes are just decriminalised. I’ve mentioned here before my own town where anti social behaviour by a gang of youths on Fridays and Saturdays has been a real problem for businesses and residents alike in the town centre and the Police have been totally ineffective in dealing with it.
I doubt my area is unique. This really could run and run and put political pressure on the govt.
Why the Conservatives thought stopping funding courts and the judicial system was a good idea heaven knows. Everything can be solved with "efficiency" and "cuts" I suppose.
I’d be very naive to downplay the odds of Farage becoming PM.
But the idea that Elon Musk can just give him millions from abroad seems completely unacceptable. How can anyone justify that?
I do think this week we finally saw the new Number 10 team finally getting to grips with things. They sorted out Haigh very quickly and went hard on immigration.
If single-issue posters on the tube about assisted suicide are acceptable, how about some hard hitting ones about the cost of the asylum system or migrant crime? Musk wouldn’t have to fund any party to do it.
The cost of the asylum system is coming down. Studies consistently show that migrants commit crimes at similar or lower levels than the native-born population.
The cost of Trump’s tariffs will be far greater to the UK population.
Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
Farage is a traitor to whom?
Not really a traitor, he is clearly a populist autocrat representing the global billionaires. If voters want to think he is being patriotic and representing them, that is down to the deluded voters.
More US billionaires voted for Harris than Trump while Trump won most voters earning under $100 000
Jailed crpyto billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried said it was obvious to donate equal amounts to both sides to get the best from your donations. Interestingly his donations to the Democrats were ones which (mostly) had to be declared but the ones to the Republican side were mostly not. In the US both sides are very much owned by a few, no surprise that most of the growth of the last decade is going to just 1% of the population.
It is perhaps surprising that the other 99% can't figure out how to stop it.
They tried - and then the Supreme Court said no. Money = free speech in the US, now, and those who have more of the latter have more of the former.
This article, though, makes an interesting point. But I suspect the current court will rubber stamp the corruption.
Does anyone know the story behind Lawrence Newport and "crush crime"? All over my social media feeds the last few weeks, and now doing a piece on bicycle theft in the Telegraph. He has history as a campaigner on XL Bully attacks, been on GB News a few times.
I think crime is a serious weakness for Labour, and I wonder if something is going on here.
Is there a story? We've had this sort of thing before, from Nick Ross of Crimewatch who wrote a book about it, and the founding of the UCL Jill Dando Institute.
Basically take a technocratic look at crime, and look for low hanging fruit such as prolific or repeat offenders. Good luck to him, although right now the biggest hurdles are capacity and delays.
Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
Farage is a traitor to whom?
Not really a traitor, he is clearly a populist autocrat representing the global billionaires. If voters want to think he is being patriotic and representing them, that is down to the deluded voters.
Whereas in the U.K. we have elected a govt that is there to represent the whims of Esther Rantzen.
Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
Farage is a traitor to whom?
To the UK if he accepts money from Musk for political purposes.
That’s just xenophobia.
No, it's treason.
You have to imagine me pulling out a blackboard, with "British" on one side and "Not British" on the other, holding up cards with faces, and pointing with a pointer. Musk is not British. It's not difficult.
Does this also apply to MPs working with EU politicians?
I’d be very naive to downplay the odds of Farage becoming PM.
But the idea that Elon Musk can just give him millions from abroad seems completely unacceptable. How can anyone justify that?
I do think this week we finally saw the new Number 10 team finally getting to grips with things. They sorted out Haigh very quickly and went hard on immigration.
If single-issue posters on the tube about assisted suicide are acceptable, how about some hard hitting ones about the cost of the asylum system or migrant crime? Musk wouldn’t have to fund any party to do it.
The cost of the asylum system is coming down. Studies consistently show that migrants commit crimes at similar or lower levels than the native-born population.
The cost of Trump’s tariffs will be far greater to the UK population.
You can make those arguments to the families of people who have been murdered by people whose presence in the country you advocated.
Does anyone know the story behind Lawrence Newport and "crush crime"? All over my social media feeds the last few weeks, and now doing a piece on bicycle theft in the Telegraph. He has history as a campaigner on XL Bully attacks, been on GB News a few times.
I think crime is a serious weakness for Labour, and I wonder if something is going on here.
Is there a story? We've had this sort of thing before, from Nick Ross of Crimewatch who wrote a book about it, and the founding of the UCL Jill Dando Institute.
Basically take a technocratic look at crime, and look for low hanging fruit such as prolific or repeat offenders. Good luck to him, although right now the biggest hurdles are capacity and delays.
Not sure. It's making big waves though, and for some people it's linked to small boats etc. It's the one thing which my lefty green friends get quite draconian about.
I’d be very naive to downplay the odds of Farage becoming PM.
But the idea that Elon Musk can just give him millions from abroad seems completely unacceptable. How can anyone justify that?
I do think this week we finally saw the new Number 10 team finally getting to grips with things. They sorted out Haigh very quickly and went hard on immigration.
If single-issue posters on the tube about assisted suicide are acceptable, how about some hard hitting ones about the cost of the asylum system or migrant crime? Musk wouldn’t have to fund any party to do it.
The cost of the asylum system is coming down. Studies consistently show that migrants commit crimes at similar or lower levels than the native-born population.
The cost of Trump’s tariffs will be far greater to the UK population.
Tariffs are a cost to the USA population - they pay the higher prices.
Does anyone know the story behind Lawrence Newport and "crush crime"? All over my social media feeds the last few weeks, and now doing a piece on bicycle theft in the Telegraph. He has history as a campaigner on XL Bully attacks, been on GB News a few times.
I think crime is a serious weakness for Labour, and I wonder if something is going on here.
He’s moved his campaign to crime and the Police.
His latest wheeze.
He’s got a point too. In many areas it feels like some serious crimes are just decriminalised. I’ve mentioned here before my own town where anti social behaviour by a gang of youths on Fridays and Saturdays has been a real problem for businesses and residents alike in the town centre and the Police have been totally ineffective in dealing with it.
I doubt my area is unique. This really could run and run and put political pressure on the govt.
Why the Conservatives thought stopping funding courts and the judicial system was a good idea heaven knows. Everything can be solved with "efficiency" and "cuts" I suppose.
The Single Justice Procedure too. A travesty of justice.
Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
Farage is a traitor to whom?
Not really a traitor, he is clearly a populist autocrat representing the global billionaires. If voters want to think he is being patriotic and representing them, that is down to the deluded voters.
Whereas in the U.K. we have elected a govt that is there to represent the whims of Esther Rantzen.
Esther Rantzen is British. Musk is not British.
That still doesn’t mean the govt should be there to attend to her whims. SKS has been proudly stating how happy he is his promise he made to her before the election is being kept.
I’d be very naive to downplay the odds of Farage becoming PM.
But the idea that Elon Musk can just give him millions from abroad seems completely unacceptable. How can anyone justify that?
I do think this week we finally saw the new Number 10 team finally getting to grips with things. They sorted out Haigh very quickly and went hard on immigration.
If single-issue posters on the tube about assisted suicide are acceptable, how about some hard hitting ones about the cost of the asylum system or migrant crime? Musk wouldn’t have to fund any party to do it.
The cost of the asylum system is coming down. Studies consistently show that migrants commit crimes at similar or lower levels than the native-born population.
The cost of Trump’s tariffs will be far greater to the UK population.
You can make those arguments to the families of people who have been murdered by people whose presence in the country you advocated.
Murdered by a true Brit would be better, would it?
Tories still up on the 18% they got at the 2024 GE in Wales, Labour on its worst Senedd voteshare ever and while Plaid up still lower than the 28% they got in 1999 for example.
Nothing says "for the common man" like $100m from a far right billionaire.
Labour need to move very fast on campaign finance reform.
Tricky. Making it a separate move would be painted as a partisan act, allowing Refuk to play at being the victims once again.
There's an in-progress review of 'Electoral Registration and Conduct', based on the manifesto commitment to widening participation, but perhaps something could be added on to whatever results from that?
Does anyone know the story behind Lawrence Newport and "crush crime"? All over my social media feeds the last few weeks, and now doing a piece on bicycle theft in the Telegraph. He has history as a campaigner on XL Bully attacks, been on GB News a few times.
I think crime is a serious weakness for Labour, and I wonder if something is going on here.
He’s moved his campaign to crime and the Police.
His latest wheeze.
He’s got a point too. In many areas it feels like some serious crimes are just decriminalised. I’ve mentioned here before my own town where anti social behaviour by a gang of youths on Fridays and Saturdays has been a real problem for businesses and residents alike in the town centre and the Police have been totally ineffective in dealing with it.
I doubt my area is unique. This really could run and run and put political pressure on the govt.
To be cynical, we can have as much Police as we want or are willing to pay for. We could have armed officers on every street corner and you could pay 40p basic tax for the privilege.
Lawrence Newport makes a good point and then goes into the whole anti-woke, anti-Labour agenda which we see from so many these days and which is more about cheap points scoring than advancing either an argument or a solution.
Essentially, an investigating officer needs to spend time gathering evidence - that's how the criminal justice system works, evidence is gathered and presented in a court of law. Video evidence is fantastic but that takes time to accumulate.
Important though bike theft is, is it more important than violent crimes including rape? I'd argue not - if you have limited resources you have to triage what you can do.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
I'm not sure such an ability really exists even with the carriers as we don't have the flotilla to protect them adequately, aiui.
I agree with your overall slant on defence spending, but if we are serious about countering Russia there is no space for hopeful jingoism. We are no longer a country that can launch an expeditionary operation; we can contribute effectively to others' perhaps.
Instead, we would do well to focus on defence not offence.
Carriers are not jingoism.
It's because our security and prosperity rests on the defence of the international rules-based order worldwide, and the freedom of its shipping and trade lanes.
We can't just squirrel ourselves up in Europe and hope for the best.
But those carriers were designed in my opinion to be absorbed into a European navy. We didn't even have planes for them. In terms of support vessels etc. they don't make sense as the UK navy independently is currently constituted imo (though I'll happily be schooled on this as I'm not an expert). I'm afraid that going back decades, probably many decades, our defence procurement hasn't been run according to the interests of the UK. Our strategic nuclear deterrent is part of the US nuclear arsenal that we simply pay for, and Tony Blair (afaicr) abolished our independent tactical nuke programme.
You do realise that the 'UK military to be subsumed into a European army!!!!" has been a Russian talking point for some years, designed to weaken us?
"We didn't even have planes for them."
Yes, we do.
The current number is around 35 F-35 - we are buying them at a fairly steady rate. This is approximately 1 carrier wing at normal loading. The current carriers are designed around operating 36 F35 normally, but this could be surged by cramming in, and a deck park. You could definitely get 48 F35 on each UK carrier. Beyond that, you would run into problems in moving aircraft around and it would become slower and more dangerous.
We are committed (contractually) to buy 74, but the planned max was 138. Which would be "stuff everything that can fit onto both carriers" plus training and attrition reserve.
Mrs J made a comment about the Greggggg's 'excuse' that interested me. The reason why the complaints might be coming from middle-class women of a 'certain age' might be because they had had decades of putting up with this sort of shite from men, and may have the finances and support to survive if they never work in the industry again.
Younger women might be much more frightened of what a backlash might do to their formative careers to speak out.
I reckon there might be something to that.
It is almost always the case that if there are some complaints made that there are many more incidents where people were afraid to complain, or didn't believe that they will receive a serious consideration of their complaint. So Wallace is almost certainly going to have more complaints made against him, particularly after his cloth-eared defence today.
On the latest polling, BMG and Opinium have put up new polls but we're starting to see a bit of consolidation now and a new equilibrium emerging.
Labour have dropped to the upper 20s but retain a narrow lead over the Conservatives who are in the mid to upper 20s. Reform are around 20% with the LDs around 10-12% and the Greens in upper single figures.
The Labour/Conservative duopoly is holding in the mid 50s currently so not much different from July. Reform have moved forward mostly at Labour's expense while the Conservatives are up a little and the LDs about the same.
It's a fragmentation we've not seen in British politics for decades, if ever. Trying to call the next GE at this stage is the ultimate expression of hopecasting.
My EMA has: Con 27% Lab 28% LD 12% Ref 19% Grn 8%
A Labour majority of just 10 with no breakthrough for Reform (10 seats).
For now but Farage's approval rating in the latest Opinium is 29%
Put figures of Reform 38%, Labour 22% (Starmer's approval rating and Tories 22% (Badenoch's approval rating) into EC and you get Reform 277 seats, Labour 140 and Tories 97 and LDs 73.
So Farage becomes PM if he could get Tory confidence and supply in such a scenario where he gets all those who have a favourable view of him now to vote Reform which is still not happening at present
So under your scenario Farage has a weak as water minority government which would collapse if it ever had to do or tried to do anything.
I suspect Farage would then try and squeeze the Tory vote more and have a significant chance of an outright Reform majority at any subsequent GE.
The chances of Farage becoming PM are not negligible, whatever you think of him he has more charisma than Starmer or Badenoch and a little bit more than Davey too
You're similar to Leon in viewing a general election as the end result rather than the actual beginning of government.
A failed government becomes very unpopular very quickly.
There would be little likelihood of a Farage government 'squeezing' the support of other parties.
If Reform overtook the Tories on votes and seats at a GE from that point they would be the main rightwing alternative to Labour.
At which point only Tory ideologues like me would keep voting Tory, plenty of even 2024 Tories would switch to Reform to keep Labour out.
Only PR would then likely keep an independent Tory Party viable, otherwise we would have a similar result to Canada where once their Reform overtook their Tories on votes and seats in 1993 in a decade the Canadian Reform and Tory parties merged to form today's Conservative Party of Canada. A party which leans more to its Reform wing than its smaller Tory wing (a few Canadian Tories having gone Liberal at the merger as some would here too)
You are still obsessing over vote share hypotheticals rather then considering what a Farage government would actually do.
Let me explain:
1) PM Farage gives a load of orders 2) It is explained that they cannot be implemented 3) Farage has a tantrum and goes to a pub 4) Reform MPs argue among themselves 5) Financial markets go bad 6) Farage goes to see Trump or Musk 7) Reform MPs argue among themselves even more 8) Financial markets get worse 9) Government collapses
That is your hopes overriding reality.
If Farage wins most votes and seats at a GE he led the winning party at he will have a mandate for his proposals Truss never had whatever tax cuts and spending cuts and commitments in Reform's manifesto would have a mandate.
If Reform had overtaken the Tories on votes and seats that would also be it for the Tories as the main anti Labour Party and one of the 2 main parties as much as it was for the Liberals in the early 20th century once Labour overtook them as the main anti Tory Party.
The financial markets decide the mandate not you putting numbers into electoral calculus.
And by the way Farage supports actual spending increases and paper spending cuts.
Only to an extent and much more difficult with a newly elected government with a mandate almost all of whose MPs will be ultra loyal to him in a way Tory MPs weren't to Truss.
Farage's economic policies anyway would be little different to Milei's, Meloni's and Trump's and financial markets haven't removed them.
They haven't upset the financial markets.
Farage wants big tax cuts and big spending increases.
It didn't work for Truss and it wouldn't work for Farage.
Mess up people's mortgages and pensions and Farage would be removed by his own supporters.
The only way a PM Farage gets to do his anti-immigration bit is to be financially responsible.
Farage wants tax cuts but spending increases? He wants to scrap net zero targets which would be a big saving and scrap HS2, another big spending cut and also Farage is on record wanting to move away from a state funded NHS and increasingly fund healthcare by insurance instead. That would be a massive saving and a huge spending cut compared to this current Labour government or even the last Tory government
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31.bsky.social · 10m I'm already seeing GB News and crazed X-Twitter stuff about Starmer surfacing on Facebook and real life. Won't take much more firehose of excrement to give Reform UK loads of seats.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
I'm not sure such an ability really exists even with the carriers as we don't have the flotilla to protect them adequately, aiui.
I agree with your overall slant on defence spending, but if we are serious about countering Russia there is no space for hopeful jingoism. We are no longer a country that can launch an expeditionary operation; we can contribute effectively to others' perhaps.
Instead, we would do well to focus on defence not offence.
Carriers are not jingoism.
It's because our security and prosperity rests on the defence of the international rules-based order worldwide, and the freedom of its shipping and trade lanes.
We can't just squirrel ourselves up in Europe and hope for the best.
But those carriers were designed in my opinion to be absorbed into a European navy. We didn't even have planes for them. In terms of support vessels etc. they don't make sense as the UK navy independently is currently constituted imo (though I'll happily be schooled on this as I'm not an expert). I'm afraid that going back decades, probably many decades, our defence procurement hasn't been run according to the interests of the UK. Our strategic nuclear deterrent is part of the US nuclear arsenal that we simply pay for, and Tony Blair (afaicr) abolished our independent tactical nuke programme.
You do realise that the 'UK military to be subsumed into a European army!!!!" has been a Russian talking point for some years, designed to weaken us?
"We didn't even have planes for them."
Yes, we do.
We *didn’t* - that's past tense.
And I don't give a flying fuck what the 'Russian talking points' are - if I think that procurement decisions are being made in the context of an absorption into a European army, I shall say so, and frankly I consider anyone or thing gaining one of your arbitrary and increasingly bizarre 'traitor' tags is a point in its favour.
What 'weakens us' is the fact that we now have virtually no boats we can put to sea in a working condition, we have no industrial base to start building weapons and ammunition at scale, we have no ability to make virgin steel which is a vital material for defence applications, and in the broader context we have fucked up our energy system so that we're now at the mercy of global price spikes and bad actors, and our industry has to deal with prices four times higher than those in the US.
I might have an ounce more respect for you if you said something about those issues every now and again, rather than your constant harrassment campaigns on behalf of 'PB morale'.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
But not enough ships, now, to escort them in hostile waters. Still more so, officers and matelots. That staffing shortage has to be remedied before even thinking about expansion, as I understand the situation.
I am sure I have seen a suggestion that all the young men coming over the Channel could be 'pressed' into the Royal Navy.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
I'm not sure such an ability really exists even with the carriers as we don't have the flotilla to protect them adequately, aiui.
I agree with your overall slant on defence spending, but if we are serious about countering Russia there is no space for hopeful jingoism. We are no longer a country that can launch an expeditionary operation; we can contribute effectively to others' perhaps.
Instead, we would do well to focus on defence not offence.
The other issue is how far the carrier aircraft themselves are provided in adequate numbers. Certainly some of the time they've had to invite the US Marines to provide some of the aircraft and crews. And even at the best of times there is now a 1920s-1930s style RAF-does-it arrangement for much of the air contingent, combined with a distinct FAA. No idea how well that works in terms of training, priorities, etc.
The US marines are there because they want out from under the US Navy, as much as anything else.
The Joint RAF/RN thing was because it was politically impossible for the RAF to allow the Fleet Air Arm expand to have (potentially) a hundred strike aircraft. And the most advanced in UK service as well.
The actual operations are going quite well. And the RAF is slowly dropping the attempt to convert the last part of the F35 buy into non-V/STOL - which was about making them incompatible with the carriers. And the screams of “treason to the RAF” from certain clowns have died away.
In exchange for range crippling the RAF fleet. Which significantly limits its air defence capability.
Well, the RAF tried moving Australia. That didn't work. So they get listened to less.
The difference in combat radius for F35A and F35C is 150 miles. Which is one drop tank, essentially.
The reason that the RAF wanted F35A was the worry that a future politicians would simply move any carrier capable aircraft to the FAA, to tidy up the administration.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
I'm not sure such an ability really exists even with the carriers as we don't have the flotilla to protect them adequately, aiui.
I agree with your overall slant on defence spending, but if we are serious about countering Russia there is no space for hopeful jingoism. We are no longer a country that can launch an expeditionary operation; we can contribute effectively to others' perhaps.
Instead, we would do well to focus on defence not offence.
Carriers are not jingoism.
It's because our security and prosperity rests on the defence of the international rules-based order worldwide, and the freedom of its shipping and trade lanes.
We can't just squirrel ourselves up in Europe and hope for the best.
But those carriers were designed in my opinion to be absorbed into a European navy. We didn't even have planes for them. In terms of support vessels etc. they don't make sense as the UK navy independently is currently constituted imo (though I'll happily be schooled on this as I'm not an expert). I'm afraid that going back decades, probably many decades, our defence procurement hasn't been run according to the interests of the UK. Our strategic nuclear deterrent is part of the US nuclear arsenal that we simply pay for, and Tony Blair (afaicr) abolished our independent tactical nuke programme.
You do realise that the 'UK military to be subsumed into a European army!!!!" has been a Russian talking point for some years, designed to weaken us?
"We didn't even have planes for them."
Yes, we do.
The current number is around 35 F-35 - we are buying them at a fairly steady rate. This is approximately 1 carrier wing at normal loading. The current carriers are designed around operating 36 F35 normally, but this could be surged by cramming in, and a deck park. You could definitely get 48 F35 on each UK carrier. Beyond that, you would run into problems in moving aircraft around and it would become slower and more dangerous.
We are committed (contractually) to buy 74, but the planned max was 138. Which would be "stuff everything that can fit onto both carriers" plus training and attrition reserve.
But doesn't that 74 include planes under heavy refit, and stuff for the RAF to keep for home defence (in the broad sense)? Although I thought the assumption was that only one carrier would be operating at a time, with the other refitting/in reserve/woprking up.
Musky Baby appears to be taking a leaf out of Putin's playbook. Try to destablise 'enemy' regimes using their political systems and traitors within that system.
He's found a party in Reform, and a traitor in the shape of Farage.
It's worked for Putin in several places: Belarus and Hungary being two. It may be working in Romania.
The question is who is Musk doing this for?
Farage is a traitor to whom?
Not really a traitor, he is clearly a populist autocrat representing the global billionaires. If voters want to think he is being patriotic and representing them, that is down to the deluded voters.
Whereas in the U.K. we have elected a govt that is there to represent the whims of Esther Rantzen.
Esther Rantzen is British. Musk is not British.
That still doesn’t mean the govt should be there to attend to her whims. SKS has been proudly stating how happy he is his promise he made to her before the election is being kept.
Oh, I agree with you. I've been saying for years that the parties' have become so disconnected from the people that they attend to the whims of the few more than the needs of the many. My point was that this elite franchise should not be extended further to include billionaire non-brits
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
I'm not sure such an ability really exists even with the carriers as we don't have the flotilla to protect them adequately, aiui.
I agree with your overall slant on defence spending, but if we are serious about countering Russia there is no space for hopeful jingoism. We are no longer a country that can launch an expeditionary operation; we can contribute effectively to others' perhaps.
Instead, we would do well to focus on defence not offence.
Carriers are not jingoism.
It's because our security and prosperity rests on the defence of the international rules-based order worldwide, and the freedom of its shipping and trade lanes.
We can't just squirrel ourselves up in Europe and hope for the best.
But those carriers were designed in my opinion to be absorbed into a European navy. We didn't even have planes for them. In terms of support vessels etc. they don't make sense as the UK navy independently is currently constituted imo (though I'll happily be schooled on this as I'm not an expert). I'm afraid that going back decades, probably many decades, our defence procurement hasn't been run according to the interests of the UK. Our strategic nuclear deterrent is part of the US nuclear arsenal that we simply pay for, and Tony Blair (afaicr) abolished our independent tactical nuke programme.
You do realise that the 'UK military to be subsumed into a European army!!!!" has been a Russian talking point for some years, designed to weaken us?
"We didn't even have planes for them."
Yes, we do.
We *didn’t* - that's past tense.
And I don't give a flying fuck what the 'Russian talking points' are - if I think that procurement decisions are being made in the context of an absorption into a European army, I shall say so, and frankly I consider anyone or thing gaining one of your arbitrary and increasingly bizarre 'traitor' tags is a point in its favour.
What 'weakens us' is the fact that we now have virtually no boats we can put to sea in a working condition, we have no industrial base to start building weapons and ammunition at scale, we have no ability to make virgin steel which is a vital material for defence applications, and in the broader context we have fucked up our energy system so that we're now at the mercy of global price spikes and bad actors, and our industry has to deal with prices four times higher than those in the US.
I might have an ounce more respect for you if you said something about those issues every now and again, rather than your constant harrassment campaigns on behalf of 'PB morale'.
You don't care what Russian talking points are, but you promote them on here: whether it's their sick lies after responsibility for the MH17 shootdown, Ukrainian biolabs, or this.
Odd that. I know you've claimed in the past to like 'alternative' news sources; perhaps you should try some alternative alternative news sources; ones that won't rot your brain.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
No.
But not enough ships, now, to escort them in hostile waters. Still more so, officers and matelots. That staffing shortage has to be remedied before even thinking about expansion, as I understand the situation.
I am sure I have seen a suggestion that all the young men coming over the Channel could be 'pressed' into the Royal Navy.
That was mine.
Scene : an RN ship's bridge.
"Right, Master at Arms, march them in. No names, eh? Right, you are Sebastian Codpiece. You were steering? excellent - Able Seaman Staines. Right, you are now read into the Royal Navy. The good news is that we abolished the lash. The bad news is that we abolished the rum ration. The worse news.... ha! ha!. Anyway, good luck to you."
Comments
I'm on Prime, and (checking) I have had 30 delivered orders in 2024 so far, and I have had no problems. So a fair number, but not masses.
The music and the vids are a bonus.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2024/10/30/kamala-harris-has-more-billionaires-prominently-backing-her-than-trump-bezos-and-griffin-weigh-in-updated/
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls
The answer is not to delete the carriers.
That probably multiplied "sole British" forces 3 or 4 fold.
And where would we use it ?
Defence required hard choices. Unless we're providing carrier capacity to a European navy, they are a luxury we can't afford and almost certainly won't ever effectively use.
There's a long list of things we're not adequately funding. Our nuclear subs, for example, are of far more utility in projecting power globally.
And less vulnerable to a WWII style Prince of Wales debacle.
And by the way Farage supports actual spending increases and paper spending cuts.
It's because our security and prosperity rests on the defence of the international rules-based order worldwide, and the freedom of its shipping and trade lanes.
We can't just squirrel ourselves up in Europe and hope for the best.
TBF that also applied to the Raff, though they could use them as unskilled labour. Lots of people who wanted to fly ended up as storesmen with the snow on the east wind from Siberia drifting across their shoes on parade in some East Anglian airfield, as a former colleague of mine put it (and he was a keen glider pilot before and after). They did get some NS airmen but for things like the Vampire and Hunter which weren't *too* difficult ...
It is perhaps surprising that the other 99% can't figure out how to stop it.
Farage's economic policies anyway would be little different to Milei's, Meloni's and Trump's and financial markets haven't removed them.
Transform Politics 🦋
@tf_politics
Damning verdict on Starmer’s government from pollster Sir John Curtice.
“The fundamental question is whether a politician who has shown so far absolutely no ability to construct a narrative can suddenly construct a narrative”.
If we believe that we primarily face non-conventional threats from Russia and Iran and limited spillover from the war in Ukraine, then why is our biggest expenditure on things that are of, at best, marginal use for any of those?
Meanwhile, we have no air or missile defences apart from the very limited cover that could be provided if a Type 45 were to be stationed permanently in home waters. Our cyber warfare and infra resilience capabilities are deeply underfunded and mired in inter-agency and inter-departmental disputes. Our ability to face either a direct or indirect attack from Russia is somewhat less than Ukraine's was circa 2012.
Even if the 1% like Trump's tax cuts and regulation cutbacks
I know you're fully MAGA these days, but the idea that billionaire should be able to buy elections in the UK is both unacceptable and in this case illegal.
Younger women might be much more frightened of what a backlash might do to their formative careers to speak out.
I reckon there might be something to that.
Farage wants big tax cuts and big spending increases.
It didn't work for Truss and it wouldn't work for Farage.
Mess up people's mortgages and pensions and Farage would be removed by his own supporters.
The only way a PM Farage gets to do his anti-immigration bit is to be financially responsible.
Money = free speech in the US, now, and those who have more of the latter have more of the former.
Fianna Fail 21.9% (-0.3)
Fine Gael 20.8% (-0.1)
Sinn Fein 19.0% (-5.5)
Social Democrats 4.8% (+1.9)
Labour 4.7% (+0.3)
Aontú 3.9% (+2.0)
Independent Ireland 3.6% (newish)
Greens 3.0% (-4.1)
People Before Profit - Solidarity Alliance* 2.8% (+0.2)
Independents 13.2% (+1.0)
Other parties 2.3% (+1.0)
There is a shift to the right, though not as dramatic as elsewhere.
* This is effectively an alliance between the two largest Trotskyist parties - Socialist Workers and Socialist.
https://x.com/SeaninGraham22/status/1863184150666092887
I'd be sceptical about his claims of donations to the GOP unless he actually gives names and numbers with some evidence.
We either waited for Block-4, which has been delayed for years from I think 2026 to 2029 (not sure if that is the date for UK orders of F-35B), or get more of the current Block-3F version (if the capacity is available) and then pay a significant chunk to upgrade them, involving an out of service period, later. On current numbers, we have 37 coming, reaching 48 by eoy 2025.
Given that we are due to get another at least another 2-3 dozen after the current batch of 48, the decision looks OK as the best (or least worst) option to me.
What I do wonder is if we will have a pre-WW2 style scrimmage about control of the fleet between the navy and the air force.
I know that the attitude of some male posters can be very discouraging for female posters, and I wish this were not so.
https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/1863174257821245951?s=61
We don't actually know who some of his accusers are - though we do know at least one is male.
But your point is certainly true of those who've spoken out in public.
The Joint RAF/RN thing was because it was politically impossible for the RAF to allow the Fleet Air Arm expand to have (potentially) a hundred strike aircraft. And the most advanced in UK service as well.
The actual operations are going quite well. And the RAF is slowly dropping the attempt to convert the last part of the F35 buy into non-V/STOL - which was about making them incompatible with the carriers. And the screams of “treason to the RAF” from certain clowns have died away.
Keep turning the kaleidoscope until something good turns up.
Instability is better than bad stability, instability gives an opportunity (no guarantee, just an opportunity) for something good to happen - bad stability gives no chance.
Some chance is better than no chance.
Welsh Parliament / Senedd Voting Intention: PLC: 24% (+3) LAB: 23% (-13) RFM: 23% (+22) CON: 19% (-6) GRN: 6% (+2) LDM: 5% (+1) Via
@YouGov
, 25-29 Nov. Changes w/ 2021 List Vote.
I would say this poll is as bad for the tories as it is for Labour, as the biggest beneficiary of midterm blues are REFORM not HM official opposition.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/yougov-poll-wales-plaid-labour-30489604
A much better claim can be made for Boris Johnson and Rantzen, as she was heavily backing the ludicrous Garden Bridge idea that Johnson spent tens of millions of Londoner's money on.
We've just been very slow in paying to get it to do so.
I'm not sure whether, like army recruitment, it had been handed to Capita.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/royal-navy-recruitment-spending-jumps-fifth
So IMO there's scope for improvement on that one.
I think crime is a serious weakness for Labour, and I wonder if something is going on here.
The Institute of Directors’ economic confidence index, which measures business leader optimism in prospects for the UK economy, fell to -65 in November from -52 in October, the fourth monthly fall in a row.
That is the lowest reading since the record low of -69 in April 2020, and the second worst since the index began in July 2016.
Anna Leach, the chief economist at the Institute of Directors (IoD), warned that the extent of the hit to the private sector through tax rises in the budget would undermine growth and ultimately the public finances as well.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/dec/01/uk-business-confidence-at-lowest-level-since-pandemic-after-tax-raising-budget
Reeves seems to have found the sour spot of causing most economic damage, raising the least amount of tax and investing the lowest amount of money.
I hope her possible replacements will be better prepared.
"We didn't even have planes for them."
Yes, we do.
His latest wheeze.
He’s got a point too. In many areas it feels like some serious crimes are just decriminalised. I’ve mentioned here before my own town where anti social behaviour by a gang of youths on Fridays and Saturdays has been a real problem for businesses and residents alike in the town centre and the Police have been totally ineffective in dealing with it.
I doubt my area is unique. This really could run and run and put political pressure on the govt.
https://x.com/pursuitofprog/status/1863167979019473383?s=61
I despair.
Wasn't Lumley also involved with the Gurkha campaign back in Brown's days?
Which significantly limits its air defence capability.
You have to imagine me pulling out a blackboard, with "British" on one side and "Not British" on the other, holding up cards with faces, and pointing with a pointer. Musk is not British. It's not difficult.
I mean that in the nicest possible way.
The cost of Trump’s tariffs will be far greater to the UK population.
There was no way I was going dry over Christmas.
But I suspect the current court will rubber stamp the corruption.
Citizens United isn’t going away any time soon. But we can still make campaign financing less corrupt.
See if you can spot the loophole: There are limits on how much you can donate to a candidate’s campaign, yet billionaires can give whatever they want to super PACs.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/12/01/opinion/citizens-united-superpacs-restricting-contributions/
Basically take a technocratic look at crime, and look for low hanging fruit such as prolific or repeat offenders. Good luck to him, although right now the biggest hurdles are capacity and delays.
Musk is not British.
Huge gain for Reform in Wales though
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y8dddpwd2o
There's an in-progress review of 'Electoral Registration and Conduct', based on the manifesto commitment to widening participation, but perhaps something could be added on to whatever results from that?
Lawrence Newport makes a good point and then goes into the whole anti-woke, anti-Labour agenda which we see from so many these days and which is more about cheap points scoring than advancing either an argument or a solution.
Essentially, an investigating officer needs to spend time gathering evidence - that's how the criminal justice system works, evidence is gathered and presented in a court of law. Video evidence is fantastic but that takes time to accumulate.
Important though bike theft is, is it more important than violent crimes including rape? I'd argue not - if you have limited resources you have to triage what you can do.
If I were the Conservatives I'd be very worried.
We are committed (contractually) to buy 74, but the planned max was 138. Which would be "stuff everything that can fit onto both carriers" plus training and attrition reserve.
https://www.facebook.com/TheLondonEconomic/videos/film-shows-nigel-farage-calling-for-move-away-from-state-funded-nhs/438201792335167/
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31.bsky.social
·
10m
I'm already seeing GB News and crazed X-Twitter stuff about Starmer surfacing on Facebook and real life. Won't take much more firehose of excrement to give Reform UK loads of seats.
https://bsky.app/profile/gsoh31.bsky.social/post/3lcanspoh2s2p
And I don't give a flying fuck what the 'Russian talking points' are - if I think that procurement decisions are being made in the context of an absorption into a European army, I shall say so, and frankly I consider anyone or thing gaining one of your arbitrary and increasingly bizarre 'traitor' tags is a point in its favour.
What 'weakens us' is the fact that we now have virtually no boats we can put to sea in a working condition, we have no industrial base to start building weapons and ammunition at scale, we have no ability to make virgin steel which is a vital material for defence applications, and in the broader context we have fucked up our energy system so that we're now at the mercy of global price spikes and bad actors, and our industry has to deal with prices four times higher than those in the US.
I might have an ounce more respect for you if you said something about those issues every now and again, rather than your constant harrassment campaigns on behalf of 'PB morale'.
The difference in combat radius for F35A and F35C is 150 miles. Which is one drop tank, essentially.
The reason that the RAF wanted F35A was the worry that a future politicians would simply move any carrier capable aircraft to the FAA, to tidy up the administration.
Odd that. I know you've claimed in the past to like 'alternative' news sources; perhaps you should try some alternative alternative news sources; ones that won't rot your brain.
Scene : an RN ship's bridge.
"Right, Master at Arms, march them in. No names, eh? Right, you are Sebastian Codpiece. You were steering? excellent - Able Seaman Staines. Right, you are now read into the Royal Navy. The good news is that we abolished the lash. The bad news is that we abolished the rum ration. The worse news.... ha! ha!. Anyway, good luck to you."