There is an awful lot of hot air in this government press release. What substance (if any) in terms of either procurement or domestic manufacturing lies behind it ? (If there were anything concrete, surely they'd be publicising it ?)
RCH 155 is developed by a German defence company. I'd guess questions about whether there would be localised manufacturing will depend on the size of Britain's component of the final joint order.
Given that Britain is getting one to test and the Germans two, I would hazard a guess that this will be an import situation.
They claim it will speed up procurement, but the cubic in me wonders whether the joint procurement will simply multiply the chances of it being messed up and delayed. Hopefully each side will be able to tell the other when they're asking for something unnecessary and it will create the external discipline to concentrate on the important things.
It's based on the Boxer APC. Which is made in Telford (after the UK rejoined the program). First one off the line this year, IIRC.
Hopefully, they have tape measures in Telford, and use jigs.
If the deal includes manufacturing rights, then it might be a decent one. It's just the lack of any detail at all in the announcement that makes me suspicious.
There's no good reason - either of security or manufacturing confidentiality - to write government announcements like that.
And the public are utterly tired if empty hyperbole. It's the same language used to describe the disastrous Ajax programme.
There is an awful lot of hot air in this government press release. What substance (if any) in terms of either procurement or domestic manufacturing lies behind it ? (If there were anything concrete, surely they'd be publicising it ?)
RCH 155 is developed by a German defence company. I'd guess questions about whether there would be localised manufacturing will depend on the size of Britain's component of the final joint order.
Given that Britain is getting one to test and the Germans two, I would hazard a guess that this will be an import situation.
They claim it will speed up procurement, but the cubic in me wonders whether the joint procurement will simply multiply the chances of it being messed up and delayed. Hopefully each side will be able to tell the other when they're asking for something unnecessary and it will create the external discipline to concentrate on the important things.
It's based on the Boxer APC. Which is made in Telford (after the UK rejoined the program). First one off the line this year, IIRC.
Hopefully, they have tape measures in Telford, and use jigs.
If the deal includes manufacturing rights, then it might be a decent one. It's just the lack of any detail at all in the announcement that makes me suspicious.
There's no good reason - either of security or manufacturing confidentiality - to write government announcements like that.
And the public are utterly tired if empty hyperbole. It's the same language used to describe the disastrous Ajax programme.
At this stage it's just for one British (and two German) early capability demonstration vehicle(s). Does it matter where they are made?
Decent chance of it being different for the main production run.
The Guardian usually ignores stories that aren't good for Labour and Starmer so this is surprising.
"The decision by successive UK governments to campaign for the release and return of British-Egyptian democracy activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah has been called into question after past violent and offensive social media posts came to light."
That might occasionally be true, but in general it's just untrue.
In any event, I'd want to see rather more context before rushing to judgment.
..The posts cost him a nomination for the European parliament’s Sakharov prize in 2014. The group backing him withdrew their nomination for the human rights award, saying they had discovered a tweet from 2012 in which he called for the murder of Israelis.
In 2015, Abd el-Fattah claimed his comments had been taken out of context, and that while it had seemed “shocking”, it had been part of a “private conversation” that took place during an Israeli offensive in Gaza.
The decision to grant citizenship would have been made by the Home Office, which at that point was led by Priti Patel, advised by the Foreign Office, where Liz Truss was foreign secretary and James Cleverly was the minister for the region...
It's entirely possible to believe that el-Fattah is not at all an admirable person, even a quite unpleasant one, and at the same time his speech offence does not rise anywhere near the level of justifying being stripped of his citizenship.
That Farage should be calling for that, on the grounds that, quite some time in the past, he had used "the language of racism and bloodshed" seems particularly bloody hypocritical. And unsurprising.
There is an awful lot of hot air in this government press release. What substance (if any) in terms of either procurement or domestic manufacturing lies behind it ? (If there were anything concrete, surely they'd be publicising it ?)
RCH 155 is developed by a German defence company. I'd guess questions about whether there would be localised manufacturing will depend on the size of Britain's component of the final joint order.
Given that Britain is getting one to test and the Germans two, I would hazard a guess that this will be an import situation.
They claim it will speed up procurement, but the cubic in me wonders whether the joint procurement will simply multiply the chances of it being messed up and delayed. Hopefully each side will be able to tell the other when they're asking for something unnecessary and it will create the external discipline to concentrate on the important things.
It's based on the Boxer APC. Which is made in Telford (after the UK rejoined the program). First one off the line this year, IIRC.
Hopefully, they have tape measures in Telford, and use jigs.
What's the difference between Boxer and Ajax?
(Apologies if this is equivalent to asking if either of them are a tank...)
One of them doesn't permanently disable its operators. (And is a wheeled not tracked vehicle.)
There is an awful lot of hot air in this government press release. What substance (if any) in terms of either procurement or domestic manufacturing lies behind it ? (If there were anything concrete, surely they'd be publicising it ?)
RCH 155 is developed by a German defence company. I'd guess questions about whether there would be localised manufacturing will depend on the size of Britain's component of the final joint order.
Given that Britain is getting one to test and the Germans two, I would hazard a guess that this will be an import situation.
They claim it will speed up procurement, but the cubic in me wonders whether the joint procurement will simply multiply the chances of it being messed up and delayed. Hopefully each side will be able to tell the other when they're asking for something unnecessary and it will create the external discipline to concentrate on the important things.
It's based on the Boxer APC. Which is made in Telford (after the UK rejoined the program). First one off the line this year, IIRC.
Hopefully, they have tape measures in Telford, and use jigs.
If the deal includes manufacturing rights, then it might be a decent one. It's just the lack of any detail at all in the announcement that makes me suspicious.
There's no good reason - either of security or manufacturing confidentiality - to write government announcements like that.
And the public are utterly tired if empty hyperbole. It's the same language used to describe the disastrous Ajax programme.
At this stage it's just for one British (and two German) early capability demonstration vehicle(s). Does it matter where they are made?
Decent chance of it being different for the main production run.
The right to build them here certainly does, as it looks quite likely we'll order a significant number of them. There's both economic benefit - and a general benefit from an increase in European defence capacity - if we build our kit in the UK.
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
I demand that no one posts anything that raises issues I don't want to deal with.
Did I suggest that? It just seems an odd thing to want to flag up on this site.
It was discussed on Sky paper review with both contributors condemning the charity's position
Not sure why you are so sensitive to it being raised
Like many bleeding hearts here he's obsessed with "racism".
Which fucking idiot believes that US security guarantees would carry any credibility ?
Q:Did Putin agree to a ceasefire to allow a referendum?
Trump: Not a ceasefire. He feels that look,you know, they're fighting and to stop. & then if they have to start again, he doesn't want to be in that position. I understand Putin from that standpoint https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/2005406314004979838
There is an awful lot of hot air in this government press release. What substance (if any) in terms of either procurement or domestic manufacturing lies behind it ? (If there were anything concrete, surely they'd be publicising it ?)
RCH 155 is developed by a German defence company. I'd guess questions about whether there would be localised manufacturing will depend on the size of Britain's component of the final joint order.
Given that Britain is getting one to test and the Germans two, I would hazard a guess that this will be an import situation.
They claim it will speed up procurement, but the cubic in me wonders whether the joint procurement will simply multiply the chances of it being messed up and delayed. Hopefully each side will be able to tell the other when they're asking for something unnecessary and it will create the external discipline to concentrate on the important things.
It's based on the Boxer APC. Which is made in Telford (after the UK rejoined the program). First one off the line this year, IIRC.
Hopefully, they have tape measures in Telford, and use jigs.
If the deal includes manufacturing rights, then it might be a decent one. It's just the lack of any detail at all in the announcement that makes me suspicious.
There's no good reason - either of security or manufacturing confidentiality - to write government announcements like that.
And the public are utterly tired if empty hyperbole. It's the same language used to describe the disastrous Ajax programme.
At this stage it's just for one British (and two German) early capability demonstration vehicle(s). Does it matter where they are made?
Decent chance of it being different for the main production run.
The right to build them here certainly does, as it looks quite likely we'll order a significant number of them. There's both economic benefit - and a general benefit from an increase in European defence capacity - if we build our kit in the UK.
But you'd expect that decision to be part of the negotiations for the contract to buy the final vehicle. They're not at that stage yet.
There is an awful lot of hot air in this government press release. What substance (if any) in terms of either procurement or domestic manufacturing lies behind it ? (If there were anything concrete, surely they'd be publicising it ?)
RCH 155 is developed by a German defence company. I'd guess questions about whether there would be localised manufacturing will depend on the size of Britain's component of the final joint order.
Given that Britain is getting one to test and the Germans two, I would hazard a guess that this will be an import situation.
They claim it will speed up procurement, but the cubic in me wonders whether the joint procurement will simply multiply the chances of it being messed up and delayed. Hopefully each side will be able to tell the other when they're asking for something unnecessary and it will create the external discipline to concentrate on the important things.
It's based on the Boxer APC. Which is made in Telford (after the UK rejoined the program). First one off the line this year, IIRC.
Hopefully, they have tape measures in Telford, and use jigs.
If the deal includes manufacturing rights, then it might be a decent one. It's just the lack of any detail at all in the announcement that makes me suspicious.
There's no good reason - either of security or manufacturing confidentiality - to write government announcements like that.
And the public are utterly tired if empty hyperbole. It's the same language used to describe the disastrous Ajax programme.
At this stage it's just for one British (and two German) early capability demonstration vehicle(s). Does it matter where they are made?
Decent chance of it being different for the main production run.
The right to build them here certainly does, as it looks quite likely we'll order a significant number of them. There's both economic benefit - and a general benefit from an increase in European defence capacity - if we build our kit in the UK.
But you'd expect that decision to be part of the negotiations for the contract to buy the final vehicle. They're not at that stage yet.
So this bit is meaningless ? ..Edward Cutts, Senior Responsible Owner of Mobile Fires in the Army, said:
This joint demonstrator programme exemplifies the strength and ambition of the Trinity House Agreement. By working hand-in-hand with Germany, we’re not only accelerating the delivery of world-class artillery capability for the British Army, but doing so more efficiently and cost-effectively than either nation could achieve alone.
The RCH 155 represents a step-change in mobile artillery – combining devastating firepower with the ability to rapidly reposition. This collaboration ensures our soldiers will be equipped with cutting-edge technology whilst strengthening the interoperability between UK and German forces that is vital to NATO’s collective defence.
The contract agreement supports the Strategic Defence Review – ensuring defence is an engine for growth in this parliament and supporting skilled jobs across the UK defence industry...
Of course Putin wants a successful Ukraine. What Putin does not want is an independent Ukraine. Putin sees Ukraine as part of Russia, not unlike how China sees Taiwan.
There is an awful lot of hot air in this government press release. What substance (if any) in terms of either procurement or domestic manufacturing lies behind it ? (If there were anything concrete, surely they'd be publicising it ?)
RCH 155 is developed by a German defence company. I'd guess questions about whether there would be localised manufacturing will depend on the size of Britain's component of the final joint order.
Given that Britain is getting one to test and the Germans two, I would hazard a guess that this will be an import situation.
They claim it will speed up procurement, but the cubic in me wonders whether the joint procurement will simply multiply the chances of it being messed up and delayed. Hopefully each side will be able to tell the other when they're asking for something unnecessary and it will create the external discipline to concentrate on the important things.
It's based on the Boxer APC. Which is made in Telford (after the UK rejoined the program). First one off the line this year, IIRC.
Hopefully, they have tape measures in Telford, and use jigs.
If the deal includes manufacturing rights, then it might be a decent one. It's just the lack of any detail at all in the announcement that makes me suspicious.
There's no good reason - either of security or manufacturing confidentiality - to write government announcements like that.
And the public are utterly tired if empty hyperbole. It's the same language used to describe the disastrous Ajax programme.
At this stage it's just for one British (and two German) early capability demonstration vehicle(s). Does it matter where they are made?
Decent chance of it being different for the main production run.
The right to build them here certainly does, as it looks quite likely we'll order a significant number of them. There's both economic benefit - and a general benefit from an increase in European defence capacity - if we build our kit in the UK.
But you'd expect that decision to be part of the negotiations for the contract to buy the final vehicle. They're not at that stage yet.
So this bit is meaningless ? ..Edward Cutts, Senior Responsible Owner of Mobile Fires in the Army, said:
This joint demonstrator programme exemplifies the strength and ambition of the Trinity House Agreement. By working hand-in-hand with Germany, we’re not only accelerating the delivery of world-class artillery capability for the British Army, but doing so more efficiently and cost-effectively than either nation could achieve alone.
The RCH 155 represents a step-change in mobile artillery – combining devastating firepower with the ability to rapidly reposition. This collaboration ensures our soldiers will be equipped with cutting-edge technology whilst strengthening the interoperability between UK and German forces that is vital to NATO’s collective defence.
The contract agreement supports the Strategic Defence Review – ensuring defence is an engine for growth in this parliament and supporting skilled jobs across the UK defence industry...
Yes, pretty much. It's a £52m contract for a vehicle that isn't ready for serial production.
You can say that it's one step to achieving the things they mention, but it's in process, not at the result stage yet.
The Guardian usually ignores stories that aren't good for Labour and Starmer so this is surprising.
"The decision by successive UK governments to campaign for the release and return of British-Egyptian democracy activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah has been called into question after past violent and offensive social media posts came to light."
That might occasionally be true, but in general it's just untrue.
In any event, I'd want to see rather more context before rushing to judgment.
..The posts cost him a nomination for the European parliament’s Sakharov prize in 2014. The group backing him withdrew their nomination for the human rights award, saying they had discovered a tweet from 2012 in which he called for the murder of Israelis.
In 2015, Abd el-Fattah claimed his comments had been taken out of context, and that while it had seemed “shocking”, it had been part of a “private conversation” that took place during an Israeli offensive in Gaza.
The decision to grant citizenship would have been made by the Home Office, which at that point was led by Priti Patel, advised by the Foreign Office, where Liz Truss was foreign secretary and James Cleverly was the minister for the region...
It's entirely possible to believe that el-Fattah is not at all an admirable person, even a quite unpleasant one, and at the same time his speech offence does not rise anywhere near the level of justifying being stripped of his citizenship.
That Farage should be calling for that, on the grounds that, quite some time in the past, he had used "the language of racism and bloodshed" seems particularly bloody hypocritical. And unsurprising.
To further my aim of running the country, I've not bothered to look at any of these tweets except those mentioned on pb but it does seem that they can be explained and excused in the right context. For instance, the one calling for burning Downing Street came during the riots after the police shot Mark Duggan – the tweet can be read as criticising the motives of rioters for pinching trainers and large-screen televisions.
Of course, if you have to excuse every tweet, there comes a point when the sheer mass becomes an issue, but so far my take is the entire political and media Establishment has leapt from one hysterical position, the sanctitude of el-Fattah, to its diametric opposite.
The No 10 insiders who revealed their secrets: How we made Yes Minister The show's writers - and their sources - recall how they created a comedy classic ... Each episode would reveal such intimate understanding of the previously hidden machinations of political life that it seemed obvious its writers had a mole on the inside. Lynn, speaking to me from his home in upstate New York, tells me that it felt authentic for good reason. He cannot, however, say very much more on the subject.
“We promised certain people [within Parliament] that we would never say,” is how he puts it. The political sketch writer Simon Hoggart once wrote in The Guardian that they got much of their intel from the Labour Party politician Richard Crossman’s 1975 book Diary of a Cabinet Minister, “from which whole chunks of dialogue were lifted”.
What Lynn can tell me is that their main sources were Harold Wilson’s political secretary, and the then head of policy at No 10. “They introduced us to a variety of people who, once they felt confident that we weren’t going to name them, told us pretty much everything we wanted to know.”
Which seems rather indiscreet of them, no? Careless, even?
By coincidence, I'm Sorry, Prime Minister opens in the West End in a month or so.
From the BAFTA Award-winning co-creator of Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister, Jonathan Lynn, comes the long-awaited final chapter of British political satire — and it is as cunning, cutting, and catastrophically funny as ever.
Jim Hacker (played by national treasure Griff Rhys Jones) is back — older, but perhaps not wiser, and still utterly baffled by the real world. Hoping for a quiet retirement at the tranquil Hacker College, Oxford, Jim instead finds himself facing the ultimate modern crisis: cancelled by the college committee.
Enter the delightfully devious Sir Humphrey Appleby (played by the acclaimed Clive Francis), who has lost none of his love for bureaucracy, Latin phrases, and well-timed obstruction.
Can Humphrey out manoeuvre the meddling students, the Fellowship, and reality itself?
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
The problem is that, once you are dead, no-one can check with you that it really was your choice to die. So on whose word are you relying that a murder was not committed?
That's why there would have to be safeguards, and why I am concerned about whether those safeguards are implemented as intended.
CCTV is not exactly unheard of.
"Do you wish to die" with a clear and unambiguous "yes" response recorded.
Why do we need any of this six month bullshit? If someone has years of suffering ahead and wishes to end it, then their choice should be respected, not be told to wait through years of suffering until their case is terminal.
Because the rules are established to protect the vulnerable. Yes they may seem clunky to someone like you in good health and of soundish mind but they aren’t there for you
I feel the rules are there to attempt to placate people who oppose the concept in general, more than to protect anyone.
If someone has years of suffering ahead of them and clearly and unambiguously wishes to have their life be terminated in a safe and dignified manner, then should their wish be respected, or should the objections of third parties who oppose free choice be respected instead?
Their wish should be respected, subject to safeguards to ensure there is no coercion (either imposed or self-imposed). A time delay, for example, is not unreasonable.
Indeed, I specifically suggested a time delay as a logical safeguard: A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated.
That makes far, far, far more sense as a safeguard than the asinine six month rule that means that eg people with life-long debilitating conditions that are able to communicate a desire to die, like some of those that took the case to the Supreme Court which ruled that Parliament should decide on this instead, are denied the right to do so safely and with dignity.
6 months makes sense. People change their minds. Prognosises change.
The state being involved in someone’s death is not a step that should be taken lightly
People may change their minds, which is why there should be a cooling off period, perhaps a week or two, to see if they do or don't.
If they don't, their choice should be respected. Whatever their reasons are.
If someone for example is 'locked in', unable to move, unable to go to the toilet by themselves, in constant agony, but able to communicate a clear and unambiguous desire to die, then why should their choice not be respected just because they are not terminally ill?
There are fates worse than death.
A long, drawn out death can be considerably worse than a short, sharp one.
'The state' should have no say in whether a person does or does not die, that should be the person's choice and theirs alone. Any safeguards should be about ensuring that it is the person's considered opinion, not second-guessing it or the state putting in their say.
You and I disagree in principle.
There is little point in continuing this discussion
Circles back to what I said before, this is not about safeguarding to ensure that the person's choice is actually their own, but about satisfying those who object to the very principle.
If you want safeguards to ensure that someone's choice is their own, then I respect that, and a sensible compromise is how we do that. We both have different views, but agree for instance that a cooling off period (my words) or time delay (your words) is logical.
However the six months to death proviso in the proposed law has jack all to do with that. It does absolutely nothing for those trapped in non-terminal conditions that wish to die and can clearly and unambiguously express their own wishes.
It is purely about placating those who oppose the principle of letting people rather than the state choose their own fates.
Laws can’t be written for specific cases. They need to be kept simple and designed to protect the vulnerable.
I certainly very reluctant that governments should get involved in killing citizens or even assisting them in dying. Because it is simply no business of the government to do that, and most powers that the government takes are expanded and abused over time.
The Guardian usually ignores stories that aren't good for Labour and Starmer so this is surprising.
"The decision by successive UK governments to campaign for the release and return of British-Egyptian democracy activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah has been called into question after past violent and offensive social media posts came to light."
That might occasionally be true, but in general it's just untrue.
In any event, I'd want to see rather more context before rushing to judgment.
..The posts cost him a nomination for the European parliament’s Sakharov prize in 2014. The group backing him withdrew their nomination for the human rights award, saying they had discovered a tweet from 2012 in which he called for the murder of Israelis.
In 2015, Abd el-Fattah claimed his comments had been taken out of context, and that while it had seemed “shocking”, it had been part of a “private conversation” that took place during an Israeli offensive in Gaza.
The decision to grant citizenship would have been made by the Home Office, which at that point was led by Priti Patel, advised by the Foreign Office, where Liz Truss was foreign secretary and James Cleverly was the minister for the region...
It's entirely possible to believe that el-Fattah is not at all an admirable person, even a quite unpleasant one, and at the same time his speech offence does not rise anywhere near the level of justifying being stripped of his citizenship.
That Farage should be calling for that, on the grounds that, quite some time in the past, he had used "the language of racism and bloodshed" seems particularly bloody hypocritical. And unsurprising.
What Badenoch has said is that it was a mistake to grant him citizenship, but that the decision was made by a civil servant and not escalated to the ministerial level. That is entirely plausible.
I think IDS and Cleverly have got away with this one. BBC reporting "Conservatives" are wholly opposed to his return. Jenrick gets a specific name check. Starmer as the incumbent takes 100% of the responsibility for this.
Though I doubt Labour voters will care and Tories need some Labour tactical votes in seats Reform are challenging the Tory incumbent
I don't see Labour voters who want to avoid a right wing Reform Government will be minded to vote for candidates representing a right wing Conservative Party.
Polls are notoriously bad at predicting what people are likely to do in the future. Polling suggested that if Donald Trump were convicted of a felony, many Republicans would refuse to vote for him. As it turned out, they did so overwhelmingly.
I think it unlikely that in practice, many left wing voters would cross over, to support the Conservatives.
I also think that Cleverly is utterly devoid of ideas and charisma, he will basically be black Kier Starmer and in the face of a charismatic and conviction driven politician like Nige he will get smashed to pieces, the Tories would be lucky to finish in double figures IMO. No amount of tactical voting will save him against Nige and like you I do not believe that Labour voters will turn out for a Tory party whoever the leader is unless they have a compelling story and policies. Cleverly absolutely won't have that, he will be another blank sheet of paper running a Ming vase strategy hoping that Labour are unpopular enough for him to inherit enough votes to win. It won't work.
He would have more appeal to tactical Labour and LD voters than Kemi or Jenrick though. Kemi also needs to start winning back voters lost to Reform more than she has to if she is to avoid a VONC after the devolved and local elections next May. Certainly unless the Tories at least beat Labour in the NEV next May she will likely face a VONC from Tory MPs.
Why on earth would the conservative party want another leader at a time when Badenoch is gaining in the pollls no matter May 26
There is 3 years plus to the next GE, and frankly Jenrick or Cleverly would not move the dial despite your repetituve posting of your views on this
Jenrick would. If it is the Conservative name that you like he is the man to take down Farage. If it is the party of Ted Heath or even Mrs Thatcher you might be disappointed.
Of course the Heath Tories were the party of Enoch Powell and Terry Dicks was a big fan of Thatcher, and who can forget Peter Griffiths and the Smethwick campaign in 1964. Come to think of it scratch paragraph one, Jenrick should dovetail quite nicely into leading the Conservative Party.
P.S. RIP Hugh Morris, Glamorgan's finest.
He might in the short term. He though should be busy soaking up all the lessons that Kemi is fairly successfully learning. She started off quite poorly but very sensibly she's just playing herself in (NB England cricketers). She's now looking the part to some extent.
Jenrick would be flash, bang, IDS.
I despise Jenrick, but he steals Farage's clothes for the Tories. Jenrick's comms are brilliant.
Badenoch remains poor. She is up against a poor performer in Starmer who is on the ropes. At PMQs he wins question one and two and by question four she is shouty and floundering. Is that good enough?
Jenrick doesn't have the numbers at present. Even if Kemi lost a VONC Cleverly would have the MPs who backed him last year, plus Kemi backing Tory MPs who remained loyal to her would likely switch en masse to Cleverly to stop Jenrick too.
So Cleverly might become leader via Howard 2005 or Sunak autumn 2022 coronation or even if it went to members a Conhome members poll after the 2024 Tory conference had Cleverly narrowly ahead of Jenrick even if Badenoch beat both.
Jenick's best bet is for Kemi to go and Cleverly to succeed her but lose the next GE, with Farage also losing the next GE and both resigning as party leaders. Labour would have won, even if only most seats in a hung parliament, due to the split on the right in large part and Jenrick would then be the last option left for the Tories and to reunite the right
Cleverly may win with the MPs, but the top two MPs go to the membership. How do they stop Jenrick getting into the top two? Cleverly couldn’t count last time.
Not necessarily, the 1922 cttee elected Howard unopposed in 2003 and allowed Sunak to be elected with 55% of Tory MPs nominating him in October 2022 without having to face second placed Johnson in a membership ballot (where Boris would likely still have beaten him).
They didn't "allow" Sunak to be elected. Mordaunt didn't get enough nominations and Johnson dropped out. Would Jenrick fail to get enough noms and/or drop out?
Likewise, no one stood against Howard.
At least 28% of Tory MPs needed to nominate a candidate and only Sunak met that threshold.
As I said, a Tory members poll last year also had Cleverly beating Jenrick anyway
Cleverly no longer has the credibility bonus of having recently held one of the great offices of state.
Indeed his record will work against him in any leadership election. He'll very quickly be labelled as the empty headed fool who jumped on the woke liberal bandwagon to give an antisemite and terrorist supporter British citizenship. While the issue may not rate for voters at large it will be enough to snuff out any leadership ambitions with MPs and Tory members same as it being woke or giving into wokeness killed off Mordaunt's leadership bids.
You are forgetting again that while Farage leads Reform the Tories need Labour, LD and Green tactical votes for Tory MPs to hold their seats against Reform.
Those who hated Cleverly's tweet will be voting for Farage largely anyway
Any Tory MP who thinks that they can win Lib Dem or Green votes is delusional. The election will literally be framed as vote Tory get Nige. There is no route to getting left wing tactical votes.
We're three years out from the election, campaigning hasn't even begun yet. The polling on this subject is completely irrelevant.
I mean just look on here at the various Lib Dem activists who post, they're far more anti-Tory than even Labour ones. The idea of someone who supports the Green party turning around and voting for any kind of Tory is laughable when the whole campaign from the left is literally going to be vote Tory get Nige. There will be pictures of whoever the Tory leader is in Nige's pocket all over social media. No, any candidate that tries to win on the basis of getting leftist tactical votes is delusional.
They are even more anti Reform than anti Tory. Cleverly has ruled out any deal with Reform and unless and until Jenrick has clear polling evidence he will win back Reform voters to the Tories, the likelihood is if Kemi went it would be Cleverly replacing her
You keep repeating this mantra but real life experience should tell you that those mythical tactical votes won't materialise. A few local candidates may get a boost based on their profile but the idea that any percentage of LD or Green votes turning out for the Tories is delusional. Any Tory MP that suggests such a strategy should be deselected let alone barred from the leadership.
If that's the Cleverly faction's big idea then I don't think he'll even enter the race because he'll get laughed out of the room for nominations.
I have just given you the polling evidence it could, if a third of LD and a quarter of Labour voters tactically vote for their Tory MP to beat Reform that would save that Tory MPs seat he would otherwise lose. They wouldn't tactically vote for a Jenrick led Tory party though.
To counter that Jenrick has to start showing polling data he would win back significant numbers of ex Tory voters from Reform, otherwise Cleverly would replace Kemi if she lost a VONC
I would vote Reform to get rid of the Tory. Whoever is leading the Conservatives.
I don't think he really understands that for left wing voters they will see this as their chance to extinguish the Tories once and for all consequences be damned.
Well as a counterpoint to Sandy (and to up the sample size from 1 to 2) in a Con/Ref marginal I would vote for the Tory (so long as it wasn't a really nasty reactionary one) to stop Farage. Although it's something of a philosophical nullity as a statement since if I lived in that sort of place I wouldn't be me.
I would only vote Tory if it was necessary to keep Reform out, but it would be pointless if the Tory was a Jenrick type. How do you know whether you’re getting a Cleverley type and not a Jenrick type?
Let's accept the premise that the Tory candidate is a better person to be an MP than the Reform candidate.
It only makes mathematical sense to vote tactically for the Tory if the following conditions are satisfied:
1. The combined Tory+Reform vote will be greater than two-thirds, making it impossible for a different candidate to come through the middle and win on a split right-wing vote. 2. The Reform-Tory gap is small enough to be bridged by tactical voters.
Set against that, there's also the factor that voting for a party earns them Short money (if they're not in government and they win enough MPs/votes), and has a moral/morale component in indicating how many people support a particular party, even if they don't elect an MP in your constituency.
Plus, of course, all this is based on guesswork, because some of your fellow constituents won't have made up their mind how they will vote, and you can't be sure how the numbers will play out given large swings from the previous rejection.
And then, of course, a substantial proportion of Tory MPs would be pretty comfortable with Farage's agenda, in which case there's little distinction to be made.
You don't even need to be all that rabidly anti-Tory to not be convinced by tactical voting (and these factors are also why I think arguments about tactical voting riding to the rescue of a split Left vote are rather overdone).
Tactical voting is much more likely to be a factor in the election after next, when people have a chance to consider how the lack of tactical voting resulted in Farage becoming PM, and they developed a determination to bring that to an end, with also clearer information about where and how to do so.
You also forgot to mention that no modern parliamentary election has been won by just one vote, so for any single individual the chances of their vote alone deciding things is minute. Voting tactically only makes sense if you are going to actively encourage others to join in.
There is an awful lot of hot air in this government press release. What substance (if any) in terms of either procurement or domestic manufacturing lies behind it ? (If there were anything concrete, surely they'd be publicising it ?)
RCH 155 is developed by a German defence company. I'd guess questions about whether there would be localised manufacturing will depend on the size of Britain's component of the final joint order.
Given that Britain is getting one to test and the Germans two, I would hazard a guess that this will be an import situation.
They claim it will speed up procurement, but the cubic in me wonders whether the joint procurement will simply multiply the chances of it being messed up and delayed. Hopefully each side will be able to tell the other when they're asking for something unnecessary and it will create the external discipline to concentrate on the important things.
It's based on the Boxer APC. Which is made in Telford (after the UK rejoined the program). First one off the line this year, IIRC.
Hopefully, they have tape measures in Telford, and use jigs.
If the deal includes manufacturing rights, then it might be a decent one. It's just the lack of any detail at all in the announcement that makes me suspicious.
There's no good reason - either of security or manufacturing confidentiality - to write government announcements like that.
And the public are utterly tired if empty hyperbole. It's the same language used to describe the disastrous Ajax programme.
At this stage it's just for one British (and two German) early capability demonstration vehicle(s). Does it matter where they are made?
Decent chance of it being different for the main production run.
The right to build them here certainly does, as it looks quite likely we'll order a significant number of them. There's both economic benefit - and a general benefit from an increase in European defence capacity - if we build our kit in the UK.
But you'd expect that decision to be part of the negotiations for the contract to buy the final vehicle. They're not at that stage yet.
So this bit is meaningless ? ..Edward Cutts, Senior Responsible Owner of Mobile Fires in the Army, said:
This joint demonstrator programme exemplifies the strength and ambition of the Trinity House Agreement. By working hand-in-hand with Germany, we’re not only accelerating the delivery of world-class artillery capability for the British Army, but doing so more efficiently and cost-effectively than either nation could achieve alone.
The RCH 155 represents a step-change in mobile artillery – combining devastating firepower with the ability to rapidly reposition. This collaboration ensures our soldiers will be equipped with cutting-edge technology whilst strengthening the interoperability between UK and German forces that is vital to NATO’s collective defence.
The contract agreement supports the Strategic Defence Review – ensuring defence is an engine for growth in this parliament and supporting skilled jobs across the UK defence industry...
It’s all the usual blather.
The RCH 155 is a combination of an existing, modular, vehicle (that is just beginning to be produced in the U.K.) and a gun module that is a tune up of a 20 year old design, in turn based on the existing gun used by the German army.
So it has a quite a good chance of working.
The decision about who builds what will come with the real order. I would hope, after the Ajax disaster, that this depends on whether the U.K. builder of the vehicles can do a good job or not.
The gun module would be a different issue - would need to setup a factory, basically. Which then has the quality issue.
One potential advantage of buying a common, modular design, is that U.K. manufacturers of the vehicle or gun modules will know that there is an alternate supplier for their work.
The Guardian usually ignores stories that aren't good for Labour and Starmer so this is surprising.
"The decision by successive UK governments to campaign for the release and return of British-Egyptian democracy activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah has been called into question after past violent and offensive social media posts came to light."
That might occasionally be true, but in general it's just untrue.
In any event, I'd want to see rather more context before rushing to judgment.
..The posts cost him a nomination for the European parliament’s Sakharov prize in 2014. The group backing him withdrew their nomination for the human rights award, saying they had discovered a tweet from 2012 in which he called for the murder of Israelis.
In 2015, Abd el-Fattah claimed his comments had been taken out of context, and that while it had seemed “shocking”, it had been part of a “private conversation” that took place during an Israeli offensive in Gaza.
The decision to grant citizenship would have been made by the Home Office, which at that point was led by Priti Patel, advised by the Foreign Office, where Liz Truss was foreign secretary and James Cleverly was the minister for the region...
It's entirely possible to believe that el-Fattah is not at all an admirable person, even a quite unpleasant one, and at the same time his speech offence does not rise anywhere near the level of justifying being stripped of his citizenship.
That Farage should be calling for that, on the grounds that, quite some time in the past, he had used "the language of racism and bloodshed" seems particularly bloody hypocritical. And unsurprising.
What Badenoch has said is that it was a mistake to grant him citizenship, but that the decision was made by a civil servant and not escalated to the ministerial level. That is entirely plausible.
Except that ministers were campaigning to release him.
I have written to @ShabanaMahmood urging her to rescind the citizenship of Alaa Abd el-Fattah and deport him from the country.
Similarly, I have written to @ShabanaMahmood urging her to rescind the citizenship of Nigel Farage as the descendant of French immigrants and a Jew-hating nut case, and deport him from the country.
The Guardian usually ignores stories that aren't good for Labour and Starmer so this is surprising.
"The decision by successive UK governments to campaign for the release and return of British-Egyptian democracy activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah has been called into question after past violent and offensive social media posts came to light."
That might occasionally be true, but in general it's just untrue.
In any event, I'd want to see rather more context before rushing to judgment.
..The posts cost him a nomination for the European parliament’s Sakharov prize in 2014. The group backing him withdrew their nomination for the human rights award, saying they had discovered a tweet from 2012 in which he called for the murder of Israelis.
In 2015, Abd el-Fattah claimed his comments had been taken out of context, and that while it had seemed “shocking”, it had been part of a “private conversation” that took place during an Israeli offensive in Gaza.
The decision to grant citizenship would have been made by the Home Office, which at that point was led by Priti Patel, advised by the Foreign Office, where Liz Truss was foreign secretary and James Cleverly was the minister for the region...
It's entirely possible to believe that el-Fattah is not at all an admirable person, even a quite unpleasant one, and at the same time his speech offence does not rise anywhere near the level of justifying being stripped of his citizenship.
That Farage should be calling for that, on the grounds that, quite some time in the past, he had used "the language of racism and bloodshed" seems particularly bloody hypocritical. And unsurprising.
What Badenoch has said is that it was a mistake to grant him citizenship, but that the decision was made by a civil servant and not escalated to the ministerial level. That is entirely plausible.
Well they did abolish the ‘fit person’ test so could not really reject him.
Oh great, so we can't even send him back when he causes trouble here. What a stupid, brainless move this has been. Is there really no one in the Foreign Office who is able to look beyond their in tray and think?
Alaa has spoken. As an ‘apology’ it’s somewhat disingenuous and caveated with his views of his own worthiness. He’s been misrepresented, it’s been taken out of context. There is even the Alf Garnett defence.
I’m sure the many here who refused to believe or condemn his anti semitism and racism may actually realise his critics had a point after all. He was being condemned for what he said as an adult.
Still, at least he is not claiming he was hacked. His sister has a history of similar posts and was demanding the hunger strikers should be freed at the weekend. Fuck off.
Now PB can get back to the subject of Farage and what he is alleged to have said when he was a child and keep obsessing over that. The Guardian had yet another piece on it this weekend 👍
Alaa has spoken. As an ‘apology’ it’s somewhat disingenuous and caveated with his views of his own worthiness. He’s been misrepresented, it’s been taken out of context. There is even the Alf Garnett defence.
I’m sure the many here who refused to believe or condemn his anti semitism and racism may actually realise his critics had a point after all. He was being condemned for what he said as an adult.
Still, at least he is not claiming he was hacked. His sister has a history of similar posts and was demanding the hunger strikers should be freed at the weekend. Fuck off.
Now PB can get back to the subject of Farage and what he is alleged to have said when he was a child and keep obsessing over that. The Guardian had yet another piece on it this weekend 👍
2) That still doesn't mean he should be locked up by an authoritarian regime that specialises in torture;
3) Regardless of point 2, Nigel Farage's past and present misdeeds are more important because he at least pretends to want to be our Prime Minister which this person doesn't.
Anybody else we are seeking to have relesed from detention? Anyone checked their social media history? Oh, so NOW we are....
It's funny that after 4 years of seeking his release and his being a feted case, the newspapers, the Conservative party, and Reform only discovered his social media history after he was cleared to enter the country.
It would have been useful for the people who already knew this to campaign earlier and actually prevent this man being free to enter Britain.
They chose to let this hateful man be approved in this way and only then created merry hell.
I know, it is the way of things with the press, and I've no reason to expect any different, and this is the umpteenth example, but if this is a disaster they are the onlookers who watched it all unfold and never thought to raise the alarm in advance .
Alaa has spoken. As an ‘apology’ it’s somewhat disingenuous and caveated with his views of his own worthiness. He’s been misrepresented, it’s been taken out of context. There is even the Alf Garnett defence.
I’m sure the many here who refused to believe or condemn his anti semitism and racism may actually realise his critics had a point after all. He was being condemned for what he said as an adult.
Still, at least he is not claiming he was hacked. His sister has a history of similar posts and was demanding the hunger strikers should be freed at the weekend. Fuck off.
Now PB can get back to the subject of Farage and what he is alleged to have said when he was a child and keep obsessing over that. The Guardian had yet another piece on it this weekend 👍
2) That still doesn't mean he should be locked up by an authoritarian regime that specialises in torture;
3) Regardless of point 2, Nigel Farage's past and present misdeeds are more important because he at least pretends to want to be our Prime Minister which this person doesn't.
1. Nice to see PB starting to get it. A couple of days ago criticism of him was racism according to a few posts here.
2. totally irrelevant to my point.
3. Farage was a child when he allegedly made those comments. From a legal perspective children are treated differently to adults as their brains haven’t developed?
Alaa has spoken. As an ‘apology’ it’s somewhat disingenuous and caveated with his views of his own worthiness. He’s been misrepresented, it’s been taken out of context. There is even the Alf Garnett defence.
I’m sure the many here who refused to believe or condemn his anti semitism and racism may actually realise his critics had a point after all. He was being condemned for what he said as an adult.
Still, at least he is not claiming he was hacked. His sister has a history of similar posts and was demanding the hunger strikers should be freed at the weekend. Fuck off.
Now PB can get back to the subject of Farage and what he is alleged to have said when he was a child and keep obsessing over that. The Guardian had yet another piece on it this weekend 👍
2) That still doesn't mean he should be locked up by an authoritarian regime that specialises in torture;
3) Regardless of point 2, Nigel Farage's past and present misdeeds are more important because he at least pretends to want to be our Prime Minister which this person doesn't.
1. Nice to see PB starting to get it. A couple of days ago criticism of him was racism according to a few posts here.
2. totally irrelevant to my point.
3. Farage was a child when he allegedly made those comments. From a legal perspective children are treated differently to adults as their brains haven’t developed?
Again, we keep coming back to there is reason to wonder whether he has changed. That's why he can't put this issue to bed.
What is your point in posting this article on here? To trigger those who don't like a particular level of melatonin in the skin or for some other reason related to how this might affect the result of the next General Election?
Genuine question.
To be fair to @Andy_JS my understanding was that it was illegal (or possibly against official regulations not law). If charities are giving guidance that is outside the *intention* of the lawmakers which (IIRC was clear at the time) then that should be highlighted.
It’s nothing to do with skin colour (although the Tomes mentions a specific community) but a general issue of charities usurping the role of official bodies to push their own agenda
IIRC the law says that sex is not a lawful grounds for termination. But that doctors get round that by using the patient mental wellbeing grounds.
The patient mental wellbeing grounds are used by most doctors as a catch-all to allow abortion on demand. It's an example of how the implementation of a law regulating a medical procedure can differ markedly in practice from that (probably) intended by Parliament when the law was passed.
It doesn't receive much attention because most people are fine with how the abortion law operates in practice (though it does mean that sometimes a pregnant woman who wants a termination can face extra difficulty if they encounter one of the small number of doctors who don't follow the common practice, which is why BPAS and others have called for the law to be updated).
It's an example much on my mind in relation to the supposed safeguards for assisted dying. How might those actually operate in practice?
You don’t need to worry about that.
The zealots have eliminated most of the safeguards anyway
Far too many still exist like the preposterous six month rule.
The only safeguard that should exist is "do you want to die?"
If no, then don't kill the person. If yes, then do so.
A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated. However again, all that should matter is the patients choice. Nobody else's.
The problem is that, once you are dead, no-one can check with you that it really was your choice to die. So on whose word are you relying that a murder was not committed?
That's why there would have to be safeguards, and why I am concerned about whether those safeguards are implemented as intended.
CCTV is not exactly unheard of.
"Do you wish to die" with a clear and unambiguous "yes" response recorded.
Why do we need any of this six month bullshit? If someone has years of suffering ahead and wishes to end it, then their choice should be respected, not be told to wait through years of suffering until their case is terminal.
Because the rules are established to protect the vulnerable. Yes they may seem clunky to someone like you in good health and of soundish mind but they aren’t there for you
I feel the rules are there to attempt to placate people who oppose the concept in general, more than to protect anyone.
If someone has years of suffering ahead of them and clearly and unambiguously wishes to have their life be terminated in a safe and dignified manner, then should their wish be respected, or should the objections of third parties who oppose free choice be respected instead?
Their wish should be respected, subject to safeguards to ensure there is no coercion (either imposed or self-imposed). A time delay, for example, is not unreasonable.
Indeed, I specifically suggested a time delay as a logical safeguard: A potential second sensible safeguard could be a cooling off period after which the question is repeated.
That makes far, far, far more sense as a safeguard than the asinine six month rule that means that eg people with life-long debilitating conditions that are able to communicate a desire to die, like some of those that took the case to the Supreme Court which ruled that Parliament should decide on this instead, are denied the right to do so safely and with dignity.
6 months makes sense. People change their minds. Prognosises change.
The state being involved in someone’s death is not a step that should be taken lightly
People may change their minds, which is why there should be a cooling off period, perhaps a week or two, to see if they do or don't.
If they don't, their choice should be respected. Whatever their reasons are.
If someone for example is 'locked in', unable to move, unable to go to the toilet by themselves, in constant agony, but able to communicate a clear and unambiguous desire to die, then why should their choice not be respected just because they are not terminally ill?
There are fates worse than death.
A long, drawn out death can be considerably worse than a short, sharp one.
'The state' should have no say in whether a person does or does not die, that should be the person's choice and theirs alone. Any safeguards should be about ensuring that it is the person's considered opinion, not second-guessing it or the state putting in their say.
You and I disagree in principle.
There is little point in continuing this discussion
Circles back to what I said before, this is not about safeguarding to ensure that the person's choice is actually their own, but about satisfying those who object to the very principle.
If you want safeguards to ensure that someone's choice is their own, then I respect that, and a sensible compromise is how we do that. We both have different views, but agree for instance that a cooling off period (my words) or time delay (your words) is logical.
However the six months to death proviso in the proposed law has jack all to do with that. It does absolutely nothing for those trapped in non-terminal conditions that wish to die and can clearly and unambiguously express their own wishes.
It is purely about placating those who oppose the principle of letting people rather than the state choose their own fates.
Laws can’t be written for specific cases. They need to be kept simple and designed to protect the vulnerable.
I certainly very reluctant that governments should get involved in killing citizens or even assisting them in dying. Because it is simply no business of the government to do that, and most powers that the government takes are expanded and abused over time.
The truth is all the traditional "centre right" have left is the fact Trump annoys "the lefties" so much so they can troll away on that to their heart's content rather than asking themselves why the opposition to the "centre left" is now coming from the populists like Farage and Trump rather than from traditional conservatives like Badenoch.
I don't think it's controversial to say that the population in most democracies has turned away from centrist politicians, for understandable reasons, and that right-wing populists have been more successful at winning the support of discontented voters than left-wing populists.
Can't blame Righties for consoling themselves with that. I'm sure I'd feel the same if the roles were reversed.
This is something that interests me a great deal. Why does the populism of the right have greater appeal than that of the left?
My tentative theory. Because it speaks to feelings of ethno-cultural identity and nationalism whilst not scaring people (esp rich potential backers) with anti-capitalist rhetoric.
I don't think it's anything to do with the ideas particularly. The Right have simply been better, more imaginative, while the Left have been stuck obsessing over the defeats of the 70s and 80s, and so they haven't argued their case well, or adjusted their ideas to fit the modern world.
You think anti-capitalism is as easy a sell in developed western societies as anti-immigration? I don't. I think without that identity and nationalism angle you're left with something that has quite a low ceiling of electoral support. But I could be wrong. Hope I am actually. Polanski will provide some evidence either way. He's charismatic and slick on the comms. Definitely a 'today' politician not stuck in a past era like eg Corbyn. So let's see where he polls compared to Farage at the GE.
A more imaginative left would have more to say about the future they want to create, rather than what they oppose in the status quo.
For example, the Right aren't simply anti-immigration. They are also selling an idealised vision of the past that has been lost and can be regained.
So in very simple terms I would say that the battle between the populist right and left would be between nostalgia and utopia - but the utopia is largely missing from the left's offer at the moment.
Yes, nice way of expressing it. And to tie back to my thesis, it takes an enormous amount of effort, skill, imagination and intellect to conceptualise and present a viable anti-capitalist model as the basis for economic life. That's why powerful critiques of capitalism are ten a penny but successful alternatives are hens teeth. It's a very high bar (once you've exhausted the rhetorical appeal of 'tax the rich'). The 'nostalgia' offer (with notes of xenophobia and parochialism) is much easier to formulate and get across. Make XYZ great again. Our country. Us v them. Borders. The flag. Our people. Charity begins at Home etc etc. It's not hard to promote all that stuff when there's dissatisfaction with the status quo.
Too many people do sufficiently well out of capitalism, tempered by social democracy, to make anti-capitalism electorally viable.
If you rent your property and work in the public sector or live on benefits and don't have wealthy parents though, why wouldn't you vote for socialism? Plenty of those voters in inner cities and hence socialists win there.
Other than schoolboy politician Zack, and he will just accidentally deliver (like Corbyn before him) Conservative Governments, how do I vote to achieve my socialist panacea? Red-Tory Labour certainly aren't the answer.
Perhap enough voters understand that your "socialist panacea" is far more dangerous than well meaning - and ensure it never gets a chance to prove how disastrous it would be?
My question was somewhat rhetorical. Although driving around Havana in 1950s Americana has a certain romance to it.
I doubt we will ever see the likes of the Little World of Don Camillo in the UK, although I have a growing concern that we might see the extreme right wing alternative under Comrade Farage.
Would I be about right to describe Don Camillo as a Whiskey Priest (Italian Version)?
At least a couple of the diaspora of half a dozen or so "Chaplains to Tommy Robinson", who get spots on GB News, Talk TV and their own Youtube, were rejected for Church of England ministry, or ejected since or resigned when under potential discipline, or are aligned with "continuing Anglican" sects, from which at least one and perhaps more have been further ejected.
So it could be the other way round - eg Calvin Robinson vs the Lib Dem Mayor of Walmington-on-Sea .
Don Camillo lived in a Communist town. He was forever fighting the madness of local Italian Communism, particularly the corrupt Mayor.
I'm old enough to have seen the TV programmes second time around.
Alaa has spoken. As an ‘apology’ it’s somewhat disingenuous and caveated with his views of his own worthiness. He’s been misrepresented, it’s been taken out of context. There is even the Alf Garnett defence.
I’m sure the many here who refused to believe or condemn his anti semitism and racism may actually realise his critics had a point after all. He was being condemned for what he said as an adult.
Still, at least he is not claiming he was hacked. His sister has a history of similar posts and was demanding the hunger strikers should be freed at the weekend. Fuck off.
Now PB can get back to the subject of Farage and what he is alleged to have said when he was a child and keep obsessing over that. The Guardian had yet another piece on it this weekend 👍
Comments
It's just the lack of any detail at all in the announcement that makes me suspicious.
There's no good reason - either of security or manufacturing confidentiality - to write government announcements like that.
And the public are utterly tired if empty hyperbole. It's the same language used to describe the disastrous Ajax programme.
By the time we all realise that it is other people who will be deciding, and our speech that will be persecuted, we will have a long road back.
Decent chance of it being different for the main production run.
In any event, I'd want to see rather more context before rushing to judgment.
..The posts cost him a nomination for the European parliament’s Sakharov prize in 2014. The group backing him withdrew their nomination for the human rights award, saying they had discovered a tweet from 2012 in which he called for the murder of Israelis.
In 2015, Abd el-Fattah claimed his comments had been taken out of context, and that while it had seemed “shocking”, it had been part of a “private conversation” that took place during an Israeli offensive in Gaza.
The decision to grant citizenship would have been made by the Home Office, which at that point was led by Priti Patel, advised by the Foreign Office, where Liz Truss was foreign secretary and James Cleverly was the minister for the region...
It's entirely possible to believe that el-Fattah is not at all an admirable person, even a quite unpleasant one, and at the same time his speech offence does not rise anywhere near the level of justifying being stripped of his citizenship.
That Farage should be calling for that, on the grounds that, quite some time in the past, he had used "the language of racism and bloodshed" seems particularly bloody hypocritical.
And unsurprising.
There's both economic benefit - and a general benefit from an increase in European defence capacity - if we build our kit in the UK.
Trump: "Russia wants to see Ukraine succeed. It sounds a little strange but President Putin was very generous in his feeling toward Ukraine succeeding”
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/2005403883791851621
Q:Did Putin agree to a ceasefire to allow a referendum?
Trump: Not a ceasefire. He feels that look,you know, they're fighting and to stop. & then if they have to start again, he doesn't want to be in that position. I understand Putin from that standpoint
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/2005406314004979838
..Edward Cutts, Senior Responsible Owner of Mobile Fires in the Army, said:
This joint demonstrator programme exemplifies the strength and ambition of the Trinity House Agreement. By working hand-in-hand with Germany, we’re not only accelerating the delivery of world-class artillery capability for the British Army, but doing so more efficiently and cost-effectively than either nation could achieve alone.
The RCH 155 represents a step-change in mobile artillery – combining devastating firepower with the ability to rapidly reposition. This collaboration ensures our soldiers will be equipped with cutting-edge technology whilst strengthening the interoperability between UK and German forces that is vital to NATO’s collective defence.
The contract agreement supports the Strategic Defence Review – ensuring defence is an engine for growth in this parliament and supporting skilled jobs across the UK defence industry...
You can say that it's one step to achieving the things they mention, but it's in process, not at the result stage yet.
Of course, if you have to excuse every tweet, there comes a point when the sheer mass becomes an issue, but so far my take is the entire political and media Establishment has leapt from one hysterical position, the sanctitude of el-Fattah, to its diametric opposite.
The show's writers - and their sources - recall how they created a comedy classic
...
Each episode would reveal such intimate understanding of the previously hidden machinations of political life that it seemed obvious its writers had a mole on the inside. Lynn, speaking to me from his home in upstate New York, tells me that it felt authentic for good reason. He cannot, however, say very much more on the subject.
“We promised certain people [within Parliament] that we would never say,” is how he puts it. The political sketch writer Simon Hoggart once wrote in The Guardian that they got much of their intel from the Labour Party politician Richard Crossman’s 1975 book Diary of a Cabinet Minister, “from which whole chunks of dialogue were lifted”.
What Lynn can tell me is that their main sources were Harold Wilson’s political secretary, and the then head of policy at No 10. “They introduced us to a variety of people who, once they felt confident that we weren’t going to name them, told us pretty much everything we wanted to know.”
Which seems rather indiscreet of them, no? Careless, even?
“Well, I’ve learned that people do like to be asked questions, and to show what they know,” he says. “Also, the politicians liked that we were giving them an alibi, and the civil servants liked that it revealed just how crucial they were to the whole process.”
https://inews.co.uk/culture/television/no-10-insiders-secrets-how-made-yes-minister-4101068
This came up on the last thread iirc.
From the BAFTA Award-winning co-creator of Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister, Jonathan Lynn, comes the long-awaited final chapter of British political satire — and it is as cunning, cutting, and catastrophically funny as ever.
Jim Hacker (played by national treasure Griff Rhys Jones) is back — older, but perhaps not wiser, and still utterly baffled by the real world. Hoping for a quiet retirement at the tranquil Hacker College, Oxford, Jim instead finds himself facing the ultimate modern crisis: cancelled by the college committee.
Enter the delightfully devious Sir Humphrey Appleby (played by the acclaimed Clive Francis), who has lost none of his love for bureaucracy, Latin phrases, and well-timed obstruction.
Can Humphrey out manoeuvre the meddling students, the Fellowship, and reality itself?
Or is it finally time to say, "I’m Sorry, Prime Minister..."?
https://theapollotheatre.co.uk/tickets/im-sorry-prime-minister/
I certainly very reluctant that governments should get involved in killing citizens or even assisting them in dying. Because it is simply no business of the government to do that, and most powers that the government takes are expanded and abused over time.
The RCH 155 is a combination of an existing, modular, vehicle (that is just beginning to be produced in the U.K.) and a gun module that is a tune up of a 20 year old design, in turn based on the existing gun used by the German army.
So it has a quite a good chance of working.
The decision about who builds what will come with the real order. I would hope, after the Ajax disaster, that this depends on whether the U.K. builder of the vehicles can do a good job or not.
The gun module would be a different issue - would need to setup a factory, basically. Which then has the quality issue.
One potential advantage of buying a common, modular design, is that U.K. manufacturers of the vehicle or gun modules will know that there is an alternate supplier for their work.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DS0JkidDMfx/?igsh=MWhrMXpkcG83Zmg5bA==
Only problem is the French don’t want him.
Egypt moving to strip him of citizenship
Nice family.
https://x.com/monasosh/status/1710595073249804797?s=61
Lol. We are a clown country.
https://x.com/moveincircles/status/2005384656641028419?s=61
https://x.com/tomwilliamsisme/status/2005338859723510027?s=61
F1: seems the Azerbaijan Grand Prix is going to be held on a Saturday. How peculiar.
I’m sure the many here who refused to believe or condemn his anti semitism and racism may actually realise his critics had a point after all. He was being condemned for what he said as an adult.
Still, at least he is not claiming he was hacked. His sister has a history of similar posts and was demanding the hunger strikers should be freed at the weekend. Fuck off.
Now PB can get back to the subject of Farage and what he is alleged to have said when he was a child and keep obsessing over that. The Guardian had yet another piece on it this weekend 👍
https://x.com/freedomforalaa/status/2005445991030546526?s=61
1) This person is a racist twat;
2) That still doesn't mean he should be locked up by an authoritarian regime that specialises in torture;
3) Regardless of point 2, Nigel Farage's past and present misdeeds are more important because he at least pretends to want to be our Prime Minister which this person doesn't.
NEW THREAD
It would have been useful for the people who already knew this to campaign earlier and actually prevent this man being free to enter Britain.
They chose to let this hateful man be approved in this way and only then created merry hell.
I know, it is the way of things with the press, and I've no reason to expect any different, and this is the umpteenth example, but if this is a disaster they are the onlookers who watched it all unfold and never thought to raise the alarm in advance .
2. totally irrelevant to my point.
3. Farage was a child when he allegedly made those comments. From a legal perspective children are treated differently to adults as their brains haven’t developed?
Laws can sometimes be written for specific cases, and this was once common. See https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukppa/1987/2/pdfs/ukppa_19870002_en.pdf for an example.
And I think I have the book somewhere.