In the least surprising news of the day Radicanu is out.
So another coach bites the dust ...
There’ll come a time when Raducan’tu will realise it’s not necessarily the coach that is the issue.
Unfortunately there won't come a time when the public commentariat recognise that being the 29th best player in the world out of 40 million active female players globally, despite having significant injuries in each of the last four seasons is an amazing and laudable achievement that probably suggests she knows what she is doing better than we do.
There was a famous still life photographer called Lester Bookbinder. A New Yorker who worked in London. One of his many sayings was there was no such thing as an almost perfect strawberry
Never heard of him, probably ranked lower than 29th best photographer in the world.
Families to save in biggest home upgrade plan in British history
Government launches Warm Homes Plan to upgrade the nation's homes, help families cut their energy bills, and tackle fuel poverty.
Government launches £15 billion Warm Homes Plan to help millions of families benefit from solar panels, batteries, heat pumps and insulation that can cut energy bills.
Does it help people who live in leasehold flats? Asking for a friend called "me".
Yes but over a longish period for landlords to make improvements. From the linked release:-
NEW PROTECTIONS FOR RENTERS:
Today, 1.6 million children live in private accommodation suffering from cold, damp, or mould.
The government believes in a simple principle that if you rent a home, private or social, a landlord has a responsibility to ensure that it is safe, warm, and affordable.
If you meant your friend is the leaseholder, that probably counts as owner.
Two important points:
1 - It includes support (not sure on the detail) for air to air heat pumps. 2 - It runs up until 2029, so there is time to plan a proper renovation programme.
And a word of personal advice.
3 - If your Double Glazing (2G) is more than say 10-12 years old, it may be worth looking at a replacement under the scheme if eligible, because 2G has come forward a long way since say 2010-2015 and performance of decent glass is not now far off what 3G used to do. The scheme seems to include low interest loans.
As well as energy bills, considerations can also be sound insulation and a pleasant environment.
My double glazing man (since the 1990s) was telling me at the weekend that alu has a much larger share of the market, which is up from ~10% to ~30% over 20 years.
Yep, the k-glass type panels (standard now to meet energy requirements) are quite something. Got the window in my study replaced last year along with extension works and if the sun is shining (south facing) the I can forget heating in there, even in mid winter. (The basic principle is IR radiation blocking in the band emitted at normal room temps - so broad spectrum sunlight mostly gets in, radiation from warm surfaces in the room does not get out).
We only have aluminium for the bi-folds due to being stronger, but there is still more thermal bridging in those frames than in the uPVC units elsewhere - occasional minor condensation on the frames and the external* condensation is further from the frames than for the uPVC windows. I can see the appeal of the thinner frames that are possible though (another benefit for the bi-folds compared to uPVC). All the above comparisons on units under four years old.
*Which blew my mind when I first saw it - outside pane of glass kept cold enough to be a condensation surface, inside condensation free.
Question for UK media. We don't pay attention to every utterance, speech or presser for Putin, Modi or Xi. Why do we have wall-to-wall coverage of Trump?
A better question for the media is why are they deliberately ignoring the fact that he gave every appearance of dementia last night ?
Because they don't want to be sued for $20bn? Even spuriously so.
It's certainly possible that there's an element of their having been intimidated by the lawsuit. But their normalisation of the abnormal in favour of Trump long predates the argument over a single piece of bad editing.
In the BBC's favour, they did at least air the entire thing on their website, without cutting away, and if you had the endurance to listen to it, the state of his mental capacity was starkly evident.
But the accounts this morning read (or sound, in the case of Today) like something from Pravda.
And it's not just the BBC - even the Guardian does something similar.
Question for UK media. We don't pay attention to every utterance, speech or presser for Putin, Modi or Xi. Why do we have wall-to-wall coverage of Trump?
A better question for the media is why are they deliberately ignoring the fact that he gave every appearance of dementia last night ?
Because they don't want to be sued for $20bn? Even spuriously so.
It's certainly possible that there's an element of their having been intimidated by the lawsuit. But their normalisation of the abnormal in favour of Trump long predates the argument over a single piece of bad editing.
In the BBC's favour, they did at least air the entire thing on their website, without cutting away, and if you had the endurance to listen to it, the state of his mental capacity was starkly evident.
But the accounts this morning read (or sound, in the case of Today) like something from Pravda.
And it's not just the BBC - even the Guardian does something similar.
There is certainly an element that no-one wants to face up to reality. Easier to assume normal life can still exist.
In the least surprising news of the day Radicanu is out.
So another coach bites the dust ...
There’ll come a time when Raducan’tu will realise it’s not necessarily the coach that is the issue.
Unfortunately there won't come a time when the public commentariat recognise that being the 29th best player in the world out of 40 million active female players globally, despite having significant injuries in each of the last four seasons is an amazing and laudable achievement that probably suggests she knows what she is doing better than we do.
I'm a runner not a tennis player, but if I was getting a significant injury every year, it would be because I was doing something wrong
Do you have to chase ranking points each week to avoid getting drawn against the top seeds in your runs?
Every tennis player has to do that, they don't all spend their time injured.
Carney's speech yesterday. Watch from 11 minutes in. Extraordinarily powerful stuff, a must watch.
I just watched the whole thing and would recommend it.
It's the most clear sighted account of the changing world we are facing and how countries like the UK should be responding.
Would recommend watching it all.
Agree. Fabulous and let's await Starmer following the lead.
However the speech resolves in outline every middle ranking nation's strategy except for one question: What precisely does Canada do if, having annexed Greenland in 2026, the USA armed forces enter Canada in 2027 and seek to take over?
It was delusional to ask, but now it isn't. We know why Carney didn't touch on it, but it is still a question. Is he in fact accidentally saying to Trump: If you want to take over Canada you had better do it quickly because we are getting ready?
Further proof that King Charles III, the monarchy, and cash are as dodgy as hell.
Use cards people.
< a photo >
Some people only bother to do alternate updates to cut down on the disruption. Perhaps the same effect is in play here - wait until KWV and then they only have to update the machine once.
Question for UK media. We don't pay attention to every utterance, speech or presser for Putin, Modi or Xi. Why do we have wall-to-wall coverage of Trump?
As POTUS is still supposed to be leader of the western world, even if the current one is an isolationist protectionist
Carney's speech yesterday. Watch from 11 minutes in. Extraordinarily powerful stuff, a must watch.
I just watched the whole thing and would recommend it.
It's the most clear sighted account of the changing world we are facing and how countries like the UK should be responding.
Would recommend watching it all.
Agree. Fabulous and let's await Starmer following the lead.
However the speech resolves in outline every middle ranking nation's strategy except for one question: What precisely does Canada do if, having annexed Greenland in 2026, the USA armed forces enter Canada in 2027 and seek to take over?
It was delusional to ask, but now it isn't. We know why Carney didn't touch on it, but it is still a question. Is he in fact accidentally saying to Trump: If you want to take over Canada you had better do it quickly because we are getting ready?
Canadian defence spending is growing very quickly, albeit from a low base. It was up by 39% above inflation last year. (UK defence spending rose by 4.4% above inflation last year)
I guess it's the sort of thing that you would want to do in private as much as possible, but Britain really ought to be working hard to make sure that the nuclear deterrent can be sustained with US obstructionism. One of the benefits of an Anglo-Canadian Union would be extending Britain's nuclear deterrent to cover Canada, but that's no good if the US can put it out of action.
It gets a barnacle off the underside of the boat and the actual people themselves don't want the transfer iirc.
The views of the Chagossians are mixed. Some support the transfer.
Is there some value in sticking to international law at this time? Can we see any examples where ignoring international law has led a country to poor decisions?
I am happy to return the Chagos to Mauritius and aid resettlement of the Chaggossians who wish to return there.
I don't see why we should pay to rent the US base their. Let the Yanks pay Mauritius.
When were the Chagos owned by Mauritius?
Until we illegally detached them in 1968 according to the UN and International Court of Justice:
Chagos was an open goal for Trump, and he's right. His narrative on Greenland is that 'Europe' (in Greenland's case Denmark) will fail to defend territories in its control, ceding more and more power until an independent Greenland is gobbled up by Chinese money.
That's exactly what has happened in Chagos. We can bung Mauritius all the money we want, but we cannot stop them gradually undermining the security of Diego Garcia (from an American perspective) by aligning progressively with China's ambitions in the region. We have been weak, and US security has suffered. It doesn't matter that we've stuffed the Mauritian's mouths with gold to do what we want - without it being British sovereign territory we have no ability to enforce it.
It also completely undermines Starmer's argument that the Greenlanders have a right to self determination. What self-determination has he given to the Chagossians? The man is a moral vacuum, totally unable to spot his own glaring hypocrisy.
Trump's argument isn't perfect. The biggest counterargument is that the US could have as many more soldiers in Greenland as it likes under the current arrangement.
However, the fact that Starmer's antipatriotic Chagos policy has given Trump a case study in European weakness to highlight is nobody's fault but Starmer's.
Don’t embarrass yourself further. Chagos a sign of European weakness? 🙄
America was in the room alongside the Indian government negotiating this deal for us to sign, to a deal they were both happy with and still very much are.
They know they were in the room - cheeky chappy Trump know of US in the deal when he truthsocialled to cause mischief. And you know US and India were in the room - we all bloody know the truth now - so don’t demean yourself pretending facts are otherwise.
Neither US or India are on side of us keeping any bit of Empire, and the Chagos ownership difficulties only escalated with India’s “no cooperation with UK till our friend Mauritius gets Chagos back from them” very hard soft power throughout that region, utterly undermining us.
Saying China so heavily involved with Mauritius so it’s a huge win for them, has been a huge red herring gasping to be called out and fried right from the start.
At no point has UK had any control over Chagos since we owned it on behalf of America, ethnic cleansed it on behalf of America, for mates rates on nuclear weaponry - a deal we are still stuck up to our eyebrows in today.
Nice bizarre rant - next time you might try one that's in some way relevant to what I posted.
I've argued that the Chagos giveaway undermines US security - that was always the only conclusion possible following a reasoned assessement of the facts, it is no more or less true now Trump agrees, though I'm glad he does. The acquiescence or otherwise of the State department has nothing to do with it.
I'm glad that you feel you've 'fried the herring' of Chinese involvement, but you must have done so just in your brain, because you've not actually made an argument.
It remains a disaster and an international humiliation for Britain, and now after attending the opening of an envelope as long as it involved Scholz and Macron, Starmer refuses to go to the one international summit he might actually usefully attend.
Well, those are the facts of what it’s all about, I’ve laid out the historical fact of what, why and how.
Yet, you are choosing to believe Trump, in one of his lashing out rants instead. 🙂
Carney's speech yesterday. Watch from 11 minutes in. Extraordinarily powerful stuff, a must watch.
I just watched the whole thing and would recommend it.
It's the most clear sighted account of the changing world we are facing and how countries like the UK should be responding.
Would recommend watching it all.
Agree. Fabulous and let's await Starmer following the lead.
However the speech resolves in outline every middle ranking nation's strategy except for one question: What precisely does Canada do if, having annexed Greenland in 2026, the USA armed forces enter Canada in 2027 and seek to take over?
It was delusional to ask, but now it isn't. We know why Carney didn't touch on it, but it is still a question. Is he in fact accidentally saying to Trump: If you want to take over Canada you had better do it quickly because we are getting ready?
Canadian defence spending is growing very quickly, albeit from a low base. It was up by 39% above inflation last year. (UK defence spending rose by 4.4% above inflation last year)
I guess it's the sort of thing that you would want to do in private as much as possible, but Britain really ought to be working hard to make sure that the nuclear deterrent can be sustained with US obstructionism. One of the benefits of an Anglo-Canadian Union would be extending Britain's nuclear deterrent to cover Canada, but that's no good if the US can put it out of action
Canada has also joined the EU SAFE program; we are still haggling.
That's a practical demonstration that the idea that we are going to construct some alternative security block to the EU, with partners like Japan, S Korea and Canada, which a few PBers have floated, isn't very realistic.
But I agree on the lack of urgency regarding funding.
Carney's speech yesterday. Watch from 11 minutes in. Extraordinarily powerful stuff, a must watch.
He can speak, can't he? Starmer, unfortunately, could not articulate that.
The US dominated world, for us, had many benefits but also plenty of downsides. If we do successfully create a new order without the US being so pivotal, we shouldn't rush to return to the old order when the US elect someone sane as president.
Families to save in biggest home upgrade plan in British history
Government launches Warm Homes Plan to upgrade the nation's homes, help families cut their energy bills, and tackle fuel poverty.
Government launches £15 billion Warm Homes Plan to help millions of families benefit from solar panels, batteries, heat pumps and insulation that can cut energy bills.
Does it help people who live in leasehold flats? Asking for a friend called "me".
Yes but over a longish period for landlords to make improvements. From the linked release:-
NEW PROTECTIONS FOR RENTERS:
Today, 1.6 million children live in private accommodation suffering from cold, damp, or mould.
The government believes in a simple principle that if you rent a home, private or social, a landlord has a responsibility to ensure that it is safe, warm, and affordable.
If you meant your friend is the leaseholder, that probably counts as owner.
Two important points:
1 - It includes support (not sure on the detail) for air to air heat pumps. 2 - It runs up until 2029, so there is time to plan a proper renovation programme.
And a word of personal advice.
3 - If your Double Glazing (2G) is more than say 10-12 years old, it may be worth looking at a replacement under the scheme if eligible, because 2G has come forward a long way since say 2010-2015 and performance of decent glass is not now far off what 3G used to do. The scheme seems to include low interest loans.
As well as energy bills, considerations can also be sound insulation and a pleasant environment.
My double glazing man (since the 1990s) was telling me at the weekend that alu has a much larger share of the market, which is up from ~10% to ~30% over 20 years.
Yep, the k-glass type panels (standard now to meet energy requirements) are quite something. Got the window in my study replaced last year along with extension works and if the sun is shining (south facing) the I can forget heating in there, even in mid winter. (The basic principle is IR radiation blocking in the band emitted at normal room temps - so broad spectrum sunlight mostly gets in, radiation from warm surfaces in the room does not get out).
We only have aluminium for the bi-folds due to being stronger, but there is still more thermal bridging in those frames than in the uPVC units elsewhere - occasional minor condensation on the frames and the external* condensation is further from the frames than for the uPVC windows. I can see the appeal of the thinner frames that are possible though (another benefit for the bi-folds compared to uPVC). All the above comparisons on units under four years old.
*Which blew my mind when I first saw it - outside pane of glass kept cold enough to be a condensation surface, inside condensation free.
Good comments. I first saw that at home on my 2013 (north facing) conservatory, but I always specify "best double glazing units available via my supply route" *. Houses I have done renovations on since then get the same effect, except where the refurb was done by someone else.
The 2G in my own house is circa 2008, and does not get the same effect, but there is a lot of it so may not be on the replacement list yet. The end of the scheme in 2028-9 may be on the agenda.
Here's an example of a stupid install, where they lost nearly half the window area to the frames so they will be really dark inside.
* This is a bit innovative but takes me up the supply chain to the 2G manufacturer who supplies the wholesaler who supplies the retailer who supplies the fitter, and so comes in at somewhat less than half price, in exchange for modest compromises.
Carney's speech yesterday. Watch from 11 minutes in. Extraordinarily powerful stuff, a must watch.
I just watched the whole thing and would recommend it.
It's the most clear sighted account of the changing world we are facing and how countries like the UK should be responding.
Would recommend watching it all.
Agree. Fabulous and let's await Starmer following the lead.
However the speech resolves in outline every middle ranking nation's strategy except for one question: What precisely does Canada do if, having annexed Greenland in 2026, the USA armed forces enter Canada in 2027 and seek to take over?
It was delusional to ask, but now it isn't. We know why Carney didn't touch on it, but it is still a question. Is he in fact accidentally saying to Trump: If you want to take over Canada you had better do it quickly because we are getting ready?
Canadian defence spending is growing very quickly, albeit from a low base. It was up by 39% above inflation last year. (UK defence spending rose by 4.4% above inflation last year)
I guess it's the sort of thing that you would want to do in private as much as possible, but Britain really ought to be working hard to make sure that the nuclear deterrent can be sustained with US obstructionism. One of the benefits of an Anglo-Canadian Union would be extending Britain's nuclear deterrent to cover Canada, but that's no good if the US can put it out of action.
The latest figures from NATO on defence spending (pdf) are interesting to look at. There are obviously some countries that are responding with an appropriate level of seriousness in terms of rapidly increasing their spending on defence, particularly if you look at countries that are already above the old 2% target that are still increasing their spending rapidly:
Denmark +45% Finland +17% Latvia +13% Lithuania +34% Netherlands +26% Norway +50% Poland +22% Sweden +11% Turkiye +12%
The UK sticks out as a country already above the 2% target that is doing very little to increase spending further. Britain has a self-image of being stronger on defence then the continental Europeans, but we're starting to become a laggard now.
Carney's speech yesterday. Watch from 11 minutes in. Extraordinarily powerful stuff, a must watch.
He can speak, can't he? Starmer, unfortunately, could not articulate that.
The US dominated world, for us, had many benefits but also plenty of downsides. If we do successfully create a new order without the US being so pivotal, we shouldn't rush to return to the old order when the US elect someone sane as president.
What if by 2029 Buttigieg or Newsom is US President but Farage is UK PM, Bardella or Le Pen is French President, the AfD are largest party in Germany and Polievre is Canadian PM finally?
Families to save in biggest home upgrade plan in British history
Government launches Warm Homes Plan to upgrade the nation's homes, help families cut their energy bills, and tackle fuel poverty.
Government launches £15 billion Warm Homes Plan to help millions of families benefit from solar panels, batteries, heat pumps and insulation that can cut energy bills.
Does it help people who live in leasehold flats? Asking for a friend called "me".
Yes but over a longish period for landlords to make improvements. From the linked release:-
NEW PROTECTIONS FOR RENTERS:
Today, 1.6 million children live in private accommodation suffering from cold, damp, or mould.
The government believes in a simple principle that if you rent a home, private or social, a landlord has a responsibility to ensure that it is safe, warm, and affordable.
I own (well, the bank does via the mortgage) the leasehold on the flat. The flat is one of several in the block. The freehold company owns the freehold.
Carney's speech yesterday. Watch from 11 minutes in. Extraordinarily powerful stuff, a must watch.
I just watched the whole thing and would recommend it.
It's the most clear sighted account of the changing world we are facing and how countries like the UK should be responding.
Would recommend watching it all.
Agree. Fabulous and let's await Starmer following the lead.
However the speech resolves in outline every middle ranking nation's strategy except for one question: What precisely does Canada do if, having annexed Greenland in 2026, the USA armed forces enter Canada in 2027 and seek to take over?
It was delusional to ask, but now it isn't. We know why Carney didn't touch on it, but it is still a question. Is he in fact accidentally saying to Trump: If you want to take over Canada you had better do it quickly because we are getting ready?
Canadian defence spending is growing very quickly, albeit from a low base. It was up by 39% above inflation last year. (UK defence spending rose by 4.4% above inflation last year)
I guess it's the sort of thing that you would want to do in private as much as possible, but Britain really ought to be working hard to make sure that the nuclear deterrent can be sustained with US obstructionism. One of the benefits of an Anglo-Canadian Union would be extending Britain's nuclear deterrent to cover Canada, but that's no good if the US can put it out of action.
The latest figures from NATO on defence spending (pdf) are interesting to look at. There are obviously some countries that are responding with an appropriate level of seriousness in terms of rapidly increasing their spending on defence, particularly if you look at countries that are already above the old 2% target that are still increasing their spending rapidly:
Denmark +45% Finland +17% Latvia +13% Lithuania +34% Netherlands +26% Norway +50% Poland +22% Sweden +11% Turkiye +12%
The UK sticks out as a country already above the 2% target that is doing very little to increase spending further. Britain has a self-image of being stronger on defence then the continental Europeans, but we're starting to become a laggard now.
Never mind under the UK Labour government we are pouring welfare into those with anxiety and 5 children on universal credit and giving train drivers and GPs big payrises instead
In the least surprising news of the day Radicanu is out.
So another coach bites the dust ...
There’ll come a time when Raducan’tu will realise it’s not necessarily the coach that is the issue.
Unfortunately there won't come a time when the public commentariat recognise that being the 29th best player in the world out of 40 million active female players globally, despite having significant injuries in each of the last four seasons is an amazing and laudable achievement that probably suggests she knows what she is doing better than we do.
Well we’re not pro tennis players, of course she will be a better player than we are.
Ah, the British sporting mindset.
A gallant loser is still a loser. One win years ago, and then zip.
Carney's speech yesterday. Watch from 11 minutes in. Extraordinarily powerful stuff, a must watch.
I just watched the whole thing and would recommend it.
It's the most clear sighted account of the changing world we are facing and how countries like the UK should be responding.
Would recommend watching it all.
Agree. Fabulous and let's await Starmer following the lead.
However the speech resolves in outline every middle ranking nation's strategy except for one question: What precisely does Canada do if, having annexed Greenland in 2026, the USA armed forces enter Canada in 2027 and seek to take over?
It was delusional to ask, but now it isn't. We know why Carney didn't touch on it, but it is still a question. Is he in fact accidentally saying to Trump: If you want to take over Canada you had better do it quickly because we are getting ready?
Canadian defence spending is growing very quickly, albeit from a low base. It was up by 39% above inflation last year. (UK defence spending rose by 4.4% above inflation last year)
I guess it's the sort of thing that you would want to do in private as much as possible, but Britain really ought to be working hard to make sure that the nuclear deterrent can be sustained with US obstructionism. One of the benefits of an Anglo-Canadian Union would be extending Britain's nuclear deterrent to cover Canada, but that's no good if the US can put it out of action.
The latest figures from NATO on defence spending (pdf) are interesting to look at. There are obviously some countries that are responding with an appropriate level of seriousness in terms of rapidly increasing their spending on defence, particularly if you look at countries that are already above the old 2% target that are still increasing their spending rapidly:
Denmark +45% Finland +17% Latvia +13% Lithuania +34% Netherlands +26% Norway +50% Poland +22% Sweden +11% Turkiye +12%
The UK sticks out as a country already above the 2% target that is doing very little to increase spending further. Britain has a self-image of being stronger on defence then the continental Europeans, but we're starting to become a laggard now.
A number of European countries have black holes of a couple of years of defence expenditure to fill - fortunately we (generally) do not.
The real challenge as I see it for the UK is that our Defence Spending in inefficient in bang-per-buck.
Our MPPP (Military Purchasing Power Parity) compared to the USA is around 0.95, whilst for France it is 0.65.
That is, we get for $95 what costs the USA $100. This has moved in our favour with the dollar falling by 10-15% recently, but the difference with France is very large.
Carney's speech yesterday. Watch from 11 minutes in. Extraordinarily powerful stuff, a must watch.
I just watched the whole thing and would recommend it.
It's the most clear sighted account of the changing world we are facing and how countries like the UK should be responding.
Would recommend watching it all.
Agree. Fabulous and let's await Starmer following the lead.
However the speech resolves in outline every middle ranking nation's strategy except for one question: What precisely does Canada do if, having annexed Greenland in 2026, the USA armed forces enter Canada in 2027 and seek to take over?
It was delusional to ask, but now it isn't. We know why Carney didn't touch on it, but it is still a question. Is he in fact accidentally saying to Trump: If you want to take over Canada you had better do it quickly because we are getting ready?
Canadian defence spending is growing very quickly, albeit from a low base. It was up by 39% above inflation last year. (UK defence spending rose by 4.4% above inflation last year)
I guess it's the sort of thing that you would want to do in private as much as possible, but Britain really ought to be working hard to make sure that the nuclear deterrent can be sustained with US obstructionism. One of the benefits of an Anglo-Canadian Union would be extending Britain's nuclear deterrent to cover Canada, but that's no good if the US can put it out of action.
The latest figures from NATO on defence spending is interesting to look at. There are obviously some countries that are responding with an appropriate level of seriousness in terms of rapidly increasing their spending on defence, particularly if you look at countries that are already above the old 2% target that are still increasing their spending rapidly: Denmark +45% Finland +17% Latvia +13% Lithuania +34% Netherlands +26% Norway +50% Poland +22% Sweden +11% Turkiye +12%
The UK sticks out as a country already above the 2% target that is doing very little to increase spending further. Britain has a self-image of being stronger on defence then the continental Europeans, but we're starting to become a laggard now.
Britain's defence spending has some problems, like all economic statistics. First, Cameron/Osborne boosted the figures but not the spending by adding in pensions and other costs that don't go bang. Second, it includes the nuclear deterrent which we can't actually fire at an enemy. Third, Labour actually used the army which is more expensive and runs down stocks faster than sitting around in Catterick. Fourth, decades of Tory cuts. Fifth, Labour spent the lot on two new carriers with not enough planes to fill one.
In the least surprising news of the day Radicanu is out.
So another coach bites the dust ...
There’ll come a time when Raducan’tu will realise it’s not necessarily the coach that is the issue.
Unfortunately there won't come a time when the public commentariat recognise that being the 29th best player in the world out of 40 million active female players globally, despite having significant injuries in each of the last four seasons is an amazing and laudable achievement that probably suggests she knows what she is doing better than we do.
Well we’re not pro tennis players, of course she will be a better player than we are.
Ah, the British sporting mindset.
A gallant loser is still a loser. One win years ago, and then zip.
I've just checked and was surprised to find Emma Raducanu is only 23 years old. It seems ages since her US Open win.
Carney's speech yesterday. Watch from 11 minutes in. Extraordinarily powerful stuff, a must watch.
I just watched the whole thing and would recommend it.
It's the most clear sighted account of the changing world we are facing and how countries like the UK should be responding.
Would recommend watching it all.
Agree. Fabulous and let's await Starmer following the lead.
However the speech resolves in outline every middle ranking nation's strategy except for one question: What precisely does Canada do if, having annexed Greenland in 2026, the USA armed forces enter Canada in 2027 and seek to take over?
It was delusional to ask, but now it isn't. We know why Carney didn't touch on it, but it is still a question. Is he in fact accidentally saying to Trump: If you want to take over Canada you had better do it quickly because we are getting ready?
Canadian defence spending is growing very quickly, albeit from a low base. It was up by 39% above inflation last year. (UK defence spending rose by 4.4% above inflation last year)
I guess it's the sort of thing that you would want to do in private as much as possible, but Britain really ought to be working hard to make sure that the nuclear deterrent can be sustained with US obstructionism. One of the benefits of an Anglo-Canadian Union would be extending Britain's nuclear deterrent to cover Canada, but that's no good if the US can put it out of action.
The latest figures from NATO on defence spending (pdf) are interesting to look at. There are obviously some countries that are responding with an appropriate level of seriousness in terms of rapidly increasing their spending on defence, particularly if you look at countries that are already above the old 2% target that are still increasing their spending rapidly:
Denmark +45% Finland +17% Latvia +13% Lithuania +34% Netherlands +26% Norway +50% Poland +22% Sweden +11% Turkiye +12%
The UK sticks out as a country already above the 2% target that is doing very little to increase spending further. Britain has a self-image of being stronger on defence then the continental Europeans, but we're starting to become a laggard now.
I really don’t believe there is any real desire to increase defence spending in the majority of the Labour Party. To many the military is something they know nothing about and care little, to others it’s something they actively resent. There are a group of ex military and sensible MPs who hopefully can push but if it’s at the cost to welfare etc there will be endless promises and cans kicked down road (I seem to recall they set the target to increase spending as 2035?).
The Tories have been no better in their stints in charge however they might get a tiny bit of leeway for it not having been so dangerous for most of their rule as it is right now requiring actively immediate spending.
But….. there is no point in spending more if it’s the same people doing the spending who have been doing it so far with constant delays and overspends. Maybe convene an emergency committee to oversee spending of emergency top up money that has to be spent only on kit that is available now, is not altered for British requirements.
Carney's speech yesterday. Watch from 11 minutes in. Extraordinarily powerful stuff, a must watch.
He can speak, can't he? Starmer, unfortunately, could not articulate that.
The US dominated world, for us, had many benefits but also plenty of downsides. If we do successfully create a new order without the US being so pivotal, we shouldn't rush to return to the old order when the US elect someone sane as president.
What if by 2029 Buttigieg or Newsom is US President but Farage is UK PM, Bardella or Le Pen is French President, the AfD are largest party in Germany and Polievre is Canadian PM finally?
Well then we're all fucked, if the world collectively loses its mind. Though the only positive contribution of Trump has been sinking Trump-lite would-be leaders elsewhere.
But the old (western) world order could have absorbed a Farage or a Le Pen etc because individually we weren't that critical to it. But we've all been far to reliant on the US based on the premise that they will have a sane leader. Trump is right about that, at least - we've been too reliant and not pulling our weight. Although being less reliant also means having alternatives to US tech and companies.
Families to save in biggest home upgrade plan in British history
Government launches Warm Homes Plan to upgrade the nation's homes, help families cut their energy bills, and tackle fuel poverty.
Government launches £15 billion Warm Homes Plan to help millions of families benefit from solar panels, batteries, heat pumps and insulation that can cut energy bills.
Does it help people who live in leasehold flats? Asking for a friend called "me".
Yes but over a longish period for landlords to make improvements. From the linked release:-
NEW PROTECTIONS FOR RENTERS:
Today, 1.6 million children live in private accommodation suffering from cold, damp, or mould.
The government believes in a simple principle that if you rent a home, private or social, a landlord has a responsibility to ensure that it is safe, warm, and affordable.
I own (well, the bank does via the mortgage) the leasehold on the flat. The flat is one of several in the block. The freehold company owns the freehold.
Air source heat pumps are reversible air conditioning, basically.
I recommend them - if you have a well insulated loft, for example, you don’t need radiators up there. I just have the heat pumps up there - used it to heat twice this whole winter.
In summer they run off the solar panels on the roof.
Carney's speech yesterday. Watch from 11 minutes in. Extraordinarily powerful stuff, a must watch.
I just watched the whole thing and would recommend it.
It's the most clear sighted account of the changing world we are facing and how countries like the UK should be responding.
Would recommend watching it all.
Agree. Fabulous and let's await Starmer following the lead.
However the speech resolves in outline every middle ranking nation's strategy except for one question: What precisely does Canada do if, having annexed Greenland in 2026, the USA armed forces enter Canada in 2027 and seek to take over?
It was delusional to ask, but now it isn't. We know why Carney didn't touch on it, but it is still a question. Is he in fact accidentally saying to Trump: If you want to take over Canada you had better do it quickly because we are getting ready?
Canadian defence spending is growing very quickly, albeit from a low base. It was up by 39% above inflation last year. (UK defence spending rose by 4.4% above inflation last year)
I guess it's the sort of thing that you would want to do in private as much as possible, but Britain really ought to be working hard to make sure that the nuclear deterrent can be sustained with US obstructionism. One of the benefits of an Anglo-Canadian Union would be extending Britain's nuclear deterrent to cover Canada, but that's no good if the US can put it out of action.
The latest figures from NATO on defence spending is interesting to look at. There are obviously some countries that are responding with an appropriate level of seriousness in terms of rapidly increasing their spending on defence, particularly if you look at countries that are already above the old 2% target that are still increasing their spending rapidly: Denmark +45% Finland +17% Latvia +13% Lithuania +34% Netherlands +26% Norway +50% Poland +22% Sweden +11% Turkiye +12%
The UK sticks out as a country already above the 2% target that is doing very little to increase spending further. Britain has a self-image of being stronger on defence then the continental Europeans, but we're starting to become a laggard now.
Britain's defence spending has some problems, like all economic statistics. First, Cameron/Osborne boosted the figures but not the spending by adding in pensions and other costs that don't go bang. Second, it includes the nuclear deterrent which we can't actually fire at an enemy. Third, Labour actually used the army which is more expensive and runs down stocks faster than sitting around in Catterick. Fourth, decades of Tory cuts. Fifth, Labour spent the lot on two new carriers with not enough planes to fill one.
Meanwhile, it’s clear that the next major territorial battle will be fought with mostly small autonomous vehicles on land, sea, and air.
The best defence spending possible right now, is buying shares in the Ukranian startups currently powering their war that lets them expand their investment.
Carney's speech yesterday. Watch from 11 minutes in. Extraordinarily powerful stuff, a must watch.
I just watched the whole thing and would recommend it.
It's the most clear sighted account of the changing world we are facing and how countries like the UK should be responding.
Would recommend watching it all.
Agree. Fabulous and let's await Starmer following the lead.
However the speech resolves in outline every middle ranking nation's strategy except for one question: What precisely does Canada do if, having annexed Greenland in 2026, the USA armed forces enter Canada in 2027 and seek to take over?
It was delusional to ask, but now it isn't. We know why Carney didn't touch on it, but it is still a question. Is he in fact accidentally saying to Trump: If you want to take over Canada you had better do it quickly because we are getting ready?
Canadian defence spending is growing very quickly, albeit from a low base. It was up by 39% above inflation last year. (UK defence spending rose by 4.4% above inflation last year)
I guess it's the sort of thing that you would want to do in private as much as possible, but Britain really ought to be working hard to make sure that the nuclear deterrent can be sustained with US obstructionism. One of the benefits of an Anglo-Canadian Union would be extending Britain's nuclear deterrent to cover Canada, but that's no good if the US can put it out of action.
The latest figures from NATO on defence spending (pdf) are interesting to look at. There are obviously some countries that are responding with an appropriate level of seriousness in terms of rapidly increasing their spending on defence, particularly if you look at countries that are already above the old 2% target that are still increasing their spending rapidly:
Denmark +45% Finland +17% Latvia +13% Lithuania +34% Netherlands +26% Norway +50% Poland +22% Sweden +11% Turkiye +12%
The UK sticks out as a country already above the 2% target that is doing very little to increase spending further. Britain has a self-image of being stronger on defence then the continental Europeans, but we're starting to become a laggard now.
A number of European countries have black holes of a couple of years of defence expenditure to fill - fortunately we (generally) do not.
The real challenge as I see it for the UK is that our Defence Spending in inefficient in bang-per-buck.
Our MPPP (Military Purchasing Power Parity) compared to the USA is around 0.95, whilst for France it is 0.65.
That is, we get for $95 what costs the USA $100. This has moved in our favour with the dollar falling by 10-15% recently, but the difference with France is very large.
You are being complacent. One of the reasons Britain only had one operational attack submarine is because the defence budget in the UK has been salami-sliced to death over many years. There are lots of black holes to fill in the budget.
It's also why I looked at the percentage increases for countries which were already over the 2% target. These are our peers - like Norway and the Netherlands - who have traditionally taken defence more seriously than countries like Spain or Italy.
Most of the countries in my list are JEF members. Again, Britain stands out as a JEF member not increasing defence spending rapidly.
Families to save in biggest home upgrade plan in British history
Government launches Warm Homes Plan to upgrade the nation's homes, help families cut their energy bills, and tackle fuel poverty.
Government launches £15 billion Warm Homes Plan to help millions of families benefit from solar panels, batteries, heat pumps and insulation that can cut energy bills.
Does it help people who live in leasehold flats? Asking for a friend called "me".
Yes but over a longish period for landlords to make improvements. From the linked release:-
NEW PROTECTIONS FOR RENTERS:
Today, 1.6 million children live in private accommodation suffering from cold, damp, or mould.
The government believes in a simple principle that if you rent a home, private or social, a landlord has a responsibility to ensure that it is safe, warm, and affordable.
If you meant your friend is the leaseholder, that probably counts as owner.
Two important points:
1 - It includes support (not sure on the detail) for air to air heat pumps. 2 - It runs up until 2029, so there is time to plan a proper renovation programme.
And a word of personal advice.
3 - If your Double Glazing (2G) is more than say 10-12 years old, it may be worth looking at a replacement under the scheme if eligible, because 2G has come forward a long way since say 2010-2015 and performance of decent glass is not now far off what 3G used to do. The scheme seems to include low interest loans.
As well as energy bills, considerations can also be sound insulation and a pleasant environment.
My double glazing man (since the 1990s) was telling me at the weekend that alu has a much larger share of the market, which is up from ~10% to ~30% over 20 years.
Yep, the k-glass type panels (standard now to meet energy requirements) are quite something. Got the window in my study replaced last year along with extension works and if the sun is shining (south facing) the I can forget heating in there, even in mid winter. (The basic principle is IR radiation blocking in the band emitted at normal room temps - so broad spectrum sunlight mostly gets in, radiation from warm surfaces in the room does not get out).
We only have aluminium for the bi-folds due to being stronger, but there is still more thermal bridging in those frames than in the uPVC units elsewhere - occasional minor condensation on the frames and the external* condensation is further from the frames than for the uPVC windows. I can see the appeal of the thinner frames that are possible though (another benefit for the bi-folds compared to uPVC). All the above comparisons on units under four years old.
*Which blew my mind when I first saw it - outside pane of glass kept cold enough to be a condensation surface, inside condensation free.
Good comments. I first saw that at home on my 2013 (north facing) conservatory, but I always specify "best double glazing units available via my supply route" *. Houses I have done renovations on since then get the same effect, except where the refurb was done by someone else.
The 2G in my own house is circa 2008, and does not get the same effect, but there is a lot of it so may not be on the replacement list yet. The end of the scheme in 2028-9 may be on the agenda.
Here's an example of a stupid install, where they lost nearly half the window area to the frames so they will be really dark inside.
* This is a bit innovative but takes me up the supply chain to the 2G manufacturer who supplies the wholesaler who supplies the retailer who supplies the fitter, and so comes in at somewhat less than half price, in exchange for modest compromises.
Families to save in biggest home upgrade plan in British history
Government launches Warm Homes Plan to upgrade the nation's homes, help families cut their energy bills, and tackle fuel poverty.
Government launches £15 billion Warm Homes Plan to help millions of families benefit from solar panels, batteries, heat pumps and insulation that can cut energy bills.
Does it help people who live in leasehold flats? Asking for a friend called "me".
Yes but over a longish period for landlords to make improvements. From the linked release:-
NEW PROTECTIONS FOR RENTERS:
Today, 1.6 million children live in private accommodation suffering from cold, damp, or mould.
The government believes in a simple principle that if you rent a home, private or social, a landlord has a responsibility to ensure that it is safe, warm, and affordable.
If you meant your friend is the leaseholder, that probably counts as owner.
Two important points:
1 - It includes support (not sure on the detail) for air to air heat pumps. 2 - It runs up until 2029, so there is time to plan a proper renovation programme.
And a word of personal advice.
3 - If your Double Glazing (2G) is more than say 10-12 years old, it may be worth looking at a replacement under the scheme if eligible, because 2G has come forward a long way since say 2010-2015 and performance of decent glass is not now far off what 3G used to do. The scheme seems to include low interest loans.
As well as energy bills, considerations can also be sound insulation and a pleasant environment.
My double glazing man (since the 1990s) was telling me at the weekend that alu has a much larger share of the market, which is up from ~10% to ~30% over 20 years.
Yep, the k-glass type panels (standard now to meet energy requirements) are quite something. Got the window in my study replaced last year along with extension works and if the sun is shining (south facing) the I can forget heating in there, even in mid winter. (The basic principle is IR radiation blocking in the band emitted at normal room temps - so broad spectrum sunlight mostly gets in, radiation from warm surfaces in the room does not get out).
We only have aluminium for the bi-folds due to being stronger, but there is still more thermal bridging in those frames than in the uPVC units elsewhere - occasional minor condensation on the frames and the external* condensation is further from the frames than for the uPVC windows. I can see the appeal of the thinner frames that are possible though (another benefit for the bi-folds compared to uPVC). All the above comparisons on units under four years old.
*Which blew my mind when I first saw it - outside pane of glass kept cold enough to be a condensation surface, inside condensation free.
Good comments. I first saw that at home on my 2013 (north facing) conservatory, but I always specify "best double glazing units available via my supply route" *. Houses I have done renovations on since then get the same effect, except where the refurb was done by someone else.
The 2G in my own house is circa 2008, and does not get the same effect, but there is a lot of it so may not be on the replacement list yet. The end of the scheme in 2028-9 may be on the agenda.
Here's an example of a stupid install, where they lost nearly half the window area to the frames so they will be really dark inside.
* This is a bit innovative but takes me up the supply chain to the 2G manufacturer who supplies the wholesaler who supplies the retailer who supplies the fitter, and so comes in at somewhat less than half price, in exchange for modest compromises.
Carney's speech yesterday. Watch from 11 minutes in. Extraordinarily powerful stuff, a must watch.
I just watched the whole thing and would recommend it.
It's the most clear sighted account of the changing world we are facing and how countries like the UK should be responding.
Would recommend watching it all.
Agree. Fabulous and let's await Starmer following the lead.
However the speech resolves in outline every middle ranking nation's strategy except for one question: What precisely does Canada do if, having annexed Greenland in 2026, the USA armed forces enter Canada in 2027 and seek to take over?
It was delusional to ask, but now it isn't. We know why Carney didn't touch on it, but it is still a question. Is he in fact accidentally saying to Trump: If you want to take over Canada you had better do it quickly because we are getting ready?
Canadian defence spending is growing very quickly, albeit from a low base. It was up by 39% above inflation last year. (UK defence spending rose by 4.4% above inflation last year)
I guess it's the sort of thing that you would want to do in private as much as possible, but Britain really ought to be working hard to make sure that the nuclear deterrent can be sustained with US obstructionism. One of the benefits of an Anglo-Canadian Union would be extending Britain's nuclear deterrent to cover Canada, but that's no good if the US can put it out of action.
The latest figures from NATO on defence spending (pdf) are interesting to look at. There are obviously some countries that are responding with an appropriate level of seriousness in terms of rapidly increasing their spending on defence, particularly if you look at countries that are already above the old 2% target that are still increasing their spending rapidly:
Denmark +45% Finland +17% Latvia +13% Lithuania +34% Netherlands +26% Norway +50% Poland +22% Sweden +11% Turkiye +12%
The UK sticks out as a country already above the 2% target that is doing very little to increase spending further. Britain has a self-image of being stronger on defence then the continental Europeans, but we're starting to become a laggard now.
How do we know they're not doing what the UK did a while back, and redefining what constitutes 'defence' spending to embrace previously excluded categories? There's an accepted NATO definition, but the UK now adds in a proportion of security services spending, cybersecurity activity, various non-MoD R&D.
Other countries already do such things - Italy, for example, credits its entire spend on the Carabinieri as defence spending, despite their day to day activities mostly being humdrum stuff like roadside checks on drivers. Indeed the US is the biggest spender, but also uses the broadest definition of all, including its entire intelligence community (all 18 agencies), all of its space expenditure, all of its nuclear expenditure, the myriad veterans' benefits such as their medical scheme (which alone, in cash terms, exceeds what many NATO members spend on defence in total!), coastguard, homeland security, multi-agency R&D - such that comparing defence spending between nations can be a pretty meaningless exercise, unless you are willing to go do a lot of work breaking the spending down into categories.
And even where there's an accepted definition - for example armed forces' pensions count as defence spending, and comprise almost a tenth of UK's declared total - that money's not going to help us fend off the Russkies, is it?
Carney's speech yesterday. Watch from 11 minutes in. Extraordinarily powerful stuff, a must watch.
I just watched the whole thing and would recommend it.
It's the most clear sighted account of the changing world we are facing and how countries like the UK should be responding.
Would recommend watching it all.
Agree. Fabulous and let's await Starmer following the lead.
However the speech resolves in outline every middle ranking nation's strategy except for one question: What precisely does Canada do if, having annexed Greenland in 2026, the USA armed forces enter Canada in 2027 and seek to take over?
It was delusional to ask, but now it isn't. We know why Carney didn't touch on it, but it is still a question. Is he in fact accidentally saying to Trump: If you want to take over Canada you had better do it quickly because we are getting ready?
Canadian defence spending is growing very quickly, albeit from a low base. It was up by 39% above inflation last year. (UK defence spending rose by 4.4% above inflation last year)
I guess it's the sort of thing that you would want to do in private as much as possible, but Britain really ought to be working hard to make sure that the nuclear deterrent can be sustained with US obstructionism. One of the benefits of an Anglo-Canadian Union would be extending Britain's nuclear deterrent to cover Canada, but that's no good if the US can put it out of action.
The latest figures from NATO on defence spending (pdf) are interesting to look at. There are obviously some countries that are responding with an appropriate level of seriousness in terms of rapidly increasing their spending on defence, particularly if you look at countries that are already above the old 2% target that are still increasing their spending rapidly:
Denmark +45% Finland +17% Latvia +13% Lithuania +34% Netherlands +26% Norway +50% Poland +22% Sweden +11% Turkiye +12%
The UK sticks out as a country already above the 2% target that is doing very little to increase spending further. Britain has a self-image of being stronger on defence then the continental Europeans, but we're starting to become a laggard now.
How do we know they're not doing what the UK did a while back, and redefining what constitutes 'defence' spending to embrace previously excluded categories? There's an accepted NATO definition, but the UK now adds in a proportion of security services spending, cybersecurity activity, various non-MoD R&D.
Other countries already do such things - Italy, for example, credits its entire spend on the Carabinieri as defence spending, despite their day to day activities mostly being humdrum stuff like roadside checks on drivers. Indeed the US is the biggest spender, but also uses the broadest definition of all, including its entire intelligence community (all 18 agencies), all of its space expenditure, all of its nuclear expenditure, the myriad veterans' benefits such as their medical scheme (which alone, in cash terms, exceeds what many NATO members spend on defence in total!), coastguard, homeland security, multi-agency R&D - such that comparing defence spending between nations can be a pretty meaningless exercise, unless you are willing to go do a lot of work breaking the spending down into categories.
And even where there's an accepted definition - for example armed forces' pensions count as defence spending, and comprise almost a tenth of UK's declared total - that money's not going to help us fend off the Russkies, is it?
The UK should strip out the nuclear deterrent from the defence budget as it’s not likely to be used so doesn’t help anyone with planning etc - if it’s ever used then budgets mean nothing anymore anyway.
I wonder if there is any merit for breaking up the Defence Budget as one block and break it down into its constituent parts to be considered very separately on the basis of need rather than having internal bunfights between the services.
So for example the RAF have to go to the treasury and explain what they need and why they need it and agree their own budget, the Navy and Army the same. It might focus politicians minds on which areas are more important and what our role actually should/can be.
Carney's speech yesterday. Watch from 11 minutes in. Extraordinarily powerful stuff, a must watch.
I just watched the whole thing and would recommend it.
It's the most clear sighted account of the changing world we are facing and how countries like the UK should be responding.
Would recommend watching it all.
Agree. Fabulous and let's await Starmer following the lead.
However the speech resolves in outline every middle ranking nation's strategy except for one question: What precisely does Canada do if, having annexed Greenland in 2026, the USA armed forces enter Canada in 2027 and seek to take over?
It was delusional to ask, but now it isn't. We know why Carney didn't touch on it, but it is still a question. Is he in fact accidentally saying to Trump: If you want to take over Canada you had better do it quickly because we are getting ready?
Canadian defence spending is growing very quickly, albeit from a low base. It was up by 39% above inflation last year. (UK defence spending rose by 4.4% above inflation last year)
I guess it's the sort of thing that you would want to do in private as much as possible, but Britain really ought to be working hard to make sure that the nuclear deterrent can be sustained with US obstructionism. One of the benefits of an Anglo-Canadian Union would be extending Britain's nuclear deterrent to cover Canada, but that's no good if the US can put it out of action.
The latest figures from NATO on defence spending (pdf) are interesting to look at. There are obviously some countries that are responding with an appropriate level of seriousness in terms of rapidly increasing their spending on defence, particularly if you look at countries that are already above the old 2% target that are still increasing their spending rapidly:
Denmark +45% Finland +17% Latvia +13% Lithuania +34% Netherlands +26% Norway +50% Poland +22% Sweden +11% Turkiye +12%
The UK sticks out as a country already above the 2% target that is doing very little to increase spending further. Britain has a self-image of being stronger on defence then the continental Europeans, but we're starting to become a laggard now.
How do we know they're not doing what the UK did a while back, and redefining what constitutes 'defence' spending to embrace previously excluded categories? There's an accepted NATO definition, but the UK now adds in a proportion of security services spending, cybersecurity activity, various non-MoD R&D.
Other countries already do such things - Italy, for example, credits its entire spend on the Carabinieri as defence spending, despite their day to day activities mostly being humdrum stuff like roadside checks on drivers. Indeed the US is the biggest spender, but also uses the broadest definition of all, including its entire intelligence community (all 18 agencies), all of its space expenditure, all of its nuclear expenditure, the myriad veterans' benefits such as their medical scheme (which alone, in cash terms, exceeds what many NATO members spend on defence in total!), coastguard, homeland security, multi-agency R&D - such that comparing defence spending between nations can be a pretty meaningless exercise, unless you are willing to go do a lot of work breaking the spending down into categories.
And even where there's an accepted definition - for example armed forces' pensions count as defence spending, and comprise almost a tenth of UK's declared total - that money's not going to help us fend off the Russkies, is it?
The UK should strip out the nuclear deterrent from the defence budget as it’s not likely to be used so doesn’t help anyone with planning etc - if it’s ever used then budgets mean nothing anymore anyway.
I wonder if there is any merit for breaking up the Defence Budget as one block and break it down into its constituent parts to be considered very separately on the basis of need rather than having internal bunfights between the services.
So for example the RAF have to go to the treasury and explain what they need and why they need it and agree their own budget, the Navy and Army the same. It might focus politicians minds on which areas are more important and what our role actually should/can be.
I'd like to see the US compared to other countries once they strip out all the padding and crap from their declared total - for example their including the huge cost of veterans' healthcare makes no sense when almost all other NATO members have state-funded or state-subsidised healthcare for everyone. I wonder whether anyone's ever done such an exercise?
"If great powers abandon even the pretense of rules & values for the unhindered pursuit of their power & interest, the gains from transactionalism will become harder to replicate" -- Carney's speech at Davos is an extended criticism of the damage Trump is doing (though he's not mentioning his name)
It is, albeit unintentionally, also a critique of the international-law-doesn't-exist stance of @BartholomewRoberts and others here.
Acknowledging the pretence of rules is an acknowledgement that international law is, as I've always said, more guidelines than actual rules.
Trump, I think we can both agree, is unusual by not even respecting guidelines whatsoever and showing utter contempt for them.
However that does not mean we should treat international law as actual rules, rather than mere guidelines we pretend to follow when it suits us - which is precisely what America and others have always done pre-Trump.
Carney's speech yesterday. Watch from 11 minutes in. Extraordinarily powerful stuff, a must watch.
I just watched the whole thing and would recommend it.
It's the most clear sighted account of the changing world we are facing and how countries like the UK should be responding.
Would recommend watching it all.
Agree. Fabulous and let's await Starmer following the lead.
However the speech resolves in outline every middle ranking nation's strategy except for one question: What precisely does Canada do if, having annexed Greenland in 2026, the USA armed forces enter Canada in 2027 and seek to take over?
It was delusional to ask, but now it isn't. We know why Carney didn't touch on it, but it is still a question. Is he in fact accidentally saying to Trump: If you want to take over Canada you had better do it quickly because we are getting ready?
Canadian defence spending is growing very quickly, albeit from a low base. It was up by 39% above inflation last year. (UK defence spending rose by 4.4% above inflation last year)
I guess it's the sort of thing that you would want to do in private as much as possible, but Britain really ought to be working hard to make sure that the nuclear deterrent can be sustained with US obstructionism. One of the benefits of an Anglo-Canadian Union would be extending Britain's nuclear deterrent to cover Canada, but that's no good if the US can put it out of action.
The latest figures from NATO on defence spending (pdf) are interesting to look at. There are obviously some countries that are responding with an appropriate level of seriousness in terms of rapidly increasing their spending on defence, particularly if you look at countries that are already above the old 2% target that are still increasing their spending rapidly:
Denmark +45% Finland +17% Latvia +13% Lithuania +34% Netherlands +26% Norway +50% Poland +22% Sweden +11% Turkiye +12%
The UK sticks out as a country already above the 2% target that is doing very little to increase spending further. Britain has a self-image of being stronger on defence then the continental Europeans, but we're starting to become a laggard now.
How do we know they're not doing what the UK did a while back, and redefining what constitutes 'defence' spending to embrace previously excluded categories? There's an accepted NATO definition, but the UK now adds in a proportion of security services spending, cybersecurity activity, various non-MoD R&D.
Other countries already do such things - Italy, for example, credits its entire spend on the Carabinieri as defence spending, despite their day to day activities mostly being humdrum stuff like roadside checks on drivers. Indeed the US is the biggest spender, but also uses the broadest definition of all, including its entire intelligence community (all 18 agencies), all of its space expenditure, all of its nuclear expenditure, the myriad veterans' benefits such as their medical scheme (which alone, in cash terms, exceeds what many NATO members spend on defence in total!), coastguard, homeland security, multi-agency R&D - such that comparing defence spending between nations can be a pretty meaningless exercise, unless you are willing to go do a lot of work breaking the spending down into categories.
And even where there's an accepted definition - for example armed forces' pensions count as defence spending, and comprise almost a tenth of UK's declared total - that money's not going to help us fend off the Russkies, is it?
I don't know. These are the stats we have. It correlates with those countries who have demonstrated seriousness in other ways. From my recollection these countries have also made commitments to buying new equipment which is consistent with the published statistics on increased spending.
I think you're more likely to see dodgy accounting practices by those countries that are close to the old 2% target, to ensure they stay on the right side of it, or finally get over it. If you're spending is already 3% of GDP then there's not much need to cook the books to impress a nerd on PB.com.
Carney's speech yesterday. Watch from 11 minutes in. Extraordinarily powerful stuff, a must watch.
I just watched the whole thing and would recommend it.
It's the most clear sighted account of the changing world we are facing and how countries like the UK should be responding.
Would recommend watching it all.
Agree. Fabulous and let's await Starmer following the lead.
However the speech resolves in outline every middle ranking nation's strategy except for one question: What precisely does Canada do if, having annexed Greenland in 2026, the USA armed forces enter Canada in 2027 and seek to take over?
It was delusional to ask, but now it isn't. We know why Carney didn't touch on it, but it is still a question. Is he in fact accidentally saying to Trump: If you want to take over Canada you had better do it quickly because we are getting ready?
Canadian defence spending is growing very quickly, albeit from a low base. It was up by 39% above inflation last year. (UK defence spending rose by 4.4% above inflation last year)
I guess it's the sort of thing that you would want to do in private as much as possible, but Britain really ought to be working hard to make sure that the nuclear deterrent can be sustained with US obstructionism. One of the benefits of an Anglo-Canadian Union would be extending Britain's nuclear deterrent to cover Canada, but that's no good if the US can put it out of action.
The latest figures from NATO on defence spending (pdf) are interesting to look at. There are obviously some countries that are responding with an appropriate level of seriousness in terms of rapidly increasing their spending on defence, particularly if you look at countries that are already above the old 2% target that are still increasing their spending rapidly:
Denmark +45% Finland +17% Latvia +13% Lithuania +34% Netherlands +26% Norway +50% Poland +22% Sweden +11% Turkiye +12%
The UK sticks out as a country already above the 2% target that is doing very little to increase spending further. Britain has a self-image of being stronger on defence then the continental Europeans, but we're starting to become a laggard now.
How do we know they're not doing what the UK did a while back, and redefining what constitutes 'defence' spending to embrace previously excluded categories? There's an accepted NATO definition, but the UK now adds in a proportion of security services spending, cybersecurity activity, various non-MoD R&D.
Other countries already do such things - Italy, for example, credits its entire spend on the Carabinieri as defence spending, despite their day to day activities mostly being humdrum stuff like roadside checks on drivers. Indeed the US is the biggest spender, but also uses the broadest definition of all, including its entire intelligence community (all 18 agencies), all of its space expenditure, all of its nuclear expenditure, the myriad veterans' benefits such as their medical scheme (which alone, in cash terms, exceeds what many NATO members spend on defence in total!), coastguard, homeland security, multi-agency R&D - such that comparing defence spending between nations can be a pretty meaningless exercise, unless you are willing to go do a lot of work breaking the spending down into categories.
And even where there's an accepted definition - for example armed forces' pensions count as defence spending, and comprise almost a tenth of UK's declared total - that money's not going to help us fend off the Russkies, is it?
The UK should strip out the nuclear deterrent from the defence budget as it’s not likely to be used so doesn’t help anyone with planning etc - if it’s ever used then budgets mean nothing anymore anyway.
I wonder if there is any merit for breaking up the Defence Budget as one block and break it down into its constituent parts to be considered very separately on the basis of need rather than having internal bunfights between the services.
So for example the RAF have to go to the treasury and explain what they need and why they need it and agree their own budget, the Navy and Army the same. It might focus politicians minds on which areas are more important and what our role actually should/can be.
I'd like to see the US compared to other countries once they strip out all the padding and crap from their declared total - for example their including the huge cost of veterans' healthcare makes no sense when almost all other NATO members have state-funded or state-subsidised healthcare for everyone. I wonder whether anyone's ever done such an exercise?
Carney's speech yesterday. Watch from 11 minutes in. Extraordinarily powerful stuff, a must watch.
I just watched the whole thing and would recommend it.
It's the most clear sighted account of the changing world we are facing and how countries like the UK should be responding.
Would recommend watching it all.
Agree. Fabulous and let's await Starmer following the lead.
However the speech resolves in outline every middle ranking nation's strategy except for one question: What precisely does Canada do if, having annexed Greenland in 2026, the USA armed forces enter Canada in 2027 and seek to take over?
It was delusional to ask, but now it isn't. We know why Carney didn't touch on it, but it is still a question. Is he in fact accidentally saying to Trump: If you want to take over Canada you had better do it quickly because we are getting ready?
Canadian defence spending is growing very quickly, albeit from a low base. It was up by 39% above inflation last year. (UK defence spending rose by 4.4% above inflation last year)
I guess it's the sort of thing that you would want to do in private as much as possible, but Britain really ought to be working hard to make sure that the nuclear deterrent can be sustained with US obstructionism. One of the benefits of an Anglo-Canadian Union would be extending Britain's nuclear deterrent to cover Canada, but that's no good if the US can put it out of action.
The latest figures from NATO on defence spending (pdf) are interesting to look at. There are obviously some countries that are responding with an appropriate level of seriousness in terms of rapidly increasing their spending on defence, particularly if you look at countries that are already above the old 2% target that are still increasing their spending rapidly:
Denmark +45% Finland +17% Latvia +13% Lithuania +34% Netherlands +26% Norway +50% Poland +22% Sweden +11% Turkiye +12%
The UK sticks out as a country already above the 2% target that is doing very little to increase spending further. Britain has a self-image of being stronger on defence then the continental Europeans, but we're starting to become a laggard now.
How do we know they're not doing what the UK did a while back, and redefining what constitutes 'defence' spending to embrace previously excluded categories? There's an accepted NATO definition, but the UK now adds in a proportion of security services spending, cybersecurity activity, various non-MoD R&D.
Other countries already do such things - Italy, for example, credits its entire spend on the Carabinieri as defence spending, despite their day to day activities mostly being humdrum stuff like roadside checks on drivers. Indeed the US is the biggest spender, but also uses the broadest definition of all, including its entire intelligence community (all 18 agencies), all of its space expenditure, all of its nuclear expenditure, the myriad veterans' benefits such as their medical scheme (which alone, in cash terms, exceeds what many NATO members spend on defence in total!), coastguard, homeland security, multi-agency R&D - such that comparing defence spending between nations can be a pretty meaningless exercise, unless you are willing to go do a lot of work breaking the spending down into categories.
And even where there's an accepted definition - for example armed forces' pensions count as defence spending, and comprise almost a tenth of UK's declared total - that money's not going to help us fend off the Russkies, is it?
I don't know. These are the stats we have. It correlates with those countries who have demonstrated seriousness in other ways. From my recollection these countries have also made commitments to buying new equipment which is consistent with the published statistics on increased spending.
I think you're more likely to see dodgy accounting practices by those countries that are close to the old 2% target, to ensure they stay on the right side of it, or finally get over it. If you're spending is already 3% of GDP then there's not much need to cook the books to impress a nerd on PB.com.
I hope Trump vetoes the Mauritius deal its a real dog.
If Starmer cant face up to owning some real estate in the Indian Ocean, he shpuld hand it over to the US
US gets permanence for a key base US can offer citizenship to Chagossians whereas UK treats them like shit UK taxpayer saves £100million a year rent.
Starmer really is a dimwit.
I thought it was a Tory scheme..... in particular, Cleverly's ....... originally.
And there will be one major objection, in Trump's 'mind' to offering the Chagossiams citizenship.
This is the standard drivel coming from the Left.
You spend 14 years saying everything the Tories did was wrong and then you accelerate the fk ups they have made instead of killing them dead and saying they were wrong.
It gets a barnacle off the underside of the boat and the actual people themselves don't want the transfer iirc.
The views of the Chagossians are mixed. Some support the transfer.
Is there some value in sticking to international law at this time? Can we see any examples where ignoring international law has led a country to poor decisions?
I am happy to return the Chagos to Mauritius and aid resettlement of the Chaggossians who wish to return there.
I don't see why we should pay to rent the US base their. Let the Yanks pay Mauritius.
When were the Chagos owned by Mauritius?
Until we illegally detached them in 1968 according to the UN and International Court of Justice:
The fact that we deported the Chaggossians to Mauritius and Seychelles indicates that we recognised that they were Mauritians. We denied them UK passports until 2002.
We did this purely in order to furnish the USA with a military base.
That would be the ICJ ruling that is explicitly non-binding?
Tell them to go f*** themselves and move on, what have we got to lose?
Carney's speech yesterday. Watch from 11 minutes in. Extraordinarily powerful stuff, a must watch.
I just watched the whole thing and would recommend it.
It's the most clear sighted account of the changing world we are facing and how countries like the UK should be responding.
Would recommend watching it all.
Agree. Fabulous and let's await Starmer following the lead.
However the speech resolves in outline every middle ranking nation's strategy except for one question: What precisely does Canada do if, having annexed Greenland in 2026, the USA armed forces enter Canada in 2027 and seek to take over?
It was delusional to ask, but now it isn't. We know why Carney didn't touch on it, but it is still a question. Is he in fact accidentally saying to Trump: If you want to take over Canada you had better do it quickly because we are getting ready?
Canadian defence spending is growing very quickly, albeit from a low base. It was up by 39% above inflation last year. (UK defence spending rose by 4.4% above inflation last year)
I guess it's the sort of thing that you would want to do in private as much as possible, but Britain really ought to be working hard to make sure that the nuclear deterrent can be sustained with US obstructionism. One of the benefits of an Anglo-Canadian Union would be extending Britain's nuclear deterrent to cover Canada, but that's no good if the US can put it out of action.
The latest figures from NATO on defence spending (pdf) are interesting to look at. There are obviously some countries that are responding with an appropriate level of seriousness in terms of rapidly increasing their spending on defence, particularly if you look at countries that are already above the old 2% target that are still increasing their spending rapidly:
Denmark +45% Finland +17% Latvia +13% Lithuania +34% Netherlands +26% Norway +50% Poland +22% Sweden +11% Turkiye +12%
The UK sticks out as a country already above the 2% target that is doing very little to increase spending further. Britain has a self-image of being stronger on defence then the continental Europeans, but we're starting to become a laggard now.
How do we know they're not doing what the UK did a while back, and redefining what constitutes 'defence' spending to embrace previously excluded categories? There's an accepted NATO definition, but the UK now adds in a proportion of security services spending, cybersecurity activity, various non-MoD R&D.
Other countries already do such things - Italy, for example, credits its entire spend on the Carabinieri as defence spending, despite their day to day activities mostly being humdrum stuff like roadside checks on drivers. Indeed the US is the biggest spender, but also uses the broadest definition of all, including its entire intelligence community (all 18 agencies), all of its space expenditure, all of its nuclear expenditure, the myriad veterans' benefits such as their medical scheme (which alone, in cash terms, exceeds what many NATO members spend on defence in total!), coastguard, homeland security, multi-agency R&D - such that comparing defence spending between nations can be a pretty meaningless exercise, unless you are willing to go do a lot of work breaking the spending down into categories.
And even where there's an accepted definition - for example armed forces' pensions count as defence spending, and comprise almost a tenth of UK's declared total - that money's not going to help us fend off the Russkies, is it?
The UK should strip out the nuclear deterrent from the defence budget as it’s not likely to be used so doesn’t help anyone with planning etc - if it’s ever used then budgets mean nothing anymore anyway.
I wonder if there is any merit for breaking up the Defence Budget as one block and break it down into its constituent parts to be considered very separately on the basis of need rather than having internal bunfights between the services.
So for example the RAF have to go to the treasury and explain what they need and why they need it and agree their own budget, the Navy and Army the same. It might focus politicians minds on which areas are more important and what our role actually should/can be.
I think that would increase the internal bunfights and make cooperation between the services more difficult.
I can understand people wanting to ensure that the money we spend is spent more effectively, but that's an eternal struggle, never completely won. The focus right now I feel needs to be on acknowledging that the world has changed and we need to work out how to increase spending by at least half over the next three years.
Carney's speech yesterday. Watch from 11 minutes in. Extraordinarily powerful stuff, a must watch.
I just watched the whole thing and would recommend it.
It's the most clear sighted account of the changing world we are facing and how countries like the UK should be responding.
Would recommend watching it all.
Agree. Fabulous and let's await Starmer following the lead.
However the speech resolves in outline every middle ranking nation's strategy except for one question: What precisely does Canada do if, having annexed Greenland in 2026, the USA armed forces enter Canada in 2027 and seek to take over?
It was delusional to ask, but now it isn't. We know why Carney didn't touch on it, but it is still a question. Is he in fact accidentally saying to Trump: If you want to take over Canada you had better do it quickly because we are getting ready?
Canadian defence spending is growing very quickly, albeit from a low base. It was up by 39% above inflation last year. (UK defence spending rose by 4.4% above inflation last year)
I guess it's the sort of thing that you would want to do in private as much as possible, but Britain really ought to be working hard to make sure that the nuclear deterrent can be sustained with US obstructionism. One of the benefits of an Anglo-Canadian Union would be extending Britain's nuclear deterrent to cover Canada, but that's no good if the US can put it out of action.
The latest figures from NATO on defence spending (pdf) are interesting to look at. There are obviously some countries that are responding with an appropriate level of seriousness in terms of rapidly increasing their spending on defence, particularly if you look at countries that are already above the old 2% target that are still increasing their spending rapidly:
Denmark +45% Finland +17% Latvia +13% Lithuania +34% Netherlands +26% Norway +50% Poland +22% Sweden +11% Turkiye +12%
The UK sticks out as a country already above the 2% target that is doing very little to increase spending further. Britain has a self-image of being stronger on defence then the continental Europeans, but we're starting to become a laggard now.
How do we know they're not doing what the UK did a while back, and redefining what constitutes 'defence' spending to embrace previously excluded categories? There's an accepted NATO definition, but the UK now adds in a proportion of security services spending, cybersecurity activity, various non-MoD R&D.
Other countries already do such things - Italy, for example, credits its entire spend on the Carabinieri as defence spending, despite their day to day activities mostly being humdrum stuff like roadside checks on drivers. Indeed the US is the biggest spender, but also uses the broadest definition of all, including its entire intelligence community (all 18 agencies), all of its space expenditure, all of its nuclear expenditure, the myriad veterans' benefits such as their medical scheme (which alone, in cash terms, exceeds what many NATO members spend on defence in total!), coastguard, homeland security, multi-agency R&D - such that comparing defence spending between nations can be a pretty meaningless exercise, unless you are willing to go do a lot of work breaking the spending down into categories.
And even where there's an accepted definition - for example armed forces' pensions count as defence spending, and comprise almost a tenth of UK's declared total - that money's not going to help us fend off the Russkies, is it?
The UK should strip out the nuclear deterrent from the defence budget as it’s not likely to be used so doesn’t help anyone with planning etc - if it’s ever used then budgets mean nothing anymore anyway.
I wonder if there is any merit for breaking up the Defence Budget as one block and break it down into its constituent parts to be considered very separately on the basis of need rather than having internal bunfights between the services.
So for example the RAF have to go to the treasury and explain what they need and why they need it and agree their own budget, the Navy and Army the same. It might focus politicians minds on which areas are more important and what our role actually should/can be.
I'd like to see the US compared to other countries once they strip out all the padding and crap from their declared total - for example their including the huge cost of veterans' healthcare makes no sense when almost all other NATO members have state-funded or state-subsidised healthcare for everyone. I wonder whether anyone's ever done such an exercise?
We can do the comparison with the US in the only way that matters - deployable military power.
Look at what they were able to do in Venezuela, at the Furness they are assembling to attack Iran now, while maintaining their forces in the Caribbean.
It is obvious that their defence spending on paper is not all an accounting exercise.
I hope Trump vetoes the Mauritius deal its a real dog.
If Starmer cant face up to owning some real estate in the Indian Ocean, he shpuld hand it over to the US
US gets permanence for a key base US can offer citizenship to Chagossians whereas UK treats them like shit UK taxpayer saves £100million a year rent.
Starmer really is a dimwit.
I thought it was a Tory scheme..... in particular, Cleverly's ....... originally.
And there will be one major objection, in Trump's 'mind' to offering the Chagossiams citizenship.
This is the standard drivel coming from the Left.
You spend 14 years saying everything the Tories did was wrong and then you accelerate the fk ups they have made instead of killing them dead and saying they were wrong.
Families to save in biggest home upgrade plan in British history
Government launches Warm Homes Plan to upgrade the nation's homes, help families cut their energy bills, and tackle fuel poverty.
Government launches £15 billion Warm Homes Plan to help millions of families benefit from solar panels, batteries, heat pumps and insulation that can cut energy bills.
Does it help people who live in leasehold flats? Asking for a friend called "me".
Yes but over a longish period for landlords to make improvements. From the linked release:-
NEW PROTECTIONS FOR RENTERS:
Today, 1.6 million children live in private accommodation suffering from cold, damp, or mould.
The government believes in a simple principle that if you rent a home, private or social, a landlord has a responsibility to ensure that it is safe, warm, and affordable.
I own (well, the bank does via the mortgage) the leasehold on the flat. The flat is one of several in the block. The freehold company owns the freehold.
The package in the linked release says it is also for owner occupiers.
Question for UK media. We don't pay attention to every utterance, speech or presser for Putin, Modi or Xi. Why do we have wall-to-wall coverage of Trump?
Trump: Signed an executive order to bring back mental institutions and insane asylums. We are going to have to bring them back. Hate to build those suckers but you've got to get the people off the streets
Trump: Signed an executive order to bring back mental institutions and insane asylums. We are going to have to bring them back. Hate to build those suckers but you've got to get the people off the streets
Typical grifter, just using public funds to build things for his own personal benefit.
Trump: Signed an executive order to bring back mental institutions and insane asylums. We are going to have to bring them back. Hate to build those suckers but you've got to get the people off the streets
I have the name of an early candidate for admission.
I hope Trump vetoes the Mauritius deal its a real dog.
If Starmer cant face up to owning some real estate in the Indian Ocean, he shpuld hand it over to the US
US gets permanence for a key base US can offer citizenship to Chagossians whereas UK treats them like shit UK taxpayer saves £100million a year rent.
Starmer really is a dimwit.
I thought it was a Tory scheme..... in particular, Cleverly's ....... originally.
And there will be one major objection, in Trump's 'mind' to offering the Chagossiams citizenship.
This is the standard drivel coming from the Left.
You spend 14 years saying everything the Tories did was wrong and then you accelerate the fk ups they have made instead of killing them dead and saying they were wrong.
Cleverly was wrong and so is Starmer.
I didn't say that the scheme, was "right". However it does seem to me that if we, or anyone else, have military bases on someone else's territory, there should a quid pro quo of some kind. I do think that the Chagossians should have the choice of whether they become citizens of Mauritius or independent. Or, perchance, Sri Lankans.
I hope Trump vetoes the Mauritius deal its a real dog.
If Starmer cant face up to owning some real estate in the Indian Ocean, he shpuld hand it over to the US
US gets permanence for a key base US can offer citizenship to Chagossians whereas UK treats them like shit UK taxpayer saves £100million a year rent.
Starmer really is a dimwit.
I thought it was a Tory scheme..... in particular, Cleverly's ....... originally.
And there will be one major objection, in Trump's 'mind' to offering the Chagossiams citizenship.
This is the standard drivel coming from the Left.
You spend 14 years saying everything the Tories did was wrong and then you accelerate the fk ups they have made instead of killing them dead and saying they were wrong.
Cleverly was wrong and so is Starmer.
I didn't say that the scheme, was "right". However it does seem to me that if we, or anyone else, have military bases on someone else's territory, there should a quid pro quo of some kind. I do think that the Chagossians should have the choice of whether they become citizens of Mauritius or independent. Or, perchance, Sri Lankans.
It isn't someone else's territory though, its ours. We should keep it, then we don't need to pay anyone anything.
If Mauritius want to claim it, they can either fight us and America for it, or they can bugger off.
I hope Trump vetoes the Mauritius deal its a real dog.
If Starmer cant face up to owning some real estate in the Indian Ocean, he shpuld hand it over to the US
US gets permanence for a key base US can offer citizenship to Chagossians whereas UK treats them like shit UK taxpayer saves £100million a year rent.
Starmer really is a dimwit.
I thought it was a Tory scheme..... in particular, Cleverly's ....... originally.
And there will be one major objection, in Trump's 'mind' to offering the Chagossiams citizenship.
This is the standard drivel coming from the Left.
You spend 14 years saying everything the Tories did was wrong and then you accelerate the fk ups they have made instead of killing them dead and saying they were wrong.
Cleverly was wrong and so is Starmer.
I didn't say that the scheme, was "right". However it does seem to me that if we, or anyone else, have military bases on someone else's territory, there should a quid pro quo of some kind. I do think that the Chagossians should have the choice of whether they become citizens of Mauritius or independent. Or, perchance, Sri Lankans.
We don’t realistically have the capability to defend our own home island never mind the Chagos islands. The level of self delusion is off the charts from a defence perspective. I agree that it should be the Chagossians who decide what they want to do but that’s a moral reason not a defence reason.
Air defence of the UK and army numbers should be the priority.
I hope Trump vetoes the Mauritius deal its a real dog.
If Starmer cant face up to owning some real estate in the Indian Ocean, he shpuld hand it over to the US
US gets permanence for a key base US can offer citizenship to Chagossians whereas UK treats them like shit UK taxpayer saves £100million a year rent.
Starmer really is a dimwit.
I thought it was a Tory scheme..... in particular, Cleverly's ....... originally.
And there will be one major objection, in Trump's 'mind' to offering the Chagossiams citizenship.
This is the standard drivel coming from the Left.
You spend 14 years saying everything the Tories did was wrong and then you accelerate the fk ups they have made instead of killing them dead and saying they were wrong.
Cleverly was wrong and so is Starmer.
I didn't say that the scheme, was "right". However it does seem to me that if we, or anyone else, have military bases on someone else's territory, there should a quid pro quo of some kind. I do think that the Chagossians should have the choice of whether they become citizens of Mauritius or independent. Or, perchance, Sri Lankans.
We don’t realistically have the capability to defend our own home island never mind the Chagos islands. The level of self delusion is off the charts from a defence perspective. I agree that it should be the Chagossians who decide what they want to do but that’s a moral reason not a defence reason.
Air defence of the UK and army numbers should be the priority.
We're the 5th strongest economy/military on the planet and have our allies (like it or not) the USA stationed on the island.
Of course we do have the ability to defend it, from Mauritius.
You have more of a cultural affinity with Lee Anderson, he's your man.
In the same way Mellors had with Lady Chatterley? I'm struggling to think of a single cultural affinity I have with Lee Anderson other than that we both hate Nottingham Forrest.....................
I wonder if there is any merit for breaking up the Defence Budget as one block and break it down into its constituent parts to be considered very separately on the basis of need rather than having internal bunfights between the services.
This already happens. I am now at the age where some of my old comrades are very senior and I occasionally get a glimpse behind the tattered curtain at the MoD. The Navy and RAF are in throes of ecstasy over Ajax, the Army and Navy very sincerely hope that GCAP is a colossal, expensive and very visible failure, etc. They all know they have to fight each other much harder than they'll ever have to fight the Russians or fuck knows who for a bigger portion of the same pile of taxpayers' money.
The solution would be a much more unified UK Defence Force with lots of 'purple' roles at the top but the Daily Mail wouldn't stand for it.
I hope Trump vetoes the Mauritius deal its a real dog.
If Starmer cant face up to owning some real estate in the Indian Ocean, he shpuld hand it over to the US
US gets permanence for a key base US can offer citizenship to Chagossians whereas UK treats them like shit UK taxpayer saves £100million a year rent.
Starmer really is a dimwit.
I thought it was a Tory scheme..... in particular, Cleverly's ....... originally.
And there will be one major objection, in Trump's 'mind' to offering the Chagossiams citizenship.
This is the standard drivel coming from the Left.
You spend 14 years saying everything the Tories did was wrong and then you accelerate the fk ups they have made instead of killing them dead and saying they were wrong.
Cleverly was wrong and so is Starmer.
I didn't say that the scheme, was "right". However it does seem to me that if we, or anyone else, have military bases on someone else's territory, there should a quid pro quo of some kind. I do think that the Chagossians should have the choice of whether they become citizens of Mauritius or independent. Or, perchance, Sri Lankans.
We don’t realistically have the capability to defend our own home island never mind the Chagos islands. The level of self delusion is off the charts from a defence perspective. I agree that it should be the Chagossians who decide what they want to do but that’s a moral reason not a defence reason.
Air defence of the UK and army numbers should be the priority.
We're the 5th strongest economy/military on the planet and have our allies (like it or not) the USA stationed on the island.
Of course we do have the ability to defend it, from Mauritius.
It is delusional to say we don't.
The issue is apparently not Mauritius, but China. In any event I don’t really care about an island in the pacific but rather our home island in the Atlantic.
I don’t think we do have the 5th strongest military, at all.
I hope Trump vetoes the Mauritius deal its a real dog.
If Starmer cant face up to owning some real estate in the Indian Ocean, he shpuld hand it over to the US
US gets permanence for a key base US can offer citizenship to Chagossians whereas UK treats them like shit UK taxpayer saves £100million a year rent.
Starmer really is a dimwit.
I thought it was a Tory scheme..... in particular, Cleverly's ....... originally.
And there will be one major objection, in Trump's 'mind' to offering the Chagossiams citizenship.
This is the standard drivel coming from the Left.
You spend 14 years saying everything the Tories did was wrong and then you accelerate the fk ups they have made instead of killing them dead and saying they were wrong.
Cleverly was wrong and so is Starmer.
I didn't say that the scheme, was "right". However it does seem to me that if we, or anyone else, have military bases on someone else's territory, there should a quid pro quo of some kind. I do think that the Chagossians should have the choice of whether they become citizens of Mauritius or independent. Or, perchance, Sri Lankans.
It isn't someone else's territory though, its ours. We should keep it, then we don't need to pay anyone anything.
If Mauritius want to claim it, they can either fight us and America for it, or they can bugger off.
Don't be such an old-fashioed colonialist! The Chagos Islands are no more part of the UK that Greenland is of the US.
Carney's speech yesterday. Watch from 11 minutes in. Extraordinarily powerful stuff, a must watch.
I just watched the whole thing and would recommend it.
It's the most clear sighted account of the changing world we are facing and how countries like the UK should be responding.
Would recommend watching it all.
Agree. Fabulous and let's await Starmer following the lead.
However the speech resolves in outline every middle ranking nation's strategy except for one question: What precisely does Canada do if, having annexed Greenland in 2026, the USA armed forces enter Canada in 2027 and seek to take over?
It was delusional to ask, but now it isn't. We know why Carney didn't touch on it, but it is still a question. Is he in fact accidentally saying to Trump: If you want to take over Canada you had better do it quickly because we are getting ready?
Canadian defence spending is growing very quickly, albeit from a low base. It was up by 39% above inflation last year. (UK defence spending rose by 4.4% above inflation last year)
I guess it's the sort of thing that you would want to do in private as much as possible, but Britain really ought to be working hard to make sure that the nuclear deterrent can be sustained with US obstructionism. One of the benefits of an Anglo-Canadian Union would be extending Britain's nuclear deterrent to cover Canada, but that's no good if the US can put it out of action.
The latest figures from NATO on defence spending (pdf) are interesting to look at. There are obviously some countries that are responding with an appropriate level of seriousness in terms of rapidly increasing their spending on defence, particularly if you look at countries that are already above the old 2% target that are still increasing their spending rapidly:
Denmark +45% Finland +17% Latvia +13% Lithuania +34% Netherlands +26% Norway +50% Poland +22% Sweden +11% Turkiye +12%
The UK sticks out as a country already above the 2% target that is doing very little to increase spending further. Britain has a self-image of being stronger on defence then the continental Europeans, but we're starting to become a laggard now.
How do we know they're not doing what the UK did a while back, and redefining what constitutes 'defence' spending to embrace previously excluded categories? There's an accepted NATO definition, but the UK now adds in a proportion of security services spending, cybersecurity activity, various non-MoD R&D.
Other countries already do such things - Italy, for example, credits its entire spend on the Carabinieri as defence spending, despite their day to day activities mostly being humdrum stuff like roadside checks on drivers. Indeed the US is the biggest spender, but also uses the broadest definition of all, including its entire intelligence community (all 18 agencies), all of its space expenditure, all of its nuclear expenditure, the myriad veterans' benefits such as their medical scheme (which alone, in cash terms, exceeds what many NATO members spend on defence in total!), coastguard, homeland security, multi-agency R&D - such that comparing defence spending between nations can be a pretty meaningless exercise, unless you are willing to go do a lot of work breaking the spending down into categories.
And even where there's an accepted definition - for example armed forces' pensions count as defence spending, and comprise almost a tenth of UK's declared total - that money's not going to help us fend off the Russkies, is it?
The UK should strip out the nuclear deterrent from the defence budget as it’s not likely to be used so doesn’t help anyone with planning etc - if it’s ever used then budgets mean nothing anymore anyway.
I wonder if there is any merit for breaking up the Defence Budget as one block and break it down into its constituent parts to be considered very separately on the basis of need rather than having internal bunfights between the services.
So for example the RAF have to go to the treasury and explain what they need and why they need it and agree their own budget, the Navy and Army the same. It might focus politicians minds on which areas are more important and what our role actually should/can be.
I'd like to see the US compared to other countries once they strip out all the padding and crap from their declared total - for example their including the huge cost of veterans' healthcare makes no sense when almost all other NATO members have state-funded or state-subsidised healthcare for everyone. I wonder whether anyone's ever done such an exercise?
We can do the comparison with the US in the only way that matters - deployable military power.
Look at what they were able to do in Venezuela, at the Furness they are assembling to attack Iran now, while maintaining their forces in the Caribbean.
It is obvious that their defence spending on paper is not all an accounting exercise.
The Italian arrangements are different to ours, in an interesting manner.
Italy's latest submission to Defence Committee (which in Italy actually has to authorize expenditure, not comment on it 1-2 years later like in UK)about GCAP gives a 18.6 billion Euro cost estimate covering Phases 1 & 2 (full development of the platform) https://x.com/Gabriel64869839/status/2013598201807315259
Of course they also resort to creative accounting, but sometimes in a manner which actually benefits defence.
That's a lot of money still "missing" (7.8 billion Euro) BUT in the magic world of Italy's defence budget it kinda-sorta tends to show up in the end. Again, partly so thanks to Economic Development ministry money that is injected in defence projects delivered by national industry https://x.com/Gabriel64869839/status/2013601502640644570
GCAP is going to be very costly - second only to the nuclear deterrent - but without it we're no longer in the advanced fighter game, and entirely dependent on the US.
And if Europe gets serious about defence, there will likely be sales to other countries.
I hope Trump vetoes the Mauritius deal its a real dog.
If Starmer cant face up to owning some real estate in the Indian Ocean, he shpuld hand it over to the US
US gets permanence for a key base US can offer citizenship to Chagossians whereas UK treats them like shit UK taxpayer saves £100million a year rent.
Starmer really is a dimwit.
I thought it was a Tory scheme..... in particular, Cleverly's ....... originally.
And there will be one major objection, in Trump's 'mind' to offering the Chagossiams citizenship.
This is the standard drivel coming from the Left.
You spend 14 years saying everything the Tories did was wrong and then you accelerate the fk ups they have made instead of killing them dead and saying they were wrong.
Cleverly was wrong and so is Starmer.
I didn't say that the scheme, was "right". However it does seem to me that if we, or anyone else, have military bases on someone else's territory, there should a quid pro quo of some kind. I do think that the Chagossians should have the choice of whether they become citizens of Mauritius or independent. Or, perchance, Sri Lankans.
The moral approach could have been to
1) identify the Chagossians 2) implement a digital id for them (since they are scattered). It could be a test of creating digital id without vast databases and stupid over reach. See the systems that are used in Estonia, for example. 3) using the digital id, they get to elect some representatives 4) negotiate a deal with those representatives 5) have a referendum among the Chagossians to seal the deal. 6) implement the deal
I’m sure someone will claim that this wouldn’t be cricket.
I hope Trump vetoes the Mauritius deal its a real dog.
If Starmer cant face up to owning some real estate in the Indian Ocean, he shpuld hand it over to the US
US gets permanence for a key base US can offer citizenship to Chagossians whereas UK treats them like shit UK taxpayer saves £100million a year rent.
Starmer really is a dimwit.
I thought it was a Tory scheme..... in particular, Cleverly's ....... originally.
And there will be one major objection, in Trump's 'mind' to offering the Chagossiams citizenship.
This is the standard drivel coming from the Left.
You spend 14 years saying everything the Tories did was wrong and then you accelerate the fk ups they have made instead of killing them dead and saying they were wrong.
Cleverly was wrong and so is Starmer.
I didn't say that the scheme, was "right". However it does seem to me that if we, or anyone else, have military bases on someone else's territory, there should a quid pro quo of some kind. I do think that the Chagossians should have the choice of whether they become citizens of Mauritius or independent. Or, perchance, Sri Lankans.
We don’t realistically have the capability to defend our own home island never mind the Chagos islands. The level of self delusion is off the charts from a defence perspective. I agree that it should be the Chagossians who decide what they want to do but that’s a moral reason not a defence reason.
Air defence of the UK and army numbers should be the priority.
We're the 5th strongest economy/military on the planet and have our allies (like it or not) the USA stationed on the island.
Of course we do have the ability to defend it, from Mauritius.
It is delusional to say we don't.
The issue is apparently not Mauritius, but China. In any event I don’t really care about an island in the pacific but rather our home island in the Atlantic.
I hope Trump vetoes the Mauritius deal its a real dog.
If Starmer cant face up to owning some real estate in the Indian Ocean, he shpuld hand it over to the US
US gets permanence for a key base US can offer citizenship to Chagossians whereas UK treats them like shit UK taxpayer saves £100million a year rent.
Starmer really is a dimwit.
I thought it was a Tory scheme..... in particular, Cleverly's ....... originally.
And there will be one major objection, in Trump's 'mind' to offering the Chagossiams citizenship.
This is the standard drivel coming from the Left.
You spend 14 years saying everything the Tories did was wrong and then you accelerate the fk ups they have made instead of killing them dead and saying they were wrong.
Cleverly was wrong and so is Starmer.
I didn't say that the scheme, was "right". However it does seem to me that if we, or anyone else, have military bases on someone else's territory, there should a quid pro quo of some kind. I do think that the Chagossians should have the choice of whether they become citizens of Mauritius or independent. Or, perchance, Sri Lankans.
We don’t realistically have the capability to defend our own home island never mind the Chagos islands. The level of self delusion is off the charts from a defence perspective. I agree that it should be the Chagossians who decide what they want to do but that’s a moral reason not a defence reason.
Air defence of the UK and army numbers should be the priority.
We're the 5th strongest economy/military on the planet and have our allies (like it or not) the USA stationed on the island.
Of course we do have the ability to defend it, from Mauritius.
It is delusional to say we don't.
The issue is apparently not Mauritius, but China. In any event I don’t really care about an island in the pacific but rather our home island in the Atlantic.
I don’t think we do have the 5th strongest military, at all.
Is surrendering sovereignty, without a fight, for a geo-strategically island that we and our allies have a major base on good or bad for our defence versus China?
I hope Trump vetoes the Mauritius deal its a real dog.
If Starmer cant face up to owning some real estate in the Indian Ocean, he shpuld hand it over to the US
US gets permanence for a key base US can offer citizenship to Chagossians whereas UK treats them like shit UK taxpayer saves £100million a year rent.
Starmer really is a dimwit.
I thought it was a Tory scheme..... in particular, Cleverly's ....... originally.
And there will be one major objection, in Trump's 'mind' to offering the Chagossiams citizenship.
This is the standard drivel coming from the Left.
You spend 14 years saying everything the Tories did was wrong and then you accelerate the fk ups they have made instead of killing them dead and saying they were wrong.
Cleverly was wrong and so is Starmer.
I didn't say that the scheme, was "right". However it does seem to me that if we, or anyone else, have military bases on someone else's territory, there should a quid pro quo of some kind. I do think that the Chagossians should have the choice of whether they become citizens of Mauritius or independent. Or, perchance, Sri Lankans.
We don’t realistically have the capability to defend our own home island never mind the Chagos islands. The level of self delusion is off the charts from a defence perspective. I agree that it should be the Chagossians who decide what they want to do but that’s a moral reason not a defence reason.
Air defence of the UK and army numbers should be the priority.
We're the 5th strongest economy/military on the planet and have our allies (like it or not) the USA stationed on the island.
Of course we do have the ability to defend it, from Mauritius.
It is delusional to say we don't.
The issue is apparently not Mauritius, but China. In any event I don’t really care about an island in the pacific but rather our home island in the Atlantic.
I hope Trump vetoes the Mauritius deal its a real dog.
If Starmer cant face up to owning some real estate in the Indian Ocean, he shpuld hand it over to the US
US gets permanence for a key base US can offer citizenship to Chagossians whereas UK treats them like shit UK taxpayer saves £100million a year rent.
Starmer really is a dimwit.
I thought it was a Tory scheme..... in particular, Cleverly's ....... originally.
And there will be one major objection, in Trump's 'mind' to offering the Chagossiams citizenship.
This is the standard drivel coming from the Left.
You spend 14 years saying everything the Tories did was wrong and then you accelerate the fk ups they have made instead of killing them dead and saying they were wrong.
Cleverly was wrong and so is Starmer.
I didn't say that the scheme, was "right". However it does seem to me that if we, or anyone else, have military bases on someone else's territory, there should a quid pro quo of some kind. I do think that the Chagossians should have the choice of whether they become citizens of Mauritius or independent. Or, perchance, Sri Lankans.
Maldivians, not Sri Lankans. The closest land to the Chagos is actually in the Maldives.
It's hard not to listen to Carney's speech as a direct rebuke to Starmer's foreign policy strategy - "the capacity to stop pretending, to name reality"
Starmer is not willing to do this with respect to the special relationship that used to exist between the US and the UK.
I hope Trump vetoes the Mauritius deal its a real dog.
If Starmer cant face up to owning some real estate in the Indian Ocean, he shpuld hand it over to the US
US gets permanence for a key base US can offer citizenship to Chagossians whereas UK treats them like shit UK taxpayer saves £100million a year rent.
Starmer really is a dimwit.
I thought it was a Tory scheme..... in particular, Cleverly's ....... originally.
And there will be one major objection, in Trump's 'mind' to offering the Chagossiams citizenship.
This is the standard drivel coming from the Left.
You spend 14 years saying everything the Tories did was wrong and then you accelerate the fk ups they have made instead of killing them dead and saying they were wrong.
Cleverly was wrong and so is Starmer.
I didn't say that the scheme, was "right". However it does seem to me that if we, or anyone else, have military bases on someone else's territory, there should a quid pro quo of some kind. I do think that the Chagossians should have the choice of whether they become citizens of Mauritius or independent. Or, perchance, Sri Lankans.
It isn't someone else's territory though, its ours. We should keep it, then we don't need to pay anyone anything.
If Mauritius want to claim it, they can either fight us and America for it, or they can bugger off.
Don't be such an old-fashioed colonialist! The Chagos Islands are no more part of the UK that Greenland is of the US.
They're our land that we have sovereignty and control over. Of course they are ours, just as any land China has sovereignty and control over they would not surrender without a fight.
In the least surprising news of the day Radicanu is out.
So another coach bites the dust ...
There’ll come a time when Raducan’tu will realise it’s not necessarily the coach that is the issue.
Unfortunately there won't come a time when the public commentariat recognise that being the 29th best player in the world out of 40 million active female players globally, despite having significant injuries in each of the last four seasons is an amazing and laudable achievement that probably suggests she knows what she is doing better than we do.
Well we’re not pro tennis players, of course she will be a better player than we are.
Ah, the British sporting mindset.
A gallant loser is still a loser. One win years ago, and then zip.
I've just checked and was surprised to find Emma Raducanu is only 23 years old. It seems ages since her US Open win.
Wow, you’re right. It seems an age ago.
Some sports stars flourish young then fade. Hopefully she will flourish as she moves into her mid twenties.
Comments
https://x.com/bricktop_nafo/status/2013736384083742754
136/1 from 17 overs in the U-19s World Cup match, live on Sky.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/scorecard/e-233172
We only have aluminium for the bi-folds due to being stronger, but there is still more thermal bridging in those frames than in the uPVC units elsewhere - occasional minor condensation on the frames and the external* condensation is further from the frames than for the uPVC windows. I can see the appeal of the thinner frames that are possible though (another benefit for the bi-folds compared to uPVC). All the above comparisons on units under four years old.
*Which blew my mind when I first saw it - outside pane of glass kept cold enough to be a condensation surface, inside condensation free.
In the BBC's favour, they did at least air the entire thing on their website, without cutting away, and if you had the endurance to listen to it, the state of his mental capacity was starkly evident.
But the accounts this morning read (or sound, in the case of Today) like something from Pravda.
And it's not just the BBC - even the Guardian does something similar.
NEW: NEW: Standards commissioner finds Nigel Farage committed seventeen breaches of MPs code of conduct.
https://bsky.app/profile/pippacrerar.bsky.social/post/3mcwbyu75ck2h
Use cards people.
New analysis from Oxford and Kentucky researchers shows AI systems reproduce long‑standing global biases
https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/news-events/new-study-finds-that-chatgpt-amplifies-global-inequalities/
However the speech resolves in outline every middle ranking nation's strategy except for one question: What precisely does Canada do if, having annexed Greenland in 2026, the USA armed forces enter Canada in 2027 and seek to take over?
It was delusional to ask, but now it isn't. We know why Carney didn't touch on it, but it is still a question. Is he in fact accidentally saying to Trump: If you want to take over Canada you had better do it quickly because we are getting ready?
Once it has been mended it will then start to accept cash featuring the King then I also presume
No sanction on him either as he apologised
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/20/anson-ssn-nuclear-submarine-royal-navy-aukus-australia/ (£££)
A measured response to the recent Ashes series.
Farage exit as Reform Leader in 2026 at 10s.
(I'd want quite a lot more than that I think.)
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics/uk-party-leaders/year-nigel-farage-replaced-as-reform-leader-betting-1.237956720
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2yerrqel7o
The entire functioning Royal Navy attack sub force = 1 sub
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cx2lej4x7j9t
I guess it's the sort of thing that you would want to do in private as much as possible, but Britain really ought to be working hard to make sure that the nuclear deterrent can be sustained with US obstructionism. One of the benefits of an Anglo-Canadian Union would be extending Britain's nuclear deterrent to cover Canada, but that's no good if the US can put it out of action.
Yet, you are choosing to believe Trump, in one of his lashing out rants instead. 🙂
1. 35
2. 4
3. 52
4. 29
5. Ref 14
6. 21
7. 15
8. Starmer
9. No
10. 145
11. 0.2
12. Spain
That's a practical demonstration that the idea that we are going to construct some alternative security block to the EU, with partners like Japan, S Korea and Canada, which a few PBers have floated, isn't very realistic.
But I agree on the lack of urgency regarding funding.
The US dominated world, for us, had many benefits but also plenty of downsides. If we do successfully create a new order without the US being so pivotal, we shouldn't rush to return to the old order when the US elect someone sane as president.
The 2G in my own house is circa 2008, and does not get the same effect, but there is a lot of it so may not be on the replacement list yet. The end of the scheme in 2028-9 may be on the agenda.
Here's an example of a stupid install, where they lost nearly half the window area to the frames so they will be really dark inside.
* This is a bit innovative but takes me up the supply chain to the 2G manufacturer who supplies the wholesaler who supplies the retailer who supplies the fitter, and so comes in at somewhat less than half price, in exchange for modest compromises.
Denmark +45%
Finland +17%
Latvia +13%
Lithuania +34%
Netherlands +26%
Norway +50%
Poland +22%
Sweden +11%
Turkiye +12%
The UK sticks out as a country already above the 2% target that is doing very little to increase spending further. Britain has a self-image of being stronger on defence then the continental Europeans, but we're starting to become a laggard now.
I own (well, the bank does via the mortgage) the leasehold on the flat. The flat is one of several in the block. The freehold company owns the freehold.
Ah, the British sporting mindset.
A gallant loser is still a loser. One win years ago, and then zip.
The real challenge as I see it for the UK is that our Defence Spending in inefficient in bang-per-buck.
Our MPPP (Military Purchasing Power Parity) compared to the USA is around 0.95, whilst for France it is 0.65.
That is, we get for $95 what costs the USA $100. This has moved in our favour with the dollar falling by 10-15% recently, but the difference with France is very large.
The Tories have been no better in their stints in charge however they might get a tiny bit of leeway for it not having been so dangerous for most of their rule as it is right now requiring actively immediate spending.
But….. there is no point in spending more if it’s the same people doing the spending who have been doing it so far with constant delays and overspends. Maybe convene an emergency committee to oversee spending of emergency top up money that has to be spent only on kit that is available now, is not altered for British requirements.
But the old (western) world order could have absorbed a Farage or a Le Pen etc because individually we weren't that critical to it. But we've all been far to reliant on the US based on the premise that they will have a sane leader. Trump is right about that, at least - we've been too reliant and not pulling our weight. Although being less reliant also means having alternatives to US tech and companies.
I recommend them - if you have a well insulated loft, for example, you don’t need radiators up there. I just have the heat pumps up there - used it to heat twice this whole winter.
In summer they run off the solar panels on the roof.
The best defence spending possible right now, is buying shares in the Ukranian startups currently powering their war that lets them expand their investment.
Watch Trump today - is that someone who understands *anything*?
It's also why I looked at the percentage increases for countries which were already over the 2% target. These are our peers - like Norway and the Netherlands - who have traditionally taken defence more seriously than countries like Spain or Italy.
Most of the countries in my list are JEF members. Again, Britain stands out as a JEF member not increasing defence spending rapidly.
Other countries already do such things - Italy, for example, credits its entire spend on the Carabinieri as defence spending, despite their day to day activities mostly being humdrum stuff like roadside checks on drivers. Indeed the US is the biggest spender, but also uses the broadest definition of all, including its entire intelligence community (all 18 agencies), all of its space expenditure, all of its nuclear expenditure, the myriad veterans' benefits such as their medical scheme (which alone, in cash terms, exceeds what many NATO members spend on defence in total!), coastguard, homeland security, multi-agency R&D - such that comparing defence spending between nations can be a pretty meaningless exercise, unless you are willing to go do a lot of work breaking the spending down into categories.
And even where there's an accepted definition - for example armed forces' pensions count as defence spending, and comprise almost a tenth of UK's declared total - that money's not going to help us fend off the Russkies, is it?
If Starmer cant face up to owning some real estate in the Indian Ocean, he shpuld hand it over to the US
US gets permanence for a key base
US can offer citizenship to Chagossians whereas UK treats them like shit
UK taxpayer saves £100million a year rent.
Starmer really is a dimwit.
I wonder if there is any merit for breaking up the Defence Budget as one block and break it down into its constituent parts to be considered very separately on the basis of need rather than having internal bunfights between the services.
So for example the RAF have to go to the treasury and explain what they need and why they need it and agree their own budget, the Navy and Army the same. It might focus politicians minds on which areas are more important and what our role actually should/can be.
And there will be one major objection, in Trump's 'mind' to offering the Chagossiams citizenship.
Trump, I think we can both agree, is unusual by not even respecting guidelines whatsoever and showing utter contempt for them.
However that does not mean we should treat international law as actual rules, rather than mere guidelines we pretend to follow when it suits us - which is precisely what America and others have always done pre-Trump.
I'm now firmly in the Starmer must go camp the only caviat being that he isn't replaced by Badenoch or Farage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT32HEG8W4A
I think you're more likely to see dodgy accounting practices by those countries that are close to the old 2% target, to ensure they stay on the right side of it, or finally get over it. If you're spending is already 3% of GDP then there's not much need to cook the books to impress a nerd on PB.com.
You spend 14 years saying everything the Tories did was wrong and then you accelerate the fk ups they have made instead of killing them dead and saying they were wrong.
Cleverly was wrong and so is Starmer.
Tell them to go f*** themselves and move on, what have we got to lose?
I can understand people wanting to ensure that the money we spend is spent more effectively, but that's an eternal struggle, never completely won. The focus right now I feel needs to be on acknowledging that the world has changed and we need to work out how to increase spending by at least half over the next three years.
Notwithstanding the current defections I doubt Badenoch or Farage will defect to labour
Look at what they were able to do in Venezuela, at the Furness they are assembling to attack Iran now, while maintaining their forces in the Caribbean.
It is obvious that their defence spending on paper is not all an accounting exercise.
Starmer delivered it. The politics? Not so much.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/2013698550300102907
Trump: Signed an executive order to bring back mental institutions and insane asylums. We are going to have to bring them back. Hate to build those suckers but you've got to get the people off the streets
I do think that the Chagossians should have the choice of whether they become citizens of Mauritius or independent. Or, perchance, Sri Lankans.
If Mauritius want to claim it, they can either fight us and America for it, or they can bugger off.
Very strong demand at this morning's gilt auction - bids worth 3.66 times the £4.75 billion on offer for a 4% gilt due in 2029.
It ranks as the 9th strongest out of the 1,208 auctions held since 1998.
DMO said to be ecstatic, someone has broken out a packet of Blue Ribands.
Air defence of the UK and army numbers should be the priority.
Of course we do have the ability to defend it, from Mauritius.
It is delusional to say we don't.
The solution would be a much more unified UK Defence Force with lots of 'purple' roles at the top but the Daily Mail wouldn't stand for it.
I don’t think we do have the 5th strongest military, at all.
Italy's latest submission to Defence Committee (which in Italy actually has to authorize expenditure, not comment on it 1-2 years later like in UK)about GCAP gives a 18.6 billion Euro cost estimate covering Phases 1 & 2 (full development of the platform)
https://x.com/Gabriel64869839/status/2013598201807315259
Of course they also resort to creative accounting, but sometimes in a manner which actually benefits defence.
That's a lot of money still "missing" (7.8 billion Euro) BUT in the magic world of Italy's defence budget it kinda-sorta tends to show up in the end. Again, partly so thanks to Economic Development ministry money that is injected in defence projects delivered by national industry
https://x.com/Gabriel64869839/status/2013601502640644570
GCAP is going to be very costly - second only to the nuclear deterrent - but without it we're no longer in the advanced fighter game, and entirely dependent on the US.
And if Europe gets serious about defence, there will likely be sales to other countries.
1) identify the Chagossians
2) implement a digital id for them (since they are scattered). It could be a test of creating digital id without vast databases and stupid over reach. See the systems that are used in Estonia, for example.
3) using the digital id, they get to elect some representatives
4) negotiate a deal with those representatives
5) have a referendum among the Chagossians to seal the deal.
6) implement the deal
I’m sure someone will claim that this wouldn’t be cricket.
Be realistic.
Starmer is not willing to do this with respect to the special relationship that used to exist between the US and the UK.
Some sports stars flourish young then fade. Hopefully she will flourish as she moves into her mid twenties.