To quote VI Lenin. There are decades when nothing happens and weeks when decades happen. This is one of the latter weeks. All is in flux. Find myself in agreement with @MarqueeMark@BartholomewRoberts and others. Lost old comrades. Trump is simply doing what he said he'd do. It's the ultimate logical conclusion to free market, low tax liberalism. Might is right. Profit is a God. Greed is good. Morality is for losers. Folk are going to have to choose a side. I choose Buddhist monk.
I genuinely wish there were principled politicians who actually believed in States rights.
The congestion charge is popular in New York, where it has successfully got the traffic moving. Why Trump feels the need to overrule local democracy is beyond me.
He doesn't want to pay it
He's signed up to the WEF conspiracy theories more like.
I genuinely wish there were principled politicians who actually believed in States rights.
The congestion charge is popular in New York, where it has successfully got the traffic moving. Why Trump feels the need to overrule local democracy is beyond me.
Cos he's the King and he's also a twat?
He hates NYC but also quite likes it - see the history with the ice rink and also the Columbus Circle outside Trump Tower. But either way, yeah, Rex Mundi stuff.
Totally off the top of my head here: maybe he's got personal things with Bloomberg and subsequent mayors, and has also got some kind of Jesuit-style view of representing the spirit of the NYC "community" against the "hierarchy". ISTR he has referred to himself as the boy from Queens or something like that.
And yet this will be most The Senate’s top Republican, Majority Leader John Thune, disagreed with Trump’s criticism of Zelenskyy but sidestepped reporters asking whether Trump should walk back the statement
So he, and most, don't really disagree. They just don't like the way it was said, but won't do anything.
The way to deal with Trump is to tell him to fuck off. Kim did. Nowt happened. So far Denmark, Canada, Panama and Zelenskyy have. Nowts happened. How much longer before the lesson sinks in.
Corbyn must be very confused. He agrees with Trump.
Don't you agree with Trump about anything?
On getting rid of the penny.
The things Corbyn agrees with Trump about are far more odious.
I'd probably agree with Trump statements against green and trans if they were put in reasonable ways, so not as "drill, baby, drill" or in terms that lacked compassion towards those with gender identity problems. But I'll punch the air if the CIA or military give the c--- what's coming to him.
To quote VI Lenin. There are decades when nothing happens and weeks when decades happen. This is one of the latter weeks. All is in flux. Find myself in agreement with @MarqueeMark@BartholomewRoberts and others. Lost old comrades. Trump is simply doing what he said he'd do. It's the ultimate logical conclusion to free market, low tax liberalism. Might is right. Profit is a God. Greed is good. Morality is for losers. Folk are going to have to choose a side. I choose Buddhist monk.
Trump isn't simply doing what he said he'd do. He's a maggot, writhing in ecstasy in the sugar syrup he's hatched into. A sugary serotonin swamp of his own devising - bliss.
The unemployment rate in London has risen to 6.1% - the highest in the country. More than 350,000 Londoners are receiving unemployment benefits.
It really is the 1930s again, right down to our own blackshirts.
London having the highest unemployment rate in the country is a very inconvenient fact for people who believe in immigration-driven growth.
London also has one of the highest employment rates in the country, with 75.8% of 16 to 64 year olds employed.
You could make the case that people in other parts of the country are either sick, or so discouraged by the lack of prospects that they have left the workforce.
Why do you think London has such a high employment rate?
Fake news. The employment rate of 16-64 year olds in London is below the UK average, at 74.3% compared with 74.9% for the UK and 75.4% for England.
I genuinely wish there were principled politicians who actually believed in States rights.
The congestion charge is popular in New York, where it has successfully got the traffic moving. Why Trump feels the need to overrule local democracy is beyond me.
He doesn't want to pay it
Wouldn't it just be simply to allow Trump to register his car reg and just add some software to ignore his reg when it shows up in the billing system.
Trump is already spending Elon's imaginary savings.
I love your avatar btw.
Why do we have to suffer this Trump crap on sky all the time.
I quite often doze for an hour or so in the morning before I get up. Listen to some current affairs podcasts. But now the podcasts are all variations of "What has Trump....?". Maybe about a war in Africa, a coup in Asia, a .... But always portrayed through a Trump lens cataracted through the media.
Even in his final seconds of life, first gay imam pushed boundaries https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly3nlv5d52o The execution-style killing of an openly gay imam, Muhsin Hendricks, in South Africa has left people in the LGBTQ+ community fearful for their safety - but also determined to forge ahead with the campaign to end their marginalisation in religious circles. Reverend Toni Kruger-Ayebazibwe, an openly gay Christian cleric, told the BBC that Hendricks was a "gentle spirit" who brought light into any room he occupied. "The gap Muhsin leaves is massive," she said, adding that she knew for a fact that there were "a large number of queer Muslims around the world who are grief stricken". The 57-year-old was shot dead in what appeared to be a hit on Saturday in the small coastal city of Gqeberha...
Unemployment effectively now exists only in the inner cities.
I don't think the unemployment figures tell the full story though.
I think there's quite a bit of hidden unemployment - people off sick who aren't really, but will never work again, freelancers not getting any work, students studying pointless courses or just graduated but haven't signed on yet, people living off savings too high to qualify for benefit, etc.
More underemployment than unemployment.
People who could get a job, maybe not the sort of job they want, if they really wanted to.
Another problem is people who don't have the skillset to be able to get the sort of job they need to prosper.
@KemiBadenoch President Zelenskyy is not a dictator. He is the democratically elected leader of Ukraine who bravely stood up to Putin’s illegal invasion. Under my leadership, and under successive Conservative Prime Ministers, we have and always will stand with Ukraine.
President Trump is right that Europe needs to pull its weight - and that includes the UK. We need to get serious. The PM will have my support to increase defence spending - there is a fully funded plan to get to 2.5% sitting on his desk. That should be the bare minimum. Starmer should get on with it, get on a plane to Washington and show some leadership. We cannot afford to get this wrong.
That's something.
Good to see Kemi confirming conservatives support for Ukraine in view of Trumps incendiary comments this pm , and seeking increased defence spending
She has given unconditional backing to increased defence spending. Politically, that could turn out to matter a lot. Could the Tories now vote against a tax rise to fund it, for example?
The problem with any tax rise is it is rare to be hypotecated and of course there are many different taxes, but we are approaching the time to address the tax and ni unfairness on the workers and increase taxes for those on unearned incomes
But then, everyone is happy for tax rises as long as it is not them
I have just noticed to add to the problems gilts seem to be rising
Gilts are rising across Europe in anticipation of defence bonds. They do look like the best option as things stand. If we are serious about our defence, if we really do believe in the Blitz spirit stuff, we are all going to have accept a hit. Our grandparents sacrificed a hell of a lot more than it will cost us.
I still don't understand this. What's the point in increase defence spending when there is no appetite to ever use it? We've had Salisbury, Ukraine, MH17, cables in the Baltic and we've done nothing at all.
I think this sudden interest in increasing spending is a displacement activity, designed to make people feel good while having zero effect on Russia (but costing us billions).
The reaspn is twofold. Firstly we will have to use it to some extent. If the US is abandoning Ukraine then we will have to provide either a peacekeeping force, weapons to Ukraine, and/or beef up defences on its borders should a pro-Russian regime be installed. Plus in doing that maintain our current forces if not increase them elsewhere. Quite possibly without American troops currently stationed in Eastern Europe. For example one reason Poland is reluctant to provide boots on the ground in Ukraine is it has its own border defences with Russia and Belarus and the Polish corridor to think about.
Secondly, it's about deterrence and vital defensive capabilities. The bulk of our new spending would likely be on air defence systems that can replace what the US did effectively provide as a guarantor. In general our defence is also currently integrated with the US and can't function fully without American help. That's how it's been designed as in theory it worked well for both as a way of extending American combat power while reducing the cost to us. So just to stand still and maintain our capabilities we had when NATO functioned fully we'll have to spend more. And more still if we believe the threat from Russia has increased.
Also why a peace deal favouring Russia is very much not on our interest. The potential costs far outweigh any short term benefits.
Thanks all for your answers. I remain of the view that European military spending is probably sufficient at the moment, taking into account our technological advantage, the fact Ukraine has managed to f*ck the Russians up big time, and our unwillingness to ever do an Erdogan.
I'd support a highly targeted reform of our defence spending, particularly around drones, stocks of ammo and cables, and the associated expense of that, if we accompany it with a new pro-active doctrine. That might mean sinking dodgy ships in the Baltic, RAF sorties over Ukraine, and a rotated garrison in Kyiv.
I am not sold on an arbitrary increase to 3/4% without an explanation of what it's actually for.
My guess is:
(1) British Army - we need to sustain a warfighting division in the field in the medium-long term. That's 10,000+ troops with rotations every 6 months, fully equipped and armed with artillery, tanks, light vehicles, ammo and engineers/logistics. Probably requires army back up at 110,000 men given we struggled with Telic/Herrick with just 100k. (2) Royal Navy - woefully short of escorts and men. Probably 10 x destroyers, 2 x cruisers and 16-18 frigates needed. 12 x attack subs. Full nuclear deterrent for Dreadnought of 4 x bomber subs. High availability. Fully fuelled. RFA to match. Royal Marines and landing ships on top. (3) RAF - complete Tempest/get all necessary F35 squadrons, upgrade maritime patrol aircraft, ensure hypersonic missile defences. Several addition squadrons. Chinook/Wessex helicopter fleet upgrades. Lots more cruise missiles and tactical missiles. Maybe some tactical nuclear warheads on top.
Then you need electronic warfare and cyber/hybrid warfare defences, proper funding of the security services, and special forces on top.
All of that would make us very credible in defence. But you couldn't do it all with 2.5%.
Worthless analysis.
There's no more capacity to build more ships in the UK.
Wessex went out of service in 2003.
Tempest won't be anything until 2040 (if ever) so if the need is as pressing as the Russophobe neurotics would have us believe then that has to go in the bin for more Typhoon.
If the government really wants to upgrade defence capability, it needs to start with a consideration of the people (not "men"). Work out what levels it can get to in each specialty at various levels of expenditure. Eg extra 5bn/year gets you another 20 FJ pilots, 100 sonar techs, etc. Then buy the amount of hardware commensurate to match the people. Starting with the hardware and working back is facile.
You do know that it is possible for countries to start building ships? I mean, it may take a while, but it's not like it's some impossible skill that cannot be learned.
It'd be (at least) five years to build a shipyard and then (at least) ten years before you got something as complicated as a commissioned warship out of it. The Russians would be storming the beach at South Shields before then. The only way to get them quicker would be to build them in South Korea or similar which is politically impossible.
As an aside, Trump's position on Ukraine will not be welcomed by Victoria Spartz.
She left the RNC over her party's views on Ukraine, but voted to confirm Johnson for the Speakership.
If she flips into outright opposition, that shrinks the House majority to just 2*, ahead of the Special Election in New York's 21st Congressional District. If the Republicans win it, they take their lead back up to 3... but if they lose it, then it drops to just a single vote.
That's one autoerotic asphyxiation from a tied House.
Could there be a PB Prediction Competition where everyone picks an outcome to which they think they'd assign a much higher probability than everyone else would?
E.g. if somebody feels the RoC and PRC will reunify peacefully by the end of the year, or that Trump will be impeached, convicted, and jailed, they might choose that.
Reformulating slightly, I think I am probably the only person here who thinks there's a greater than 20% chance Starmer will be widely remembered and recognised as our greatest PM since Churchill.
That's an interesting one. This could be good because it's asking people in what way do you think out of line with the herd. I'm going to give this a think, but at the moment I'd say p>0.25 Reform will be in the top two parties by number of seats in next year's Scottish general election (there's an unappreciated number of gammons in Scotland), and also p>0.6 that Britain will not officially send troops to Ukraine (in the cliché, wiser counsel will prevail).
@KemiBadenoch President Zelenskyy is not a dictator. He is the democratically elected leader of Ukraine who bravely stood up to Putin’s illegal invasion. Under my leadership, and under successive Conservative Prime Ministers, we have and always will stand with Ukraine.
President Trump is right that Europe needs to pull its weight - and that includes the UK. We need to get serious. The PM will have my support to increase defence spending - there is a fully funded plan to get to 2.5% sitting on his desk. That should be the bare minimum. Starmer should get on with it, get on a plane to Washington and show some leadership. We cannot afford to get this wrong.
That's something.
Good to see Kemi confirming conservatives support for Ukraine in view of Trumps incendiary comments this pm , and seeking increased defence spending
She has given unconditional backing to increased defence spending. Politically, that could turn out to matter a lot. Could the Tories now vote against a tax rise to fund it, for example?
The problem with any tax rise is it is rare to be hypotecated and of course there are many different taxes, but we are approaching the time to address the tax and ni unfairness on the workers and increase taxes for those on unearned incomes
But then, everyone is happy for tax rises as long as it is not them
I have just noticed to add to the problems gilts seem to be rising
Gilts are rising across Europe in anticipation of defence bonds. They do look like the best option as things stand. If we are serious about our defence, if we really do believe in the Blitz spirit stuff, we are all going to have accept a hit. Our grandparents sacrificed a hell of a lot more than it will cost us.
I still don't understand this. What's the point in increase defence spending when there is no appetite to ever use it? We've had Salisbury, Ukraine, MH17, cables in the Baltic and we've done nothing at all.
I think this sudden interest in increasing spending is a displacement activity, designed to make people feel good while having zero effect on Russia (but costing us billions).
The reaspn is twofold. Firstly we will have to use it to some extent. If the US is abandoning Ukraine then we will have to provide either a peacekeeping force, weapons to Ukraine, and/or beef up defences on its borders should a pro-Russian regime be installed. Plus in doing that maintain our current forces if not increase them elsewhere. Quite possibly without American troops currently stationed in Eastern Europe. For example one reason Poland is reluctant to provide boots on the ground in Ukraine is it has its own border defences with Russia and Belarus and the Polish corridor to think about.
Secondly, it's about deterrence and vital defensive capabilities. The bulk of our new spending would likely be on air defence systems that can replace what the US did effectively provide as a guarantor. In general our defence is also currently integrated with the US and can't function fully without American help. That's how it's been designed as in theory it worked well for both as a way of extending American combat power while reducing the cost to us. So just to stand still and maintain our capabilities we had when NATO functioned fully we'll have to spend more. And more still if we believe the threat from Russia has increased.
Also why a peace deal favouring Russia is very much not on our interest. The potential costs far outweigh any short term benefits.
Thanks all for your answers. I remain of the view that European military spending is probably sufficient at the moment, taking into account our technological advantage, the fact Ukraine has managed to f*ck the Russians up big time, and our unwillingness to ever do an Erdogan.
I'd support a highly targeted reform of our defence spending, particularly around drones, stocks of ammo and cables, and the associated expense of that, if we accompany it with a new pro-active doctrine. That might mean sinking dodgy ships in the Baltic, RAF sorties over Ukraine, and a rotated garrison in Kyiv.
I am not sold on an arbitrary increase to 3/4% without an explanation of what it's actually for.
My guess is:
(1) British Army - we need to sustain a warfighting division in the field in the medium-long term. That's 10,000+ troops with rotations every 6 months, fully equipped and armed with artillery, tanks, light vehicles, ammo and engineers/logistics. Probably requires army back up at 110,000 men given we struggled with Telic/Herrick with just 100k. (2) Royal Navy - woefully short of escorts and men. Probably 10 x destroyers, 2 x cruisers and 16-18 frigates needed. 12 x attack subs. Full nuclear deterrent for Dreadnought of 4 x bomber subs. High availability. Fully fuelled. RFA to match. Royal Marines and landing ships on top. (3) RAF - complete Tempest/get all necessary F35 squadrons, upgrade maritime patrol aircraft, ensure hypersonic missile defences. Several addition squadrons. Chinook/Wessex helicopter fleet upgrades. Lots more cruise missiles and tactical missiles. Maybe some tactical nuclear warheads on top.
Then you need electronic warfare and cyber/hybrid warfare defences, proper funding of the security services, and special forces on top.
All of that would make us very credible in defence. But you couldn't do it all with 2.5%.
Worthless analysis.
There's no more capacity to build more ships in the UK.
Wessex went out of service in 2003.
Tempest won't be anything until 2040 (if ever) so if the need is as pressing as the Russophobe neurotics would have us believe then that has to go in the bin for more Typhoon.
If the government really wants to upgrade defence capability, it needs to start with a consideration of the people (not "men"). Work out what levels it can get to in each specialty at various levels of expenditure. Eg extra 5bn/year gets you another 20 FJ pilots, 100 sonar techs, etc. Then buy the amount of hardware commensurate to match the people. Starting with the hardware and working back is facile.
You do know that it is possible for countries to start building ships? I mean, it may take a while, but it's not like it's some impossible skill that cannot be learned.
It'd be (at least) five years to build a shipyard and then (at least) ten years before you got something as complicated as a commissioned warship out of it. The Russians would be storming the beach at South Shields before then. The only way to get them quicker would be to build them in South Korea or similar which is politically impossible.
My little insurance company just got a new customer called Jessica Jessop: any relation @JosiasJessop?
If she doesn't solve crimes in genteel New Haven as part of a 26 part series coming to NBC in the Fall, there is no justice. Episode one: "Tabby Goes Missing!". Can Jessica Jessop, socialite and reporter for the New Haven Recorder, solve the theft of a beloved tortoiseshell cat before her martinis? This will be a two olive problem!
As an aside, Trump's position on Ukraine will not be welcomed by Victoria Spartz.
She left the RNC over her party's views on Ukraine, but voted to confirm Johnson for the Speakership.
If she flips into outright opposition, that shrinks the House majority to just 2*, ahead of the Special Election in New York's 21st Congressional District. If the Republicans win it, they take their lead back up to 3... but if they lose it, then it drops to just a single vote.
That's one autoerotic asphyxiation from a tied House.
Here's someone else not too happy:
Putin started this war. Putin committed war crimes. Putin is the dictator who murdered his opponents. The EU nations have contributed more to Ukraine. Zelensky polls over 50%. Ukraine wants to be part of the West, Putin hates the West. I don’t accept George Orwell’s doublethink.
Latest guesstimate: 80% chance that CDU/CSU + SPD will have a majority in the new Bundestag 25% chance that CDU/CSU + Greens will have a majority 20% chance neither, and therefore no 2-party coalition possible, which would be shit.
Don't expect any big changes in German policy any time soon. Firstly, coalition negotiations will take a while. Secondly, only narrow zones of possible agreement exist between the parties.
Also the way the Bundesrat works can limit the legislation governments can pass. For example, during the recent SPD-Green-FDP coalition, the CDU had a kind of opposition veto in the Bundesrat because it controls 37 (43 including CSU) out of 69 delegates, and 35 votes are needed to pass legislation. The SPD controls 47 delegates so would have an opposition veto if not part of the next coalition. The Greens after the 2024 state elections have lost their veto, but are almost there controlling 32 delegates (eg Greens + Left would be enough). The AfD, not being part of any state government, control 0 delegates.
Now, the Bundesrat veto only applies to certain legislation that affects the states (maybe 35-40% of legislation). They can't veto the budget. And votes aren't always on party lines - states often vote according to the interest of their state. But it is an additional obstacle in the way of governments getting stuff done.
To quote VI Lenin. There are decades when nothing happens and weeks when decades happen. This is one of the latter weeks. All is in flux. Find myself in agreement with @MarqueeMark@BartholomewRoberts and others. Lost old comrades. Trump is simply doing what he said he'd do. It's the ultimate logical conclusion to free market, low tax liberalism. Might is right. Profit is a God. Greed is good. Morality is for losers. Folk are going to have to choose a side. I choose Buddhist monk.
The unemployment rate in London has risen to 6.1% - the highest in the country. More than 350,000 Londoners are receiving unemployment benefits.
It really is the 1930s again, right down to our own blackshirts.
London having the highest unemployment rate in the country is a very inconvenient fact for people who believe in immigration-driven growth.
London also has one of the highest employment rates in the country, with 75.8% of 16 to 64 year olds employed.
You could make the case that people in other parts of the country are either sick, or so discouraged by the lack of prospects that they have left the workforce.
Why do you think London has such a high employment rate?
It doesn't.
Currently London has a 74.3% employment rate which is below the UK average and significantly lower than that of the rest of southern England:
What London does have is a greater proportion of its non-workers as unemployed as opposed to inactive.
Which is likely caused by London's younger population profile - proportionally fewer 50-64s to be long term sick or early retirees.
I'm guessing those figures don't include illegals?? Probably a large % of illegals of working age are in work for obvious reasons, and illegals are highly concentrated in London.
@KemiBadenoch President Zelenskyy is not a dictator. He is the democratically elected leader of Ukraine who bravely stood up to Putin’s illegal invasion. Under my leadership, and under successive Conservative Prime Ministers, we have and always will stand with Ukraine.
President Trump is right that Europe needs to pull its weight - and that includes the UK. We need to get serious. The PM will have my support to increase defence spending - there is a fully funded plan to get to 2.5% sitting on his desk. That should be the bare minimum. Starmer should get on with it, get on a plane to Washington and show some leadership. We cannot afford to get this wrong.
That's something.
Good to see Kemi confirming conservatives support for Ukraine in view of Trumps incendiary comments this pm , and seeking increased defence spending
She has given unconditional backing to increased defence spending. Politically, that could turn out to matter a lot. Could the Tories now vote against a tax rise to fund it, for example?
The problem with any tax rise is it is rare to be hypotecated and of course there are many different taxes, but we are approaching the time to address the tax and ni unfairness on the workers and increase taxes for those on unearned incomes
But then, everyone is happy for tax rises as long as it is not them
I have just noticed to add to the problems gilts seem to be rising
Gilts are rising across Europe in anticipation of defence bonds. They do look like the best option as things stand. If we are serious about our defence, if we really do believe in the Blitz spirit stuff, we are all going to have accept a hit. Our grandparents sacrificed a hell of a lot more than it will cost us.
I still don't understand this. What's the point in increase defence spending when there is no appetite to ever use it? We've had Salisbury, Ukraine, MH17, cables in the Baltic and we've done nothing at all.
I think this sudden interest in increasing spending is a displacement activity, designed to make people feel good while having zero effect on Russia (but costing us billions).
The reaspn is twofold. Firstly we will have to use it to some extent. If the US is abandoning Ukraine then we will have to provide either a peacekeeping force, weapons to Ukraine, and/or beef up defences on its borders should a pro-Russian regime be installed. Plus in doing that maintain our current forces if not increase them elsewhere. Quite possibly without American troops currently stationed in Eastern Europe. For example one reason Poland is reluctant to provide boots on the ground in Ukraine is it has its own border defences with Russia and Belarus and the Polish corridor to think about.
Secondly, it's about deterrence and vital defensive capabilities. The bulk of our new spending would likely be on air defence systems that can replace what the US did effectively provide as a guarantor. In general our defence is also currently integrated with the US and can't function fully without American help. That's how it's been designed as in theory it worked well for both as a way of extending American combat power while reducing the cost to us. So just to stand still and maintain our capabilities we had when NATO functioned fully we'll have to spend more. And more still if we believe the threat from Russia has increased.
Also why a peace deal favouring Russia is very much not on our interest. The potential costs far outweigh any short term benefits.
Thanks all for your answers. I remain of the view that European military spending is probably sufficient at the moment, taking into account our technological advantage, the fact Ukraine has managed to f*ck the Russians up big time, and our unwillingness to ever do an Erdogan.
I'd support a highly targeted reform of our defence spending, particularly around drones, stocks of ammo and cables, and the associated expense of that, if we accompany it with a new pro-active doctrine. That might mean sinking dodgy ships in the Baltic, RAF sorties over Ukraine, and a rotated garrison in Kyiv.
I am not sold on an arbitrary increase to 3/4% without an explanation of what it's actually for.
My guess is:
(1) British Army - we need to sustain a warfighting division in the field in the medium-long term. That's 10,000+ troops with rotations every 6 months, fully equipped and armed with artillery, tanks, light vehicles, ammo and engineers/logistics. Probably requires army back up at 110,000 men given we struggled with Telic/Herrick with just 100k. (2) Royal Navy - woefully short of escorts and men. Probably 10 x destroyers, 2 x cruisers and 16-18 frigates needed. 12 x attack subs. Full nuclear deterrent for Dreadnought of 4 x bomber subs. High availability. Fully fuelled. RFA to match. Royal Marines and landing ships on top. (3) RAF - complete Tempest/get all necessary F35 squadrons, upgrade maritime patrol aircraft, ensure hypersonic missile defences. Several addition squadrons. Chinook/Wessex helicopter fleet upgrades. Lots more cruise missiles and tactical missiles. Maybe some tactical nuclear warheads on top.
Then you need electronic warfare and cyber/hybrid warfare defences, proper funding of the security services, and special forces on top.
All of that would make us very credible in defence. But you couldn't do it all with 2.5%.
Worthless analysis.
There's no more capacity to build more ships in the UK.
Wessex went out of service in 2003.
Tempest won't be anything until 2040 (if ever) so if the need is as pressing as the Russophobe neurotics would have us believe then that has to go in the bin for more Typhoon.
If the government really wants to upgrade defence capability, it needs to start with a consideration of the people (not "men"). Work out what levels it can get to in each specialty at various levels of expenditure. Eg extra 5bn/year gets you another 20 FJ pilots, 100 sonar techs, etc. Then buy the amount of hardware commensurate to match the people. Starting with the hardware and working back is facile.
You do know that it is possible for countries to start building ships? I mean, it may take a while, but it's not like it's some impossible skill that cannot be learned.
Nonsense - it would take 8 years to work out the ethical colour scheme for the logo. For the bike shed.
I mean, some of the dodgy furriners might just build a shipyard. Can’t do that here, old chap.
The way to deal with Trump is to tell him to fuck off. Kim did. Nowt happened. So far Denmark, Canada, Panama and Zelenskyy have. Nowts happened. How much longer before the lesson sinks in.
Stand up to bullies. Lesson as old as time.
Or, rather, either stand up to or ignore bullies. Ignoring works if you’re not particularly on the radar (say if you’re Spain, or Thailand). Standing up and kicking back works for everyone else.
Witness Trump’s pathetic bleating about being hard done by by the Scottish government over golf courses. He whines but he reveals himself powerless.
As an aside, Trump's position on Ukraine will not be welcomed by Victoria Spartz.
She left the RNC over her party's views on Ukraine, but voted to confirm Johnson for the Speakership.
If she flips into outright opposition, that shrinks the House majority to just 2*, ahead of the Special Election in New York's 21st Congressional District. If the Republicans win it, they take their lead back up to 3... but if they lose it, then it drops to just a single vote.
That's one autoerotic asphyxiation from a tied House.
Here's someone else not too happy:
Putin started this war. Putin committed war crimes. Putin is the dictator who murdered his opponents. The EU nations have contributed more to Ukraine. Zelensky polls over 50%. Ukraine wants to be part of the West, Putin hates the West. I don’t accept George Orwell’s doublethink.
I dunno if the UK government will have much appetite for state directed shipyard schemes after the recent H&W debacle in the 6 counties. That ended up with the Spanish government via Navantia owning the yard (and others) with construction of the RFA's FSS ships still not started despite the project running for 10 years.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
Here's a mischievous thought: Zelenskyy should offer Mar-a-Lago (and a Tesla) to Putin, in return for Putin returning all the kidnapped Ukrainian children, and withdrawing all Russian forces from Ukraine.
That's not a perfect solution, which would include trials for war criminals, but it would be a good start.
Trump's attitude to Zelensky is a mystery to me. I don't understand it at all.
His attitude has been very clear for a long time. He wants to do a deal with Putin, Zelensky is an impediment to that (plus he probably blames Zelensky for the first time he was impeached)
I dunno if the UK government will have much appetite for state directed shipyard schemes after the recent H&W debacle in the 6 counties. That ended up with the Spanish government via Navantia owning the yard (and others) with construction of the RFA's FSS ships still not started despite the project running for 10 years.
If we really meant it, we probably could speed up the 26s and 31s with cash and distributing some fit out work; and maybe put some small autonomous boats through civilian yards.
But as I know you know, the Russian Navy ain’t even a threat to the existing combined European fleet in a hot war (other than subs). It would be more likely to be confined to port.
Lenin could have commented on the last 17 years that there are decades when everything happens.
Since 2007 we’ve had:
- the most dramatic financial crisis since the Wall Street crash, multiple developed countries going bankrupt and the banking system minutes from full global meltdown - the UK reversing its economic and trade policy of decades and withdrawing from the EU - 4 UK general elections and 6 prime ministers in 10 years - The most lethal global pandemic since the Spanish flu - The invasion and partial annexation of a large European country by its neighbour. Twice. And serious consideration of possible nuclear war - The USA seeing an attempted coup and then 4 years later the putsch leader winning the presidency and totally rewriting the post-war Western order in a matter of weeks - not to mention 40C in Britain, 50C in Canada, several of the strongest tropical cyclones on record in the Atlantic and Pacific, and now a 3% chance of an asteroid wiping out parts of the tropics in 2037.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
I didn't get round to replying to your previous post due to work. But it is worth pointing out that Kyiv has only been Russian since 1709. Before that it was Polish, and before that Lithuanian. Kyivan Rus broke up in the 11th century and then the assorted Slav grand duchies and principalities were occupied by Lithuania and then the Rzeczpospolita in the West, and the Golden Horse in the East. Which was the beginning of the cultural divide between Ukraine and Muscovy. To give any credence to the idea that Kyiv is the foundation stone of Russian culture is presposterous.
You obviously have a lot of knowledge of such details of Ukrainian and East Slavic past history as support the view that Russian culture didn't start in Kiev, but this doesn't get around the fact that for example "Servant of the People" was shown on Ukrainian TV a few years ago in the Russian language, nor the fact that the term that many Ukrainian supporters of a reconquista of the East use for Russians isn't "Russians" but "Muscovites".
The unemployment rate in London has risen to 6.1% - the highest in the country. More than 350,000 Londoners are receiving unemployment benefits.
It really is the 1930s again, right down to our own blackshirts.
London having the highest unemployment rate in the country is a very inconvenient fact for people who believe in immigration-driven growth.
London also has one of the highest employment rates in the country, with 75.8% of 16 to 64 year olds employed.
You could make the case that people in other parts of the country are either sick, or so discouraged by the lack of prospects that they have left the workforce.
Why do you think London has such a high employment rate?
It doesn't.
Currently London has a 74.3% employment rate which is below the UK average and significantly lower than that of the rest of southern England:
What London does have is a greater proportion of its non-workers as unemployed as opposed to inactive.
Which is likely caused by London's younger population profile - proportionally fewer 50-64s to be long term sick or early retirees.
I'm guessing those figures don't include illegals?? Probably a large % of illegals of working age are in work for obvious reasons, and illegals are highly concentrated in London.
Interesting and counterintuitive article in the Economist this week showing how London is ageing more rapidly than other cities or the country as a whole, and also in several boroughs becoming less ethnically diverse. Recent immigrants have disproportionately gone to extra-urban places like Thurrock or Watford. It is, as the article says, a pleasant place to live and increasingly attractive for the elderly middle class.
I’ve certainly noticed a social cleansing trend in my area - it’s got posher and posher and less diverse in the last decade.
As an aside, Trump's position on Ukraine will not be welcomed by Victoria Spartz.
She left the RNC over her party's views on Ukraine, but voted to confirm Johnson for the Speakership.
If she flips into outright opposition, that shrinks the House majority to just 2*, ahead of the Special Election in New York's 21st Congressional District. If the Republicans win it, they take their lead back up to 3... but if they lose it, then it drops to just a single vote.
That's one autoerotic asphyxiation from a tied House.
Here's someone else not too happy:
Putin started this war. Putin committed war crimes. Putin is the dictator who murdered his opponents. The EU nations have contributed more to Ukraine. Zelensky polls over 50%. Ukraine wants to be part of the West, Putin hates the West. I don’t accept George Orwell’s doublethink.
Lenin could have commented on the last 17 years that there are decades when everything happens.
Since 2007 we’ve had:
- the most dramatic financial crisis since the Wall Street crash, multiple developed countries going bankrupt and the banking system minutes from full global meltdown - the UK reversing its economic and trade policy of decades and withdrawing from the EU - 4 UK general elections and 6 prime ministers in 10 years - The most lethal global pandemic since the Spanish flu - The invasion and partial annexation of a large European country by its neighbour. Twice. And serious consideration of possible nuclear war - The USA seeing an attempted coup and then 4 years later the putsch leader winning the presidency and totally rewriting the post-war Western order in a matter of weeks - not to mention 40C in Britain, 50C in Canada, several of the strongest tropical cyclones on record in the Atlantic and Pacific, and now a 3% chance of an asteroid wiping out parts of the tropics in 2037.
Was the previous 17 years not more dramatic:
- Iraq war - 9/11 - Fall of the USSR - Chechen wars - Yugoslav wars - China going from Tiananmen to joining the WTO - Natural disaster-wise there was the Boxing Day tsunami
Perhaps the ridiculous idea spouted by the new Trump loving Mandelson of another state visit will bite the dust now !
Trump lifted sanctions against Mandelson's Russia-based billionaire chum Oleg Deripaska.
But Mandelson was promoting himself for the ambassadorial job not in terms of "Trump's a great guy" but rather in terms of "You gotta face facts, and I can handle this kook".
If someone wanted to cause trouble, they'd remind Trump of Mandelson's friendship with Bloomberg.
Consequences? May be wishful thinking. This is 2025.
Democrats managed to convince themselves of things like Biden's age not being a big deal, inflation not being a problem and wokeness being popular, all reinforced by online groupthink. And there's a ton of GOP overreach on this platform now that may have similar consequences. https://nitter.poast.org/NateSilver538/status/1891198972431102121#m
Online right isn’t shifting the Overton window. This isn’t some large shift in opinion. It isn’t “interesting” or presages something. They’re just radicalising themselves on these platforms and becoming out of step with normal people. https://nitter.poast.org/residentadviser/status/1892248886812565662#m
As an aside, Trump's position on Ukraine will not be welcomed by Victoria Spartz.
She left the RNC over her party's views on Ukraine, but voted to confirm Johnson for the Speakership.
If she flips into outright opposition, that shrinks the House majority to just 2*, ahead of the Special Election in New York's 21st Congressional District. If the Republicans win it, they take their lead back up to 3... but if they lose it, then it drops to just a single vote.
That's one autoerotic asphyxiation from a tied House.
Here's someone else not too happy:
Putin started this war. Putin committed war crimes. Putin is the dictator who murdered his opponents. The EU nations have contributed more to Ukraine. Zelensky polls over 50%. Ukraine wants to be part of the West, Putin hates the West. I don’t accept George Orwell’s doublethink.
Echoing the thoughts of some others on here last week. Just look at this post - coming from the official White House account. There is no way he isn’t going to try and run in 2028 somehow, as difficult as it will seem constitutionally. He’ll find a way. We’re barely a month into his presidency and it’s abundantly clear that this is not Trump 2017-2021 anymore.
Until a bookmaker offers odds on Trump 2028, I wonder if there may be value in laying Vance at the current prices. Probably not given how long you’d have to lock your money in for
Echoing the thoughts of some others on here last week. Just look at this post - coming from the official White House account. There is no way he isn’t going to try and run in 2028 somehow, as difficult as it will seem constitutionally. He’ll find a way. We’re barely a month into his presidency and it’s abundantly clear that this is not Trump 2017-2021 anymore.
Until a bookmaker offers odds on Trump 2028, I wonder if there may be value in laying Vance at the current prices. Probably not given how long you’d have to lock your money in for
Ah, but don't you see, he may just be trolling people, so you're not allowed to be worried by him acting in erratic fashion.
Echoing the thoughts of some others on here last week. Just look at this post - coming from the official White House account. There is no way he isn’t going to try and run in 2028 somehow, as difficult as it will seem constitutionally. He’ll find a way. We’re barely a month into his presidency and it’s abundantly clear that this is not Trump 2017-2021 anymore.
Until a bookmaker offers odds on Trump 2028, I wonder if there may be value in laying Vance at the current prices. Probably not given how long you’d have to lock your money in for
At least he's an old man. All that junk food has got to take its toll, eventually...
Echoing the thoughts of some others on here last week. Just look at this post - coming from the official White House account. There is no way he isn’t going to try and run in 2028 somehow, as difficult as it will seem constitutionally. He’ll find a way. We’re barely a month into his presidency and it’s abundantly clear that this is not Trump 2017-2021 anymore.
Until a bookmaker offers odds on Trump 2028, I wonder if there may be value in laying Vance at the current prices. Probably not given how long you’d have to lock your money in for
At least he's an old man. All that junk food has got to take its toll, eventually...
Sarah Palin was roundly mocked in 2008 for saying that Russia might invade Ukraine.
Foreign Policy magazine called it "strange" and an "extremely far-fetched scenario."
What's Palin's position on Ukraine now? I wonder if she's supporting Trump.
Wikipedia is not up to date, but I imagine she is fully on board given she had already progressed from her 2008 position by 2022.
In 2008, Palin supported NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia,[351] and affirms that if Russia invaded a NATO member, the United States should meet its treaty obligations.[352] During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Palin advocated for a reduction in U.S. military aid to Ukraine and criticized U.S. involvement in the conflict.[353]
She's so crap she lost twice trying to get back into Congress in Alaska, and the first time the Democrats had won the congressional seat since the early 70s.
Consequences? May be wishful thinking. This is 2025.
Democrats managed to convince themselves of things like Biden's age not being a big deal, inflation not being a problem and wokeness being popular, all reinforced by online groupthink. And there's a ton of GOP overreach on this platform now that may have similar consequences. https://nitter.poast.org/NateSilver538/status/1891198972431102121#m
Online right isn’t shifting the Overton window. This isn’t some large shift in opinion. It isn’t “interesting” or presages something. They’re just radicalising themselves on these platforms and becoming out of step with normal people. https://nitter.poast.org/residentadviser/status/1892248886812565662#m
Rand Paul had an unfortunate choice in an aide: "The moment I became a distraction for Sen. Paul, I knew it was time to leave," former aide Jack Hunter said in an e-mail to The Daily Caller. "My purpose has always been to help, not hinder."
Jack Hunter, the self-proclaimed “Southern Avenger” who made the leap from radio shock jock to Rand Paul aide, announced his resignation Monday amid heightened scrutiny of his previous career as a champion of neo-Confederate ideology." https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna52543897
New: Elon Musk expresses interest in idea of sending ‘DOGE dividend’ checks to Americans, saying he “will check with the president.” The proposal from @j_fishback involves returning 20% of the cost savings from DOGE efforts back to American tax payers in form of $5,000 rebates.
New: Elon Musk expresses interest in idea of sending ‘DOGE dividend’ checks to Americans, saying he “will check with the president.” The proposal from @j_fishback involves returning 20% of the cost savings from DOGE efforts back to American tax payers in form of $5,000 rebates.
I thought the goal was to shrink the deficit, because the US's deficit was unsustainable according to Musk?
New: Elon Musk expresses interest in idea of sending ‘DOGE dividend’ checks to Americans, saying he “will check with the president.” The proposal from @j_fishback involves returning 20% of the cost savings from DOGE efforts back to American tax payers in form of $5,000 rebates.
I thought the goal was to shrink the deficit, because the US's deficit was unsustainable according to Musk?
Can’t imagine it will help in the faltering fight against inflation either.
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered senior military and Defense Department officials to draw up plans to cut 8% from the defense budget over each of the next five years, officials said on Wednesday.
New: Elon Musk expresses interest in idea of sending ‘DOGE dividend’ checks to Americans, saying he “will check with the president.” The proposal from @j_fishback involves returning 20% of the cost savings from DOGE efforts back to American tax payers in form of $5,000 rebates.
I thought the goal was to shrink the deficit, because the US's deficit was unsustainable according to Musk?
If they want to shrink the deficit then why are the Republicans trying to increase the debt limit by $4 trillion?
New: Elon Musk expresses interest in idea of sending ‘DOGE dividend’ checks to Americans, saying he “will check with the president.” The proposal from @j_fishback involves returning 20% of the cost savings from DOGE efforts back to American tax payers in form of $5,000 rebates.
I thought the goal was to shrink the deficit, because the US's deficit was unsustainable according to Musk?
If they want to shrink the deficit then why are the Republicans trying to increase the debt limit by $4 trillion?
To be fair, and I can't believe I'm saying this, there's a difference between debt and deficits
This is a real moment in history, isn't it? None of Europe's leaders got into politics for a time such as now but how they react to current events will shape the decades to come. I hope to God they are up to it. There is a part of me, that I am trying to suppress, which fears they are not. The bigger part, though, says they are going to surprise on the up side because they really don't have any other choice.
According to Bild, Macron and Starmer are going to Washington next week.
Yes they are, though Don couldn't remember Starmer's name. He's also planning a little tidy-up by taking over DC.
“The federal government should take over the governance of D.C. and run it really, really properly,” Trump said. “And I like the mayor, I get along great with the mayor, they’re not doing the job – too much crime, too much graffiti, too many tents on the lawns, there’s magnificent lawns and there’s tents. It’s a sad thing, homeless people all over the place. We’ve gotta take care of the homeless.
“But we can’t have that in Washington, D.C. When they come in to see me – like Macron is coming, the prime minister of the UK is coming, all these people coming over to see me,” he continued. “We’ll have ultimately President Xi, we’ll have everybody. … You can’t let that happen.”
New: Elon Musk expresses interest in idea of sending ‘DOGE dividend’ checks to Americans, saying he “will check with the president.” The proposal from @j_fishback involves returning 20% of the cost savings from DOGE efforts back to American tax payers in form of $5,000 rebates.
I thought the goal was to shrink the deficit, because the US's deficit was unsustainable according to Musk?
If they want to shrink the deficit then why are the Republicans trying to increase the debt limit by $4 trillion?
To be fair, and I can't believe I'm saying this, there's a difference between debt and deficits
Let me rephrase the question, then. Why are they increasing the debt limit by $4.5trn ?
New: Elon Musk expresses interest in idea of sending ‘DOGE dividend’ checks to Americans, saying he “will check with the president.” The proposal from @j_fishback involves returning 20% of the cost savings from DOGE efforts back to American tax payers in form of $5,000 rebates.
I thought the goal was to shrink the deficit, because the US's deficit was unsustainable according to Musk?
No, the goal is to cut spending. Largely on social programs. (Along with stopping buying F35s. Which MAGA believe as an article of faith to be useless.)
Trump's team allegedly has offered Putin (1) Ukrainian territory, (2) no NATO membership for Ukraine, (3) no US soldiers in Ukraine, (4) the withdrawal of US soldiers from Europe, including from frontline states, and (5) sanctions relief. Putin's return offer -- nothing. https://x.com/McFaul/status/1891980286285553854
The alt explanation, of course, is that Russia is not the adversary that Trump is negotiating with.
New: Elon Musk expresses interest in idea of sending ‘DOGE dividend’ checks to Americans, saying he “will check with the president.” The proposal from @j_fishback involves returning 20% of the cost savings from DOGE efforts back to American tax payers in form of $5,000 rebates.
I thought the goal was to shrink the deficit, because the US's deficit was unsustainable according to Musk?
No, the goal is to cut spending. Largely on social programs. (Along with stopping buying F35s. Which MAGA believe as an article of faith to be useless.)
To be fair, MAGA is doing a great job at stopping non-Americans from buying F35s.
Since we're still talking about the coronation of King Donald, the dismantling of the federal government to fund tax cuts and Ukraine having attacked poor innocent Russia, I'm assuming that the nutcases haven't committed any fresh outrages in the last few hours?
Since we're still talking about the coronation of King Donald, the dismantling of the federal government to fund tax cuts and Ukraine having attacked poor innocent Russia, I'm assuming that the nutcases haven't committed any fresh outrages in the last few hours?
I suppose that's something.
Although it won't last, of course. Who would've had "United States and Russia allied in (Cold? Hot?!?!) War against Europe and Canada" on their geopolitics bingo card ten years ago?
UEFA’s “you can trust us, honest gov” draw on Friday, is going to pair Liverpool with bang in form PSG isn’t it?
Of course they will as it puts Barcelona and Madrid in different halves of the draw so they can work towards their dream final, and then do a last minute shift of the final to Saudi, or even to Moscow to celebrate the return of the Russian Football Federation to UEFA.
(It makes a bit of a mockery that the team who finished top of the league table looks like getting one of the hardest draws in the next round.)
Any chance of a nice big fat open letter from all living ex presidents, respected politicians and generals ripping Trump on Ukraine/Russia as I’m pretty surprised at the silence from Obama, Bush and Clinton on their country going down the shitter.
Otherwise most Americans won’t realise until they turn up in Europe this summer and find they are about as popular as a Ukrainian Rabbi round BJO’s house.
@KemiBadenoch President Zelenskyy is not a dictator. He is the democratically elected leader of Ukraine who bravely stood up to Putin’s illegal invasion. Under my leadership, and under successive Conservative Prime Ministers, we have and always will stand with Ukraine.
President Trump is right that Europe needs to pull its weight - and that includes the UK. We need to get serious. The PM will have my support to increase defence spending - there is a fully funded plan to get to 2.5% sitting on his desk. That should be the bare minimum. Starmer should get on with it, get on a plane to Washington and show some leadership. We cannot afford to get this wrong.
That's something.
Good to see Kemi confirming conservatives support for Ukraine in view of Trumps incendiary comments this pm , and seeking increased defence spending
She has given unconditional backing to increased defence spending. Politically, that could turn out to matter a lot. Could the Tories now vote against a tax rise to fund it, for example?
The problem with any tax rise is it is rare to be hypotecated and of course there are many different taxes, but we are approaching the time to address the tax and ni unfairness on the workers and increase taxes for those on unearned incomes
But then, everyone is happy for tax rises as long as it is not them
I have just noticed to add to the problems gilts seem to be rising
Gilts are rising across Europe in anticipation of defence bonds. They do look like the best option as things stand. If we are serious about our defence, if we really do believe in the Blitz spirit stuff, we are all going to have accept a hit. Our grandparents sacrificed a hell of a lot more than it will cost us.
I still don't understand this. What's the point in increase defence spending when there is no appetite to ever use it? We've had Salisbury, Ukraine, MH17, cables in the Baltic and we've done nothing at all.
I think this sudden interest in increasing spending is a displacement activity, designed to make people feel good while having zero effect on Russia (but costing us billions).
The reaspn is twofold. Firstly we will have to use it to some extent. If the US is abandoning Ukraine then we will have to provide either a peacekeeping force, weapons to Ukraine, and/or beef up defences on its borders should a pro-Russian regime be installed. Plus in doing that maintain our current forces if not increase them elsewhere. Quite possibly without American troops currently stationed in Eastern Europe. For example one reason Poland is reluctant to provide boots on the ground in Ukraine is it has its own border defences with Russia and Belarus and the Polish corridor to think about.
Secondly, it's about deterrence and vital defensive capabilities. The bulk of our new spending would likely be on air defence systems that can replace what the US did effectively provide as a guarantor. In general our defence is also currently integrated with the US and can't function fully without American help. That's how it's been designed as in theory it worked well for both as a way of extending American combat power while reducing the cost to us. So just to stand still and maintain our capabilities we had when NATO functioned fully we'll have to spend more. And more still if we believe the threat from Russia has increased.
Also why a peace deal favouring Russia is very much not on our interest. The potential costs far outweigh any short term benefits.
Thanks all for your answers. I remain of the view that European military spending is probably sufficient at the moment, taking into account our technological advantage, the fact Ukraine has managed to f*ck the Russians up big time, and our unwillingness to ever do an Erdogan.
I'd support a highly targeted reform of our defence spending, particularly around drones, stocks of ammo and cables, and the associated expense of that, if we accompany it with a new pro-active doctrine. That might mean sinking dodgy ships in the Baltic, RAF sorties over Ukraine, and a rotated garrison in Kyiv.
I am not sold on an arbitrary increase to 3/4% without an explanation of what it's actually for.
My guess is:
(1) British Army - we need to sustain a warfighting division in the field in the medium-long term. That's 10,000+ troops with rotations every 6 months, fully equipped and armed with artillery, tanks, light vehicles, ammo and engineers/logistics. Probably requires army back up at 110,000 men given we struggled with Telic/Herrick with just 100k. (2) Royal Navy - woefully short of escorts and men. Probably 10 x destroyers, 2 x cruisers and 16-18 frigates needed. 12 x attack subs. Full nuclear deterrent for Dreadnought of 4 x bomber subs. High availability. Fully fuelled. RFA to match. Royal Marines and landing ships on top. (3) RAF - complete Tempest/get all necessary F35 squadrons, upgrade maritime patrol aircraft, ensure hypersonic missile defences. Several addition squadrons. Chinook/Wessex helicopter fleet upgrades. Lots more cruise missiles and tactical missiles. Maybe some tactical nuclear warheads on top.
Then you need electronic warfare and cyber/hybrid warfare defences, proper funding of the security services, and special forces on top.
All of that would make us very credible in defence. But you couldn't do it all with 2.5%.
Worthless analysis.
There's no more capacity to build more ships in the UK.
Wessex went out of service in 2003.
Tempest won't be anything until 2040 (if ever) so if the need is as pressing as the Russophobe neurotics would have us believe then that has to go in the bin for more Typhoon.
If the government really wants to upgrade defence capability, it needs to start with a consideration of the people (not "men"). Work out what levels it can get to in each specialty at various levels of expenditure. Eg extra 5bn/year gets you another 20 FJ pilots, 100 sonar techs, etc. Then buy the amount of hardware commensurate to match the people. Starting with the hardware and working back is facile.
You do know that it is possible for countries to start building ships? I mean, it may take a while, but it's not like it's some impossible skill that cannot be learned.
It'd be (at least) five years to build a shipyard and then (at least) ten years before you got something as complicated as a commissioned warship out of it. The Russians would be storming the beach at South Shields before then. The only way to get them quicker would be to build them in South Korea or similar which is politically impossible.
@Dura_Ace is right here wrt naval - it's the short term, and especially the near short term that matters for now.
There is opportunity to speed things up and extend existing order pipelines, but then we need:
- The workforce to for example put on an extra shift. - The supply chain speeding up likewise. - The crew and support. - New ships can go out with some kit not fitted yet. We have a separate issue around bring existing ships up to scratch - we have tended to do that to spin out budgets. That all now needs to be caught up.
Things like sea trials can be accelerated, with associated risks.
As I mentioned last night we have frigates in latish stages of build and fit out. There'll be one Type 31 and one Type 26, and the last two Astute subs, they should be trying to pull forward into commissioning in the next 6-12 months via panic-speed up, which may be happening already (I hope) *. Then it's down to speeding up what is in the pipeline (more than you might expect - about 1 per year) and ordering more on the end.
If this is going hot vs Russia, we perhaps need a phoney war of sorts, and not an instant peace process.
Most of this imo is down to the Osborne / Cameron cuts in defence from 2.5% to 2% of GDP from 2010 to 2012-ish, and a starvation diet since. Some may be down to actions by late Blair-Brown - not sure. We have stabilised in measure which we should recognise, but have not covered the gap. Recruitment and training were particularly badly f*cked up (also pilots), and are only on maybe on the way to being sorted.
There are lots of choke-points, perhaps most obviously Rolls-Royce, who do engines for basically everything naval.
Then there is the vulnerability of the shipyards to eg ballistic missile attacks using conventional warheads, or attacks from adjacent sea areas.
I don't know how much prep or even scenario planning has been done for a possible conflict or withdrawal of US support by Mr Trump. We successfully spotted the Russian invasion coming in advance in measure (USA/UK intelligence briefings leading to emergency supply of NLAWS etc mandated by BoJo, to the extent of waking up Ukraine more than they were already).
But we also had BoJo lying his head off about everything ("minimum 24 escorts"), and the Tories turning into the headless chicken party in the run up to 2024.
As an aside, Trump's position on Ukraine will not be welcomed by Victoria Spartz.
She left the RNC over her party's views on Ukraine, but voted to confirm Johnson for the Speakership.
If she flips into outright opposition, that shrinks the House majority to just 2*, ahead of the Special Election in New York's 21st Congressional District. If the Republicans win it, they take their lead back up to 3... but if they lose it, then it drops to just a single vote.
That's one autoerotic asphyxiation from a tied House.
Here's someone else not too happy:
Putin started this war. Putin committed war crimes. Putin is the dictator who murdered his opponents. The EU nations have contributed more to Ukraine. Zelensky polls over 50%. Ukraine wants to be part of the West, Putin hates the West. I don’t accept George Orwell’s doublethink.
Comments
There are decades when nothing happens and weeks when decades happen.
This is one of the latter weeks.
All is in flux. Find myself in agreement with @MarqueeMark @BartholomewRoberts and others.
Lost old comrades.
Trump is simply doing what he said he'd do.
It's the ultimate logical conclusion to free market, low tax liberalism.
Might is right. Profit is a God. Greed is good. Morality is for losers.
Folk are going to have to choose a side. I choose Buddhist monk.
Totally off the top of my head here: maybe he's got personal things with Bloomberg and subsequent mayors, and has also got some kind of Jesuit-style view of representing the spirit of the NYC "community" against the "hierarchy". ISTR he has referred to himself as the boy from Queens or something like that.
The things Corbyn agrees with Trump about are far more odious.
The Senate’s top Republican, Majority Leader John Thune, disagreed with Trump’s criticism of Zelenskyy but sidestepped reporters asking whether Trump should walk back the statement
So he, and most, don't really disagree. They just don't like the way it was said, but won't do anything.
Why do we have to suffer this Trump crap on sky all the time.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-conference-catholic-bishops-sues-trump-over-immigration-refugee-funding-freeze
US Conference of Catholic Bishops sues Trump over immigration, refugee funding freeze
Kim did. Nowt happened.
So far Denmark, Canada, Panama and Zelenskyy have. Nowts happened.
How much longer before the lesson sinks in.
Barking +1,330
Barnsley South -195
Harrow West +1,210
Hartlepool -120
Poplar +1,785
Pontefract -5
West Ham +1,520
West Lancashire -150
Overall Scotland has done very well and Birmingham very badly.
Even in his final seconds of life, first gay imam pushed boundaries
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly3nlv5d52o
The execution-style killing of an openly gay imam, Muhsin Hendricks, in South Africa has left people in the LGBTQ+ community fearful for their safety - but also determined to forge ahead with the campaign to end their marginalisation in religious circles.
Reverend Toni Kruger-Ayebazibwe, an openly gay Christian cleric, told the BBC that Hendricks was a "gentle spirit" who brought light into any room he occupied.
"The gap Muhsin leaves is massive," she said, adding that she knew for a fact that there were "a large number of queer Muslims around the world who are grief stricken".
The 57-year-old was shot dead in what appeared to be a hit on Saturday in the small coastal city of Gqeberha...
People who could get a job, maybe not the sort of job they want, if they really wanted to.
Another problem is people who don't have the skillset to be able to get the sort of job they need to prosper.
She left the RNC over her party's views on Ukraine, but voted to confirm Johnson for the Speakership.
If she flips into outright opposition, that shrinks the House majority to just 2*, ahead of the Special Election in New York's 21st Congressional District. If the Republicans win it, they take their lead back up to 3... but if they lose it, then it drops to just a single vote.
That's one autoerotic asphyxiation from a tied House.
The Blue Riband-winning SS United States being towed out to be scuttled today, after efforts at preservation failed.
Putin started this war. Putin committed war crimes. Putin is the dictator who murdered his opponents. The EU nations have contributed more to Ukraine. Zelensky polls over 50%. Ukraine wants to be part of the West, Putin hates the West. I don’t accept George Orwell’s doublethink.
https://x.com/RepDonBacon/status/1892272315213189590?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
80% chance that CDU/CSU + SPD will have a majority in the new Bundestag
25% chance that CDU/CSU + Greens will have a majority
20% chance neither, and therefore no 2-party coalition possible, which would be shit.
Don't expect any big changes in German policy any time soon. Firstly, coalition negotiations will take a while. Secondly, only narrow zones of possible agreement exist between the parties.
Also the way the Bundesrat works can limit the legislation governments can pass. For example, during the recent SPD-Green-FDP coalition, the CDU had a kind of opposition veto in the Bundesrat because it controls 37 (43 including CSU) out of 69 delegates, and 35 votes are needed to pass legislation. The SPD controls 47 delegates so would have an opposition veto if not part of the next coalition. The Greens after the 2024 state elections have lost their veto, but are almost there controlling 32 delegates (eg Greens + Left would be enough). The AfD, not being part of any state government, control 0 delegates.
Now, the Bundesrat veto only applies to certain legislation that affects the states (maybe 35-40% of legislation). They can't veto the budget. And votes aren't always on party lines - states often vote according to the interest of their state. But it is an additional obstacle in the way of governments getting stuff done.
There's a wikipedia article here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Bundesrat
I mean, some of the dodgy furriners might just build a shipyard. Can’t do that here, old chap.
Or, rather, either stand up to or ignore bullies. Ignoring works if you’re not particularly on the radar (say if you’re Spain, or Thailand). Standing up and kicking back works for everyone else.
Witness Trump’s pathetic bleating about being hard done by by the Scottish government over golf courses. He whines but he reveals himself powerless.
It really isn't complicated. Do keep up
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4103772/#Comment_4103772
That's not a perfect solution, which would include trials for war criminals, but it would be a good start.
In this way of thinking, countries next to a Great Power should be appendages.
Zelensky, by leading Ukraine away from Russia, was Behaving Badly. As far as Trump is concerned Zelensky is a rebel and a traitor to Russia.
Dangerous times ahead
But as I know you know, the Russian Navy ain’t even a threat to the existing combined European fleet in a hot war (other than subs). It would be more likely to be confined to port.
Since 2007 we’ve had:
- the most dramatic financial crisis since the Wall Street crash, multiple developed countries going bankrupt and the banking system minutes from full global meltdown
- the UK reversing its economic and trade policy of decades and withdrawing from the EU
- 4 UK general elections and 6 prime ministers in 10 years
- The most lethal global pandemic since the Spanish flu
- The invasion and partial annexation of a large European country by its neighbour. Twice. And serious consideration of possible nuclear war
- The USA seeing an attempted coup and then 4 years later the putsch leader winning the presidency and totally rewriting the post-war Western order in a matter of weeks
- not to mention 40C in Britain, 50C in Canada, several of the strongest tropical cyclones on record in the Atlantic and Pacific, and now a 3% chance of an asteroid wiping out parts of the tropics in 2037.
I’ve certainly noticed a social cleansing trend in my area - it’s got posher and posher and less diverse in the last decade.
Carl Benjamin
@Sargon_of_Akkad
The agenda is so transparent.
Quote
Newsweek
@Newsweek
·
11h
There are concerns that the Ukrainian president could be voted out of office if the country holds an election. https://newsweek.com/zelensky-could-ousted-trump-demands-ukraine-election-2033083?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1739968014
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia
- Iraq war
- 9/11
- Fall of the USSR
- Chechen wars
- Yugoslav wars
- China going from Tiananmen to joining the WTO
- Natural disaster-wise there was the Boxing Day tsunami
But Mandelson was promoting himself for the ambassadorial job not in terms of "Trump's a great guy" but rather in terms of "You gotta face facts, and I can handle this kook".
If someone wanted to cause trouble, they'd remind Trump of Mandelson's friendship with Bloomberg.
Payback from a vengeful narcissist?
And thank you
https://x.com/mikediplockre/status/1892349761807622263
Sarah Palin was roundly mocked in 2008 for saying that Russia might invade Ukraine.
Foreign Policy magazine called it "strange" and an "extremely far-fetched scenario."
Democrats managed to convince themselves of things like Biden's age not being a big deal, inflation not being a problem and wokeness being popular, all reinforced by online groupthink. And there's a ton of GOP overreach on this platform now that may have similar consequences.
https://nitter.poast.org/NateSilver538/status/1891198972431102121#m
Online right isn’t shifting the Overton window. This isn’t some large shift in opinion. It isn’t “interesting” or presages something. They’re just radicalising themselves on these platforms and becoming out of step with normal people.
https://nitter.poast.org/residentadviser/status/1892248886812565662#m
Starmer prepares to seek approval from Trump for Chagos Islands deal
https://nitter.poast.org/FT/status/1892090675157520441#m
https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1892295984928993698
Echoing the thoughts of some others on here last week. Just look at this post - coming from the official White House account. There is no way he isn’t going to try and run in 2028 somehow, as difficult as it will seem constitutionally. He’ll find a way. We’re barely a month into his presidency and it’s abundantly clear that this is not Trump 2017-2021 anymore.
Until a bookmaker offers odds on Trump 2028, I wonder if there may be value in laying Vance at the current prices. Probably not given how long you’d have to lock your money in for
At least he's an old man. All that junk food has got to take its toll, eventually...
He has better access to nuclear bunkers.
In 2008, Palin supported NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia,[351] and affirms that if Russia invaded a NATO member, the United States should meet its treaty obligations.[352] During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Palin advocated for a reduction in U.S. military aid to Ukraine and criticized U.S. involvement in the conflict.[353]
She's so crap she lost twice trying to get back into Congress in Alaska, and the first time the Democrats had won the congressional seat since the early 70s.
A few people may have noticed that I resisted an enthusiastic endorsement of Donald Trump during the election.
But now, I’m amazed by the Trump cabinet (many of whom I would have picked).
I love his message to the Ukrainian warmongers, and along with his DOGE initiative shows I was wrong to withhold my endorsement.
So today, admittedly a little tardy, I give Donald Trump my enthusiastic endorsement!
(Too little too late some will say, but, you know, it is sincere, there is that.)
Don’t expect this endorsement to be fawning.
I still think tariffs are a terrible idea, but Dios Mio, what courage, what tenacity.
Go @realDonaldTrump Go!
Jack Hunter, the self-proclaimed “Southern Avenger” who made the leap from radio shock jock to Rand Paul aide, announced his resignation Monday amid heightened scrutiny of his previous career as a champion of neo-Confederate ideology."
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna52543897
His views may run in his family: "Ron Paul, well known as a physician, congressman and libertarian , has also been a businessman who pursued a marketing strategy that included publishing provocative, racially charged newsletters to make money and spread his ideas, said three people with direct knowledge of Paul's businesses."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-signed-off-on-racist-newsletters-sources-say/2012/01/20/gIQAvblFVQ_story.html
(Ron is Rand's father.)
The neoconfederate/libertarian combination is more common in some states than you might guess -- but it has always seemed weird to me.
(Fun fact: Rand has spoken at Lincoln's Day dinners.)
Ukrainian warmongers ????
Defending your country from invaders is now being a warmonger.
Who on earth is advising these people ?
New: Elon Musk expresses interest in idea of sending ‘DOGE dividend’ checks to Americans, saying he “will check with the president.” The proposal from @j_fishback involves returning 20% of the cost savings from DOGE efforts back to American tax payers in form of $5,000 rebates.
https://bsky.app/profile/nytimes.com/post/3lilfy4ofds2l
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered senior military and Defense Department officials to draw up plans to cut 8% from the defense budget over each of the next five years, officials said on Wednesday.
“But we can’t have that in Washington, D.C. When they come in to see me – like Macron is coming, the prime minister of the UK is coming, all these people coming over to see me,” he continued. “We’ll have ultimately President Xi, we’ll have everybody. … You can’t let that happen.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5154624-trump-federal-government-take-over-dc/
Why are they increasing the debt limit by $4.5trn ?
(Along with stopping buying F35s. Which MAGA believe as an article of faith to be useless.)
Trump's team allegedly has offered Putin (1) Ukrainian territory, (2) no NATO membership for Ukraine, (3) no US soldiers in Ukraine, (4) the withdrawal of US soldiers from Europe, including from frontline states, and (5) sanctions relief. Putin's return offer -- nothing.
https://x.com/McFaul/status/1891980286285553854
The alt explanation, of course, is that Russia is not the adversary that Trump is negotiating with.
I suppose that's something.
(It makes a bit of a mockery that the team who finished top of the league table looks like getting one of the hardest draws in the next round.)
Otherwise most Americans won’t realise until they turn up in Europe this summer and find they are about as popular as a Ukrainian Rabbi round BJO’s house.
There is opportunity to speed things up and extend existing order pipelines, but then we need:
- The workforce to for example put on an extra shift.
- The supply chain speeding up likewise.
- The crew and support.
- New ships can go out with some kit not fitted yet. We have a separate issue around bring existing ships up to scratch - we have tended to do that to spin out budgets. That all now needs to be caught up.
Things like sea trials can be accelerated, with associated risks.
As I mentioned last night we have frigates in latish stages of build and fit out. There'll be one Type 31 and one Type 26, and the last two Astute subs, they should be trying to pull forward into commissioning in the next 6-12 months via panic-speed up, which may be happening already (I hope) *. Then it's down to speeding up what is in the pipeline (more than you might expect - about 1 per year) and ordering more on the end.
If this is going hot vs Russia, we perhaps need a phoney war of sorts, and not an instant peace process.
Most of this imo is down to the Osborne / Cameron cuts in defence from 2.5% to 2% of GDP from 2010 to 2012-ish, and a starvation diet since. Some may be down to actions by late Blair-Brown - not sure. We have stabilised in measure which we should recognise, but have not covered the gap. Recruitment and training were particularly badly f*cked up (also pilots), and are only on maybe on the way to being sorted.
There are lots of choke-points, perhaps most obviously Rolls-Royce, who do engines for basically everything naval.
Then there is the vulnerability of the shipyards to eg ballistic missile attacks using conventional warheads, or attacks from adjacent sea areas.
I don't know how much prep or even scenario planning has been done for a possible conflict or withdrawal of US support by Mr Trump. We successfully spotted the Russian invasion coming in advance in measure (USA/UK intelligence briefings leading to emergency supply of NLAWS etc mandated by BoJo, to the extent of waking up Ukraine more than they were already).
But we also had BoJo lying his head off about everything ("minimum 24 escorts"), and the Tories turning into the headless chicken party in the run up to 2024.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Royal_Navy#:~:text=As of February 2023, the,the five Type 31 frigates.