Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Arn’t the interviewed Chagossians furious with being ethnically cleansed from their home by previous UK governments so US can have a base (allowing UK mates rates deals on US weapons) and not allowed back on Garcia in this deal for security reasons?
Or after more money to keep quiet?
They don't want to be Mauritian underlings nor have Mauritius own their home is their current concern
Until the mid sixties, they were British Empire underlings, at that point UK ceded independence to Mauritius except the bits we ethnically cleansed for the US base. That was when that die was cast wasn’t it, not today with this deal?
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
How about the Chagossian Islanders?
Their case was turned down by the courts at lunchtime
The whole thing is deeply disgusting, and a charge of malfeasance in public office at the very least should be looked at for Starmer when he leaves number 10. I am sure he knows someone good to defend him.
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
How about the Chagossian Islanders?
Their case was turned down by the courts at lunchtime
The whole thing is deeply disgusting, and a charge of malfeasance in public office at the very least should be looked at for Starmer when he leaves number 10. I am sure he knows someone good to defend him.
It’s in emerging Superpower and regions Big Daddy’s India’s bailiwick, and it’s a US base.
Specifically, what “vital capabilities” will UK get from extending ownership of Garcia, and not passing that on to India and USA?
Are we merely pretending it’s 100 years ago and we are still a player in the region, or are we actually getting something tangible from ownership we wouldn’t from security partnership with India and US?
This far away from the next GE, laying Reform looks the best value. I’m not tying up my money for another 3 or 4 years on any of the options, though.
There are no good political bets currently, so far as I can see. You can chip away with the odd minor bet, but the market offers little.
(For example of minor bets - opposing Farage as next PM, LDs to get most seats, opposing DMill, Burnham, Khan, and a few others to be next Labour leader.)
KB to not exit this year is value imo.
Yes - you've suggested this before. I broadly agree, but the whole Tory party is just so crap now that I don't think there's much chance of sanity.
The Tories lost their good MPs at the last election and retained the (to be kind) less good.
I don't know quite what's left, but unless I had a very long and heavily electrical stick I'm happy not to probe.
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
I'd like to see a poll on this question:
"France is establishing a high-security prison in its overseas territory in South America. Would you support Britain using its overseas territory in the same way?"
Yes I'd like the opportunity to tick 'obviously not' on that. They never seem to ask me.
I don't think you need to worry as our cretinous PM is giving all our overseas territories away for no reason and making us pay billions for the privilege.
Return of stolen goods.
The Americans must be furious that we're making them close down the base.
Yes, it is all a bit having our cake and eating it. Messy old world.
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Arn’t the interviewed Chagossians furious with being ethnically cleansed from their home by previous UK governments so US can have a base (allowing UK mates rates deals on US weapons) and not allowed back on Garcia in this deal for security reasons?
Or after more money to keep quiet?
They don't want to be Mauritian underlings nor have Mauritius own their home is their current concern
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
How about the Chagossian Islanders?
Their case was turned down by the courts at lunchtime
The whole thing is deeply disgusting, and a charge of malfeasance in public office at the very least should be looked at for Starmer when he leaves number 10. I am sure he knows someone good to defend him.
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Arn’t the interviewed Chagossians furious with being ethnically cleansed from their home by previous UK governments so US can have a base (allowing UK mates rates deals on US weapons) and not allowed back on Garcia in this deal for security reasons?
Or after more money to keep quiet?
They don't want to be Mauritian underlings nor have Mauritius own their home is their current concern
Until the mid sixties, they were British Empire underlings, at that point UK ceded independence to Mauritius except the bits we ethnically cleansed for the US base. That was when that die was cast wasn’t it, not today?
They are separate places, they were administered as one unit until Mauritius got independence then separated. We should have let the Chagossians come home and told Mauritius to do one
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Arn’t the interviewed Chagossians furious with being ethnically cleansed from their home by previous UK governments so US can have a base (allowing UK mates rates deals on US weapons) and not allowed back on Garcia in this deal for security reasons?
Or after more money to keep quiet?
They don't want to be Mauritian underlings nor have Mauritius own their home is their current concern
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
I'd like to see a poll on this question:
"France is establishing a high-security prison in its overseas territory in South America. Would you support Britain using its overseas territory in the same way?"
If it was Chagos it would diversify away from military use and provide employment to islanders who could move back.
This far away from the next GE, laying Reform looks the best value. I’m not tying up my money for another 3 or 4 years on any of the options, though.
There are no good political bets currently, so far as I can see. You can chip away with the odd minor bet, but the market offers little.
(For example of minor bets - opposing Farage as next PM, LDs to get most seats, opposing DMill, Burnham, Khan, and a few others to be next Labour leader.)
KB to not exit this year is value imo.
Yes - you've suggested this before. I broadly agree, but the whole Tory party is just so crap now that I don't think there's much chance of sanity.
The Tories lost their good MPs at the last election and retained the (to be kind) less good.
I don't know quite what's left, but unless I had a very long and heavily electrical stick I'm happy not to probe.
They are in a state, aren't they. As you say, the Brexit purge didn't help.
I am still quite surprised we’ve not seen some more Tory defections to Reform yet. I thought there’d have been 1 or 2 post locals.
One possibility is that a significant group would go together. It is not hard to imagine that it is being hotly discussed/organised all the time. However, four years before an election feels a long time. Perhaps the next year or two will be a bit dull. I think how elections/polling looks in 12-18 months will determine all manner of things, for Tories and for Labour. There is a long time to go.
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Arn’t the interviewed Chagossians furious with being ethnically cleansed from their home by previous UK governments so US can have a base (allowing UK mates rates deals on US weapons) and not allowed back on Garcia in this deal for security reasons?
Or after more money to keep quiet?
They don't want to be Mauritian underlings nor have Mauritius own their home is their current concern
Until the mid sixties, they were British Empire underlings, at that point UK ceded independence to Mauritius except the bits we ethnically cleansed for the US base. That was when that die was cast wasn’t it, not today?
They are separate places, they were administered as one unit until Mauritius got independence then separated. We should have let the Chagossians come home and told Mauritius to do one
Were they not separated and then ethnically cleansed by UK merely to secure the base and its security?
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Arn’t the interviewed Chagossians furious with being ethnically cleansed from their home by previous UK governments so US can have a base (allowing UK mates rates deals on US weapons) and not allowed back on Garcia in this deal for security reasons?
Or after more money to keep quiet?
They don't want to be Mauritian underlings nor have Mauritius own their home is their current concern
Until the mid sixties, they were British Empire underlings, at that point UK ceded independence to Mauritius except the bits we ethnically cleansed for the US base. That was when that die was cast wasn’t it, not today?
They are separate places, they were administered as one unit until Mauritius got independence then separated. We should have let the Chagossians come home and told Mauritius to do one
Were they not separated and then ethnically cleansed merely to secure the base and its security?
Oh yes the original sin is ours but we should be making amends with the Chagossians.
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Arn’t the interviewed Chagossians furious with being ethnically cleansed from their home by previous UK governments so US can have a base (allowing UK mates rates deals on US weapons) and not allowed back on Garcia in this deal for security reasons?
Or after more money to keep quiet?
They don't want to be Mauritian underlings nor have Mauritius own their home is their current concern
Until the mid sixties, they were British Empire underlings, at that point UK ceded independence to Mauritius except the bits we ethnically cleansed for the US base. That was when that die was cast wasn’t it, not today?
They are separate places, they were administered as one unit until Mauritius got independence then separated. We should have let the Chagossians come home and told Mauritius to do one
Were they not separated and then ethnically cleansed by UK merely to secure the base and its security?
Yes.
But they’re not that close to each other, so one might argue that the Chagossians had their own identity.
(count the months before it effectively becomes Chinese Indian Ocean Territory)
“Base is a 'unique asset' for Britain, senior officer says We're now hearing from senior British Army officer Gen James Hockenhull. He says that the base's location provides "immense global reach", making it a "unique asset" for British security. "I welcome the long-term certainty that this treaty brings. It will help the British Armed Forces in our efforts to support stability abroad and security at home," Hockenhull says.
What’s the actual detail on that which would require actual ongoing UK ownership, and not that ownership passed on to India and USA, who sat at the table with us negotiating this?
Is the bottom line of UK continuing Garcia on a lease, and not someone else holding same lease, continued UK interoperability with US weapons and nuclear weapons?
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Arn’t the interviewed Chagossians furious with being ethnically cleansed from their home by previous UK governments so US can have a base (allowing UK mates rates deals on US weapons) and not allowed back on Garcia in this deal for security reasons?
Or after more money to keep quiet?
They don't want to be Mauritian underlings nor have Mauritius own their home is their current concern
Until the mid sixties, they were British Empire underlings, at that point UK ceded independence to Mauritius except the bits we ethnically cleansed for the US base. That was when that die was cast wasn’t it, not today?
They are separate places, they were administered as one unit until Mauritius got independence then separated. We should have let the Chagossians come home and told Mauritius to do one
Were they not separated and then ethnically cleansed merely to secure the base and its security?
Oh yes the original sin is ours but we should be making amends with the Chagossians.
You would today give Chagos and Garcia to Chagossians, not to Mauritius? That’s what you are arguing for, to right the wrongs of the British past?
(count the months before it effectively becomes Chinese Indian Ocean Territory)
“Base is a 'unique asset' for Britain, senior officer says We're now hearing from senior British Army officer Gen James Hockenhull. He says that the base's location provides "immense global reach", making it a "unique asset" for British security. "I welcome the long-term certainty that this treaty brings. It will help the British Armed Forces in our efforts to support stability abroad and security at home," Hockenhull says.
What’s the actual detail on that which would require actual ongoing UK ownership, and not that ownership passed on to India and USA, who sat at the table with us negotiating this?
Is the bottom line of UK continuing Garcia on a lease, and not someone else holding same lease, continued UK interoperability with US weapons and nuclear weapons?
Who knows. Maybe that's part of it but I suspect it's not founded on it.
My only guess (hope) is that it's a "technicality" and possession is nine tenths of the law, but Mauritius still now has the freehold and can be heavily pressured through force of geopolitics.
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Very few British voters care about Chagos. Those few who are irate, judging by comments here, are people who were never going to vote Labour anyway. Whatever the rights or wrongs of this decision, it’s not what’s going to decide the next general election, or any election in the UK.
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
How about the Chagossian Islanders?
Their case was turned down by the courts at lunchtime
The whole thing is deeply disgusting, and a charge of malfeasance in public office at the very least should be looked at for Starmer when he leaves number 10. I am sure he knows someone good to defend him.
It’s in emerging Superpower and regions Big Daddy’s India’s bailiwick, and it’s a US base.
Specifically, what “vital capabilities” will UK get from extending ownership of Garcia, and not passing that on to India and USA?
Are we merely pretending it’s 100 years ago and we are still a player in the region, or are we actually getting something tangible from ownership we wouldn’t from security partnership with India and US?
Well, if you trust the Indians and the Americans to always be on our side, that’s fine. I wouldn’t trust either.
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Arn’t the interviewed Chagossians furious with being ethnically cleansed from their home by previous UK governments so US can have a base (allowing UK mates rates deals on US weapons) and not allowed back on Garcia in this deal for security reasons?
Or after more money to keep quiet?
They don't want to be Mauritian underlings nor have Mauritius own their home is their current concern
Until the mid sixties, they were British Empire underlings, at that point UK ceded independence to Mauritius except the bits we ethnically cleansed for the US base. That was when that die was cast wasn’t it, not today?
They are separate places, they were administered as one unit until Mauritius got independence then separated. We should have let the Chagossians come home and told Mauritius to do one
Were they not separated and then ethnically cleansed merely to secure the base and its security?
Oh yes the original sin is ours but we should be making amends with the Chagossians.
You would today give Chagos and Garcia to Chagossians, not to Mauritius? That’s what you are arguing for, to right the wrongs of the British past?
Yes. Except Garcia which we keep as a sovereign base. We then offer Chagos defence guarantees if they want to take them. Job done.
(count the months before it effectively becomes Chinese Indian Ocean Territory)
“Base is a 'unique asset' for Britain, senior officer says We're now hearing from senior British Army officer Gen James Hockenhull. He says that the base's location provides "immense global reach", making it a "unique asset" for British security. "I welcome the long-term certainty that this treaty brings. It will help the British Armed Forces in our efforts to support stability abroad and security at home," Hockenhull says.
What’s the actual detail on that which would require actual ongoing UK ownership, and not that ownership passed on to India and USA, who sat at the table with us negotiating this?
Is the bottom line of UK continuing Garcia on a lease, and not someone else holding same lease, continued UK interoperability with US weapons and nuclear weapons?
Remind me how the last 99-year lease ended for HMG.
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Arn’t the interviewed Chagossians furious with being ethnically cleansed from their home by previous UK governments so US can have a base (allowing UK mates rates deals on US weapons) and not allowed back on Garcia in this deal for security reasons?
Or after more money to keep quiet?
They don't want to be Mauritian underlings nor have Mauritius own their home is their current concern
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Very few British voters care about Chagos. Those few who are irate, judging by comments here, are people who were never going to vote Labour anyway. Whatever the rights or wrongs of this decision, it’s not what’s going to decide the next general election, or any election in the UK.
This ia eerily reminiscent of a HYUFD post telling us why the government alienating various sections of the electorate didn't matter c. 2021.
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Arn’t the interviewed Chagossians furious with being ethnically cleansed from their home by previous UK governments so US can have a base (allowing UK mates rates deals on US weapons) and not allowed back on Garcia in this deal for security reasons?
Or after more money to keep quiet?
They don't want to be Mauritian underlings nor have Mauritius own their home is their current concern
Until the mid sixties, they were British Empire underlings, at that point UK ceded independence to Mauritius except the bits we ethnically cleansed for the US base. That was when that die was cast wasn’t it, not today?
They are separate places, they were administered as one unit until Mauritius got independence then separated. We should have let the Chagossians come home and told Mauritius to do one
Were they not separated and then ethnically cleansed merely to secure the base and its security?
Oh yes the original sin is ours but we should be making amends with the Chagossians.
You would today give Chagos and Garcia to Chagossians, not to Mauritius? That’s what you are arguing for, to right the wrongs of the British past?
Yes. Except Garcia which we keep as a sovereign base. We then offer Chagos defence guarantees if they want to take them. Job done.
The Chagossians wouldn’t be very happy with a deal that leaves out Garcia! And the US wouldn’t be very happy with a deal that let lots of people near to Garcia.
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Very few British voters care about Chagos. Those few who are irate, judging by comments here, are people who were never going to vote Labour anyway. Whatever the rights or wrongs of this decision, it’s not what’s going to decide the next general election, or any election in the UK.
This ia eerily reminiscent of a HYUFD post telling us why the government alienating various sections of the electorate didn't matter c. 2021.
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
How about the Chagossian Islanders?
Their case was turned down by the courts at lunchtime
The whole thing is deeply disgusting, and a charge of malfeasance in public office at the very least should be looked at for Starmer when he leaves number 10. I am sure he knows someone good to defend him.
It’s in emerging Superpower and regions Big Daddy’s India’s bailiwick, and it’s a US base.
Specifically, what “vital capabilities” will UK get from extending ownership of Garcia, and not passing that on to India and USA?
Are we merely pretending it’s 100 years ago and we are still a player in the region, or are we actually getting something tangible from ownership we wouldn’t from security partnership with India and US?
Well, if you trust the Indians and the Americans to always be on our side, that’s fine. I wouldn’t trust either.
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Very few British voters care about Chagos. Those few who are irate, judging by comments here, are people who were never going to vote Labour anyway. Whatever the rights or wrongs of this decision, it’s not what’s going to decide the next general election, or any election in the UK.
No it won't decide it. Very few individual things decide an election. It feeds a narrative. That currently being 'when Labour negotiates, Britain loses', and Starmer being happy to give things away. There is no upside for SKS in it, there is some downside. And given his polling that's a bad result. Things like this do tend to end up hung as an Albatross round the neck too. 'And that stupid bloody Chagos deal'
I’m glad I’m driving or I would say such things that might lead me….. I won’t even go there
Suffice to say that when and if we finally get our Reform government we must come after all those responsible. From Starmer down. And we want trials and jails
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
I would expect Starmer to know the law on this. Also he's expending political capital on a deal with Mauritius, which I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do unless he thought it was necessary. Put together that suggests he's is correct on his points.
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
I would expect Starmer to know the law on this. Also he's expending political capital on a deal with Mauritius, which I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do unless he thought it was necessary. Put together that suggests he's is correct on his points.
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Arn’t the interviewed Chagossians furious with being ethnically cleansed from their home by previous UK governments so US can have a base (allowing UK mates rates deals on US weapons) and not allowed back on Garcia in this deal for security reasons?
Or after more money to keep quiet?
They don't want to be Mauritian underlings nor have Mauritius own their home is their current concern
Until the mid sixties, they were British Empire underlings, at that point UK ceded independence to Mauritius except the bits we ethnically cleansed for the US base. That was when that die was cast wasn’t it, not today?
They are separate places, they were administered as one unit until Mauritius got independence then separated. We should have let the Chagossians come home and told Mauritius to do one
Were they not separated and then ethnically cleansed merely to secure the base and its security?
Oh yes the original sin is ours but we should be making amends with the Chagossians.
You would today give Chagos and Garcia to Chagossians, not to Mauritius? That’s what you are arguing for, to right the wrongs of the British past?
Yes. Except Garcia which we keep as a sovereign base. We then offer Chagos defence guarantees if they want to take them. Job done.
The Chagossians wouldn’t be very happy with a deal that leaves out Garcia! And the US wouldn’t be very happy with a deal that let lots of people near to Garcia.
Like this deal? That says we have to use Mauritian contractors on Garcia where possible. That we have to notify Mauritius of any attacks out of Garcia in advance or as soon as possible. The Chagossians would be happier with resettling the rest of the Archipelago and complaining about Garcia than what this achieves I'd imagine
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
How about the Chagossian Islanders?
Their case was turned down by the courts at lunchtime
The whole thing is deeply disgusting, and a charge of malfeasance in public office at the very least should be looked at for Starmer when he leaves number 10. I am sure he knows someone good to defend him.
It’s in emerging Superpower and regions Big Daddy’s India’s bailiwick, and it’s a US base.
Specifically, what “vital capabilities” will UK get from extending ownership of Garcia, and not passing that on to India and USA?
Are we merely pretending it’s 100 years ago and we are still a player in the region, or are we actually getting something tangible from ownership we wouldn’t from security partnership with India and US?
Well, if you trust the Indians and the Americans to always be on our side, that’s fine. I wouldn’t trust either.
Because of our colonial history and the presence of many Indian migrants/migrant-descended people in the UK we believe we have some kind of special relationship with India but we don't. India is not on our side. It isn't an ally in any sense.
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Very few British voters care about Chagos. Those few who are irate, judging by comments here, are people who were never going to vote Labour anyway. Whatever the rights or wrongs of this decision, it’s not what’s going to decide the next general election, or any election in the UK.
No it won't decide it. Very few individual things decide an election. It feeds a narrative. That currently being 'when Labour negotiates, Britain loses', and Starmer being happy to give things away. There is no upside for SKS in it, there is some downside. And given his polling that's a bad result. Things like this do tend to end up hung as an Albatross round the neck too. 'And that stupid bloody Chagos deal'
You might be underestimating the public. They can raise their game sometimes.
(count the months before it effectively becomes Chinese Indian Ocean Territory)
“Base is a 'unique asset' for Britain, senior officer says We're now hearing from senior British Army officer Gen James Hockenhull. He says that the base's location provides "immense global reach", making it a "unique asset" for British security. "I welcome the long-term certainty that this treaty brings. It will help the British Armed Forces in our efforts to support stability abroad and security at home," Hockenhull says.
What’s the actual detail on that which would require actual ongoing UK ownership, and not that ownership passed on to India and USA, who sat at the table with us negotiating this?
Is the bottom line of UK continuing Garcia on a lease, and not someone else holding same lease, continued UK interoperability with US weapons and nuclear weapons?
Remind me how the last 99-year lease ended for HMG.
Yes of course I know all about what happened in the end. And what happened next and ongoing.
I also know it was signed in the first place because Britain wanted to be seen as a fair and responsible power, rather than simply claiming the land outright, because they thought they would bring them more influence, more friends and trade with that approach. In that sense it does tie in with what UK done today, and the reasons it did it.
But did you know US drew plans to seize Hong Kong from the British Empire?
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Very few British voters care about Chagos. Those few who are irate, judging by comments here, are people who were never going to vote Labour anyway. Whatever the rights or wrongs of this decision, it’s not what’s going to decide the next general election, or any election in the UK.
No it won't decide it. Very few individual things decide an election. It feeds a narrative. That currently being 'when Labour negotiates, Britain loses', and Starmer being happy to give things away. There is no upside for SKS in it, there is some downside. And given his polling that's a bad result. Things like this do tend to end up hung as an Albatross round the neck too. 'And that stupid bloody Chagos deal'
You might be underestimating the public. They can raise their game sometimes.
Nah.theyve sussed him out. He's a wrong un and he does wrong un stuff
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Arn’t the interviewed Chagossians furious with being ethnically cleansed from their home by previous UK governments so US can have a base (allowing UK mates rates deals on US weapons) and not allowed back on Garcia in this deal for security reasons?
Or after more money to keep quiet?
They don't want to be Mauritian underlings nor have Mauritius own their home is their current concern
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Arn’t the interviewed Chagossians furious with being ethnically cleansed from their home by previous UK governments so US can have a base (allowing UK mates rates deals on US weapons) and not allowed back on Garcia in this deal for security reasons?
Or after more money to keep quiet?
They don't want to be Mauritian underlings nor have Mauritius own their home is their current concern
Until the mid sixties, they were British Empire underlings, at that point UK ceded independence to Mauritius except the bits we ethnically cleansed for the US base. That was when that die was cast wasn’t it, not today?
They are separate places, they were administered as one unit until Mauritius got independence then separated. We should have let the Chagossians come home and told Mauritius to do one
Were they not separated and then ethnically cleansed merely to secure the base and its security?
Oh yes the original sin is ours but we should be making amends with the Chagossians.
You would today give Chagos and Garcia to Chagossians, not to Mauritius? That’s what you are arguing for, to right the wrongs of the British past?
Yes. Except Garcia which we keep as a sovereign base. We then offer Chagos defence guarantees if they want to take them. Job done.
None of that is up to the UK. The US decides who comes to NSF Diego Garcia and they won't have Chagossian scrandies wandering around.
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Very few British voters care about Chagos. Those few who are irate, judging by comments here, are people who were never going to vote Labour anyway. Whatever the rights or wrongs of this decision, it’s not what’s going to decide the next general election, or any election in the UK.
No it won't decide it. Very few individual things decide an election. It feeds a narrative. That currently being 'when Labour negotiates, Britain loses', and Starmer being happy to give things away. There is no upside for SKS in it, there is some downside. And given his polling that's a bad result. Things like this do tend to end up hung as an Albatross round the neck too. 'And that stupid bloody Chagos deal'
The slogan 'when Labour negotiates, Britain loses' is definitely beginning to gain some traction.
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
I would expect Starmer to know the law on this. Also he's expending political capital on a deal with Mauritius, which I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do unless he thought it was necessary. Put together that suggests he's is correct on his points.
I listened to his 'live' press conference with his defence secretary and the army commander who looks after the base, and I think those critising the deal would have benefitted from listening to it as well
Apparently it will cost approx 100 million per year for a 99 year lease with an option to renew for 40 more years
The US pays all the operational costs and the deal is backed by the US, NATO, all our allies but apparently opposed by Russia, China and Iran
I am no fan of Starmer, but on this and having heard the details I have no problem with it
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Very few British voters care about Chagos. Those few who are irate, judging by comments here, are people who were never going to vote Labour anyway. Whatever the rights or wrongs of this decision, it’s not what’s going to decide the next general election, or any election in the UK.
No it won't decide it. Very few individual things decide an election. It feeds a narrative. That currently being 'when Labour negotiates, Britain loses', and Starmer being happy to give things away. There is no upside for SKS in it, there is some downside. And given his polling that's a bad result. Things like this do tend to end up hung as an Albatross round the neck too. 'And that stupid bloody Chagos deal'
The slogan 'when Labour negotiates, Britain loses' is definitely beginning to gain some traction.
But it's more than 3 words and doesn't even rhyme.
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Arn’t the interviewed Chagossians furious with being ethnically cleansed from their home by previous UK governments so US can have a base (allowing UK mates rates deals on US weapons) and not allowed back on Garcia in this deal for security reasons?
Or after more money to keep quiet?
They don't want to be Mauritian underlings nor have Mauritius own their home is their current concern
Until the mid sixties, they were British Empire underlings, at that point UK ceded independence to Mauritius except the bits we ethnically cleansed for the US base. That was when that die was cast wasn’t it, not today?
They are separate places, they were administered as one unit until Mauritius got independence then separated. We should have let the Chagossians come home and told Mauritius to do one
Were they not separated and then ethnically cleansed merely to secure the base and its security?
Oh yes the original sin is ours but we should be making amends with the Chagossians.
You would today give Chagos and Garcia to Chagossians, not to Mauritius? That’s what you are arguing for, to right the wrongs of the British past?
Yes. Except Garcia which we keep as a sovereign base. We then offer Chagos defence guarantees if they want to take them. Job done.
None of that is up to the UK. The US decides who comes to NSF Diego Garcia and they won't have Chagossian scrandies wandering around.
No, they don't. It's Mauritian territory now and the UK leases the base, one of the agreements for that lease agreed today is the use of Mauritian contractors. Any attack on Mauritian territory from inside the base triggera Mauritius being able to terminate the lease. I mean that's what it says, I'm sure the yanks will start firing and take over in that case but the lease says what it says
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
I would expect Starmer to know the law on this. Also he's expending political capital on a deal with Mauritius, which I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do unless he thought it was necessary. Put together that suggests he's is correct on his points.
It boils down to “trust him”?
I would probably trust Starmer to understand the law and the practical consequences of the deal for the reasons I have given, more than I would trust you, Farage and Badenoch on the same. So, yes.
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
I would expect Starmer to know the law on this. Also he's expending political capital on a deal with Mauritius, which I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do unless he thought it was necessary. Put together that suggests he's is correct on his points.
I listened to his 'live' press conference with his defence secretary and the army commander who looks after the base, and I think those critising the deal would have benefitted from listening to it as well
Apparently it will cost approx 100 million per year for a 99 year lease with an option to renew for 40 more years
The US pays all the operational costs and the deal is backed by the US, NATO, all our allies but apparently opposed by Russia, China and Iran
I am no fan of Starmer, but on this and having heard the details I have no problem with it
You stupid berk
This is how much it costs. It’s been added up - by an expert
🚨NEW: Chagos deal will cost £30bn
RENT: - £165m a year for the first 3 years - £120m a year for years 4-13 - Then £120m+inflation for years 14-99
PLUS: - £45m a year for 25 years for development - £40m one-off for Chagossian fund
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
I would expect Starmer to know the law on this. Also he's expending political capital on a deal with Mauritius, which I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do unless he thought it was necessary. Put together that suggests he's is correct on his points.
I listened to his 'live' press conference with his defence secretary and the army commander who looks after the base, and I think those critising the deal would have benefitted from listening to it as well
Apparently it will cost approx 100 million per year for a 99 year lease with an option to renew for 40 more years
The US pays all the operational costs and the deal is backed by the US, NATO, all our allies but apparently opposed by Russia, China and Iran
I am no fan of Starmer, but on this and having heard the details I have no problem with it
It’s quite complicated looking at the details . The actual tv headlines don’t have time to go through all the detail .
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
I would expect Starmer to know the law on this. Also he's expending political capital on a deal with Mauritius, which I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do unless he thought it was necessary. Put together that suggests he's is correct on his points.
I listened to his 'live' press conference with his defence secretary and the army commander who looks after the base, and I think those critising the deal would have benefitted from listening to it as well
Apparently it will cost approx 100 million per year for a 99 year lease with an option to renew for 40 more years
The US pays all the operational costs and the deal is backed by the US, NATO, all our allies but apparently opposed by Russia, China and Iran
I am no fan of Starmer, but on this and having heard the details I have no problem with it
You stupid berk
This is how much it costs. It’s been added up - by an expert
🚨NEW: Chagos deal will cost £30bn
RENT: - £165m a year for the first 3 years - £120m a year for years 4-13 - Then £120m+inflation for years 14-99
PLUS: - £45m a year for 25 years for development - £40m one-off for Chagossian fund
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Very few British voters care about Chagos. Those few who are irate, judging by comments here, are people who were never going to vote Labour anyway. Whatever the rights or wrongs of this decision, it’s not what’s going to decide the next general election, or any election in the UK.
No it won't decide it. Very few individual things decide an election. It feeds a narrative. That currently being 'when Labour negotiates, Britain loses', and Starmer being happy to give things away. There is no upside for SKS in it, there is some downside. And given his polling that's a bad result. Things like this do tend to end up hung as an Albatross round the neck too. 'And that stupid bloody Chagos deal'
You might be underestimating the public. They can raise their game sometimes.
Nah.theyve sussed him out. He's a wrong un and he does wrong un stuff
Is this shrewdie public going to suss Nigel Farage out too then before the election? Guess they're bound to.
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
I would expect Starmer to know the law on this. Also he's expending political capital on a deal with Mauritius, which I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do unless he thought it was necessary. Put together that suggests he's is correct on his points.
I listened to his 'live' press conference with his defence secretary and the army commander who looks after the base, and I think those critising the deal would have benefitted from listening to it as well
Apparently it will cost approx 100 million per year for a 99 year lease with an option to renew for 40 more years
The US pays all the operational costs and the deal is backed by the US, NATO, all our allies but apparently opposed by Russia, China and Iran
I am no fan of Starmer, but on this and having heard the details I have no problem with it
You stupid berk
This is how much it costs. It’s been added up - by an expert
🚨NEW: Chagos deal will cost £30bn
RENT: - £165m a year for the first 3 years - £120m a year for years 4-13 - Then £120m+inflation for years 14-99
PLUS: - £45m a year for 25 years for development - £40m one-off for Chagossian fund
I don't know why so many people have the arsehole over it. None of us are ever going to go there, it's completely irrelevant for the security of the UK and there are only 40 bored UK service personnel there to do civilian policing and nothing else.
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
I would expect Starmer to know the law on this. Also he's expending political capital on a deal with Mauritius, which I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do unless he thought it was necessary. Put together that suggests he's is correct on his points.
I listened to his 'live' press conference with his defence secretary and the army commander who looks after the base, and I think those critising the deal would have benefitted from listening to it as well
Apparently it will cost approx 100 million per year for a 99 year lease with an option to renew for 40 more years
The US pays all the operational costs and the deal is backed by the US, NATO, all our allies but apparently opposed by Russia, China and Iran
I am no fan of Starmer, but on this and having heard the details I have no problem with it
You stupid berk
This is how much it costs. It’s been added up - by an expert
🚨NEW: Chagos deal will cost £30bn
RENT: - £165m a year for the first 3 years - £120m a year for years 4-13 - Then £120m+inflation for years 14-99
PLUS: - £45m a year for 25 years for development - £40m one-off for Chagossian fund
It appears that you want to side with Russia, China and Iran v the UK, US, NATO and our allies all of whom approve the deal
I know which side I am even if I am an old stupid berk !!!!!
I don’t really care. You’re an idiot
This guy is a self declared Centrist Dad and political commentator. And usually pro Starmer. Even he can’t believe it
“Don’t understand how you spend £9 Billion giving away the Chagos islands and then continue complaining about huge holes in the budget and how brutal cuts need to be made. Just don’t understand how Labour maintain that narrative now”.
An hour later:
“So apparently, the Chagos deal won’t cost the UK £9 billion. It will cost us £30 billion.”
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Arn’t the interviewed Chagossians furious with being ethnically cleansed from their home by previous UK governments so US can have a base (allowing UK mates rates deals on US weapons) and not allowed back on Garcia in this deal for security reasons?
Or after more money to keep quiet?
They don't want to be Mauritian underlings nor have Mauritius own their home is their current concern
Until the mid sixties, they were British Empire underlings, at that point UK ceded independence to Mauritius except the bits we ethnically cleansed for the US base. That was when that die was cast wasn’t it, not today?
They are separate places, they were administered as one unit until Mauritius got independence then separated. We should have let the Chagossians come home and told Mauritius to do one
Were they not separated and then ethnically cleansed merely to secure the base and its security?
Oh yes the original sin is ours but we should be making amends with the Chagossians.
You would today give Chagos and Garcia to Chagossians, not to Mauritius? That’s what you are arguing for, to right the wrongs of the British past?
Yes. Except Garcia which we keep as a sovereign base. We then offer Chagos defence guarantees if they want to take them. Job done.
None of that is up to the UK. The US decides who comes to NSF Diego Garcia and they won't have Chagossian scrandies wandering around.
Should be obvious to everyone. The key point is that Trump has signed off on the deal, which was driven by America from the get go, despite Farage's protestations.
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Very few British voters care about Chagos. Those few who are irate, judging by comments here, are people who were never going to vote Labour anyway. Whatever the rights or wrongs of this decision, it’s not what’s going to decide the next general election, or any election in the UK.
No it won't decide it. Very few individual things decide an election. It feeds a narrative. That currently being 'when Labour negotiates, Britain loses', and Starmer being happy to give things away. There is no upside for SKS in it, there is some downside. And given his polling that's a bad result. Things like this do tend to end up hung as an Albatross round the neck too. 'And that stupid bloody Chagos deal'
You might be underestimating the public. They can raise their game sometimes.
Nah.theyve sussed him out. He's a wrong un and he does wrong un stuff
Is this shrewdie public going to suss Nigel Farage out too then before the election? Guess they're bound to.
No, they figure that out when the change they voted for is just more of the same and he gets bored and flounces again
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
I would expect Starmer to know the law on this. Also he's expending political capital on a deal with Mauritius, which I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do unless he thought it was necessary. Put together that suggests he's is correct on his points.
I listened to his 'live' press conference with his defence secretary and the army commander who looks after the base, and I think those critising the deal would have benefitted from listening to it as well
Apparently it will cost approx 100 million per year for a 99 year lease with an option to renew for 40 more years
The US pays all the operational costs and the deal is backed by the US, NATO, all our allies but apparently opposed by Russia, China and Iran
I am no fan of Starmer, but on this and having heard the details I have no problem with it
You stupid berk
This is how much it costs. It’s been added up - by an expert
🚨NEW: Chagos deal will cost £30bn
RENT: - £165m a year for the first 3 years - £120m a year for years 4-13 - Then £120m+inflation for years 14-99
PLUS: - £45m a year for 25 years for development - £40m one-off for Chagossian fund
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
I would expect Starmer to know the law on this. Also he's expending political capital on a deal with Mauritius, which I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do unless he thought it was necessary. Put together that suggests he's is correct on his points.
I listened to his 'live' press conference with his defence secretary and the army commander who looks after the base, and I think those critising the deal would have benefitted from listening to it as well
Apparently it will cost approx 100 million per year for a 99 year lease with an option to renew for 40 more years
The US pays all the operational costs and the deal is backed by the US, NATO, all our allies but apparently opposed by Russia, China and Iran
I am no fan of Starmer, but on this and having heard the details I have no problem with it
You have always struck me as someone who likes to be firmly within the rules as you see them - or as state authority figures (in this case Starmer) portrays them.
However, you must also try have recourse to your own common sense.
If ownership of this base is in Britain's vital strategic interests, then we must ignore the 'ruling' and retain sovereignty as the only guarantee.
If the base is no longer an important strategic possession for Britain, we should let those to whom it is a vital strategic possession, the USA, take on the base and its financial liabilities - because anything else at this time is recklessly unnecessary and unaffordable spending, and given that it will probably come out of our defence budget, will make British people less secure in sum. We cannot fire ownership of a base on Diego Garcia at the Russians when they come punting up the Thames can we?
Whatever Starmer says, and however much he tries to gussy this up as a patriotic step, those truths remain inescapable. I would suggest you don your 'big boy pants' and face up to the fact that Starmer’s premiership is an unfolding disaster, and every democratic means should be used to remove him.
Lol, he's losing the party. We know what happens next
"...Aubrey Allegretti @breeallegretti Exc: Labour MP Peter Lamb goes studs up in a WhatsApp group after Keir Starmer's Chagos deal announcement: "Getting real tired of this 'the courts have settled it' line of argument being wheeled out by the PM. They interpret current law, MPs make the law. You can't hide behind a judgement and claim it gives you cover from questions over what is right or proper."..." 4:17 pm · 22 May 2025
It's a personality flaw. He's a lawyer and has great respect for the law. He sees his role as playing the game as best he can within the rules. He misses the point that the PM can, and in certain cases must, change the rules or throw over the entire board if it's in the best interest of the UK. It never occurred to him to tell the Court to eff off.
Sorry but that's nonsense. The 'ruling' had no legal force - our entire participation in the court is predicated on the principle that its rulings concerning our territories are advisory in nature.
Starmer's old legal firm is representing Mauritius, and stands to earn a packet. It would of course be entirely right, proper and above board that in the course of time, they may make a sizable charitable donation to the 'Keir Starmer foundation' which will fund Sir Keir's vital humanitarian work (and vital swimming pool) in the future.
There are very few barristers' chambers so complaining about the whole "represented by the same firm" thing is nonsense. It is like having the same bank as your local supermarket.
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Very few British voters care about Chagos. Those few who are irate, judging by comments here, are people who were never going to vote Labour anyway. Whatever the rights or wrongs of this decision, it’s not what’s going to decide the next general election, or any election in the UK.
No it won't decide it. Very few individual things decide an election. It feeds a narrative. That currently being 'when Labour negotiates, Britain loses', and Starmer being happy to give things away. There is no upside for SKS in it, there is some downside. And given his polling that's a bad result. Things like this do tend to end up hung as an Albatross round the neck too. 'And that stupid bloody Chagos deal'
You might be underestimating the public. They can raise their game sometimes.
Nah.theyve sussed him out. He's a wrong un and he does wrong un stuff
Is this shrewdie public going to suss Nigel Farage out too then before the election? Guess they're bound to.
No, they figure that out when the change they voted for is just more of the same and he gets bored and flounces again
You do paint a bleak picture. Could be right but it's not going on my wall.
(count the months before it effectively becomes Chinese Indian Ocean Territory)
“Base is a 'unique asset' for Britain, senior officer says We're now hearing from senior British Army officer Gen James Hockenhull. He says that the base's location provides "immense global reach", making it a "unique asset" for British security. "I welcome the long-term certainty that this treaty brings. It will help the British Armed Forces in our efforts to support stability abroad and security at home," Hockenhull says.
What’s the actual detail on that which would require actual ongoing UK ownership, and not that ownership passed on to India and USA, who sat at the table with us negotiating this?
Is the bottom line of UK continuing Garcia on a lease, and not someone else holding same lease, continued UK interoperability with US weapons and nuclear weapons?
General Hockenhull comments in the press conference provided credence for Starmer
However, if Starmer misled about the costs then that is riduculous and will cause an issue for him
This from Sky news
Confusion over true cost of Chagos deal
Earlier today, Sir Keir Starmer said the net cost of the Chagos deal was £3.4bn, with an average cost of £101m a year over the 99-year deal.
There was confusion at the time as to why the total cost was not £10bn.
And things were only made murkier when the full agreement between the UK and Mauritius was published.
It revealed the UK will pay:
£165m a year for the first three years; £120m for years four to 13; £120m plus inflation for every year after to year 99; £40m as a one-off to a fund for Chagossians; £45m a year for 25 years for Mauritian development. If inflation were to remain zero for the next century, this would work out to around £10bn over 99 years.
Assuming an average of 2% inflation, Sky News analysis suggests costs could rise as high as £30bn.
However, the government is insisting the cost is still just £3.4bn as the long term financing is accounted with a social time preference rate.
This is "standard" practice and adjusts the value of high spends over the long term as part of cost-benefit analysis and is Treasury sanctioned, the government claims.
It's a murky area and doesn't help with allegations the government is not being entirely transparent with this issue.
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
I would expect Starmer to know the law on this. Also he's expending political capital on a deal with Mauritius, which I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do unless he thought it was necessary. Put together that suggests he's is correct on his points.
I listened to his 'live' press conference with his defence secretary and the army commander who looks after the base, and I think those critising the deal would have benefitted from listening to it as well
Apparently it will cost approx 100 million per year for a 99 year lease with an option to renew for 40 more years
The US pays all the operational costs and the deal is backed by the US, NATO, all our allies but apparently opposed by Russia, China and Iran
I am no fan of Starmer, but on this and having heard the details I have no problem with it
You stupid berk
This is how much it costs. It’s been added up - by an expert
🚨NEW: Chagos deal will cost £30bn
RENT: - £165m a year for the first 3 years - £120m a year for years 4-13 - Then £120m+inflation for years 14-99
PLUS: - £45m a year for 25 years for development - £40m one-off for Chagossian fund
It appears that you want to side with Russia, China and Iran v the UK, US, NATO and our allies all of whom approve the deal
I know which side I am even if I am an old stupid berk !!!!!
I don’t really care. You’re an idiot
This guy is a self declared Centrist Dad and political commentator. And usually pro Starmer. Even he can’t believe it
“Don’t understand how you spend £9 Billion giving away the Chagos islands and then continue complaining about huge holes in the budget and how brutal cuts need to be made. Just don’t understand how Labour maintain that narrative now”.
An hour later:
“So apparently, the Chagos deal won’t cost the UK £9 billion. It will cost us £30 billion.”
The money side of it is the biggest vulnerability for Labour.
At the end of the day it’s very difficult for the average voter to digest the minutiae of the deal, but it’s very easy for the average voter to see it and come away with “Starmer gives away our territory, any pays our money for the privilege of doing so.”
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Very few British voters care about Chagos. Those few who are irate, judging by comments here, are people who were never going to vote Labour anyway. Whatever the rights or wrongs of this decision, it’s not what’s going to decide the next general election, or any election in the UK.
No it won't decide it. Very few individual things decide an election. It feeds a narrative. That currently being 'when Labour negotiates, Britain loses', and Starmer being happy to give things away. There is no upside for SKS in it, there is some downside. And given his polling that's a bad result. Things like this do tend to end up hung as an Albatross round the neck too. 'And that stupid bloody Chagos deal'
You might be underestimating the public. They can raise their game sometimes.
Nah.theyve sussed him out. He's a wrong un and he does wrong un stuff
Is this shrewdie public going to suss Nigel Farage out too then before the election? Guess they're bound to.
No, they figure that out when the change they voted for is just more of the same and he gets bored and flounces again
You do paint a bleak picture. Could be right but it's not going on my wall.
I'm done with the lot of them to be fair. I'll vote Galloway or Rupert Lowes new party or maybe Magic Grandpas new one and to hell with the establishment. Absolute arseholes.
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
I would expect Starmer to know the law on this. Also he's expending political capital on a deal with Mauritius, which I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do unless he thought it was necessary. Put together that suggests he's is correct on his points.
I listened to his 'live' press conference with his defence secretary and the army commander who looks after the base, and I think those critising the deal would have benefitted from listening to it as well
Apparently it will cost approx 100 million per year for a 99 year lease with an option to renew for 40 more years
The US pays all the operational costs and the deal is backed by the US, NATO, all our allies but apparently opposed by Russia, China and Iran
I am no fan of Starmer, but on this and having heard the details I have no problem with it
You have always struck me as someone who likes to be firmly within the rules as you see them - or as state authority figures (in this case Starmer) portrays them.
However, you must also try have recourse to your own common sense.
If ownership of this base is in Britain's vital strategic interests, then we must ignore the 'ruling' and retain sovereignty as the only guarantee.
If the base is no longer an important strategic possession for Britain, we should let those to whom it is a vital strategic possession, the USA, take on the base and its financial liabilities - because anything else at this time is recklessly unnecessary and unaffordable spending, and given that it will probably come out of our defence budget, will make British people less secure in sum. We cannot fire ownership of a base on Diego Garcia at the Russians when they come punting up the Thames can we?
Whatever Starmer says, and however much he tries to gussy this up as a patriotic step, those truths remain inescapable. I would suggest you don your 'big boy pants' and face up to the fact that Starmer’s premiership is an unfolding disaster, and every democratic means should be used to remove him.
I have no doubt that Starmer is a disaster and if he provided misleading figures as per Sky report than he is just frankly, stupid
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
I would expect Starmer to know the law on this. Also he's expending political capital on a deal with Mauritius, which I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do unless he thought it was necessary. Put together that suggests he's is correct on his points.
I listened to his 'live' press conference with his defence secretary and the army commander who looks after the base, and I think those critising the deal would have benefitted from listening to it as well
Apparently it will cost approx 100 million per year for a 99 year lease with an option to renew for 40 more years
The US pays all the operational costs and the deal is backed by the US, NATO, all our allies but apparently opposed by Russia, China and Iran
I am no fan of Starmer, but on this and having heard the details I have no problem with it
You stupid berk
This is how much it costs. It’s been added up - by an expert
🚨NEW: Chagos deal will cost £30bn
RENT: - £165m a year for the first 3 years - £120m a year for years 4-13 - Then £120m+inflation for years 14-99
PLUS: - £45m a year for 25 years for development - £40m one-off for Chagossian fund
It appears that you want to side with Russia, China and Iran v the UK, US, NATO and our allies all of whom approve the deal
I know which side I am even if I am an old stupid berk !!!!!
I don’t really care. You’re an idiot
This guy is a self declared Centrist Dad and political commentator. And usually pro Starmer. Even he can’t believe it
“Don’t understand how you spend £9 Billion giving away the Chagos islands and then continue complaining about huge holes in the budget and how brutal cuts need to be made. Just don’t understand how Labour maintain that narrative now”.
An hour later:
“So apparently, the Chagos deal won’t cost the UK £9 billion. It will cost us £30 billion.”
The money side of it is the biggest vulnerability for Labour.
At the end of the day it’s very difficult for the average voter to digest the minutiae of the deal, but it’s very easy for the average voter to see it and come away with “Starmer gives away our territory, any pays our money for the privilege of doing so.”
That’ll be hard to combat.
If only this site had someone with genius level IQ on board we might be able to move the debate beyond that. Oh well, never mind.....
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Very few British voters care about Chagos. Those few who are irate, judging by comments here, are people who were never going to vote Labour anyway. Whatever the rights or wrongs of this decision, it’s not what’s going to decide the next general election, or any election in the UK.
No it won't decide it. Very few individual things decide an election. It feeds a narrative. That currently being 'when Labour negotiates, Britain loses', and Starmer being happy to give things away. There is no upside for SKS in it, there is some downside. And given his polling that's a bad result. Things like this do tend to end up hung as an Albatross round the neck too. 'And that stupid bloody Chagos deal'
You might be underestimating the public. They can raise their game sometimes.
Nah.theyve sussed him out. He's a wrong un and he does wrong un stuff
Is this shrewdie public going to suss Nigel Farage out too then before the election? Guess they're bound to.
No, they figure that out when the change they voted for is just more of the same and he gets bored and flounces again
You do paint a bleak picture. Could be right but it's not going on my wall.
I'm done with the lot of them to be fair. I'll vote Galloway or Rupert Lowes new party or maybe Magic Grandpas new one and to hell with the establishment. Absolute arseholes.
Best not to vote at all if you feel like that. It's like losing your temper and kicking the cat.
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
I would expect Starmer to know the law on this. Also he's expending political capital on a deal with Mauritius, which I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do unless he thought it was necessary. Put together that suggests he's is correct on his points.
I listened to his 'live' press conference with his defence secretary and the army commander who looks after the base, and I think those critising the deal would have benefitted from listening to it as well
Apparently it will cost approx 100 million per year for a 99 year lease with an option to renew for 40 more years
The US pays all the operational costs and the deal is backed by the US, NATO, all our allies but apparently opposed by Russia, China and Iran
I am no fan of Starmer, but on this and having heard the details I have no problem with it
You stupid berk
This is how much it costs. It’s been added up - by an expert
🚨NEW: Chagos deal will cost £30bn
RENT: - £165m a year for the first 3 years - £120m a year for years 4-13 - Then £120m+inflation for years 14-99
PLUS: - £45m a year for 25 years for development - £40m one-off for Chagossian fund
It appears that you want to side with Russia, China and Iran v the UK, US, NATO and our allies all of whom approve the deal
I know which side I am even if I am an old stupid berk !!!!!
I don’t really care. You’re an idiot
This guy is a self declared Centrist Dad and political commentator. And usually pro Starmer. Even he can’t believe it
“Don’t understand how you spend £9 Billion giving away the Chagos islands and then continue complaining about huge holes in the budget and how brutal cuts need to be made. Just don’t understand how Labour maintain that narrative now”.
An hour later:
“So apparently, the Chagos deal won’t cost the UK £9 billion. It will cost us £30 billion.”
(count the months before it effectively becomes Chinese Indian Ocean Territory)
“Base is a 'unique asset' for Britain, senior officer says We're now hearing from senior British Army officer Gen James Hockenhull. He says that the base's location provides "immense global reach", making it a "unique asset" for British security. "I welcome the long-term certainty that this treaty brings. It will help the British Armed Forces in our efforts to support stability abroad and security at home," Hockenhull says.
What’s the actual detail on that which would require actual ongoing UK ownership, and not that ownership passed on to India and USA, who sat at the table with us negotiating this?
Is the bottom line of UK continuing Garcia on a lease, and not someone else holding same lease, continued UK interoperability with US weapons and nuclear weapons?
General Hockenhull comments in the press conference provided credence for Starmer
However, if Starmer misled about the costs then that is riduculous and will cause an issue for him
This from Sky news
Confusion over true cost of Chagos deal
Earlier today, Sir Keir Starmer said the net cost of the Chagos deal was £3.4bn, with an average cost of £101m a year over the 99-year deal.
There was confusion at the time as to why the total cost was not £10bn.
And things were only made murkier when the full agreement between the UK and Mauritius was published.
It revealed the UK will pay:
£165m a year for the first three years; £120m for years four to 13; £120m plus inflation for every year after to year 99; £40m as a one-off to a fund for Chagossians; £45m a year for 25 years for Mauritian development. If inflation were to remain zero for the next century, this would work out to around £10bn over 99 years.
Assuming an average of 2% inflation, Sky News analysis suggests costs could rise as high as £30bn.
However, the government is insisting the cost is still just £3.4bn as the long term financing is accounted with a social time preference rate.
This is "standard" practice and adjusts the value of high spends over the long term as part of cost-benefit analysis and is Treasury sanctioned, the government claims.
It's a murky area and doesn't help with allegations the government is not being entirely transparent with this issue.
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Very few British voters care about Chagos. Those few who are irate, judging by comments here, are people who were never going to vote Labour anyway. Whatever the rights or wrongs of this decision, it’s not what’s going to decide the next general election, or any election in the UK.
No it won't decide it. Very few individual things decide an election. It feeds a narrative. That currently being 'when Labour negotiates, Britain loses', and Starmer being happy to give things away. There is no upside for SKS in it, there is some downside. And given his polling that's a bad result. Things like this do tend to end up hung as an Albatross round the neck too. 'And that stupid bloody Chagos deal'
You might be underestimating the public. They can raise their game sometimes.
Nah.theyve sussed him out. He's a wrong un and he does wrong un stuff
Is this shrewdie public going to suss Nigel Farage out too then before the election? Guess they're bound to.
No, they figure that out when the change they voted for is just more of the same and he gets bored and flounces again
You do paint a bleak picture. Could be right but it's not going on my wall.
I'm done with the lot of them to be fair. I'll vote Galloway or Rupert Lowes new party or maybe Magic Grandpas new one and to hell with the establishment. Absolute arseholes.
Best not to vote at all if you feel like that. It's like losing your temper and kicking the cat.
I'd never kick a cat. Cats are our overlords. And I always vote. So I can be validly grouchy
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Very few British voters care about Chagos. Those few who are irate, judging by comments here, are people who were never going to vote Labour anyway. Whatever the rights or wrongs of this decision, it’s not what’s going to decide the next general election, or any election in the UK.
No it won't decide it. Very few individual things decide an election. It feeds a narrative. That currently being 'when Labour negotiates, Britain loses', and Starmer being happy to give things away. There is no upside for SKS in it, there is some downside. And given his polling that's a bad result. Things like this do tend to end up hung as an Albatross round the neck too. 'And that stupid bloody Chagos deal'
You might be underestimating the public. They can raise their game sometimes.
Nah.theyve sussed him out. He's a wrong un and he does wrong un stuff
Is this shrewdie public going to suss Nigel Farage out too then before the election? Guess they're bound to.
No, they figure that out when the change they voted for is just more of the same and he gets bored and flounces again
You do paint a bleak picture. Could be right but it's not going on my wall.
I'm done with the lot of them to be fair. I'll vote Galloway or Rupert Lowes new party or maybe Magic Grandpas new one and to hell with the establishment. Absolute arseholes.
Best not to vote at all if you feel like that. It's like losing your temper and kicking the cat.
I'd never kick a cat. Cats are our overlords. And I always vote. So I can be validly grouchy
Yes, cats rule. Mine just bit me but it's me saying sorry.
Chagos. To 95% the story is simply he's given away our territory and is paying to lease it back. Any further nuance pro or anti is lost
Possibly. But polls did show public backing for it.
As they did for most of the Truss budget in the immediate aftermath. Many people are not invested, but those that are pissed off are REALLY pissed off - its one of 'those' issues (one of the few things my Dad has been properly exercised about lately for example instead of just grumpy about). And the news channels are already running interviews with furious Chagossians which will bring fresh perspective to some. It has potential to vastly outweigh it's actual importance. It also has strong 'Albatross' potential for SKS
Very few British voters care about Chagos. Those few who are irate, judging by comments here, are people who were never going to vote Labour anyway. Whatever the rights or wrongs of this decision, it’s not what’s going to decide the next general election, or any election in the UK.
No it won't decide it. Very few individual things decide an election. It feeds a narrative. That currently being 'when Labour negotiates, Britain loses', and Starmer being happy to give things away. There is no upside for SKS in it, there is some downside. And given his polling that's a bad result. Things like this do tend to end up hung as an Albatross round the neck too. 'And that stupid bloody Chagos deal'
You might be underestimating the public. They can raise their game sometimes.
Nah.theyve sussed him out. He's a wrong un and he does wrong un stuff
Is this shrewdie public going to suss Nigel Farage out too then before the election? Guess they're bound to.
No, they figure that out when the change they voted for is just more of the same and he gets bored and flounces again
You do paint a bleak picture. Could be right but it's not going on my wall.
I'm done with the lot of them to be fair. I'll vote Galloway or Rupert Lowes new party or maybe Magic Grandpas new one and to hell with the establishment. Absolute arseholes.
Best not to vote at all if you feel like that. It's like losing your temper and kicking the cat.
I'd never kick a cat. Cats are our overlords. And I always vote. So I can be validly grouchy
Yes, cats rule. Mine just bit me but it's me saying sorry.
Absolutely. The bite was clearly affectionate in any case. And if a cat ignores you it is always but always justified due to being on official cat business
(count the months before it effectively becomes Chinese Indian Ocean Territory)
“Base is a 'unique asset' for Britain, senior officer says We're now hearing from senior British Army officer Gen James Hockenhull. He says that the base's location provides "immense global reach", making it a "unique asset" for British security. "I welcome the long-term certainty that this treaty brings. It will help the British Armed Forces in our efforts to support stability abroad and security at home," Hockenhull says.
What’s the actual detail on that which would require actual ongoing UK ownership, and not that ownership passed on to India and USA, who sat at the table with us negotiating this?
Is the bottom line of UK continuing Garcia on a lease, and not someone else holding same lease, continued UK interoperability with US weapons and nuclear weapons?
General Hockenhull comments in the press conference provided credence for Starmer
However, if Starmer misled about the costs then that is riduculous and will cause an issue for him
This from Sky news
Confusion over true cost of Chagos deal
Earlier today, Sir Keir Starmer said the net cost of the Chagos deal was £3.4bn, with an average cost of £101m a year over the 99-year deal.
There was confusion at the time as to why the total cost was not £10bn.
And things were only made murkier when the full agreement between the UK and Mauritius was published.
It revealed the UK will pay:
£165m a year for the first three years; £120m for years four to 13; £120m plus inflation for every year after to year 99; £40m as a one-off to a fund for Chagossians; £45m a year for 25 years for Mauritian development. If inflation were to remain zero for the next century, this would work out to around £10bn over 99 years.
Assuming an average of 2% inflation, Sky News analysis suggests costs could rise as high as £30bn.
However, the government is insisting the cost is still just £3.4bn as the long term financing is accounted with a social time preference rate.
This is "standard" practice and adjusts the value of high spends over the long term as part of cost-benefit analysis and is Treasury sanctioned, the government claims.
It's a murky area and doesn't help with allegations the government is not being entirely transparent with this issue.
Seems like a bargain compared to brexit.
All this concern about £££ from Leavers suddenly. Go figure.
The Chagos deal has to be voted on so the costs will have to be shown clearly. It’s somewhat confusing at the moment as to how the 3.4 billion pound figure was reached .
The Chagos deal has to be voted on so the costs will have to be shown clearly. It’s somewhat confusing at the moment as to how the 3.4 billion pound figure was reached .
No vote required. It has to be laid before parliament for 21 days and they can vote to delay it for 21 days (repeatedly if they want) but I believe no approval is required for it to be enforced
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
I would expect Starmer to know the law on this. Also he's expending political capital on a deal with Mauritius, which I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do unless he thought it was necessary. Put together that suggests he's is correct on his points.
I listened to his 'live' press conference with his defence secretary and the army commander who looks after the base, and I think those critising the deal would have benefitted from listening to it as well
Apparently it will cost approx 100 million per year for a 99 year lease with an option to renew for 40 more years
The US pays all the operational costs and the deal is backed by the US, NATO, all our allies but apparently opposed by Russia, China and Iran
I am no fan of Starmer, but on this and having heard the details I have no problem with it
It’s quite complicated looking at the details . The actual tv headlines don’t have time to go through all the detail .
It's also more than a touch confusing that the 'breakdown' that keeps getting reported, mentioned inflation.
But then Downing Street have come out and said the £3.4b figure is in 'today's money' because the yearly payments will gradually be eroded due to inflation.
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
I would expect Starmer to know the law on this. Also he's expending political capital on a deal with Mauritius, which I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do unless he thought it was necessary. Put together that suggests he's is correct on his points.
I listened to his 'live' press conference with his defence secretary and the army commander who looks after the base, and I think those critising the deal would have benefitted from listening to it as well
Apparently it will cost approx 100 million per year for a 99 year lease with an option to renew for 40 more years
The US pays all the operational costs and the deal is backed by the US, NATO, all our allies but apparently opposed by Russia, China and Iran
I am no fan of Starmer, but on this and having heard the details I have no problem with it
It’s quite complicated looking at the details . The actual tv headlines don’t have time to go through all the detail .
It's also more than a touch confusing that the 'breakdown' that keeps getting reported, mentioned inflation.
But then Downing Street have come out and said the £3.4b figure is in 'today's money' because the yearly payments will gradually be eroded due to inflation.
Made up figures like the 22 billion imaginary hole
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
I would expect Starmer to know the law on this. Also he's expending political capital on a deal with Mauritius, which I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do unless he thought it was necessary. Put together that suggests he's is correct on his points.
I listened to his 'live' press conference with his defence secretary and the army commander who looks after the base, and I think those critising the deal would have benefitted from listening to it as well
Apparently it will cost approx 100 million per year for a 99 year lease with an option to renew for 40 more years
The US pays all the operational costs and the deal is backed by the US, NATO, all our allies but apparently opposed by Russia, China and Iran
I am no fan of Starmer, but on this and having heard the details I have no problem with it
You have always struck me as someone who likes to be firmly within the rules as you see them - or as state authority figures (in this case Starmer) portrays them.
However, you must also try have recourse to your own common sense.
If ownership of this base is in Britain's vital strategic interests, then we must ignore the 'ruling' and retain sovereignty as the only guarantee.
If the base is no longer an important strategic possession for Britain, we should let those to whom it is a vital strategic possession, the USA, take on the base and its financial liabilities - because anything else at this time is recklessly unnecessary and unaffordable spending, and given that it will probably come out of our defence budget, will make British people less secure in sum. We cannot fire ownership of a base on Diego Garcia at the Russians when they come punting up the Thames can we?
Whatever Starmer says, and however much he tries to gussy this up as a patriotic step, those truths remain inescapable. I would suggest you don your 'big boy pants' and face up to the fact that Starmer’s premiership is an unfolding disaster, and every democratic means should be used to remove him.
I have no doubt that Starmer is a disaster and if he provided misleading figures as per Sky report than he is just frankly, stupid
X Andrew Neil@afneil The implication is that it’s somehow a result of Labour government policy. But of course it isn’t. And you know it isn’t. The Starmer government is gaining quite the reputation for misleading and spreading untruths. https://x.com/afneil/status/1925555407520473357
The Chagos deal has to be voted on so the costs will have to be shown clearly. It’s somewhat confusing at the moment as to how the 3.4 billion pound figure was reached .
I hope Starmer has not misled the public at the conference as that would be unforgiveable
He clearly said the annual cost would be no more than an aircraft carrier at sea for a year excluding the planes, and repeated this claim
Lol Harvard has been blocked from enrolling foreign students.
What’s funny about it . It’s outrageous that the US government is interfering in this way .
The cluster fuck that is America is funny. I'm not going to spend my life breathlessly outraged by absolutely everything. Theres plenty at home for that
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
I would expect Starmer to know the law on this. Also he's expending political capital on a deal with Mauritius, which I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do unless he thought it was necessary. Put together that suggests he's is correct on his points.
I listened to his 'live' press conference with his defence secretary and the army commander who looks after the base, and I think those critising the deal would have benefitted from listening to it as well
Apparently it will cost approx 100 million per year for a 99 year lease with an option to renew for 40 more years
The US pays all the operational costs and the deal is backed by the US, NATO, all our allies but apparently opposed by Russia, China and Iran
I am no fan of Starmer, but on this and having heard the details I have no problem with it
It’s quite complicated looking at the details . The actual tv headlines don’t have time to go through all the detail .
It's also more than a touch confusing that the 'breakdown' that keeps getting reported, mentioned inflation.
But then Downing Street have come out and said the £3.4b figure is in 'today's money' because the yearly payments will gradually be eroded due to inflation.
Listening to Starmer on his signing the Chagos deal I do not see it a problem and certainly nothing for reform or the conservatives to get all het up about
I would expect Starmer to know the law on this. Also he's expending political capital on a deal with Mauritius, which I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do unless he thought it was necessary. Put together that suggests he's is correct on his points.
I listened to his 'live' press conference with his defence secretary and the army commander who looks after the base, and I think those critising the deal would have benefitted from listening to it as well
Apparently it will cost approx 100 million per year for a 99 year lease with an option to renew for 40 more years
The US pays all the operational costs and the deal is backed by the US, NATO, all our allies but apparently opposed by Russia, China and Iran
I am no fan of Starmer, but on this and having heard the details I have no problem with it
It’s quite complicated looking at the details . The actual tv headlines don’t have time to go through all the detail .
It's also more than a touch confusing that the 'breakdown' that keeps getting reported, mentioned inflation.
But then Downing Street have come out and said the £3.4b figure is in 'today's money' because the yearly payments will gradually be eroded due to inflation.
Made up figures like the 22 billion imaginary hole
That's interesting because the black hole absolutely wasn't imaginary and no-one serious thought it was. In fact the biggest problem this administration has in governing is not increasing taxes enough. The political calculation may be different however - raising taxes doesn't play well generally.
(count the months before it effectively becomes Chinese Indian Ocean Territory)
“Base is a 'unique asset' for Britain, senior officer says We're now hearing from senior British Army officer Gen James Hockenhull. He says that the base's location provides "immense global reach", making it a "unique asset" for British security. "I welcome the long-term certainty that this treaty brings. It will help the British Armed Forces in our efforts to support stability abroad and security at home," Hockenhull says.
What’s the actual detail on that which would require actual ongoing UK ownership, and not that ownership passed on to India and USA, who sat at the table with us negotiating this?
Is the bottom line of UK continuing Garcia on a lease, and not someone else holding same lease, continued UK interoperability with US weapons and nuclear weapons?
General Hockenhull comments in the press conference provided credence for Starmer
However, if Starmer misled about the costs then that is riduculous and will cause an issue for him
This from Sky news
Confusion over true cost of Chagos deal
Earlier today, Sir Keir Starmer said the net cost of the Chagos deal was £3.4bn, with an average cost of £101m a year over the 99-year deal.
There was confusion at the time as to why the total cost was not £10bn.
And things were only made murkier when the full agreement between the UK and Mauritius was published.
It revealed the UK will pay:
£165m a year for the first three years; £120m for years four to 13; £120m plus inflation for every year after to year 99; £40m as a one-off to a fund for Chagossians; £45m a year for 25 years for Mauritian development. If inflation were to remain zero for the next century, this would work out to around £10bn over 99 years.
Assuming an average of 2% inflation, Sky News analysis suggests costs could rise as high as £30bn.
However, the government is insisting the cost is still just £3.4bn as the long term financing is accounted with a social time preference rate.
This is "standard" practice and adjusts the value of high spends over the long term as part of cost-benefit analysis and is Treasury sanctioned, the government claims.
It's a murky area and doesn't help with allegations the government is not being entirely transparent with this issue.
Seems like a bargain compared to brexit.
All this concern about £££ from Leavers suddenly. Go figure.
Its not the £££ that worry me more has Starmer misled the public on the costs ?
There is a vast difference between the £3.5 billion he quoted and £30 billion now suggested
Lol Harvard has been blocked from enrolling foreign students.
If so, that is bad for us, isn't it? Certainly for the British students who would have gone there.
It's bad for anyone non US who might have been planning to go, yeah. Sometimes you just have to chuckle at the goings on or, you know, life would be sad
The Chagos deal has to be voted on so the costs will have to be shown clearly. It’s somewhat confusing at the moment as to how the 3.4 billion pound figure was reached .
I hope Starmer has not misled the public at the conference as that would be unforgiveable
He clearly said the annual cost would be no more than an aircraft carrier at sea for a year excluding the planes, and repeated this claim
He surely couldn’t be that stupid . I’ve looked at the figures again and again and just can’t work out how they got to 3.4 billion pounds .
Comments
Specifically, what “vital capabilities” will UK get from extending ownership of Garcia, and not passing that on to India and USA?
Are we merely pretending it’s 100 years ago and we are still a player in the region, or are we actually getting something tangible from ownership we wouldn’t from security partnership with India and US?
The Tories lost their good MPs at the last election and retained the (to be kind) less good.
I don't know quite what's left, but unless I had a very long and heavily electrical stick I'm happy not to probe.
Chagossians 'ready to fight until the end' as High Court lifts injunction allowing Chagos Islands deal to proceed
(count the months before it effectively becomes Chinese Indian Ocean Territory)
There should be a "some" before Chagossians in the headline there.
But they’re not that close to each other, so one might argue that the Chagossians had their own identity.
We're now hearing from senior British Army officer Gen James Hockenhull.
He says that the base's location provides "immense global reach", making it a "unique asset" for British security.
"I welcome the long-term certainty that this treaty brings. It will help the British Armed Forces in our efforts to support stability abroad and security at home," Hockenhull says.
What’s the actual detail on that which would require actual ongoing UK ownership, and not that ownership passed on to India and USA, who sat at the table with us negotiating this?
Is the bottom line of UK continuing Garcia on a lease, and not someone else holding same lease, continued UK interoperability with US weapons and nuclear weapons?
My only guess (hope) is that it's a "technicality" and possession is nine tenths of the law, but Mauritius still now has the freehold and can be heavily pressured through force of geopolitics.
There is no upside for SKS in it, there is some downside. And given his polling that's a bad result.
Things like this do tend to end up hung as an Albatross round the neck too. 'And that stupid bloody Chagos deal'
I’m glad I’m driving or I would say such things that might lead me….. I won’t even go there
Suffice to say that when and if we finally get our Reform government we must come after all those responsible. From Starmer down. And we want trials and jails
And of course we repudiate the treaty
https://x.com/gbnews/status/1925578892540071958
The Chagossians would be happier with resettling the rest of the Archipelago and complaining about Garcia than what this achieves I'd imagine
I also know it was signed in the first place because Britain wanted to be seen as a fair and responsible power, rather than simply claiming the land outright, because they thought they would bring them more influence, more friends and trade with that approach. In that sense it does tie in with what UK done today, and the reasons it did it.
But did you know US drew plans to seize Hong Kong from the British Empire?
Apparently it will cost approx 100 million per year for a 99 year lease with an option to renew for 40 more years
The US pays all the operational costs and the deal is backed by the US, NATO, all our allies but apparently opposed by Russia, China and Iran
I am no fan of Starmer, but on this and having heard the details I have no problem with it
This is how much it costs. It’s been added up - by an expert
🚨NEW: Chagos deal will cost £30bn
RENT:
- £165m a year for the first 3 years
- £120m a year for years 4-13
- Then £120m+inflation for years 14-99
PLUS:
- £45m a year for 25 years for development
- £40m one-off for Chagossian fund
Assuming 2% inflation, total cost is £30.3bn
https://x.com/tony_diver/status/1925575848976904283?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
It so bad it is mind-numbing
It appears that you want to side with Russia, China and Iran v the UK, US, NATO and our allies all of whom approve the deal
I know which side I am on even if I am an old stupid berk !!!!!
This guy is a self declared Centrist Dad and political commentator. And usually pro Starmer. Even he can’t believe it
“Don’t understand how you spend £9
Billion giving away the Chagos islands and then continue complaining about huge holes in the budget and how brutal cuts need to be made. Just don’t understand how Labour maintain that narrative now”.
An hour later:
“So apparently, the Chagos deal won’t cost the UK £9 billion. It will cost us £30 billion.”
https://x.com/nicholastyrone/status/1925531328256074050?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
The whole thing feels suicidally stupid by Labour
However, you must also try have recourse to your own common sense.
If ownership of this base is in Britain's vital strategic interests, then we must ignore the 'ruling' and retain sovereignty as the only guarantee.
If the base is no longer an important strategic possession for Britain, we should let those to whom it is a vital strategic possession, the USA, take on the base and its financial liabilities - because anything else at this time is recklessly unnecessary and unaffordable spending, and given that it will probably come out of our defence budget, will make British people less secure in sum. We cannot fire ownership of a base on Diego Garcia at the Russians when they come punting up the Thames can we?
Whatever Starmer says, and however much he tries to gussy this up as a patriotic step, those truths remain inescapable. I would suggest you don your 'big boy pants' and face up to the fact that Starmer’s premiership is an unfolding disaster, and every democratic means should be used to remove him.
However, if Starmer misled about the costs then that is riduculous and will cause an issue for him
This from Sky news
Confusion over true cost of Chagos deal
Earlier today, Sir Keir Starmer said the net cost of the Chagos deal was £3.4bn, with an average cost of £101m a year over the 99-year deal.
There was confusion at the time as to why the total cost was not £10bn.
And things were only made murkier when the full agreement between the UK and Mauritius was published.
It revealed the UK will pay:
£165m a year for the first three years;
£120m for years four to 13;
£120m plus inflation for every year after to year 99;
£40m as a one-off to a fund for Chagossians;
£45m a year for 25 years for Mauritian development.
If inflation were to remain zero for the next century, this would work out to around £10bn over 99 years.
Assuming an average of 2% inflation, Sky News analysis suggests costs could rise as high as £30bn.
However, the government is insisting the cost is still just £3.4bn as the long term financing is accounted with a social time preference rate.
This is "standard" practice and adjusts the value of high spends over the long term as part of cost-benefit analysis and is Treasury sanctioned, the government claims.
It's a murky area and doesn't help with allegations the government is not being entirely transparent with this issue.
At the end of the day it’s very difficult for the average voter to digest the minutiae of the deal, but it’s very easy for the average voter to see it and come away with “Starmer gives away our territory, any pays our money for the privilege of doing so.”
That’ll be hard to combat.
And I always vote. So I can be validly grouchy
Costs will be shown in this period though
But then Downing Street have come out and said the £3.4b figure is in 'today's money' because the yearly payments will gradually be eroded due to inflation.
Nick Lloyd
@nick_lloy
Astonishing small print of the Chagos surrender deal
https://x.com/nick_lloy/status/1925611179436593306
Andrew Neil@afneil
The implication is that it’s somehow a result of Labour government policy.
But of course it isn’t.
And you know it isn’t.
The Starmer government is gaining quite the reputation for misleading and spreading untruths.
https://x.com/afneil/status/1925555407520473357
https://www.temple.mu/discussingthechagosissue/
He clearly said the annual cost would be no more than an aircraft carrier at sea for a year excluding the planes, and repeated this claim
There is a vast difference between the £3.5 billion he quoted and £30 billion now suggested