Discover a choice of #BMW models on the #Motability Scheme. A brand new car every 3 years with insurance for up to 3 drivers, accident and breakdown cover, and all servicing costs included.
If someone can afford the £8000 motability upcharge for a BMW SUV, it's not clear why they should be in the scheme. No VAT on that upcharge either, just like the rest.
I'd like the stats on how many of these vehicles are modified for the user's needs. Bet it's sub 10%.
I've seen it suggested that the government won't crack down because it's good for EV sales figures.
Discover a choice of #BMW models on the #Motability Scheme. A brand new car every 3 years with insurance for up to 3 drivers, accident and breakdown cover, and all servicing costs included.
I never really understood the notion of being allowed to upgrade your Motorbility car to (for example) to a prestige German model. Motorbility users who need a small car to get a Vauxhall Corsa, Motorbility users whose circumstances require a larger vehicle to get a Vauxhall Combo Life. Surely functionality is the key.
Back in the days when I first had company cars the choice was simple, a Cortina 1.6L for Reps, a 2.O GL for Managers and a Granada 2.8 Ghia for Directors, all white for safety. Choice is Communism!
Discover a choice of #BMW models on the #Motability Scheme. A brand new car every 3 years with insurance for up to 3 drivers, accident and breakdown cover, and all servicing costs included.
If someone can afford the £8000 motability upcharge for a BMW SUV, it's not clear why they should be in the scheme. No VAT on that upcharge either, just like the rest.
I'd like the stats on how many of these vehicles are modified for the user's needs. Bet it's sub 10%.
I've seen it suggested that the government won't crack down because it's good for EV sales figures.
Discover a choice of #BMW models on the #Motability Scheme. A brand new car every 3 years with insurance for up to 3 drivers, accident and breakdown cover, and all servicing costs included.
If someone can afford the £8000 motability upcharge for a BMW SUV, it's not clear why they should be in the scheme. No VAT on that upcharge either, just like the rest.
I'd like the stats on how many of these vehicles are modified for the user's needs. Bet it's sub 10%.
I've seen it suggested that the government won't crack down because it's good for EV sales figures.
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
British nuclear weapons are not designed, built or maintained in the US.
The Trident missiles are.
UK nuclear weapons use a British flavour of joint designs. Since 1958 the US and U.K. design teams were effectively merged. In fact *US* nuclear weapons use U.K. features - salvage fusing and certain features in the secondaries, for example.
U.K. designs differ in some details - the exact specification of the conventional explosives
The U.K. weapons are manufactured in the U.K. and maintained here. The designs and specifications are held at Aldermaston.
VERY good q. If just 6% of Birkenhead is unemployed, how can 51% of central Birkenhead be on out-of-work benefits?
Answer is the smoke-and-mirrors of categorisation. Those on sickness benefit don't show up on unemployent figures.
The DWP list of all "out-of-work benefits" gives the full picture
At last count, just 1.7m are claimant unemployed. Reality: a full 6m out-of-work benefits...
It is a significant problem. Our government/political machine has been captured by the "one more cut" mentality. How have we got all these people now in work claiming "benefits?" Lets cut. How have we got few unemployed but lots on the sick? Lets cut.
You can cut the funding, but you can't cut the need. We need to go after the roots of the problem: Too many jobs do not pay the bills Jobs which invest zero in training and skills Not enough jobs Not enough childcare at times / prices to enable work Not enough money invested in preventative care as its been cut
We could take an axe to "benefits: in Birkenhead. The people on them won't be driven back into work as the work isn't there and what work there is isn't viable to live on. So then you get a big uplift in crime which costs loads and crapifies whole communities which costs loads more.
We need to completely reimagine work and social security. And I am increasingly persuaded that UBI needs to be at the heart of it.
The little food bank I'm connected with has families where both parents have full time jobs but their combined income still doesn't cover the bills.
Is that because of food prices or because of housing costs ?
I don't know, being a back-office person. It's true that there's are a lot more things these days that are effectively essentials - the days when people could just not spend money on what would have been considered "non-essentials" have gone. And I don't mean Sky packages etc.
When I was young, if you had rent, clothes, food, fuel & household sundries you were OK; you could walk or cycle to work. Nowadays, not so much.
Whereabouts are you (as I can't remember). I'm seeing on Reddit an awful lot of people down South being kicked out of their rental homes only to discover that the new market rents are well beyond the level they can afford...
South west. People are in difficulties with finding affordable rental properties, e.g an elderly and ill couple sofa-surfing with relations who treat them like servants. But what can the council do? They have to deal with the highest-priority people first.
So ask Somerset County Council why they have spent 6 years negotiating a section 106 where the final details has changed by the inclusion of an additional steam trail (cost of £250k) but it has delayed the building off 400 homes
If only the builders hadn't spent 4 years arguing over £250k...
They didn’t. They accepted it in the first round of comments (it’s the landowners not the builders funding it).
There was one council member who had fought the planning at every stage but when he lost used the section 106 to drag things out even further. That plus general incompetence.
Ah, lawfare.
Did you know there are companies/lawyers who offer consultancy/legal services on how to delay projects? They are even upfront that even if you don’t have an actual case, they can delay a project for you for x years.
It wasn’t even lawfare
The local guys supported it but there was one councillor who was opposed to any building. He fought the planning officer at every step. And when the PO recommended support he then tried to prevent the council implementing the decision.
Utterly utterly inappropriate behaviour
There are a very considerable number of people who believe that such unwarranted delaying tactics are a right.
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The answer to that question was no throughout my entire life. Until 6 weeks ago. 6 weeks of Trump has changed my mind. Now, I think that we have no choice.
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The answer to that question was no throughout my entire life. Until 6 weeks ago. 6 weeks of Trump has changed my mind. Now, I think that we have no choice.
France has twice been vindicated in the last 3 years for its deliberately different approach to statecraft. First in its huge investment in nuclear energy which protected it from the worst of the fuel price shock after the invasion, and now in its truly independent defence setup.
Whether it has really capitalised on these is debatable, but they look to have been the right calls, made decades ago.
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The downside of any move toward the goal of autonomy when one has previously been subservient is that it upsets and offends those who have previously been in the driving seat. In this case, that's the US. That's why you need to know when to shut up, when to give in, when to flatter, when to dissemble, when to push back, and when to draw the line. There's a big skill of diplomacy. We don't have that at the moment because the entire civil service is geared to subservience to whomever asks for it.
On Chagos, I think the issue is far simpler than you make out. We just say we won't pay. Offer the deal of giving up Chagos to Mauritius, and they can make whatever deal they want with America. We could explain that we can no longer afford to pay due to the new defence 'realities'. We could even spend the money on some defence geegaws that we needed anyway from America and dress it up as a 'deal' with Trump. At least we'd be getting something. Mauritius would drop their claim like a hot brick. And if they didn't, who gives a shit? Even if the giveaway were not a choice, the payoff is.
Bizarrely, I think your first strong paragraph explained why your second paragraph “I think the issue is far simpler than you make out, We just say we won't pay” really isn’t so simple after all. 😀
Mauritius PM has said if the US say no, they will continue pursuing it. The Indians want us to sign this, and the US supports the Indians as they wish to cosy up on trade and security in the region. No deal, and none of those interested parties are happy. US want the base, the long range bombing was very useful in Iraq and Afghanistan and the upcoming regime change in Iran SMO.
The key bit, this pretence UK pays this cost lease, not US, is a bit weak now because we know we have been paid by US for this so far (our hands dirty on ethnic cleansing etc) via a club discount card in US weapons store - arguably like your money back via a free bet, but still helping UK taxpayer in the round. That club discount card needs to be taken into account when you hear what the Chagos lease costs are, and it’s a weaker argument when you don’t admit this.
But most of all, the weakness of all your PB posts is you don’t ever share both Pros and Cons. you see what I mean, you didn’t attempt to tackle independent UK nuclear weapons is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure, and that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS created in first place for good reasons being strength in Union and sharing costs together with like minded friends. Which is what dragged us into this place to start with!
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The answer to that question was no throughout my entire life. Until 6 weeks ago. 6 weeks of Trump has changed my mind. Now, I think that we have no choice.
France has twice been vindicated in the last 3 years for its deliberately different approach to statecraft. First in its huge investment in nuclear energy which protected it from the worst of the fuel price shock after the invasion, and now in its truly independent defence setup.
Whether it has really capitalised on these is debatable, but they look to have been the right calls, made decades ago.
Another smart French move was choosing to be a leading member of the EU, while we refused to join, then when we did join exempted ourselves from the most useful bits like Schengen and the Euro, and then left in a huff. It's galling (no pun intended) to say it but the French have made much better choices than we have.
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The answer to that question was no throughout my entire life. Until 6 weeks ago. 6 weeks of Trump has changed my mind. Now, I think that we have no choice.
France has twice been vindicated in the last 3 years for its deliberately different approach to statecraft. First in its huge investment in nuclear energy which protected it from the worst of the fuel price shock after the invasion, and now in its truly independent defence setup.
Whether it has really capitalised on these is debatable, but they look to have been the right calls, made decades ago.
The kind of state that was able to make those decisions was the kind of state that was able to sink the Rainbow Warrior.
Not entirely true given new Trump sanctions on Russia. It is more a question of where the territorial boundaries go in a ceasefire, even Trump is not giving Russia all of Ukraine
The US is supplying Russia with intelligence, while doing all it can to undermine the Ukrainians.
Stunning that we are writing sentences like this, even though seems true.
Just incredible that the US can be turned to support a sworn enemy of decades standing on the say so of one man.
Obama pushed for military cooperation with Russia and called them a strategic partner over Iran.
I don't think he has gone all in on the Russian side. The negotiation with Russia hasn't started - he's decided he must get the Ukrainians to agree first. This undermining of their position is to secure that. It's a lot more than I would be comfortable doing, but it's a sort of strategy.
"he's decided he must get the Ukrainians to agree first."
What rubbish negotiations that is. "You Ukrainians agree to whatever Putin and I agree together."
It's basically a Ukrainian surrender. No wonder Putinite shills like it.
I don't know if they have to give Trump carte blanche. But certainly he seems to want them to accept some basics before he starts negotiations with the Russians.
What basics?
1. Accede to Russian territorial demands.
2. Acknowledge that what is left becomes a Russian satellite.
3. Agree to let the country be strip-mined by the USA.
That is the “peace” that Trump is seeking.
I don’t think even Putin let alone Trump has said western Ukraine can’t join the EU as long as it doesn’t join NATO.
It is eastern Ukraine Putin wants and in the Crimea, Donbass etc there are many ethnic Russians
How does a "de-militarised" "de-nazified" rump Ukraine avoid becoming a Russian puppet? "Denazification" is in fact what Russians call installing a puppet regime.
These remain Russia's demands.
And “nazi” to them simply seems to mean European who is hostile to Russia.
Deliberately misusing the term Nazi to mean someone they don’t like or agree with.
Not entirely true given new Trump sanctions on Russia. It is more a question of where the territorial boundaries go in a ceasefire, even Trump is not giving Russia all of Ukraine
The US is supplying Russia with intelligence, while doing all it can to undermine the Ukrainians.
Stunning that we are writing sentences like this, even though seems true.
Just incredible that the US can be turned to support a sworn enemy of decades standing on the say so of one man.
Obama pushed for military cooperation with Russia and called them a strategic partner over Iran.
I don't think he has gone all in on the Russian side. The negotiation with Russia hasn't started - he's decided he must get the Ukrainians to agree first. This undermining of their position is to secure that. It's a lot more than I would be comfortable doing, but it's a sort of strategy.
"he's decided he must get the Ukrainians to agree first."
What rubbish negotiations that is. "You Ukrainians agree to whatever Putin and I agree together."
It's basically a Ukrainian surrender. No wonder Putinite shills like it.
I don't know if they have to give Trump carte blanche. But certainly he seems to want them to accept some basics before he starts negotiations with the Russians.
What basics?
1. Accede to Russian territorial demands.
2. Acknowledge that what is left becomes a Russian satellite.
3. Agree to let the country be strip-mined by the USA.
That is the “peace” that Trump is seeking.
I don’t think even Putin let alone Trump has said western Ukraine can’t join the EU as long as it doesn’t join NATO.
It is eastern Ukraine Putin wants and in the Crimea, Donbass etc there are many ethnic Russians
How does a "de-militarised" "de-nazified" rump Ukraine avoid becoming a Russian puppet? "Denazification" is in fact what Russians call installing a puppet regime.
These remain Russia's demands.
And “nazi” to them simply seems to mean European who is hostile to Russia.
Deliberately misusing the term Nazi to mean someone they don’t like or agree with.
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The answer to that question was no throughout my entire life. Until 6 weeks ago. 6 weeks of Trump has changed my mind. Now, I think that we have no choice.
France has twice been vindicated in the last 3 years for its deliberately different approach to statecraft. First in its huge investment in nuclear energy which protected it from the worst of the fuel price shock after the invasion, and now in its truly independent defence setup.
Whether it has really capitalised on these is debatable, but they look to have been the right calls, made decades ago.
Another smart French move was choosing to be a leading member of the EU, while we refused to join, then when we did join exempted ourselves from the most useful bits like Schengen and the Euro, and then left in a huff. It's galling (no pun intended) to say it but the French have made much better choices than we have.
I thought not being in Schengen or the Euro was a super duper special deal we were throwing away by leaving? This is what many remainers told us.
Not entirely true given new Trump sanctions on Russia. It is more a question of where the territorial boundaries go in a ceasefire, even Trump is not giving Russia all of Ukraine
The US is supplying Russia with intelligence, while doing all it can to undermine the Ukrainians.
Stunning that we are writing sentences like this, even though seems true.
Just incredible that the US can be turned to support a sworn enemy of decades standing on the say so of one man.
Obama pushed for military cooperation with Russia and called them a strategic partner over Iran.
I don't think he has gone all in on the Russian side. The negotiation with Russia hasn't started - he's decided he must get the Ukrainians to agree first. This undermining of their position is to secure that. It's a lot more than I would be comfortable doing, but it's a sort of strategy.
"he's decided he must get the Ukrainians to agree first."
What rubbish negotiations that is. "You Ukrainians agree to whatever Putin and I agree together."
It's basically a Ukrainian surrender. No wonder Putinite shills like it.
I don't know if they have to give Trump carte blanche. But certainly he seems to want them to accept some basics before he starts negotiations with the Russians.
What basics?
1. Accede to Russian territorial demands.
2. Acknowledge that what is left becomes a Russian satellite.
3. Agree to let the country be strip-mined by the USA.
That is the “peace” that Trump is seeking.
I don’t think even Putin let alone Trump has said western Ukraine can’t join the EU as long as it doesn’t join NATO.
It is eastern Ukraine Putin wants and in the Crimea, Donbass etc there are many ethnic Russians
How does a "de-militarised" "de-nazified" rump Ukraine avoid becoming a Russian puppet? "Denazification" is in fact what Russians call installing a puppet regime.
These remain Russia's demands.
And “nazi” to them simply seems to mean European who is hostile to Russia.
Deliberately misusing the term Nazi to mean someone they don’t like or agree with.
Would never happen in the U.K. 😂
Imagine! They’ll be calling people centrist dads next, or accusing the Ukrainians of being middle class.
Off topic: what's Genoa like? Planning a rail trip to Switzerland via Nice, and getting to Switzerland via Genoa and Milan up to Lugano looks to be an interesting route.
Should I stay a couple of days in Genoa or stay in Milan instead? (I have become allergic to single-night stopovers. It's two or none.)
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The answer to that question was no throughout my entire life. Until 6 weeks ago. 6 weeks of Trump has changed my mind. Now, I think that we have no choice.
France has twice been vindicated in the last 3 years for its deliberately different approach to statecraft. First in its huge investment in nuclear energy which protected it from the worst of the fuel price shock after the invasion, and now in its truly independent defence setup.
Whether it has really capitalised on these is debatable, but they look to have been the right calls, made decades ago.
Another smart French move was choosing to be a leading member of the EU, while we refused to join, then when we did join exempted ourselves from the most useful bits like Schengen and the Euro, and then left in a huff. It's galling (no pun intended) to say it but the French have made much better choices than we have.
I thought not being in Schengen or the Euro was a super duper special deal we were throwing away by leaving? This is what many remainers told us.
Schengen would be great. For a start it would mean I wouldn’t have to exchange my passport soon due to insufficient pages left for stamps. That plus a channel road bridge.
Off topic: what's Genoa like? Planning a rail trip to Switzerland via Nice, and getting to Switzerland via Genoa and Milan up to Lugano looks to be an interesting route.
Should I stay a couple of days in Genoa or just pass through? (I have become allergic to single-night stopovers. It's two or none.)
The route (train or road) is about 75% tunnels, 25% views.
Off topic: what's Genoa like? Planning a rail trip to Switzerland via Nice, and getting to Switzerland via Genoa and Milan up to Lugano looks to be an interesting route.
Should I stay a couple of days in Genoa or stay in Milan instead? (I have become allergic to single-night stopovers. It's two or none.)
Genoa is ok - nice harbour with some Columbus era ships on display..,and a submarine
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The answer to that question was no throughout my entire life. Until 6 weeks ago. 6 weeks of Trump has changed my mind. Now, I think that we have no choice.
France has twice been vindicated in the last 3 years for its deliberately different approach to statecraft. First in its huge investment in nuclear energy which protected it from the worst of the fuel price shock after the invasion, and now in its truly independent defence setup.
Whether it has really capitalised on these is debatable, but they look to have been the right calls, made decades ago.
Another smart French move was choosing to be a leading member of the EU, while we refused to join, then when we did join exempted ourselves from the most useful bits like Schengen and the Euro, and then left in a huff. It's galling (no pun intended) to say it but the French have made much better choices than we have.
I thought not being in Schengen or the Euro was a super duper special deal we were throwing away by leaving? This is what many remainers told us.
Schengen would be great. For a start it would mean I wouldn’t have to exchange my passport soon due to insufficient pages left for stamps. That plus a channel road bridge.
When the EU finally introduces the long-heralded electronic border, your stamps go away. And I'm pretty sure the arguments about letting cars through the tunnel were about fire safety not border controls. A bridge would be fun though.
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The answer to that question was no throughout my entire life. Until 6 weeks ago. 6 weeks of Trump has changed my mind. Now, I think that we have no choice.
France has twice been vindicated in the last 3 years for its deliberately different approach to statecraft. First in its huge investment in nuclear energy which protected it from the worst of the fuel price shock after the invasion, and now in its truly independent defence setup.
Whether it has really capitalised on these is debatable, but they look to have been the right calls, made decades ago.
Another smart French move was choosing to be a leading member of the EU, while we refused to join, then when we did join exempted ourselves from the most useful bits like Schengen and the Euro, and then left in a huff. It's galling (no pun intended) to say it but the French have made much better choices than we have.
I thought not being in Schengen or the Euro was a super duper special deal we were throwing away by leaving? This is what many remainers told us.
Personally I'd join both. I guess the point is that we had a bespoke deal that appeared to offer us some positives of membership while keeping a degree of distance as a sop to eurosceptic opinion. I'd rather be all-in myself and embrace ever closer union as a means of making Europe a serious global player not a divided backwater to be picked over by bigger powers.
I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it
Welcome back!
Thanks!
I've kept myself busy brewing beer
This is from the first batch of Dairy Farm pale ale. We've bottled another fifty litres since, and have seventy five litres more fermenting
And it's really rather good, if I do day so myself
Nice to see you back Blanche
I start brewing again around end of April.
Starting with raisin wine
I'll be taking a brewing break around then. I've booked my flight to Biarritz for the 26th, and back from Montpellier on May 20th, with a four hundred and fifty mile stroll in between
Not entirely true given new Trump sanctions on Russia. It is more a question of where the territorial boundaries go in a ceasefire, even Trump is not giving Russia all of Ukraine
The US is supplying Russia with intelligence, while doing all it can to undermine the Ukrainians.
Stunning that we are writing sentences like this, even though seems true.
Just incredible that the US can be turned to support a sworn enemy of decades standing on the say so of one man.
Obama pushed for military cooperation with Russia and called them a strategic partner over Iran.
I don't think he has gone all in on the Russian side. The negotiation with Russia hasn't started - he's decided he must get the Ukrainians to agree first. This undermining of their position is to secure that. It's a lot more than I would be comfortable doing, but it's a sort of strategy.
"he's decided he must get the Ukrainians to agree first."
What rubbish negotiations that is. "You Ukrainians agree to whatever Putin and I agree together."
It's basically a Ukrainian surrender. No wonder Putinite shills like it.
I don't know if they have to give Trump carte blanche. But certainly he seems to want them to accept some basics before he starts negotiations with the Russians.
What basics?
1. Accede to Russian territorial demands.
2. Acknowledge that what is left becomes a Russian satellite.
3. Agree to let the country be strip-mined by the USA.
That is the “peace” that Trump is seeking.
I don’t think even Putin let alone Trump has said western Ukraine can’t join the EU as long as it doesn’t join NATO.
It is eastern Ukraine Putin wants and in the Crimea, Donbass etc there are many ethnic Russians
How does a "de-militarised" "de-nazified" rump Ukraine avoid becoming a Russian puppet? "Denazification" is in fact what Russians call installing a puppet regime.
These remain Russia's demands.
And “nazi” to them simply seems to mean European who is hostile to Russia.
Deliberately misusing the term Nazi to mean someone they don’t like or agree with.
Would never happen in the U.K. 😂
Imagine! They’ll be calling people centrist dads next, or accusing the Ukrainians of being middle class.
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
British nuclear weapons are not designed, built or maintained in the US.
The Trident missiles are.
UK nuclear weapons use a British flavour of joint designs. Since 1958 the US and U.K. design teams were effectively merged. In fact *US* nuclear weapons use U.K. features - salvage fusing and certain features in the secondaries, for example.
U.K. designs differ in some details - the exact specification of the conventional explosives
The U.K. weapons are manufactured in the U.K. and maintained here. The designs and specifications are held at Aldermaston.
Yes we'd need to replace the weapons delivery system (the missiles) but that wouldn't be cheap either, probably minimum £10bn to design and build them to be compatible with the launching system on the dreadnought class subs. Though I have to say if I was the government I'd start looking for the money now, Trump is not to be trusted and we can't be in a situation where we're unable to service American made missiles because Trump has blocked Lockheed Martin from doing so.
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The answer to that question was no throughout my entire life. Until 6 weeks ago. 6 weeks of Trump has changed my mind. Now, I think that we have no choice.
France has twice been vindicated in the last 3 years for its deliberately different approach to statecraft. First in its huge investment in nuclear energy which protected it from the worst of the fuel price shock after the invasion, and now in its truly independent defence setup.
Whether it has really capitalised on these is debatable, but they look to have been the right calls, made decades ago.
Another smart French move was choosing to be a leading member of the EU, while we refused to join, then when we did join exempted ourselves from the most useful bits like Schengen and the Euro, and then left in a huff. It's galling (no pun intended) to say it but the French have made much better choices than we have.
I thought not being in Schengen or the Euro was a super duper special deal we were throwing away by leaving? This is what many remainers told us.
Schengen would be great. For a start it would mean I wouldn’t have to exchange my passport soon due to insufficient pages left for stamps.
Central London sitrep: it’s 17 degrees, lots of people out and about, and that classic early spring mix of some people in heavy coats and jumpers and others in t-shirts or strappy dresses.
About to head into a 3 hour rehearsal for this evening’s Bach St John’s Passion in St James Sussex Gardens. 7pm. Tickets available on the door.
First chiffchaff of the year singing in the garden today.
Nothing says spring more than the first chiffchaff.
Skylarks, chiffchaff and a blackcap for me yesterday.
A very loud rookery for me. It's been there since I was a kid, and quite possibly a hundred years before.
Spring cleaning means piles of twigs and small branches under the trees.
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The downside of any move toward the goal of autonomy when one has previously been subservient is that it upsets and offends those who have previously been in the driving seat. In this case, that's the US. That's why you need to know when to shut up, when to give in, when to flatter, when to dissemble, when to push back, and when to draw the line. There's a big skill of diplomacy. We don't have that at the moment because the entire civil service is geared to subservience to whomever asks for it.
On Chagos, I think the issue is far simpler than you make out. We just say we won't pay. Offer the deal of giving up Chagos to Mauritius, and they can make whatever deal they want with America. We could explain that we can no longer afford to pay due to the new defence 'realities'. We could even spend the money on some defence geegaws that we needed anyway from America and dress it up as a 'deal' with Trump. At least we'd be getting something. Mauritius would drop their claim like a hot brick. And if they didn't, who gives a shit? Even if the giveaway were not a choice, the payoff is.
Bizarrely, I think your first strong paragraph explained why your second paragraph “I think the issue is far simpler than you make out, We just say we won't pay” really isn’t so simple after all. 😀
Mauritius PM has said if the US say no, they will continue pursuing it. The Indians want us to sign this, and the US supports the Indians as they wish to cosy up on trade and security in the region. No deal, and none of those interested parties are happy. US want the base, the long range bombing was very useful in Iraq and Afghanistan and the upcoming regime change in Iran SMO.
The key bit, this pretence UK pays this cost lease, not US, is a bit weak now because we know we have been paid by US for this so far (our hands dirty on ethnic cleansing etc) via a club discount card in US weapons store - arguably like your money back via a free bet, but still helping UK taxpayer in the round. That club discount card needs to be taken into account when you hear what the Chagos lease costs are, and it’s a weaker argument when you don’t admit this.
But most of all, the weakness of all your PB posts is you don’t ever share both Pros and Cons. you see what I mean, you didn’t attempt to tackle independent UK nuclear weapons is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure, and that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS created in first place for good reasons being strength in Union and sharing costs together with like minded friends. Which is what dragged us into this place to start with!
I didn't say it because it's not the case.
I think you missed that I am talking about a tactical nuclear programme, with missiles delivered by conventional methods, not a strategic one. Of course that is still a fairly complex and costly project, but it has never to my knowledge carried the same price tag as Trident or Polaris. If we phase out of doomsday strategic nukes (where it's very questionable in our case whether they would even fire) and move into tactical ones that can be delivered via multiple methods and have various payloads, we would still be a nuclear power and far scarier in a wider variety of scenarios - and it would be cheaper overall.
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The downside of any move toward the goal of autonomy when one has previously been subservient is that it upsets and offends those who have previously been in the driving seat. In this case, that's the US. That's why you need to know when to shut up, when to give in, when to flatter, when to dissemble, when to push back, and when to draw the line. There's a big skill of diplomacy. We don't have that at the moment because the entire civil service is geared to subservience to whomever asks for it.
On Chagos, I think the issue is far simpler than you make out. We just say we won't pay. Offer the deal of giving up Chagos to Mauritius, and they can make whatever deal they want with America. We could explain that we can no longer afford to pay due to the new defence 'realities'. We could even spend the money on some defence geegaws that we needed anyway from America and dress it up as a 'deal' with Trump. At least we'd be getting something. Mauritius would drop their claim like a hot brick. And if they didn't, who gives a shit? Even if the giveaway were not a choice, the payoff is.
Bizarrely, I think your first strong paragraph explained why your second paragraph “I think the issue is far simpler than you make out, We just say we won't pay” really isn’t so simple after all. 😀
Mauritius PM has said if the US say no, they will continue pursuing it. The Indians want us to sign this, and the US supports the Indians as they wish to cosy up on trade and security in the region. No deal, and none of those interested parties are happy. US want the base, the long range bombing was very useful in Iraq and Afghanistan and the upcoming regime change in Iran SMO.
The key bit, this pretence UK pays this cost lease, not US, is a bit weak now because we know we have been paid by US for this so far (our hands dirty on ethnic cleansing etc) via a club discount card in US weapons store - arguably like your money back via a free bet, but still helping UK taxpayer in the round. That club discount card needs to be taken into account when you hear what the Chagos lease costs are, and it’s a weaker argument when you don’t admit this.
But most of all, the weakness of all your PB posts is you don’t ever share both Pros and Cons. you see what I mean, you didn’t attempt to tackle independent UK nuclear weapons is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure, and that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS created in first place for good reasons being strength in Union and sharing costs together with like minded friends. Which is what dragged us into this place to start with!
I didn't say it because it's not the case.
I think you missed that I am talking about a tactical nuclear programme, with missiles delivered by conventional methods, not a strategic one. Of course that is still a fairly complex and costly project, but it has never to my knowledge carried the same price tag as Trident or Polaris. If we phase out of doomsday strategic nukes (where it's very questionable in our case whether they would even fire) and move into tactical ones that can be delivered via multiple methods and have various payloads, we would still be a nuclear power and far scarier in a wider variety of scenarios - and it would be cheaper overall.
Ukraine gave up it's strategic nuclear programme. It's worked brilliantly for them. Tactical nukes are a cherry, not the cake.
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The downside of any move toward the goal of autonomy when one has previously been subservient is that it upsets and offends those who have previously been in the driving seat. In this case, that's the US. That's why you need to know when to shut up, when to give in, when to flatter, when to dissemble, when to push back, and when to draw the line. There's a big skill of diplomacy. We don't have that at the moment because the entire civil service is geared to subservience to whomever asks for it.
On Chagos, I think the issue is far simpler than you make out. We just say we won't pay. Offer the deal of giving up Chagos to Mauritius, and they can make whatever deal they want with America. We could explain that we can no longer afford to pay due to the new defence 'realities'. We could even spend the money on some defence geegaws that we needed anyway from America and dress it up as a 'deal' with Trump. At least we'd be getting something. Mauritius would drop their claim like a hot brick. And if they didn't, who gives a shit? Even if the giveaway were not a choice, the payoff is.
Bizarrely, I think your first strong paragraph explained why your second paragraph “I think the issue is far simpler than you make out, We just say we won't pay” really isn’t so simple after all. 😀
Mauritius PM has said if the US say no, they will continue pursuing it. The Indians want us to sign this, and the US supports the Indians as they wish to cosy up on trade and security in the region. No deal, and none of those interested parties are happy. US want the base, the long range bombing was very useful in Iraq and Afghanistan and the upcoming regime change in Iran SMO.
The key bit, this pretence UK pays this cost lease, not US, is a bit weak now because we know we have been paid by US for this so far (our hands dirty on ethnic cleansing etc) via a club discount card in US weapons store - arguably like your money back via a free bet, but still helping UK taxpayer in the round. That club discount card needs to be taken into account when you hear what the Chagos lease costs are, and it’s a weaker argument when you don’t admit this.
But most of all, the weakness of all your PB posts is you don’t ever share both Pros and Cons. you see what I mean, you didn’t attempt to tackle independent UK nuclear weapons is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure, and that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS created in first place for good reasons being strength in Union and sharing costs together with like minded friends. Which is what dragged us into this place to start with!
I didn't say it because it's not the case.
I think you missed that I am talking about a tactical nuclear programme, with missiles delivered by conventional methods, not a strategic one. Of course that is still a fairly complex and costly project, but it has never to my knowledge carried the same price tag as Trident or Polaris. If we phase out of doomsday strategic nukes (where it's very questionable in our case whether they would even fire) and move into tactical ones that can be delivered via multiple methods and have various payloads, we would still be a nuclear power and far scarier in a wider variety of scenarios - and it would be cheaper overall.
If Russia, India, Israel can afford nukes, then surely we can under some configuration. Particularly since the Germans are offering to part pay for it.
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The answer to that question was no throughout my entire life. Until 6 weeks ago. 6 weeks of Trump has changed my mind. Now, I think that we have no choice.
France has twice been vindicated in the last 3 years for its deliberately different approach to statecraft. First in its huge investment in nuclear energy which protected it from the worst of the fuel price shock after the invasion, and now in its truly independent defence setup.
Whether it has really capitalised on these is debatable, but they look to have been the right calls, made decades ago.
Another smart French move was choosing to be a leading member of the EU, while we refused to join, then when we did join exempted ourselves from the most useful bits like Schengen and the Euro, and then left in a huff. It's galling (no pun intended) to say it but the French have made much better choices than we have.
France has made better choices and delivered, in general, a better quality of life.
But it’s dirigisme means that it’s no richer than the UK.
And Scruffts winner 2025 is rescue dog Lola from Oxfordshire, a lurcher-collie-whippet cross.
You don't find a dog....a dog finds you!
Very true. We thought we had chosen our preferred puppy from Harris’s litter, but this other little bundle of energy imposed himself on us. The rest is history.
It's interesting that the article mentions that several of the Chiefs of Staff didn't seem to support the choice of Trident, before Thatcher overruled everyone, and went behind the backs of her ministers, too.
I'm assuming that's related to the issues raised about the earlier British weapons being more separate than Trident, as the military always love more weapons.
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The downside of any move toward the goal of autonomy when one has previously been subservient is that it upsets and offends those who have previously been in the driving seat. In this case, that's the US. That's why you need to know when to shut up, when to give in, when to flatter, when to dissemble, when to push back, and when to draw the line. There's a big skill of diplomacy. We don't have that at the moment because the entire civil service is geared to subservience to whomever asks for it.
On Chagos, I think the issue is far simpler than you make out. We just say we won't pay. Offer the deal of giving up Chagos to Mauritius, and they can make whatever deal they want with America. We could explain that we can no longer afford to pay due to the new defence 'realities'. We could even spend the money on some defence geegaws that we needed anyway from America and dress it up as a 'deal' with Trump. At least we'd be getting something. Mauritius would drop their claim like a hot brick. And if they didn't, who gives a shit? Even if the giveaway were not a choice, the payoff is.
Bizarrely, I think your first strong paragraph explained why your second paragraph “I think the issue is far simpler than you make out, We just say we won't pay” really isn’t so simple after all. 😀
Mauritius PM has said if the US say no, they will continue pursuing it. The Indians want us to sign this, and the US supports the Indians as they wish to cosy up on trade and security in the region. No deal, and none of those interested parties are happy. US want the base, the long range bombing was very useful in Iraq and Afghanistan and the upcoming regime change in Iran SMO.
The key bit, this pretence UK pays this cost lease, not US, is a bit weak now because we know we have been paid by US for this so far (our hands dirty on ethnic cleansing etc) via a club discount card in US weapons store - arguably like your money back via a free bet, but still helping UK taxpayer in the round. That club discount card needs to be taken into account when you hear what the Chagos lease costs are, and it’s a weaker argument when you don’t admit this.
But most of all, the weakness of all your PB posts is you don’t ever share both Pros and Cons. you see what I mean, you didn’t attempt to tackle independent UK nuclear weapons is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure, and that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS created in first place for good reasons being strength in Union and sharing costs together with like minded friends. Which is what dragged us into this place to start with!
I didn't say it because it's not the case.
I think you missed that I am talking about a tactical nuclear programme, with missiles delivered by conventional methods, not a strategic one. Of course that is still a fairly complex and costly project, but it has never to my knowledge carried the same price tag as Trident or Polaris. If we phase out of doomsday strategic nukes (where it's very questionable in our case whether they would even fire) and move into tactical ones that can be delivered via multiple methods and have various payloads, we would still be a nuclear power and far scarier in a wider variety of scenarios - and it would be cheaper overall.
Okay. I’ve given that post a like. But it’s not questionable our strategic nukes fire though, it’s true to say you press a button and out they come, and I’m proud of that. That they inexplicably turn 180 degrees going off in wrong direction to blow an ally up, that’s different.
But when you are ingrained in a master servant relationship since 1958, with no quick way out, it’s going to affect what you can and can’t do, is my point. UK has no choice but sign latest Chagos deal when told to by Trump, all this making out we have a choice is just not being honest with British people in my book.
Also, there was a piece this week in Spectator telling us Chagos deal is a threat to US national security, because surrendering sovereignty allows the Chinese to more easily “survey, encircle and examine the base.”
Perhaps they are smarter people than me writing this in UK press and arguing it in US Senate too, I’m not entirely sure there is huge argument there. What does everyone else make of this argument? Chagos lease comes with ongoing Environment Protection Clause over the archipelago and its waters, on environmental grounds we carry on intercepting the little Sri Lankan registered fishing junks, impounding its spying equipment.Just as likely Iran owned than Chinese, I would think.
Compared with US bases everywhere in world continually getting spied on from space, by snoopers with cameras and press badges, drones and weather balloons, even with this change, the Chagos type base will continue to be hard to get near, let alone encircle and examine as the argument supposedly goes. Surely Iran and China start from already knowing the Chagos Base takes long distance bombers and Nuclear Subs, it’s what is actually going on today, anything new or change recently they need to know? And satellites, other spying methods like intercepting comms gives them all that info much more immediately and efficiently than fishing boats department can compete with?
So what dramatically changes on the national security aspect with Chagos Lease Deal, when comparatively it will still remain similarly easier to spy on bases on UK and US soil, than get near the Chagos base?
Discover a choice of #BMW models on the #Motability Scheme. A brand new car every 3 years with insurance for up to 3 drivers, accident and breakdown cover, and all servicing costs included.
I never really understood the notion of being allowed to upgrade your Motorbility car to (for example) to a prestige German model. Motorbility users who need a small car to get a Vauxhall Corsa, Motorbility users whose circumstances require a larger vehicle to get a Vauxhall Combo Life. Surely functionality is the key.
Back in the days when I first had company cars the choice was simple, a Cortina 1.6L for Reps, a 2.O GL for Managers and a Granada 2.8 Ghia for Directors, all white for safety. Choice is Communism!
But still a class system!
Yes there was a hierarchy in Britain's old school company car culture but not in MY Motability programme. Although size matters*
* Although when I was a lad, Mum, Dad and three kids could happily holiday in Scotland from the comfort of an Austin 1100. So perhaps just the Corsa option should stay.
Off topic: what's Genoa like? Planning a rail trip to Switzerland via Nice, and getting to Switzerland via Genoa and Milan up to Lugano looks to be an interesting route.
Should I stay a couple of days in Genoa or stay in Milan instead? (I have become allergic to single-night stopovers. It's two or none.)
Genoa is ok - nice harbour with some Columbus era ships on display..,and a submarine
A group of Brits - maybe a dozen of us - got "detained" in the docks at Genoa. Beautiful day, wandering around looking at the ships - when a small van roars up and an unfeasably large number of police burst out of it. They jabbered at us in Italian. But we knew how to defuse the situation.
"English!" we said.
The man in charge, like the rest, spoke no English. However, as he slapped his forehead with his palm, we knew we had got through.
There then followed an entertainment they probably still tell at gatherings as we were asked for our passports. We then, by mime show, somehow persuaded them that yes we had passports - but they were all retained at the campsite in the hills at Pegli some miles away.
Satisfied, kinda, that we were just English idiots who had wandered into a restricted zone of th port, we were "escorted from the premises".
To this day, we are sure we passed nothing that said entry was forbidden in any language.
But the people were lovely. We had another mime show when our tin-opener broke, and people in the main department store ran around helpfully holding up things they thought we meant.
Go. You can see the huge bomb the Brits dropped on the cathedral. Thankfully, a dud.
Discover a choice of #BMW models on the #Motability Scheme. A brand new car every 3 years with insurance for up to 3 drivers, accident and breakdown cover, and all servicing costs included.
I never really understood the notion of being allowed to upgrade your Motorbility car to (for example) to a prestige German model. Motorbility users who need a small car to get a Vauxhall Corsa, Motorbility users whose circumstances require a larger vehicle to get a Vauxhall Combo Life. Surely functionality is the key.
Back in the days when I first had company cars the choice was simple, a Cortina 1.6L for Reps, a 2.O GL for Managers and a Granada 2.8 Ghia for Directors, all white for safety. Choice is Communism!
But still a class system!
Yes there was a hierarchy in Britain's old school company car culture but not in MY Motability programme. Although size matters*
* Although when I was a lad, Mum, Dad and three kids could happily holiday in Scotland from the comfort of an Austin 1100. So perhaps just the Corsa option should stay.
Yeah, we used to do five in a fiesta on occasion, which was possible but unpleasant. Five in a Mondeo was fine.
At the time, my grandparents had a Japanese car as large as the Mondeo, but it was rear-wheel drive so the transmission tunnel made it almost as tight on footspace as the fiesta. Poor middle seat boy (your humble servant, the youngest) had to straddle it.
I also distinctinctly remember a lot of left-of-centre people in the late '80s and early '90s immediately being shouted down as Bolsheviks, whenever they raised the question of how much Trident's dependence on the U.S. , had not been honestly explained.
It was considered too delicate, and as the article mentions, it was , of all Tharcher's policies, the one to which she countenanced the least dissent.
Off topic: what's Genoa like? Planning a rail trip to Switzerland via Nice, and getting to Switzerland via Genoa and Milan up to Lugano looks to be an interesting route.
Should I stay a couple of days in Genoa or stay in Milan instead? (I have become allergic to single-night stopovers. It's two or none.)
Genoa is ok - nice harbour with some Columbus era ships on display..,and a submarine
A group of Brits - maybe a dozen of us - got "detained" in the docks at Genoa. Beautiful day, wandering around looking at the ships - when a small van roars up and an unfeasably large number of police burst out of it. They jabbered at us in Italian. But we knew how to defuse the situation.
"English!" we said.
The man in charge, like the rest, spoke no English. However, as he slapped his forehead with his palm, we knew we had got through.
There then followed an entertainment they probably still tell at gatherings as we were asked for our passports. We then, by mime show, somehow persuaded them that yes we had passports - but they were all retained at the campsite in the hills at Pegli some miles away.
Satisfied, kinda, that we were just English idiots who had wandered into a restricted zone of th port, we were "escorted from the premises".
To this day, we are sure we passed nothing that said entry was forbidden in any language.
But the people were lovely. We had another mime show when our tin-opener broke, and people in the main department store ran around helpfully holding up things they thought we meant.
Go. You can see the huge bomb the Brits dropped on the cathedral. Thankfully, a dud.
Off topic: what's Genoa like? Planning a rail trip to Switzerland via Nice, and getting to Switzerland via Genoa and Milan up to Lugano looks to be an interesting route.
Should I stay a couple of days in Genoa or stay in Milan instead? (I have become allergic to single-night stopovers. It's two or none.)
I’ve not been for 15 years but it was pretty run down. Firenze or Sienna are far nicer (albeit somewhat out of your way)
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The downside of any move toward the goal of autonomy when one has previously been subservient is that it upsets and offends those who have previously been in the driving seat. In this case, that's the US. That's why you need to know when to shut up, when to give in, when to flatter, when to dissemble, when to push back, and when to draw the line. There's a big skill of diplomacy. We don't have that at the moment because the entire civil service is geared to subservience to whomever asks for it.
On Chagos, I think the issue is far simpler than you make out. We just say we won't pay. Offer the deal of giving up Chagos to Mauritius, and they can make whatever deal they want with America. We could explain that we can no longer afford to pay due to the new defence 'realities'. We could even spend the money on some defence geegaws that we needed anyway from America and dress it up as a 'deal' with Trump. At least we'd be getting something. Mauritius would drop their claim like a hot brick. And if they didn't, who gives a shit? Even if the giveaway were not a choice, the payoff is.
Bizarrely, I think your first strong paragraph explained why your second paragraph “I think the issue is far simpler than you make out, We just say we won't pay” really isn’t so simple after all. 😀
Mauritius PM has said if the US say no, they will continue pursuing it. The Indians want us to sign this, and the US supports the Indians as they wish to cosy up on trade and security in the region. No deal, and none of those interested parties are happy. US want the base, the long range bombing was very useful in Iraq and Afghanistan and the upcoming regime change in Iran SMO.
The key bit, this pretence UK pays this cost lease, not US, is a bit weak now because we know we have been paid by US for this so far (our hands dirty on ethnic cleansing etc) via a club discount card in US weapons store - arguably like your money back via a free bet, but still helping UK taxpayer in the round. That club discount card needs to be taken into account when you hear what the Chagos lease costs are, and it’s a weaker argument when you don’t admit this.
But most of all, the weakness of all your PB posts is you don’t ever share both Pros and Cons. you see what I mean, you didn’t attempt to tackle independent UK nuclear weapons is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure, and that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS created in first place for good reasons being strength in Union and sharing costs together with like minded friends. Which is what dragged us into this place to start with!
I didn't say it because it's not the case.
I think you missed that I am talking about a tactical nuclear programme, with missiles delivered by conventional methods, not a strategic one. Of course that is still a fairly complex and costly project, but it has never to my knowledge carried the same price tag as Trident or Polaris. If we phase out of doomsday strategic nukes (where it's very questionable in our case whether they would even fire) and move into tactical ones that can be delivered via multiple methods and have various payloads, we would still be a nuclear power and far scarier in a wider variety of scenarios - and it would be cheaper overall.
If Russia, India, Israel can afford nukes, then surely we can under some configuration. Particularly since the Germans are offering to part pay for it.
Have a chat with the S Koreans. They are developing (non nuclear for now, but plenty of throw weight) SLBMs, and some seriously capable IRBMs.
The non US democracies have common interests which they need to recognise.
Discover a choice of #BMW models on the #Motability Scheme. A brand new car every 3 years with insurance for up to 3 drivers, accident and breakdown cover, and all servicing costs included.
If someone can afford the £8000 motability upcharge for a BMW SUV, it's not clear why they should be in the scheme. No VAT on that upcharge either, just like the rest.
I'd like the stats on how many of these vehicles are modified for the user's needs. Bet it's sub 10%.
I've seen it suggested that the government won't crack down because it's good for EV sales figures.
The non-VAT is probably for the medical devices rules. If they don't need adapting that will ultimately save money on benefit expenditure, as will the non-VAT.
Means-testing is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how practical it is in law.
Motability don't sell many (full) electric cars, surprisingly. In 2024 1st half it was 13% of those sold - 25k.
(The Cat has 870k followers vs 315k for Rupert the Bear.)
(I'm interested to know why Rupert has more followers than the Leeanderthal Man. That should be the other way round.)
Why would you expect them to be the other way round? Lowe has been very hardworking and cultivated a following and Anderson isn't exactly a household name.
Also the cat is a fraud. Gaining followers by impersonating an animal and then using it for political activism is poor form.
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The downside of any move toward the goal of autonomy when one has previously been subservient is that it upsets and offends those who have previously been in the driving seat. In this case, that's the US. That's why you need to know when to shut up, when to give in, when to flatter, when to dissemble, when to push back, and when to draw the line. There's a big skill of diplomacy. We don't have that at the moment because the entire civil service is geared to subservience to whomever asks for it.
On Chagos, I think the issue is far simpler than you make out. We just say we won't pay. Offer the deal of giving up Chagos to Mauritius, and they can make whatever deal they want with America. We could explain that we can no longer afford to pay due to the new defence 'realities'. We could even spend the money on some defence geegaws that we needed anyway from America and dress it up as a 'deal' with Trump. At least we'd be getting something. Mauritius would drop their claim like a hot brick. And if they didn't, who gives a shit? Even if the giveaway were not a choice, the payoff is.
Bizarrely, I think your first strong paragraph explained why your second paragraph “I think the issue is far simpler than you make out, We just say we won't pay” really isn’t so simple after all. 😀
Mauritius PM has said if the US say no, they will continue pursuing it. The Indians want us to sign this, and the US supports the Indians as they wish to cosy up on trade and security in the region. No deal, and none of those interested parties are happy. US want the base, the long range bombing was very useful in Iraq and Afghanistan and the upcoming regime change in Iran SMO.
The key bit, this pretence UK pays this cost lease, not US, is a bit weak now because we know we have been paid by US for this so far (our hands dirty on ethnic cleansing etc) via a club discount card in US weapons store - arguably like your money back via a free bet, but still helping UK taxpayer in the round. That club discount card needs to be taken into account when you hear what the Chagos lease costs are, and it’s a weaker argument when you don’t admit this.
But most of all, the weakness of all your PB posts is you don’t ever share both Pros and Cons. you see what I mean, you didn’t attempt to tackle independent UK nuclear weapons is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure, and that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS created in first place for good reasons being strength in Union and sharing costs together with like minded friends. Which is what dragged us into this place to start with!
The problem for this argument is that now Trump is in charge the club discount card isn’t such a done deal any more. Trump is notorious for reneging on his side of any deals he enters into if he thinks the other party won’t be able to enforce the parts of the contract which benefit them & this will be no exception.
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
Central London sitrep: it’s 17 degrees, lots of people out and about, and that classic early spring mix of some people in heavy coats and jumpers and others in t-shirts or strappy dresses.
About to head into a 3 hour rehearsal for this evening’s Bach St John’s Passion in St James Sussex Gardens. 7pm. Tickets available on the door.
First chiffchaff of the year singing in the garden today.
Nothing says spring more than the first chiffchaff.
Skylarks, chiffchaff and a blackcap for me yesterday.
A very loud rookery for me. It's been there since I was a kid, and quite possibly a hundred years before.
Spring cleaning means piles of twigs and small branches under the trees.
I've been hearing owls again.
Which is unusual since we lost a lot of street trees very locally over the last 5 years.
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The answer to that question was no throughout my entire life. Until 6 weeks ago. 6 weeks of Trump has changed my mind. Now, I think that we have no choice.
France has twice been vindicated in the last 3 years for its deliberately different approach to statecraft. First in its huge investment in nuclear energy which protected it from the worst of the fuel price shock after the invasion, and now in its truly independent defence setup.
Whether it has really capitalised on these is debatable, but they look to have been the right calls, made decades ago.
Another smart French move was choosing to be a leading member of the EU, while we refused to join, then when we did join exempted ourselves from the most useful bits like Schengen and the Euro, and then left in a huff. It's galling (no pun intended) to say it but the French have made much better choices than we have.
I thought not being in Schengen or the Euro was a super duper special deal we were throwing away by leaving? This is what many remainers told us.
Personally I'd join both. I guess the point is that we had a bespoke deal that appeared to offer us some positives of membership while keeping a degree of distance as a sop to eurosceptic opinion. I'd rather be all-in myself and embrace ever closer union as a means of making Europe a serious global player not a divided backwater to be picked over by bigger powers.
Making our elected politicians even more distant and unaccountable than they are now. No thanks. If anything I want to go the other way. Reduce centralisation and have Westminister only for foreign policy and defence.
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
@MoonRabbit , I like your peregrinations, even animadversions, on the subject of the Chagos Island deals, but I'm finding them difficult to follow. Would you like to write them all up into a heading please?
(The Cat has 870k followers vs 315k for Rupert the Bear.)
(I'm interested to know why Rupert has more followers than the Leeanderthal Man. That should be the other way round.)
Why would you expect them to be the other way round? Lowe has been very hardworking and cultivated a following and Anderson isn't exactly a household name.
Also the cat is a fraud. Gaining followers by impersonating an animal and then using it for political activism is poor form.
It's not that big a difference - Anderson is 270k.
But Anderson has been a controversial figure in national politics for several years, and an MP since 2019, including as a Tory Deputy Chairman and lots of controversies. Anderson joined twitter in 2022, so perhaps that time difference means something.
Plus Rupert Lowe has only been an MP since 2024. His national exposure before that was 6 months as an MEP in 2019-20. It's not Lowe's Southampton Football Club exposure, since he only joined Twitter in April 2019. There has probably also been growth since he was puffed by Elon Musk - that worked for Billy Graham.
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The downside of any move toward the goal of autonomy when one has previously been subservient is that it upsets and offends those who have previously been in the driving seat. In this case, that's the US. That's why you need to know when to shut up, when to give in, when to flatter, when to dissemble, when to push back, and when to draw the line. There's a big skill of diplomacy. We don't have that at the moment because the entire civil service is geared to subservience to whomever asks for it.
On Chagos, I think the issue is far simpler than you make out. We just say we won't pay. Offer the deal of giving up Chagos to Mauritius, and they can make whatever deal they want with America. We could explain that we can no longer afford to pay due to the new defence 'realities'. We could even spend the money on some defence geegaws that we needed anyway from America and dress it up as a 'deal' with Trump. At least we'd be getting something. Mauritius would drop their claim like a hot brick. And if they didn't, who gives a shit? Even if the giveaway were not a choice, the payoff is.
Bizarrely, I think your first strong paragraph explained why your second paragraph “I think the issue is far simpler than you make out, We just say we won't pay” really isn’t so simple after all. 😀
Mauritius PM has said if the US say no, they will continue pursuing it. The Indians want us to sign this, and the US supports the Indians as they wish to cosy up on trade and security in the region. No deal, and none of those interested parties are happy. US want the base, the long range bombing was very useful in Iraq and Afghanistan and the upcoming regime change in Iran SMO.
The key bit, this pretence UK pays this cost lease, not US, is a bit weak now because we know we have been paid by US for this so far (our hands dirty on ethnic cleansing etc) via a club discount card in US weapons store - arguably like your money back via a free bet, but still helping UK taxpayer in the round. That club discount card needs to be taken into account when you hear what the Chagos lease costs are, and it’s a weaker argument when you don’t admit this.
But most of all, the weakness of all your PB posts is you don’t ever share both Pros and Cons. you see what I mean, you didn’t attempt to tackle independent UK nuclear weapons is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure, and that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS created in first place for good reasons being strength in Union and sharing costs together with like minded friends. Which is what dragged us into this place to start with!
I didn't say it because it's not the case.
I think you missed that I am talking about a tactical nuclear programme, with missiles delivered by conventional methods, not a strategic one. Of course that is still a fairly complex and costly project, but it has never to my knowledge carried the same price tag as Trident or Polaris. If we phase out of doomsday strategic nukes (where it's very questionable in our case whether they would even fire) and move into tactical ones that can be delivered via multiple methods and have various payloads, we would still be a nuclear power and far scarier in a wider variety of scenarios - and it would be cheaper overall.
Ukraine gave up it's strategic nuclear programme. It's worked brilliantly for them. Tactical nukes are a cherry, not the cake.
Ukraine didn't have a tactical nuclear programme. If they had, I think that it would have been extremely effective in countering the Russian threat.
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The answer to that question was no throughout my entire life. Until 6 weeks ago. 6 weeks of Trump has changed my mind. Now, I think that we have no choice.
France has twice been vindicated in the last 3 years for its deliberately different approach to statecraft. First in its huge investment in nuclear energy which protected it from the worst of the fuel price shock after the invasion, and now in its truly independent defence setup.
Whether it has really capitalised on these is debatable, but they look to have been the right calls, made decades ago.
Another smart French move was choosing to be a leading member of the EU, while we refused to join, then when we did join exempted ourselves from the most useful bits like Schengen and the Euro, and then left in a huff. It's galling (no pun intended) to say it but the French have made much better choices than we have.
I thought not being in Schengen or the Euro was a super duper special deal we were throwing away by leaving? This is what many remainers told us.
Personally I'd join both. I guess the point is that we had a bespoke deal that appeared to offer us some positives of membership while keeping a degree of distance as a sop to eurosceptic opinion. I'd rather be all-in myself and embrace ever closer union as a means of making Europe a serious global player not a divided backwater to be picked over by bigger powers.
Making our elected politicians even more distant and unaccountable than they are now. No thanks. If anything I want to go the other way. Reduce centralisation and have Westminister only for foreign policy and defence.
That is the trade off, obviously. I'd like to see a lot more decentralisation and local autonomy, for sure. But the UK is too small to be an effective foreign policy or defence player on its own, and the world has just become a whole lot more dangerous. I'd be happy to live in an autonomous London city state in the United States of Europe. I suspect I'd be more prosperous and safer in that world than in the current one.
It flys, it delivers whatever bomb you like, and it's not American.
At 45,000 it is a sitting duck for every SAM made since 1955.
Most airframes are though. For the crew it's a disaster. What matters though is being able to deliver a truck load of drone munitions.
And it also operates at a little above 0ft.
The Vulcan and Victor - and Valiant now someone's mentioned it - were disasters for their crews in other ways. No ejection seats for 60% of them, and the pilots (who did) probably stayed too long trying to save their fellows, all too often.
This kind of early March warmth is known as a "Fool's Spring" as it is usually followed by a return to much colder conditions more like winter.
I wonder if we can apply similar ideas to politics - have Reform had a "Fool's Spring" and will it be bleak midwinter for them in the coming months?
On Ukraine, it seems Putin may want peace, Zelenskyy may want peace but Trump needs peace. Ending the Ukraine war was one of his big pre-election plays - yet here we are, nearly 50 days after inauguration and the fighting, dying, shelling and drone attacks continue.
Trump is now trying to force peace on reluctant participants - that's not to say either Putin or Zelensky want the war to continue but they cannot settle on any old terms proposed by Washington and that's the problem. What would be acceptable to Putin would be unacceptable to Zelensky and vice versa. I'm struggling to see where any middle ground might lie - wars end either because one side or the other gets an advantage or is perceived to have a decisive advantage or when both sides realise they can neither win nor lose.
I've long argued the apparent stalemate suits a lot of important players - the truth is peace also has to suit those players. One key group - the arms manufacturers - are happy as western Europe ramps up defence spending and procurement and presumably Russia will do the same.
(The Cat has 870k followers vs 315k for Rupert the Bear.)
(I'm interested to know why Rupert has more followers than the Leeanderthal Man. That should be the other way round.)
Why would you expect them to be the other way round? Lowe has been very hardworking and cultivated a following and Anderson isn't exactly a household name.
Also the cat is a fraud. Gaining followers by impersonating an animal and then using it for political activism is poor form.
It's not that big a difference - Anderson is 270k.
But Anderson has been a controversial figure in national politics for several years, and an MP since 2019, including as a Tory Deputy Chairman and lots of controversies. Anderson joined twitter in 2022, so perhaps that time difference means something.
Plus Rupert Lowe has only been an MP since 2024. His national exposure before that was 6 months as an MEP in 2019-20. It's not Lowe's Southampton Football Club exposure, since he only joined Twitter in April 2019. There has probably also been growth since he was puffed by Elon Musk - that worked for Billy Graham.
Found it. That worked for Billy Graham in 1949:
The Crusade’s momentum had been building, but the media largely ignored it. Yet, just before the Crusade was about to end, media mogul William Randolph Hearst inexplicably ordered his newspapers to “puff Graham.”
It's a fairly good example of the creation of evangelical folklore around 'suspected divine intervention' or 'providence', which is what the "inexplicably" is code for.
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
I also distinctinctly remember a lot of left-of-centre people in the late '80s and early '90s immediately being shouted down as Bolsheviks, whenever they raised the question of how much Trident's dependence on the U.S. , had not been honestly explained.
It was considered too delicate, and as the article mentions, it was , of all Tharcher's policies, the one to which she countenanced the least dissent.
Thatcher was extremely starry eyed about the US alliance. I think it was the war. And the Cold War. Ironically she was also the last one who seemed to challenge the US view on occasion (over the Falklands for example) possibly because she had a more innocent view of the relationship.
Recently, only Truss has challenged the US. And that ended badly.
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
Domestically, it's regrettable Reeves has chosen the easy way out and will slash welfare spending. It's not of course easy for those who will lose out whether they are "scroungers" or not.
Starmer's problem is he ruled out direct tax rises in order to get elected (he looked weak on that in the tv debate as I remember) but when you have a budget deficit it seems absurd not to play all the cards in your hand. We know the January numbers always look good and we'll get a more accurate picture from the next ONS website in a couple of weeks.
The current borrowing level is ridiculous and of course that means a significant debt interest payment though if interest rates do come down later in the year that might be mitigated. The problem is it's not either cut spending or raise taxes - it's a both/and.
Big Council Tax rises for many in the next few weeks won't help and I do question the necessity of spending millions on local Government reorganisation when issues like adult social care and SEN funding as well as funding of temporary accommodation for homeless families remain unresolved.
This kind of early March warmth is known as a "Fool's Spring" as it is usually followed by a return to much colder conditions more like winter.
I wonder if we can apply similar ideas to politics - have Reform had a "Fool's Spring" and will it be bleak midwinter for them in the coming months?
On Ukraine, it seems Putin may want peace, Zelenskyy may want peace but Trump needs peace. Ending the Ukraine war was one of his big pre-election plays - yet here we are, nearly 50 days after inauguration and the fighting, dying, shelling and drone attacks continue.
Trump is now trying to force peace on reluctant participants - that's not to say either Putin or Zelensky want the war to continue but they cannot settle on any old terms proposed by Washington and that's the problem. What would be acceptable to Putin would be unacceptable to Zelensky and vice versa. I'm struggling to see where any middle ground might lie - wars end either because one side or the other gets an advantage or is perceived to have a decisive advantage or when both sides realise they can neither win nor lose.
I've long argued the apparent stalemate suits a lot of important players - the truth is peace also has to suit those players. One key group - the arms manufacturers - are happy as western Europe ramps up defence spending and procurement and presumably Russia will do the same.
On 'fool's spring': seems to be fooling my newish apple tree. Leaves about to unfurl by looks of today.
Domestically, it's regrettable Reeves has chosen the easy way out and will slash welfare spending. It's not of course easy for those who will lose out whether they are "scroungers" or not.
Big Council Tax rises for many in the next few weeks won't help and I do question the necessity of spending millions on local Government reorganisation when issues like adult social care and SEN funding as well as funding of temporary accommodation for homeless families remain unresolved.
I've had significant experience of the interface problems between District and County levels, for example around trying to get necessary Planning Conditions relating to County responsibilities imposed on planning permissions given by the District, and vice versa getting local considerations into County level projects.
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The answer to that question was no throughout my entire life. Until 6 weeks ago. 6 weeks of Trump has changed my mind. Now, I think that we have no choice.
France has twice been vindicated in the last 3 years for its deliberately different approach to statecraft. First in its huge investment in nuclear energy which protected it from the worst of the fuel price shock after the invasion, and now in its truly independent defence setup.
Whether it has really capitalised on these is debatable, but they look to have been the right calls, made decades ago.
Another smart French move was choosing to be a leading member of the EU, while we refused to join, then when we did join exempted ourselves from the most useful bits like Schengen and the Euro, and then left in a huff. It's galling (no pun intended) to say it but the French have made much better choices than we have.
I thought not being in Schengen or the Euro was a super duper special deal we were throwing away by leaving? This is what many remainers told us.
Personally I'd join both. I guess the point is that we had a bespoke deal that appeared to offer us some positives of membership while keeping a degree of distance as a sop to eurosceptic opinion. I'd rather be all-in myself and embrace ever closer union as a means of making Europe a serious global player not a divided backwater to be picked over by bigger powers.
Making our elected politicians even more distant and unaccountable than they are now. No thanks. If anything I want to go the other way. Reduce centralisation and have Westminister only for foreign policy and defence.
That is the trade off, obviously. I'd like to see a lot more decentralisation and local autonomy, for sure. But the UK is too small to be an effective foreign policy or defence player on its own, and the world has just become a whole lot more dangerous. I'd be happy to live in an autonomous London city state in the United States of Europe. I suspect I'd be more prosperous and safer in that world than in the current one.
I don't agree with this at all. The UK is perfectly able to have its own defence and foreign policy and make alliances as it requires. We can no longer project force to the other side of the world but then I don't want us to. In case you missed it, the idea that the only way forward is to subsume our Governance to a superpower is exactly what got us in this mess in the first place.
This is a perfect example of the old Franklin adage (which he actually used twice in different circumstances)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
It flys, it delivers whatever bomb you like, and it's not American.
At 45,000 it is a sitting duck for every SAM made since 1955.
Most airframes are though. For the crew it's a disaster. What matters though is being able to deliver a truck load of drone munitions.
And it also operates at a little above 0ft.
The Vulcan and Victor - and Valiant now someone's mentioned it - were disasters for their crews in other ways. No ejection seats for 60% of them, and the pilots (who did) probably stayed too long trying to save their fellows, all too often.
No word for the Sperrin?!
Sperrin? I've heard of it... Straying into TSR2 territory.
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The answer to that question was no throughout my entire life. Until 6 weeks ago. 6 weeks of Trump has changed my mind. Now, I think that we have no choice.
France has twice been vindicated in the last 3 years for its deliberately different approach to statecraft. First in its huge investment in nuclear energy which protected it from the worst of the fuel price shock after the invasion, and now in its truly independent defence setup.
Whether it has really capitalised on these is debatable, but they look to have been the right calls, made decades ago.
Another smart French move was choosing to be a leading member of the EU, while we refused to join, then when we did join exempted ourselves from the most useful bits like Schengen and the Euro, and then left in a huff. It's galling (no pun intended) to say it but the French have made much better choices than we have.
I thought not being in Schengen or the Euro was a super duper special deal we were throwing away by leaving? This is what many remainers told us.
Personally I'd join both. I guess the point is that we had a bespoke deal that appeared to offer us some positives of membership while keeping a degree of distance as a sop to eurosceptic opinion. I'd rather be all-in myself and embrace ever closer union as a means of making Europe a serious global player not a divided backwater to be picked over by bigger powers.
Making our elected politicians even more distant and unaccountable than they are now. No thanks. If anything I want to go the other way. Reduce centralisation and have Westminister only for foreign policy and defence.
That is the trade off, obviously. I'd like to see a lot more decentralisation and local autonomy, for sure. But the UK is too small to be an effective foreign policy or defence player on its own, and the world has just become a whole lot more dangerous. I'd be happy to live in an autonomous London city state in the United States of Europe. I suspect I'd be more prosperous and safer in that world than in the current one.
What's the difference between 'being an effective defence player' and being able to defend oneself? Switzerland is not 'an effective defence player' but they can certainly defend themselves, and see no reason to join a United States of Europe so to do.
This isn't an actual argument. Like all remoaners, it's just a constant excercise of retrofitting whatever the big concern of the day is to make the case for European integration. Covid? We need the clout of the EU to get vaccines (except we didn't). Trump? We need to throw some sort of European army together so we can be 'an effective defence player'. Aliens landed? We need to join the EU so we can have an effectively coordinated strategy to getting probes up the bum.
It's a waste of your time to post, and a waste of everyone elses' time to read. Let's just take it as read that your anser to every issue is 'join the EU' and leave it there.
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
It would be interesting to hear the statistics on infant mortality since LL was arrested.
Unfortunately impossible to compare as they downgraded the unit from a level 2 that was taking level 3 babies to strictly level 1 immediately after they kicked her out.
It’s almost as if they knew the unit had problems...
It flys, it delivers whatever bomb you like, and it's not American.
At 45,000 it is a sitting duck for every SAM made since 1955.
Most airframes are though. For the crew it's a disaster. What matters though is being able to deliver a truck load of drone munitions.
And it also operates at a little above 0ft.
The Vulcan and Victor - and Valiant now someone's mentioned it - were disasters for their crews in other ways. No ejection seats for 60% of them, and the pilots (who did) probably stayed too long trying to save their fellows, all too often.
No word for the Sperrin?!
At zero feet, the Vulcan and Victor wore out very rapidly. The planned low level Valiant would have been better - except still made of cheese.
At high speed, the Mach tuck on the Vulcan was interesting. Always liked the very matter of fact account by the Vulcan pilot who got into a high speed dive. Since he couldn't get the nose up, or slow down, he was about to roll inverted (at Mach 0.98) so he could pull out with negative G.... then the descending aircraft hit denser air and slowed down....
Long range ballistic missiles arrive at Mach 24. Which stretches even the best interceptors systems to breaking point.
Which is why things like the B-70 were cancelled - the payload of a B-52, carried at 75,000 feet at Mach 3.
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The answer to that question was no throughout my entire life. Until 6 weeks ago. 6 weeks of Trump has changed my mind. Now, I think that we have no choice.
France has twice been vindicated in the last 3 years for its deliberately different approach to statecraft. First in its huge investment in nuclear energy which protected it from the worst of the fuel price shock after the invasion, and now in its truly independent defence setup.
Whether it has really capitalised on these is debatable, but they look to have been the right calls, made decades ago.
Another smart French move was choosing to be a leading member of the EU, while we refused to join, then when we did join exempted ourselves from the most useful bits like Schengen and the Euro, and then left in a huff. It's galling (no pun intended) to say it but the French have made much better choices than we have.
I thought not being in Schengen or the Euro was a super duper special deal we were throwing away by leaving? This is what many remainers told us.
Personally I'd join both. I guess the point is that we had a bespoke deal that appeared to offer us some positives of membership while keeping a degree of distance as a sop to eurosceptic opinion. I'd rather be all-in myself and embrace ever closer union as a means of making Europe a serious global player not a divided backwater to be picked over by bigger powers.
Making our elected politicians even more distant and unaccountable than they are now. No thanks. If anything I want to go the other way. Reduce centralisation and have Westminister only for foreign policy and defence.
That is the trade off, obviously. I'd like to see a lot more decentralisation and local autonomy, for sure. But the UK is too small to be an effective foreign policy or defence player on its own, and the world has just become a whole lot more dangerous. I'd be happy to live in an autonomous London city state in the United States of Europe. I suspect I'd be more prosperous and safer in that world than in the current one.
I don't agree with this at all. The UK is perfectly able to have its own defence and foreign policy and make alliances as it requires. We can no longer project force to the other side of the world but then I don't want us to. In case you missed it, the idea that the only way forward is to subsume our Governance to a superpower is exactly what got us in this mess in the first place.
This is a perfect example of the old Franklin adage (which he actually used twice in different circumstances)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
Comments
https://x.com/rupertlowe10/status/1898410010763317530
If you want real loyalty, get a dog.
I'd like the stats on how many of these vehicles are modified for the user's needs. Bet it's sub 10%.
I've seen it suggested that the government won't crack down because it's good for EV sales figures.
https://www.motability.co.uk/get-support/faqs/am-i-eligible/
The Trident missiles are.
UK nuclear weapons use a British flavour of joint designs. Since 1958 the US and U.K. design teams were effectively merged. In fact *US* nuclear weapons use U.K. features - salvage fusing and certain features in the secondaries, for example.
U.K. designs differ in some details - the exact specification of the conventional explosives
The U.K. weapons are manufactured in the U.K. and maintained here. The designs and specifications are held at Aldermaston.
Whether it has really capitalised on these is debatable, but they look to have been the right calls, made decades ago.
Mauritius PM has said if the US say no, they will continue pursuing it. The Indians want us to sign this, and the US supports the Indians as they wish to cosy up on trade and security in the region. No deal, and none of those interested parties are happy. US want the base, the long range bombing was very useful in Iraq and Afghanistan and the upcoming regime change in Iran SMO.
The key bit, this pretence UK pays this cost lease, not US, is a bit weak now because we know we have been paid by US for this so far (our hands dirty on ethnic cleansing etc) via a club discount card in US weapons store - arguably like your money back via a free bet, but still helping UK taxpayer in the round. That club discount card needs to be taken into account when you hear what the Chagos lease costs are, and it’s a weaker argument when you don’t admit this.
But most of all, the weakness of all your PB posts is you don’t ever share both Pros and Cons. you see what I mean, you didn’t attempt to tackle independent UK nuclear weapons is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure, and that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS created in first place for good reasons being strength in Union and sharing costs together with like minded friends. Which is what dragged us into this place to start with!
I've kept myself busy brewing beer
This is from the first batch of Dairy Farm pale ale. We've bottled another fifty litres since, and have seventy five litres more fermenting
And it's really rather good, if I do day so myself
Would never happen in the U.K. 😂
I start brewing again around end of April.
Starting with raisin wine
Around here, that's what we call a Saturday.
Should I stay a couple of days in Genoa or stay in Milan instead? (I have become allergic to single-night stopovers. It's two or none.)
Edit: the bit from Nice to Genoa.
There’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try.
It's been there since I was a kid, and quite possibly a hundred years before.
Spring cleaning means piles of twigs and small branches under the trees.
"https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/dec/30/thatcher-cabinet-opposed-trident-purchase
I think you missed that I am talking about a tactical nuclear programme, with missiles delivered by conventional methods, not a strategic one. Of course that is still a fairly complex and costly project, but it has never to my knowledge carried the same price tag as Trident or Polaris. If we phase out of doomsday strategic nukes (where it's very questionable in our case whether they would even fire) and move into tactical ones that can be delivered via multiple methods and have various payloads, we would still be a nuclear power and far scarier in a wider variety of scenarios - and it would be cheaper overall.
You don't find a dog....a dog finds you!
Particularly since the Germans are offering to part pay for it.
Now, where's @bigjohnowls got to?
But it’s dirigisme means that it’s no richer than the UK.
I'm assuming that's related to the issues raised about the earlier British weapons being more separate than Trident, as the military always love more weapons.
That they inexplicably turn 180 degrees going off in wrong direction to blow an ally up, that’s different.
But when you are ingrained in a master servant relationship since 1958, with no quick way out, it’s going to affect what you can and can’t do, is my point. UK has no choice but sign latest Chagos deal when told to by Trump, all this making out we have a choice is just not being honest with British people in my book.
Also, there was a piece this week in Spectator telling us Chagos deal is a threat to US national security, because surrendering sovereignty allows the Chinese to more easily “survey, encircle and examine the base.”
Perhaps they are smarter people than me writing this in UK press and arguing it in US Senate too, I’m not entirely sure there is huge argument there. What does everyone else make of this argument? Chagos lease comes with ongoing Environment Protection Clause over the archipelago and its waters, on environmental grounds we carry on intercepting the little Sri Lankan registered fishing junks, impounding its spying equipment.Just as likely Iran owned than Chinese, I would think.
Compared with US bases everywhere in world continually getting spied on from space, by snoopers with cameras and press badges, drones and weather balloons, even with this change, the Chagos type base will continue to be hard to get near, let alone encircle and examine as the argument supposedly goes. Surely Iran and China start from already knowing the Chagos Base takes long distance bombers and Nuclear Subs, it’s what is actually going on today, anything new or change recently they need to know? And satellites, other spying methods like intercepting comms gives them all that info much more immediately and efficiently than fishing boats department can compete with?
So what dramatically changes on the national security aspect with Chagos Lease Deal, when comparatively it will still remain similarly easier to spy on bases on UK and US soil, than get near the Chagos base?
* Although when I was a lad, Mum, Dad and three kids could happily holiday in Scotland from the comfort of an Austin 1100. So perhaps just the Corsa option should stay.
"English!" we said.
The man in charge, like the rest, spoke no English. However, as he slapped his forehead with his palm, we knew we had got through.
There then followed an entertainment they probably still tell at gatherings as we were asked for our passports. We then, by mime show, somehow persuaded them that yes we had passports - but they were all retained at the campsite in the hills at Pegli some miles away.
Satisfied, kinda, that we were just English idiots who had wandered into a restricted zone of th port, we were "escorted from the premises".
To this day, we are sure we passed nothing that said entry was forbidden in any language.
But the people were lovely. We had another mime show when our tin-opener broke, and people in the main department store ran around helpfully holding up things they thought we meant.
Go. You can see the huge bomb the Brits dropped on the cathedral. Thankfully, a dud.
At the time, my grandparents had a Japanese car as large as the Mondeo, but it was rear-wheel drive so the transmission tunnel made it almost as tight on footspace as the fiesta. Poor middle seat boy (your humble servant, the youngest) had to straddle it.
It was considered too delicate, and as the article mentions, it was , of all Tharcher's policies, the one to which she countenanced the least dissent.
Larry the Cat @Number10cat
The dog is looking for an escape route.
https://x.com/Number10cat/status/1898417578281726001
(The Cat has 870k followers vs 315k for Rupert the Bear.)
(I'm interested to know why Rupert has more followers than the Leeanderthal Man. That should be the other way round.)
They are developing (non nuclear for now, but plenty of throw weight) SLBMs, and some seriously capable IRBMs.
The non US democracies have common interests which they need to recognise.
Means-testing is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how practical it is in law.
Motability don't sell many (full) electric cars, surprisingly. In 2024 1st half it was 13% of those sold - 25k.
The wider market share was 20%.
Even a Spitfire has some merit. (A very different heat signature)
Also the cat is a fraud. Gaining followers by impersonating an animal and then using it for political activism is poor form.
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/lucy-letby-14.pdf
https://unherd.com/2025/03/how-safe-is-the-letby-verdict/
Which is unusual since we lost a lot of street trees very locally over the last 5 years.
At the Princess of Wales Hospital scandal (in which my mother was a victim) two Filipino nurses went to jail and the Managers are still in position.
So all is good.
And it also operates at a little above 0ft.
But Anderson has been a controversial figure in national politics for several years, and an MP since 2019, including as a Tory Deputy Chairman and lots of controversies. Anderson joined twitter in 2022, so perhaps that time difference means something.
Plus Rupert Lowe has only been an MP since 2024. His national exposure before that was 6 months as an MEP in 2019-20. It's not Lowe's Southampton Football Club exposure, since he only joined Twitter in April 2019. There has probably also been growth since he was puffed by Elon Musk - that worked for Billy Graham.
Judging by what happened to your mother, my father, my uncle etc. they take this a bit literally.
No word for the Sperrin?!
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Valiant_Boys/gjgZCwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=valiant+bang+main+spar&pg=PA171&printsec=frontcover
This kind of early March warmth is known as a "Fool's Spring" as it is usually followed by a return to much colder conditions more like winter.
I wonder if we can apply similar ideas to politics - have Reform had a "Fool's Spring" and will it be bleak midwinter for them in the coming months?
On Ukraine, it seems Putin may want peace, Zelenskyy may want peace but Trump needs peace. Ending the Ukraine war was one of his big pre-election plays - yet here we are, nearly 50 days after inauguration and the fighting, dying, shelling and drone attacks continue.
Trump is now trying to force peace on reluctant participants - that's not to say either Putin or Zelensky want the war to continue but they cannot settle on any old terms proposed by Washington and that's the problem. What would be acceptable to Putin would be unacceptable to Zelensky and vice versa. I'm struggling to see where any middle ground might lie - wars end either because one side or the other gets an advantage or is perceived to have a decisive advantage or when both sides realise they can neither win nor lose.
I've long argued the apparent stalemate suits a lot of important players - the truth is peace also has to suit those players. One key group - the arms manufacturers - are happy as western Europe ramps up defence spending and procurement and presumably Russia will do the same.
The Crusade’s momentum had been building, but the media largely ignored it. Yet, just before the Crusade was about to end, media mogul William Randolph Hearst inexplicably ordered his newspapers to “puff Graham.”
https://decisionmagazine.com/puff-graham/
It's a fairly good example of the creation of evangelical folklore around 'suspected divine intervention' or 'providence', which is what the "inexplicably" is code for.
(Sometimes)
Recently, only Truss has challenged the US. And that ended badly.
I predict an absolute eye opener.
Starmer's problem is he ruled out direct tax rises in order to get elected (he looked weak on that in the tv debate as I remember) but when you have a budget deficit it seems absurd not to play all the cards in your hand. We know the January numbers always look good and we'll get a more accurate picture from the next ONS website in a couple of weeks.
The current borrowing level is ridiculous and of course that means a significant debt interest payment though if interest rates do come down later in the year that might be mitigated. The problem is it's not either cut spending or raise taxes - it's a both/and.
Big Council Tax rises for many in the next few weeks won't help and I do question the necessity of spending millions on local Government reorganisation when issues like adult social care and SEN funding as well as funding of temporary accommodation for homeless families remain unresolved.
And I saw a lady bird in the garden.
So I welcome it.
This is a perfect example of the old Franklin adage (which he actually used twice in different circumstances)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
This isn't an actual argument. Like all remoaners, it's just a constant excercise of retrofitting whatever the big concern of the day is to make the case for European integration. Covid? We need the clout of the EU to get vaccines (except we didn't). Trump? We need to throw some sort of European army together so we can be 'an effective defence player'. Aliens landed? We need to join the EU so we can have an effectively coordinated strategy to getting probes up the bum.
It's a waste of your time to post, and a waste of everyone elses' time to read. Let's just take it as read that your anser to every issue is 'join the EU' and leave it there.
It’s almost as if they knew the unit had problems...
Bad news: doesn't show up on a photo too well!
Right now, it's just below and to the left of Venus. Will set by 7.40pm (London latitude) though.
At high speed, the Mach tuck on the Vulcan was interesting. Always liked the very matter of fact account by the Vulcan pilot who got into a high speed dive. Since he couldn't get the nose up, or slow down, he was about to roll inverted (at Mach 0.98) so he could pull out with negative G.... then the descending aircraft hit denser air and slowed down....
Long range ballistic missiles arrive at Mach 24. Which stretches even the best interceptors systems to breaking point.
Which is why things like the B-70 were cancelled - the payload of a B-52, carried at 75,000 feet at Mach 3.