Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
If Labour are to win the next election we MUST rejoin the EU. Starmer or Burnham must batter it through. No Referendums. Just a huge parlianentary majority. The full fat version including Schengen. We must put ourselves at the centre of Europe.
Labour have nothing to lose. They are sleepwalking to possible defeat at the hands of Farage. There is no form of REJOIN that would be a worse fate for this country than that.
Rejoin plus Euro means zero chance of Labour re election
Nobody is suggesting the Euro
Roger is (“…full fat version…”) in the comment HYUFD is replying to!
The reality of Rejoin is
1) We would be asked to follow the process that all applicants to the are do. The politics of Europe will not slow a special exemption - too many countries would get upset 2) So we would be signing up to “full fat” Europe 3) This means signing up for the Euro. Since this would remove a huge chunk of the mucking around with the economy the politicians love, this would be a matter of I) Signing up to the Euro joining process II) Never actually meeting he requirements and joining
You're not allowing for any realpolitik there. The reality is that, if the EU believed we were willing to return for good - Farage's enduring toxic influence on our politics remains the principal obstacle - we could return on terms that suited us.
We'd have them over a barrel, eh?
In the current geopolitical environment, our returning would be of significant mutual benefit, and from the EU's perspective having the UK return after Brexit would be seen as vindication and triumph, and pretty much ensure the EU holds together going forward. That's worth them having. We probably wouldn't get our rebate back, but we'd not have to join the Euro and would be allowed, like Sweden, to sit outside it for as long as we wanted, i.e. for ever.
No reason why Hungary would veto us. None at all. No sir.
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
There is much to not like about privatisation, but there was very much not to like about the state of state run stuff before the 1980's revolution. But you have to be older generation with a decent memory to remember how bad it could be.
You can't consider deindustrialisation without also considering the areas of economic activity that grew at the same time. It's like farming which is only a tiny % of GDP but still essential but we have grown rich in other ways. Industry remains essential and we have grown in other ways.
Austerity: State spending remains, and remained during the so called austerity period, gigantic; as did and does borrowing.
Brexit: The vote to leave left the future open to parliament to steer. If Burnham's party had focussed on joining with moderates to get a Norway/Swiss type deal, out of the political but in the economic union, things would be different.
Wow. Donald's comments about British servicemen has left him rather friendless.
I'm sure Farage will be around soon to explain away Trump's comments as not that offensive really, not if you consider [insert whataboutery here].
Tbh I've heard different but arguably worse complaints that in Iraq, Afghanistan and even ww2, Americans had to dig British troops out from holes of our own making. And for all that we were in Afghanistan, we stayed about five minutes once America pulled out.
Speaking of Afghanistan, it was remarked at the time that we were burning through the defence budget firing our stocks of American-made missiles at American-selected targets, and that it would be cheaper to cut out the middleman.
I’m pretty sure that there’ve been occasions when US soldiers have owed their lives to British soldiers.
The notion that the US is the only country that fights has no basis in reality.
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
If Labour are to win the next election we MUST rejoin the EU. Starmer or Burnham must batter it through. No Referendums. Just a huge parlianentary majority. The full fat version including Schengen. We must put ourselves at the centre of Europe.
Labour have nothing to lose. They are sleepwalking to possible defeat at the hands of Farage. There is no form of REJOIN that would be a worse fate for this country than that.
Rejoin plus Euro means zero chance of Labour re election
Nobody is suggesting the Euro
Roger is (“…full fat version…”) in the comment HYUFD is replying to!
The reality of Rejoin is
1) We would be asked to follow the process that all applicants to the are do. The politics of Europe will not slow a special exemption - too many countries would get upset 2) So we would be signing up to “full fat” Europe 3) This means signing up for the Euro. Since this would remove a huge chunk of the mucking around with the economy the politicians love, this would be a matter of I) Signing up to the Euro joining process II) Never actually meeting he requirements and joining
The number of countries that want Britain to join the Euro is zero. They've got enough problems already without adding a country with a weird housing thing going on that's not really into it.
It's perfectly possible that the application would just get held up forever, and it's also possible that some countries would say they don't think it'll last and they're not going to play the hokey cokey but the Euro wouldn't be the blocker.
This is a poll of voters not governments, and if you do a poll with "Do you support X" then follow it up with "Would you still support X even if Y" on something the voter hasn't thought very hard about you'll inevitably get a much lower result for the second question than the first even if Y isn't something the voter would have cared about unprompted.
That's your opinion, not evidence. The fact that electorates are broadly in favour, and von der Leyen herself has publicly expressed support for the idea, suggests that I am probably closer to the truth than you, but of course no one will really know unless it becomes a formal proposal.
"On Wednesday, the House of Lords voted in favor of banning the use of VPNs by under-18s. The chamber backed the amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill by 207 votes to 159, marking a significant government defeat."
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
There is much to not like about privatisation, but there was very much not to like about the state of state run stuff before the 1980's revolution. But you have to be older generation with a decent memory to remember how bad it could be.
You can't consider deindustrialisation without also considering the areas of economic activity that grew at the same time. It's like farming which is only a tiny % of GDP but still essential but we have grown rich in other ways. Industry remains essential and we have grown in other ways.
Austerity: State spending remains, and remained during the so called austerity period, gigantic; as did and does borrowing.
Brexit: The vote to leave left the future open to parliament to steer. If Burnham's party had focussed on joining with moderates to get a Norway/Swiss type deal, out of the political but in the economic union, things would be different.
The notion that we’d be better off if millions were still employed in mining, and low value manufacturing, competing against low wage economies, with nationalised industries sucking up massive subsidies, is for the birds.
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
1970s nationalised Britain was a basket case, deindustrialisation is global but there are still high skilled manufacturers and industry in the UK and of course Trump was elected in the US to tariff imports especially from China and protect industry. No austerity from this high tax and welfare splurging Labour government. It was the British people themselves who voted for Brexit in the 2016 EU referendum against the advice of the then Tory PM
What Burnham’s thesis fails to grasp (and what many on the left also desperately avoid) is that for all the negative consequences of deindustrialisation (a policy of both parties) and the Thatcher reforms - and it is fantasy to suggest that there weren’t negative consequences - they were popular with huge parts of society and, after the turmoil of the 1980s, largely accepted by society at large for the next 20-30 years (depending on whether you think that stops at the GFC or not).
Thatcher forged a new consensus. It is no good the Labour Party trying to turn the clock back to those debates, just as it is no good Farage trying to appeal to a mythical Britain of the 1940s and 1950s. A new social contract needs to be forged.
If you want an early 1970’’s economy, you must accept an early 1970’s standard of living.
Sections of the left are as guilty as sections of the right at seeing recent history as a journey from Eden to Hell.
Had you been alive in 1970, you might have been the young professional who could buy a house in Notting Hill for £3,000. But, the greater likelihood is you’d be the guy dying of enphysema in some slum owned by the NCB, at the age of 48.
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
If Labour are to win the next election we MUST rejoin the EU. Starmer or Burnham must batter it through. No Referendums. Just a huge parlianentary majority. The full fat version including Schengen. We must put ourselves at the centre of Europe.
Labour have nothing to lose. They are sleepwalking to possible defeat at the hands of Farage. There is no form of REJOIN that would be a worse fate for this country than that.
Rejoin plus Euro means zero chance of Labour re election
Nobody is suggesting the Euro
Roger is (“…full fat version…”) in the comment HYUFD is replying to!
The reality of Rejoin is
1) We would be asked to follow the process that all applicants to the are do. The politics of Europe will not slow a special exemption - too many countries would get upset 2) So we would be signing up to “full fat” Europe 3) This means signing up for the Euro. Since this would remove a huge chunk of the mucking around with the economy the politicians love, this would be a matter of I) Signing up to the Euro joining process II) Never actually meeting he requirements and joining
You're not allowing for any realpolitik there. The reality is that, if the EU believed we were willing to return for good - Farage's enduring toxic influence on our politics remains the principal obstacle - we could return on terms that suited us.
We'd have them over a barrel, eh?
In the current geopolitical environment, our returning would be of significant mutual benefit, and from the EU's perspective having the UK return after Brexit would be seen as vindication and triumph, and pretty much ensure the EU holds together going forward. That's worth them having. We probably wouldn't get our rebate back, but we'd not have to join the Euro and would be allowed, like Sweden, to sit outside it for as long as we wanted, i.e. for ever.
No reason why Hungary would veto us. None at all. No sir.
We could make a condition of our entry, if Orban is still in power, that Hungary is expelled. That might well enjoy broad support.
But actually there's a fair chance he gets kicked out of office this year.
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
There is much to not like about privatisation, but there was very much not to like about the state of state run stuff before the 1980's revolution. But you have to be older generation with a decent memory to remember how bad it could be.
You can't consider deindustrialisation without also considering the areas of economic activity that grew at the same time. It's like farming which is only a tiny % of GDP but still essential but we have grown rich in other ways. Industry remains essential and we have grown in other ways.
Austerity: State spending remains, and remained during the so called austerity period, gigantic; as did and does borrowing.
Brexit: The vote to leave left the future open to parliament to steer. If Burnham's party had focussed on joining with moderates to get a Norway/Swiss type deal, out of the political but in the economic union, things would be different.
The notion that we’d be better off if millions were still employed in mining, and low value manufacturing, competing against low wage economies, with nationalised industries sucking up massive subsidies, is for the birds.
Clearly not mining because the mines were largely worked out anyway, but can anyone reasonably defend the privatisation of the water supply industry?
Can we do anything in the UK without it taking 10 20 years....
500km of railway, 20+ years. China, 50000km, 10 years. They built a bloody 20 million person world class city from scratch in 30 years. Are we still talking about new garden cities (that aren't really new cities), haven't they been in the works for 15 years???
China isn't necessarily tge best example to follow. They have 80 million empty houses because they built far too many because it made the GDP figure go up; their trains ferry around a lot of empty air, and their infrastructure is quite fally-downy
If you don't like China, you can have Singapore.
But having been in China for a month, I can tell you for instance "trains ferry a lot of empty air" isn't true, certainly not in Eastern China. The 1000 person trains were full. And the bullet trains are miles ahead of the rest of the world now in every aspect and they can make more in a year than the rest of the world combined x10. They have production lined train manufacture in a similar way to cars, but in a way no other company has. The train lines in the far north are the criticism for empty air, but it kinda of irrevelant in the grand scheme. There is politics / "control" in play, but also engineering testing for high speed in very cold temps and high desert, as they are exporting high speed to rest of the world now.
I think a lot of the poor quality stuff ends up being linked to corruption in lower tier cities. The Tier 1 cities are better than basically every Western city now.
Yes China keep their GDP up by doing effectively Keynsian ecomics of building in the down times and have overbuilt housing. But the point was they get shit done....the West, particularly the UK, don't get shit done, its more shit stuff gets done.
China gets stuff done by having no democracy, planning law, health & safety or environmental standards.
If they want to build something, they'll move you out of your house in 24 hrs - no questions- then bulldoze it, and they don't really care how many die in building the new stuff.
If you take that attitude, you can get quite a lot done quite quickly with an authoritarian state.
But would you want to live in one?
Isn't there pretty much always an inverse relationship between speed of infrastructure development and democracy?
So the Chinese could build railways, Stalin could do his 5 year plan, Hiltler build the Autobhans, Mussolini the new Railway stations, Louis Napoleon modern Paris, etc etc?
You can however go too far the other way, where a £40bn project gets delayed for a decade because someone claims to have found some not-particularly-rare newts on the site, then when they do build it there’s £100m bat tunnels.
For major infrastructure projects, the democratic oversight should be Parliament. The Bill gets passed, and spades go in the ground a fortnight later. Property in the way gets purchased with a 50-100% uplift. The Western world is strangling itself with process and lawyers.
Note that the UK Railways were built, pretty much, in the above manner.
Parliament passed an Act - the horse trading was done in the wording of the act. After it was passed, it was law, and the idea of the courts challenging it would have ben seen as absurd.
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
There is much to not like about privatisation, but there was very much not to like about the state of state run stuff before the 1980's revolution. But you have to be older generation with a decent memory to remember how bad it could be.
You can't consider deindustrialisation without also considering the areas of economic activity that grew at the same time. It's like farming which is only a tiny % of GDP but still essential but we have grown rich in other ways. Industry remains essential and we have grown in other ways.
Austerity: State spending remains, and remained during the so called austerity period, gigantic; as did and does borrowing.
Brexit: The vote to leave left the future open to parliament to steer. If Burnham's party had focussed on joining with moderates to get a Norway/Swiss type deal, out of the political but in the economic union, things would be different.
The notion that we’d be better off if millions were still employed in mining, and low value manufacturing, competing against low wage economies, with nationalised industries sucking up massive subsidies, is for the birds.
I think it's only Farage who is actively in favour of returning to coal mining.
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
1970s nationalised Britain was a basket case, deindustrialisation is global but there are still high skilled manufacturers and industry in the UK and of course Trump was elected in the US to tariff imports especially from China and protect industry. No austerity from this high tax and welfare splurging Labour government. It was the British people themselves who voted for Brexit in the 2016 EU referendum against the advice of the then Tory PM
What Burnham’s thesis fails to grasp (and what many on the left also desperately avoid) is that for all the negative consequences of deindustrialisation (a policy of both parties) and the Thatcher reforms - and it is fantasy to suggest that there weren’t negative consequences - they were popular with huge parts of society and, after the turmoil of the 1980s, largely accepted by society at large for the next 20-30 years (depending on whether you think that stops at the GFC or not).
Thatcher forged a new consensus. It is no good the Labour Party trying to turn the clock back to those debates, just as it is no good Farage trying to appeal to a mythical Britain of the 1940s and 1950s. A new social contract needs to be forged.
If you want an early 1970’’s economy, you must accept an early 1970’s standard of living.
Sections of the left are as guilty as sections of the right at seeing recent history as a journey from Eden to Hell.
Had you been alive in 1970, you might have been the young professional who could buy a house in Notting Hill for £3,000. But, the greater likelihood is you’d be the guy dying of enphysema in some slum owned by the NCB, at the age of 48.
For the first time, I think, the results are running below the OBR forecast for the year. The damage done by the run up to the budget was horrendous and a completely unenforced error but there is a chance things might just calm down a bit for a while.
Only borrowing £140bn this year, instead of £150bn, really isn’t a win.
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
There is much to not like about privatisation, but there was very much not to like about the state of state run stuff before the 1980's revolution. But you have to be older generation with a decent memory to remember how bad it could be.
You can't consider deindustrialisation without also considering the areas of economic activity that grew at the same time. It's like farming which is only a tiny % of GDP but still essential but we have grown rich in other ways. Industry remains essential and we have grown in other ways.
Austerity: State spending remains, and remained during the so called austerity period, gigantic; as did and does borrowing.
Brexit: The vote to leave left the future open to parliament to steer. If Burnham's party had focussed on joining with moderates to get a Norway/Swiss type deal, out of the political but in the economic union, things would be different.
The notion that we’d be better off if millions were still employed in mining, and low value manufacturing, competing against low wage economies, with nationalised industries sucking up massive subsidies, is for the birds.
What people are dimly stumbling towards was that there are, actually, three possible ways to go
1) Buy it all from China. 2) Build ultra efficient, highly automated, low employment factories here. See Dark Factories. 3) Subsidise inefficiency here.
Governments sometimes talk about 2) but generally end up with 3)
It would have been possible (could still be) to build shipyards in the Korean style. That is, on a new location (where you can build 100,000 ton ships easily) setup a huge, high automated, ship assembly line system. This would have meant demolishing the existing shipyards and starting from scratch. Massive strikes, and the owners didn't want to do that anyway. So subsiding the existing yards to the next election was the selected solution.
Considering how things have gone, it is only natural the Senior Responsible Owner for AJAX was removed, but it's highly unlikely the civil servant serving as SRO was "the" problem. Need to dig deeper than that to find out where information goes to die. https://x.com/Gabriel64869839/status/2014638119841099843
A large amount of the blame surely lies with the manufacturer ? If not, then the entire massive failure by those in government responsible for managing this disaster can't be laid at the door of a single civil servant.
Wow. Donald's comments about British servicemen has left him rather friendless.
I'm sure Farage will be around soon to explain away Trump's comments as not that offensive really, not if you consider [insert whataboutery here].
Tbh I've heard different but arguably worse complaints that in Iraq, Afghanistan and even ww2, Americans had to dig British troops out from holes of our own making. And for all that we were in Afghanistan, we stayed about five minutes once America pulled out.
Speaking of Afghanistan, it was remarked at the time that we were burning through the defence budget firing our stocks of American-made missiles at American-selected targets, and that it would be cheaper to cut out the middleman.
you also hear that the yanks killed more Brits than the Germans, they just shoot at anybody.
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
There is much to not like about privatisation, but there was very much not to like about the state of state run stuff before the 1980's revolution. But you have to be older generation with a decent memory to remember how bad it could be.
You can't consider deindustrialisation without also considering the areas of economic activity that grew at the same time. It's like farming which is only a tiny % of GDP but still essential but we have grown rich in other ways. Industry remains essential and we have grown in other ways.
Austerity: State spending remains, and remained during the so called austerity period, gigantic; as did and does borrowing.
Brexit: The vote to leave left the future open to parliament to steer. If Burnham's party had focussed on joining with moderates to get a Norway/Swiss type deal, out of the political but in the economic union, things would be different.
The notion that we’d be better off if millions were still employed in mining, and low value manufacturing, competing against low wage economies, with nationalised industries sucking up massive subsidies, is for the birds.
What people are dimly stumbling towards was that there are, actually, three possible ways to go
1) Buy it all from China. 2) Build ultra efficient, highly automated, low employment factories here. See Dark Factories. 3) Subsidise inefficiency here.
Governments sometimes talk about 2) but generally end up with 3)
Thatcherism was a 1980’s solution to 1970’s problems. It’s 35 years since she resigned, and it’s up to modern politicians to solve our quite different problems, rather than harking back to a golden age that never was.
Considering how things have gone, it is only natural the Senior Responsible Owner for AJAX was removed, but it's highly unlikely the civil servant serving as SRO was "the" problem. Need to dig deeper than that to find out where information goes to die. https://x.com/Gabriel64869839/status/2014638119841099843
A large amount of the blame surely lies with the manufacturer ? If not, then the entire massive failure by those in government responsible for managing this disaster can't be laid at the door of a single civil servant.
Please let this letter serve to represent that the Board of Breathtakingly Awesome People Who Stay Awake at Meetings is withdrawing its invitation to you joining the prestigious Board of Leaders Who Know That Iceland is Not Greenland.
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
If Labour are to win the next election we MUST rejoin the EU. Starmer or Burnham must batter it through. No Referendums. Just a huge parlianentary majority. The full fat version including Schengen. We must put ourselves at the centre of Europe.
Labour have nothing to lose. They are sleepwalking to possible defeat at the hands of Farage. There is no form of REJOIN that would be a worse fate for this country than that.
Rejoin plus Euro means zero chance of Labour re election
Why? The latest polls are 60/40 in favour. After Trump's Shenanigans of the last few weeks I'd imagine it's now even higher. One thing Trump has shown is in this new transactional world anything is possible. Had the UK not left we would be at the centre of one of the worlds great economic powers
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
If Labour are to win the next election we MUST rejoin the EU. Starmer or Burnham must batter it through. No Referendums. Just a huge parlianentary majority. The full fat version including Schengen. We must put ourselves at the centre of Europe.
Labour have nothing to lose. They are sleepwalking to possible defeat at the hands of Farage. There is no form of REJOIN that would be a worse fate for this country than that.
Rejoin plus Euro means zero chance of Labour re election
Why? The latest polls are 60/40 in favour. After Trump's Shenanigans of the last few weeks I'd imagine it's now even higher. One thing Trump has shown is in this new transactional world anything is possible. Had the UK not left we would be at the centre of one of the worlds great economic powers
The Euro would be a dealbreaker. It’s a shame because I personally would like the Euro but the ship has sailed. The right time would have been at the start to ensure that the ECB was in London.
Considering how things have gone, it is only natural the Senior Responsible Owner for AJAX was removed, but it's highly unlikely the civil servant serving as SRO was "the" problem. Need to dig deeper than that to find out where information goes to die. https://x.com/Gabriel64869839/status/2014638119841099843
A large amount of the blame surely lies with the manufacturer ? If not, then the entire massive failure by those in government responsible for managing this disaster can't be laid at the door of a single civil servant.
Why not ?
The buck stops with him.
I'm not defending the guy, but if you think the massive problem of Ajax is down to one civil servant then you're a fool.
Considering how things have gone, it is only natural the Senior Responsible Owner for AJAX was removed, but it's highly unlikely the civil servant serving as SRO was "the" problem. Need to dig deeper than that to find out where information goes to die. https://x.com/Gabriel64869839/status/2014638119841099843
A large amount of the blame surely lies with the manufacturer ? If not, then the entire massive failure by those in government responsible for managing this disaster can't be laid at the door of a single civil servant.
Why not ?
The buck stops with him.
The problem is that sacrificing one senior chap - who then retires on full pension, plus a range of suitable non-executive directorships - is another deflection.
The famous Carrington resignation over the Falklands covered up what had been happening in the Foreigner* Office. The lead MI6 guy in Argentina had been providing detailed reports about the build up. Since this went against the Departmental Policy, various senior civil servants worked to have him silenced. To the point of destroying his career.
What is fun, is the way you get called "vindictive" if, after the initial resignation, you keep digging.
*Its called that, because it represents the interests of foreigners in the British Government
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
If Labour are to win the next election we MUST rejoin the EU. Starmer or Burnham must batter it through. No Referendums. Just a huge parlianentary majority. The full fat version including Schengen. We must put ourselves at the centre of Europe.
Labour have nothing to lose. They are sleepwalking to possible defeat at the hands of Farage. There is no form of REJOIN that would be a worse fate for this country than that.
You make it sound like it’s a fucking door we can walk straight back through.
Even if what you propose is possible domestically, there is the small matter of negotiating and getting the approval of 27 Member States each of which, quite apart from other concerns/selfish reasons for veto, might just be just a little concerned that Nige or Kemiwill walk us straight back out again. All that in 3.5 years (tops) without a manifesto commitment. They’ve other priorities than our psychodrama.
I appreciate your passion but shit like this Leon levels of trolling. Customs Union possibly, Single Market at an unlikely stretch, but rejoin in 3.5 years (again, tops) is for the birds.
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
If Labour are to win the next election we MUST rejoin the EU. Starmer or Burnham must batter it through. No Referendums. Just a huge parlianentary majority. The full fat version including Schengen. We must put ourselves at the centre of Europe.
Labour have nothing to lose. They are sleepwalking to possible defeat at the hands of Farage. There is no form of REJOIN that would be a worse fate for this country than that.
Rejoin plus Euro means zero chance of Labour re election
Why? The latest polls are 60/40 in favour. After Trump's Shenanigans of the last few weeks I'd imagine it's now even higher. One thing Trump has shown is in this new transactional world anything is possible. Had the UK not left we would be at the centre of one of the worlds great economic powers
The Euro would be a dealbreaker. It’s a shame because I personally would like the Euro but the ship has sailed. The right time would have been at the start to ensure that the ECB was in London.
It's entirely possible to rejoin and not join the euro, without having an official opt out, as Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Sweden currently demonstrate. (Denmark managed to have its opt out.)
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
If Labour are to win the next election we MUST rejoin the EU. Starmer or Burnham must batter it through. No Referendums. Just a huge parlianentary majority. The full fat version including Schengen. We must put ourselves at the centre of Europe.
Labour have nothing to lose. They are sleepwalking to possible defeat at the hands of Farage. There is no form of REJOIN that would be a worse fate for this country than that.
You make it sound like it’s a fucking door we can walk straight back through.
Even if what you propose is possible domestically, there is the small matter of negotiating and getting the approval of 27 Member States each of which, quite apart from other concerns/selfish reasons for veto, might just be just a little concerned that Nige or Kemiwill walk us straight back out again. All that in 3.5 years (tops) without a manifesto commitment. They’ve other priorities than our psychodrama.
I appreciate your passion but shit like this Leon levels of trolling. Customs Union possibly, Single Market at an unlikely stretch, but rejoin in 3.5 years (again, tops) is for the birds.
Spitting truths here.
Finland managed 3 years (and a bit) from initial application to full membership. But that was back in 1992.
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
If Labour are to win the next election we MUST rejoin the EU. Starmer or Burnham must batter it through. No Referendums. Just a huge parlianentary majority. The full fat version including Schengen. We must put ourselves at the centre of Europe.
Labour have nothing to lose. They are sleepwalking to possible defeat at the hands of Farage. There is no form of REJOIN that would be a worse fate for this country than that.
Rejoin plus Euro means zero chance of Labour re election
Why? The latest polls are 60/40 in favour. After Trump's Shenanigans of the last few weeks I'd imagine it's now even higher. One thing Trump has shown is in this new transactional world anything is possible. Had the UK not left we would be at the centre of one of the worlds great economic powers
So what? I can show you a number of pre-2016 polls that showed a similar split in favour of remain. I’d love to rejoin but it’s not that simple. There are other issues that mean even those in favour might vote otherwise. It’s a massive issue, indeed the only, issue for you, but you live in France. Elections are not a 2016 rerun in this country.
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
If Labour are to win the next election we MUST rejoin the EU. Starmer or Burnham must batter it through. No Referendums. Just a huge parlianentary majority. The full fat version including Schengen. We must put ourselves at the centre of Europe.
Labour have nothing to lose. They are sleepwalking to possible defeat at the hands of Farage. There is no form of REJOIN that would be a worse fate for this country than that.
Rejoin plus Euro means zero chance of Labour re election
Why? The latest polls are 60/40 in favour. After Trump's Shenanigans of the last few weeks I'd imagine it's now even higher. One thing Trump has shown is in this new transactional world anything is possible. Had the UK not left we would be at the centre of one of the worlds great economic powers
The Euro would be a dealbreaker. It’s a shame because I personally would like the Euro but the ship has sailed. The right time would have been at the start to ensure that the ECB was in London.
It's entirely possible to rejoin and not join the euro, without having an official opt out, as Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Sweden currently demonstrate. (Denmark managed to have its opt out.)
Bulgaria joined the Euro on January 1st.
And the EU having seen the tricks played to avoid joining it have changed their rules to make avoiding joining the Euro far harder
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
If Labour are to win the next election we MUST rejoin the EU. Starmer or Burnham must batter it through. No Referendums. Just a huge parlianentary majority. The full fat version including Schengen. We must put ourselves at the centre of Europe.
Labour have nothing to lose. They are sleepwalking to possible defeat at the hands of Farage. There is no form of REJOIN that would be a worse fate for this country than that.
Rejoin plus Euro means zero chance of Labour re election
Why? The latest polls are 60/40 in favour. After Trump's Shenanigans of the last few weeks I'd imagine it's now even higher. One thing Trump has shown is in this new transactional world anything is possible. Had the UK not left we would be at the centre of one of the worlds great economic powers
Anyway I was having lunch yesterday with one of the bigwigs in the Ludlow arts scene. Theyre looking for exhibition events over the summer. I was going to suggest you could do something on photography but its struck me you would be a bit too Trumpiite for local tastes.
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
If Labour are to win the next election we MUST rejoin the EU. Starmer or Burnham must batter it through. No Referendums. Just a huge parlianentary majority. The full fat version including Schengen. We must put ourselves at the centre of Europe.
Labour have nothing to lose. They are sleepwalking to possible defeat at the hands of Farage. There is no form of REJOIN that would be a worse fate for this country than that.
Rejoin plus Euro means zero chance of Labour re election
Why? The latest polls are 60/40 in favour. After Trump's Shenanigans of the last few weeks I'd imagine it's now even higher. One thing Trump has shown is in this new transactional world anything is possible. Had the UK not left we would be at the centre of one of the worlds great economic powers
The Euro would be a dealbreaker. It’s a shame because I personally would like the Euro but the ship has sailed. The right time would have been at the start to ensure that the ECB was in London.
It's entirely possible to rejoin and not join the euro, without having an official opt out, as Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Sweden currently demonstrate. (Denmark managed to have its opt out.)
Bulgaria joined the Euro on January 1st.
And the EU having seen the tricks played to avoid joining it have changed their rules to make avoiding joining the Euro far harder
A reasonable point - I should not have included Bulgaria, as their government was actively in favour of joining the euro.
The notion that we’d be better off if millions were still employed in mining, and low value manufacturing, competing against low wage economies, with nationalised industries sucking up massive subsidies, is for the birds.
Too many people have this mad somewhat romanticised notion that that is "real" work. As though tools, mechanisation, industrialisation, electrification, computerisation and so on have robbed people of the benefit of breaking the bodies, and shortening their lives, in order to make the filthy rich even filthy richer.
Considering how things have gone, it is only natural the Senior Responsible Owner for AJAX was removed, but it's highly unlikely the civil servant serving as SRO was "the" problem. Need to dig deeper than that to find out where information goes to die. https://x.com/Gabriel64869839/status/2014638119841099843
A large amount of the blame surely lies with the manufacturer ? If not, then the entire massive failure by those in government responsible for managing this disaster can't be laid at the door of a single civil servant.
Why not ?
The buck stops with him.
I'm not defending the guy, but if you think the massive problem of Ajax is down to one civil servant then you're a fool.
He's part of the problem and if there is no sanction the problem rolls on.
Wow. Donald's comments about British servicemen has left him rather friendless.
I'm sure Farage will be around soon to explain away Trump's comments as not that offensive really, not if you consider [insert whataboutery here].
Tbh I've heard different but arguably worse complaints that in Iraq, Afghanistan and even ww2, Americans had to dig British troops out from holes of our own making. And for all that we were in Afghanistan, we stayed about five minutes once America pulled out.
Speaking of Afghanistan, it was remarked at the time that we were burning through the defence budget firing our stocks of American-made missiles at American-selected targets, and that it would be cheaper to cut out the middleman.
There was undoubtedly some British hubris around our supposedly more sophisticated and understanding approach to community relations around Basra than the US's "shoot first and think later" approach, which subsequently turned out to be worth diddly squat. But as the power with the large majority of firepower in the Middle East, the US was always going to have to do the heavy lifting and carry the responsibilty for the overall campaign.
I'd be surprised if a coherent argument could be made for WW2. Up to and including D-Day, the contribution from Britain, Canada and the rest of the commonwealth was predominant, and the early episodes of the European war from the Americans somewhere between underwhelming and embarassing. To their credit US command learned fast, and from D-Day onwards they carried the bulk of the fighting. You can criticise the British for ignoring intelligence reports and over-engineering Market Garden; failings in the fields of intelligence and pre-planning where the British usually outperformed the Americans. But not much else of significance?
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
1970s nationalised Britain was a basket case, deindustrialisation is global but there are still high skilled manufacturers and industry in the UK and of course Trump was elected in the US to tariff imports especially from China and protect industry. No austerity from this high tax and welfare splurging Labour government. It was the British people themselves who voted for Brexit in the 2016 EU referendum against the advice of the then Tory PM
What Burnham’s thesis fails to grasp (and what many on the left also desperately avoid) is that for all the negative consequences of deindustrialisation (a policy of both parties) and the Thatcher reforms - and it is fantasy to suggest that there weren’t negative consequences - they were popular with huge parts of society and, after the turmoil of the 1980s, largely accepted by society at large for the next 20-30 years (depending on whether you think that stops at the GFC or not).
Thatcher forged a new consensus. It is no good the Labour Party trying to turn the clock back to those debates, just as it is no good Farage trying to appeal to a mythical Britain of the 1940s and 1950s. A new social contract needs to be forged.
If you want an early 1970’’s economy, you must accept an early 1970’s standard of living.
Sections of the left are as guilty as sections of the right at seeing recent history as a journey from Eden to Hell.
Had you been alive in 1970, you might have been the young professional who could buy a house in Notting Hill for £3,000. But, the greater likelihood is you’d be the guy dying of enphysema in some slum owned by the NCB, at the age of 48.
Still - if you were alive in 1970 you would still have Tom Baker's glorious portrayal of the Doctor to look forward, although probably best not to mention his namesake a few years after...
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
If Labour are to win the next election we MUST rejoin the EU. Starmer or Burnham must batter it through. No Referendums. Just a huge parlianentary majority. The full fat version including Schengen. We must put ourselves at the centre of Europe.
Labour have nothing to lose. They are sleepwalking to possible defeat at the hands of Farage. There is no form of REJOIN that would be a worse fate for this country than that.
Rejoin plus Euro means zero chance of Labour re election
Nobody is suggesting the Euro
Roger is (“…full fat version…”) in the comment HYUFD is replying to!
The reality of Rejoin is
1) We would be asked to follow the process that all applicants to the are do. The politics of Europe will not slow a special exemption - too many countries would get upset 2) So we would be signing up to “full fat” Europe 3) This means signing up for the Euro. Since this would remove a huge chunk of the mucking around with the economy the politicians love, this would be a matter of I) Signing up to the Euro joining process II) Never actually meeting he requirements and joining
You're not allowing for any realpolitik there. The reality is that, if the EU believed we were willing to return for good - Farage's enduring toxic influence on our politics remains the principal obstacle - we could return on terms that suited us.
We'd have them over a barrel, eh?
In the current geopolitical environment, our returning would be of significant mutual benefit, and from the EU's perspective having the UK return after Brexit would be seen as vindication and triumph, and pretty much ensure the EU holds together going forward. That's worth them having. We probably wouldn't get our rebate back, but we'd not have to join the Euro and would be allowed, like Sweden, to sit outside it for as long as we wanted, i.e. for ever.
Might I gently disagree with you. An (unforeseen?) Brexit benefit is the ability to JFDI without worrying about the different consensus triggers that are involved in EU decision making. Whether the UK powers that be embrace JFDI is another matter.
Tory MP Simon Hoare has given a very vivid quote about Donald Trump's comments on Nato allies, which could actually be used in many contexts about the US president:
"Frankly Trump makes my flesh creep and my stomach turn. Where are his advisors? Where is his nurse? Where is his sense of shame?"
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
If Labour are to win the next election we MUST rejoin the EU. Starmer or Burnham must batter it through. No Referendums. Just a huge parlianentary majority. The full fat version including Schengen. We must put ourselves at the centre of Europe.
Labour have nothing to lose. They are sleepwalking to possible defeat at the hands of Farage. There is no form of REJOIN that would be a worse fate for this country than that.
Rejoin plus Euro means zero chance of Labour re election
Nobody is suggesting the Euro
That is the only way we would be able to get back into the EU.
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
Almost at the fiftieth anniversary of Blame Thatcher. How long can they drag it out? I assume this is aimed at the Party Faithful.
The blame attaches more to her successors who adopted bits of her dogma blindly (which obviously includes the Blair/Brown era).
Thatcher undoubtedly made mistakes. Her policies which directly disastrous for the north of England.
But she also did quite a lot of necessary stuff, and I don't think she did all that much which wasn't capable of remediation, had her successors diagnosed and addressed where she went wrong. The reason it can still be "dragged out" is that they have never been addressed.
Then there is the difference between Thatcher the reality and Thatcher the myth.
Industrial areas of 1970s northern England were a lot closer to Kes than the 'new Jerusalem'.
Wow. Donald's comments about British servicemen has left him rather friendless.
I'm sure Farage will be around soon to explain away Trump's comments as not that offensive really, not if you consider [insert whataboutery here].
Tbh I've heard different but arguably worse complaints that in Iraq, Afghanistan and even ww2, Americans had to dig British troops out from holes of our own making. And for all that we were in Afghanistan, we stayed about five minutes once America pulled out.
Speaking of Afghanistan, it was remarked at the time that we were burning through the defence budget firing our stocks of American-made missiles at American-selected targets, and that it would be cheaper to cut out the middleman.
I’m pretty sure that there’ve been occasions when US soldiers have owed their lives to British soldiers.
The notion that the US is the only country that fights has no basis in reality.
The US military spends as much as the next 9 countries military budget put together. While money is not the only measure of capability, it is fairly congruent with firepower. The US military is simply hegemonic in a way that no other country can match.
The reasons that we were involved in Iraq and Afghanistan etc wasn't because we were needed militarily, it was because we were needed politically. Trump changes all that because he finds allies an encumbrance and only wants vassal states.
Wow. Donald's comments about British servicemen has left him rather friendless.
I'm sure Farage will be around soon to explain away Trump's comments as not that offensive really, not if you consider [insert whataboutery here].
Tbh I've heard different but arguably worse complaints that in Iraq, Afghanistan and even ww2, Americans had to dig British troops out from holes of our own making. And for all that we were in Afghanistan, we stayed about five minutes once America pulled out.
Speaking of Afghanistan, it was remarked at the time that we were burning through the defence budget firing our stocks of American-made missiles at American-selected targets, and that it would be cheaper to cut out the middleman.
There was undoubtedly some British hubris around our supposedly more sophisticated and understanding approach to community relations around Basra than the US's "shoot first and think later" approach, which subsequently turned out to be worth diddly squat. But as the power with the large majority of firepower in the Middle East, the US was always going to have to do the heavy lifting and carry the responsibilty for the overall campaign.
I'd be surprised if a coherent argument could be made for WW2. Up to and including D-Day, the contribution from Britain, Canada and the rest of the commonwealth was predominant, and the early episodes of the European war from the Americans somewhere between underwhelming and embarassing. To their credit US command learned fast, and from D-Day onwards they carried the bulk of the fighting. You can criticise the British for ignoring intelligence reports and over-engineering Market Garden; failings in the fields of intelligence and pre-planning where the British usually outperformed the Americans. But not much else of significance?
There are a very good series of youtube vidoes of a US historian talking about the economics of WW2. One figure he pointed out was that whilst the US devoted about 35% of their GDP to the war effort at its peak, the comparable UK figure was just over 55% - up from 7% in 1938
The US is getting huge data centres up and running as quickly as six months after acquiring the sites.
Um no - they can get the sites up but they can’t get the power to actually switch them on.
Which is why the backlog for large gas turbines is currently 5+ years and various companies are looking at finding anything they can re-enable.
As I’ve pointed out in the past the biggest AI hurdle at the moment is actually getting a large enough power supply to meet the energy demands
It's even worse than that. There are stories of companies hoarding wafers, that is they can't get them cut, tested, packaged, and assembled into boards they can put in a rack. Given how rapidly the hardware depreciates, spending maybe tens of billions of dollars on hardware that is going to sit idle is incredibly wasteful. I guess the logic is that the competition will run into cash flow problems first, and then you "win".
Wow. Donald's comments about British servicemen has left him rather friendless.
I'm sure Farage will be around soon to explain away Trump's comments as not that offensive really, not if you consider [insert whataboutery here].
Tbh I've heard different but arguably worse complaints that in Iraq, Afghanistan and even ww2, Americans had to dig British troops out from holes of our own making. And for all that we were in Afghanistan, we stayed about five minutes once America pulled out.
Speaking of Afghanistan, it was remarked at the time that we were burning through the defence budget firing our stocks of American-made missiles at American-selected targets, and that it would be cheaper to cut out the middleman.
There was undoubtedly some British hubris around our supposedly more sophisticated and understanding approach to community relations around Basra than the US's "shoot first and think later" approach, which subsequently turned out to be worth diddly squat. But as the power with the large majority of firepower in the Middle East, the US was always going to have to do the heavy lifting and carry the responsibilty for the overall campaign.
In the time I was in Basra (2003 - 2005), we had three distinct phases,
1. The initial entry to the city was a fucking rampage. We trashed it from one end to the other and shot anything that moved. 2. "Sophisticated" British style counter insurgency ops as if we were in the 6C. The Iraqis never got the text message regarding this and ran wild with IEDs and sniping. 3. Force protection became the priority for political reasons and not taking casualties was the prime directive.
The USMC in Basra were pretty dismissive of this flexible doctrine and the piss poor logistics backing it up. They preferred working with the Australians and were not shy about expressing that preference.
* Once had a client who had 15 years of restrictions and a shotgun wound to her stomach. The restrictions were because she hadn't repaid the monies as ordered by the court. The shotgun wound may have been the reason she didn't have the money but people are strange.
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
There is much to not like about privatisation, but there was very much not to like about the state of state run stuff before the 1980's revolution. But you have to be older generation with a decent memory to remember how bad it could be.
You can't consider deindustrialisation without also considering the areas of economic activity that grew at the same time. It's like farming which is only a tiny % of GDP but still essential but we have grown rich in other ways. Industry remains essential and we have grown in other ways.
Austerity: State spending remains, and remained during the so called austerity period, gigantic; as did and does borrowing.
Brexit: The vote to leave left the future open to parliament to steer. If Burnham's party had focussed on joining with moderates to get a Norway/Swiss type deal, out of the political but in the economic union, things would be different.
The notion that we’d be better off if millions were still employed in mining, and low value manufacturing, competing against low wage economies, with nationalised industries sucking up massive subsidies, is for the birds.
What people are dimly stumbling towards was that there are, actually, three possible ways to go
1) Buy it all from China. 2) Build ultra efficient, highly automated, low employment factories here. See Dark Factories. 3) Subsidise inefficiency here.
Governments sometimes talk about 2) but generally end up with 3)
Thatcherism was a 1980’s solution to 1970’s problems. It’s 35 years since she resigned, and it’s up to modern politicians to solve our quite different problems, rather than harking back to a golden age that never was.
Especially since, although we did indeed solve some of 1970s problems, the consequences and fallout from some rather simplistic solutions haunts us still.
Considering how things have gone, it is only natural the Senior Responsible Owner for AJAX was removed, but it's highly unlikely the civil servant serving as SRO was "the" problem. Need to dig deeper than that to find out where information goes to die. https://x.com/Gabriel64869839/status/2014638119841099843
A large amount of the blame surely lies with the manufacturer ? If not, then the entire massive failure by those in government responsible for managing this disaster can't be laid at the door of a single civil servant.
Why not ?
The buck stops with him.
I'm not defending the guy, but if you think the massive problem of Ajax is down to one civil servant then you're a fool.
He's part of the problem and if there is no sanction the problem rolls on.
Pour encourager les autres.
You're missing the point. Sacking him would be fine (though there's no evidence he's actually been sacked). Making him the fall guy is just deflection, and has no such salutary effect; quite the opposite..
Tory MP Simon Hoare has given a very vivid quote about Donald Trump's comments on Nato allies, which could actually be used in many contexts about the US president:
"Frankly Trump makes my flesh creep and my stomach turn. Where are his advisors? Where is his nurse? Where is his sense of shame?"
The shamelessness is what gets me about Trump and his people, too. There is something missing there.
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
There is much to not like about privatisation, but there was very much not to like about the state of state run stuff before the 1980's revolution. But you have to be older generation with a decent memory to remember how bad it could be.
You can't consider deindustrialisation without also considering the areas of economic activity that grew at the same time. It's like farming which is only a tiny % of GDP but still essential but we have grown rich in other ways. Industry remains essential and we have grown in other ways.
Austerity: State spending remains, and remained during the so called austerity period, gigantic; as did and does borrowing.
Brexit: The vote to leave left the future open to parliament to steer. If Burnham's party had focussed on joining with moderates to get a Norway/Swiss type deal, out of the political but in the economic union, things would be different.
Tory MP Simon Hoare has given a very vivid quote about Donald Trump's comments on Nato allies, which could actually be used in many contexts about the US president:
"Frankly Trump makes my flesh creep and my stomach turn. Where are his advisors? Where is his nurse? Where is his sense of shame?"
'Makes my flesh creep.....' as do his sycophants. Everyone everywhere is talking about Mark Carney. That's good for Canada. Starmer is just another flunky
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
There is much to not like about privatisation, but there was very much not to like about the state of state run stuff before the 1980's revolution. But you have to be older generation with a decent memory to remember how bad it could be.
You can't consider deindustrialisation without also considering the areas of economic activity that grew at the same time. It's like farming which is only a tiny % of GDP but still essential but we have grown rich in other ways. Industry remains essential and we have grown in other ways.
Austerity: State spending remains, and remained during the so called austerity period, gigantic; as did and does borrowing.
Brexit: The vote to leave left the future open to parliament to steer. If Burnham's party had focussed on joining with moderates to get a Norway/Swiss type deal, out of the political but in the economic union, things would be different.
The notion that we’d be better off if millions were still employed in mining, and low value manufacturing, competing against low wage economies, with nationalised industries sucking up massive subsidies, is for the birds.
I think it's only Farage who is actively in favour of returning to coal mining.
Presumably Farage is in favour of it because Trump is in favour of it.
For the first time, I think, the results are running below the OBR forecast for the year. The damage done by the run up to the budget was horrendous and a completely unenforced error but there is a chance things might just calm down a bit for a while.
Only borrowing £140bn this year, instead of £150bn, really isn’t a win.
It's a lot better than the US experience. They've borrowed $1.5 trillion.
Considering how things have gone, it is only natural the Senior Responsible Owner for AJAX was removed, but it's highly unlikely the civil servant serving as SRO was "the" problem. Need to dig deeper than that to find out where information goes to die. https://x.com/Gabriel64869839/status/2014638119841099843
A large amount of the blame surely lies with the manufacturer ? If not, then the entire massive failure by those in government responsible for managing this disaster can't be laid at the door of a single civil servant.
Why not ?
The buck stops with him.
I'm not defending the guy, but if you think the massive problem of Ajax is down to one civil servant then you're a fool.
He's part of the problem and if there is no sanction the problem rolls on.
Pour encourager les autres.
You're missing the point. Sacking him would be fine (though there's no evidence he's actually been sacked). Making him the fall guy is just deflection, and has no such salutary effect; quite the opposite..
Its a consideration but its not the point. His successor will be more concerned about project funds and management. If there is no downside to bad outcomes, why will anything change ?
Daily Mirror: In 2020 Reform defector Andrew Rosindell wrote to Joe Biden asking for help decolonising the Chagos Islands. The following year he penned a letter to Dominic Raab, then Foreign Secretary, saying the UK must respect an international court's decision - backed by the UN - that the UK should give the territory up. But now he's very vocal and criticised the Tories for even opening negotiations.
Considering how things have gone, it is only natural the Senior Responsible Owner for AJAX was removed, but it's highly unlikely the civil servant serving as SRO was "the" problem. Need to dig deeper than that to find out where information goes to die. https://x.com/Gabriel64869839/status/2014638119841099843
A large amount of the blame surely lies with the manufacturer ? If not, then the entire massive failure by those in government responsible for managing this disaster can't be laid at the door of a single civil servant.
Why not ?
The buck stops with him.
I'm not defending the guy, but if you think the massive problem of Ajax is down to one civil servant then you're a fool.
He's part of the problem and if there is no sanction the problem rolls on.
Pour encourager les autres.
You're missing the point. Sacking him would be fine (though there's no evidence he's actually been sacked). Making him the fall guy is just deflection, and has no such salutary effect; quite the opposite..
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
Almost at the fiftieth anniversary of Blame Thatcher. How long can they drag it out? I assume this is aimed at the Party Faithful.
The blame attaches more to her successors who adopted bits of her dogma blindly (which obviously includes the Blair/Brown era).
Thatcher undoubtedly made mistakes. Her policies which directly disastrous for the north of England.
But she also did quite a lot of necessary stuff, and I don't think she did all that much which wasn't capable of remediation, had her successors diagnosed and addressed where she went wrong. The reason it can still be "dragged out" is that they have never been addressed.
Then there is the difference between Thatcher the reality and Thatcher the myth.
Industrial areas of 1970s northern England were a lot closer to Kes than the 'new Jerusalem'.
Which goes to the heart of it - large sections of heavy industry were dying long before Thatcher became an MP. This was because, when faced with modernisation and the resultant productivity increasse, the unions, management and the governments of the day balked.
This was because, in those days, productivity increases were seen as creating unemployment*. The fact that productivity increases creates more work than is "destroyed" was not generally accepted, outside economists. When you added in a basic nationalism - "People will always buy British".....
*Even well into the 80s, it was considered unremarkable when a trade union official stated that they would only accept productivity improvements as a last resort. This wasn't because he was evil or stupid - he was stating the orthodoxy.
Tory MP Simon Hoare has given a very vivid quote about Donald Trump's comments on Nato allies, which could actually be used in many contexts about the US president:
"Frankly Trump makes my flesh creep and my stomach turn. Where are his advisors? Where is his nurse? Where is his sense of shame?"
The shamelessness is what gets me about Trump and his people, too. There is something missing there.
Seen also with the bullshit from Leavitt re Trump confusing Iceland and Greenland. No attempt to say “yes he was struggling with jet lag” or something but the absolute outright shameless lie that he didn’t confuse them but was referring to Greenland having lots of Ice.
This is where they are, they will say absolutely whatever they want to in the knowledge that many MAGA will believe them and hope that more will come to believe them.
The Trump comments about NATO and frontline are just another manifestation of the insular nature of the US and how much Americans in general have no knowledge of what other countries do and have done - this comes through in war films where history is changed to make the IS look great or do things it didn’t do and these films become the truth.
Anytime you see a WW2 film the Americans are tough soldiers, the Brits, when they appear a silly comedy figures who are piggy-backing off the US brilliance. Then you have millions of people in the US thinking The Patriot is an accurate depiction of the Revolutionary War.
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
There is much to not like about privatisation, but there was very much not to like about the state of state run stuff before the 1980's revolution. But you have to be older generation with a decent memory to remember how bad it could be.
You can't consider deindustrialisation without also considering the areas of economic activity that grew at the same time. It's like farming which is only a tiny % of GDP but still essential but we have grown rich in other ways. Industry remains essential and we have grown in other ways.
Austerity: State spending remains, and remained during the so called austerity period, gigantic; as did and does borrowing.
Brexit: The vote to leave left the future open to parliament to steer. If Burnham's party had focussed on joining with moderates to get a Norway/Swiss type deal, out of the political but in the economic union, things would be different.
Yes - the point of it is, that "austerity" was actually "Reduce the *rate of increase* of government expenditure below the rate of increase in GDP. So the budget deficit will reduce each year."
Considering how things have gone, it is only natural the Senior Responsible Owner for AJAX was removed, but it's highly unlikely the civil servant serving as SRO was "the" problem. Need to dig deeper than that to find out where information goes to die. https://x.com/Gabriel64869839/status/2014638119841099843
A large amount of the blame surely lies with the manufacturer ? If not, then the entire massive failure by those in government responsible for managing this disaster can't be laid at the door of a single civil servant.
Why not ?
The buck stops with him.
I'm not defending the guy, but if you think the massive problem of Ajax is down to one civil servant then you're a fool.
He's part of the problem and if there is no sanction the problem rolls on.
Pour encourager les autres.
You're missing the point. Sacking him would be fine (though there's no evidence he's actually been sacked). Making him the fall guy is just deflection, and has no such salutary effect; quite the opposite..
Wow. Donald's comments about British servicemen has left him rather friendless.
I'm sure Farage will be around soon to explain away Trump's comments as not that offensive really, not if you consider [insert whataboutery here].
Tbh I've heard different but arguably worse complaints that in Iraq, Afghanistan and even ww2, Americans had to dig British troops out from holes of our own making. And for all that we were in Afghanistan, we stayed about five minutes once America pulled out.
Speaking of Afghanistan, it was remarked at the time that we were burning through the defence budget firing our stocks of American-made missiles at American-selected targets, and that it would be cheaper to cut out the middleman.
There was undoubtedly some British hubris around our supposedly more sophisticated and understanding approach to community relations around Basra than the US's "shoot first and think later" approach, which subsequently turned out to be worth diddly squat. But as the power with the large majority of firepower in the Middle East, the US was always going to have to do the heavy lifting and carry the responsibilty for the overall campaign.
In the time I was in Basra (2003 - 2005), we had three distinct phases,
1. The initial entry to the city was a fucking rampage. We trashed it from one end to the other and shot anything that moved. 2. "Sophisticated" British style counter insurgency ops as if we were in the 6C. The Iraqis never got the text message regarding this and ran wild with IEDs and sniping. 3. Force protection became the priority for political reasons and not taking casualties was the prime directive.
The USMC in Basra were pretty dismissive of this flexible doctrine and the piss poor logistics backing it up. They preferred working with the Australians and were not shy about expressing that preference.
Phase 3 was totally embarrassing as was the fact that the UK force pretty much had to be rescued by American intervention to regain control of the city that we had lost. Not one of our better performances militarily but the fault lay with the politicians who would not allow them to do their job for fear of a funeral rather than the people on the ground.
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
There is much to not like about privatisation, but there was very much not to like about the state of state run stuff before the 1980's revolution. But you have to be older generation with a decent memory to remember how bad it could be.
You can't consider deindustrialisation without also considering the areas of economic activity that grew at the same time. It's like farming which is only a tiny % of GDP but still essential but we have grown rich in other ways. Industry remains essential and we have grown in other ways.
Austerity: State spending remains, and remained during the so called austerity period, gigantic; as did and does borrowing.
Brexit: The vote to leave left the future open to parliament to steer. If Burnham's party had focussed on joining with moderates to get a Norway/Swiss type deal, out of the political but in the economic union, things would be different.
The notion that we’d be better off if millions were still employed in mining, and low value manufacturing, competing against low wage economies, with nationalised industries sucking up massive subsidies, is for the birds.
I think it's only Farage who is actively in favour of returning to coal mining.
Presumably Farage is in favour of it because Trump is in favour of it.
Have you seen Coalie, the new US cartoon mascot for the fossil fuel industry?
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
If Labour are to win the next election we MUST rejoin the EU. Starmer or Burnham must batter it through. No Referendums. Just a huge parlianentary majority. The full fat version including Schengen. We must put ourselves at the centre of Europe.
Labour have nothing to lose. They are sleepwalking to possible defeat at the hands of Farage. There is no form of REJOIN that would be a worse fate for this country than that.
Rejoin plus Euro means zero chance of Labour re election
Nobody is suggesting the Euro
Roger is (“…full fat version…”) in the comment HYUFD is replying to!
The reality of Rejoin is
1) We would be asked to follow the process that all applicants to the are do. The politics of Europe will not slow a special exemption - too many countries would get upset 2) So we would be signing up to “full fat” Europe 3) This means signing up for the Euro. Since this would remove a huge chunk of the mucking around with the economy the politicians love, this would be a matter of I) Signing up to the Euro joining process II) Never actually meeting he requirements and joining
The number of countries that want Britain to join the Euro is zero. They've got enough problems already without adding a country with a weird housing thing going on that's not really into it.
It's perfectly possible that the application would just get held up forever, and it's also possible that some countries would say they don't think it'll last and they're not going to play the hokey cokey but the Euro wouldn't be the blocker.
It would also be in the US and Russian interests to stop the UK from rejoining so Orban might put the blockers on it (and maybe Fico too) and then you get down to the usual EU shenanigans of wanting a pound of flesh from the UK for cooperation even when it’s in the EU’s benefit to cooperate so no doubt the French making silly fishing demands and Spain wanting to change Gibraltar’s status.
This is the greatest tragedy of Brexit: that rejoining will be much more difficult and painful than it would have been to remain. No taking it back to the shop if it didn't fit.
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
There is much to not like about privatisation, but there was very much not to like about the state of state run stuff before the 1980's revolution. But you have to be older generation with a decent memory to remember how bad it could be.
You can't consider deindustrialisation without also considering the areas of economic activity that grew at the same time. It's like farming which is only a tiny % of GDP but still essential but we have grown rich in other ways. Industry remains essential and we have grown in other ways.
Austerity: State spending remains, and remained during the so called austerity period, gigantic; as did and does borrowing.
Brexit: The vote to leave left the future open to parliament to steer. If Burnham's party had focussed on joining with moderates to get a Norway/Swiss type deal, out of the political but in the economic union, things would be different.
The notion that we’d be better off if millions were still employed in mining, and low value manufacturing, competing against low wage economies, with nationalised industries sucking up massive subsidies, is for the birds.
I think it's only Farage who is actively in favour of returning to coal mining.
Presumably Farage is in favour of it because Trump is in favour of it.
Have you seen Coalie, the new US cartoon mascot for the fossil fuel industry?
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
There is much to not like about privatisation, but there was very much not to like about the state of state run stuff before the 1980's revolution. But you have to be older generation with a decent memory to remember how bad it could be.
You can't consider deindustrialisation without also considering the areas of economic activity that grew at the same time. It's like farming which is only a tiny % of GDP but still essential but we have grown rich in other ways. Industry remains essential and we have grown in other ways.
Austerity: State spending remains, and remained during the so called austerity period, gigantic; as did and does borrowing.
Brexit: The vote to leave left the future open to parliament to steer. If Burnham's party had focussed on joining with moderates to get a Norway/Swiss type deal, out of the political but in the economic union, things would be different.
The notion that we’d be better off if millions were still employed in mining, and low value manufacturing, competing against low wage economies, with nationalised industries sucking up massive subsidies, is for the birds.
What people are dimly stumbling towards was that there are, actually, three possible ways to go
1) Buy it all from China. 2) Build ultra efficient, highly automated, low employment factories here. See Dark Factories. 3) Subsidise inefficiency here.
Governments sometimes talk about 2) but generally end up with 3)
It would have been possible (could still be) to build shipyards in the Korean style. That is, on a new location (where you can build 100,000 ton ships easily) setup a huge, high automated, ship assembly line system. This would have meant demolishing the existing shipyards and starting from scratch. Massive strikes, and the owners didn't want to do that anyway. So subsiding the existing yards to the next election was the selected solution.
Most of the existing shipyards weren't in locations where a massive fabrication yard could be built and large ships launched / floated out. British shipyard owners have never been keen on investment and even the Norwegian yards that have survived have focused on cruise ships or smaller specialist vessels and do their hull fabrication, if not the full-build, somewhere cheaper.
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
Almost at the fiftieth anniversary of Blame Thatcher. How long can they drag it out? I assume this is aimed at the Party Faithful.
The blame attaches more to her successors who adopted bits of her dogma blindly (which obviously includes the Blair/Brown era).
Thatcher undoubtedly made mistakes. Her policies which directly disastrous for the north of England.
But she also did quite a lot of necessary stuff, and I don't think she did all that much which wasn't capable of remediation, had her successors diagnosed and addressed where she went wrong. The reason it can still be "dragged out" is that they have never been addressed.
Then there is the difference between Thatcher the reality and Thatcher the myth.
Industrial areas of 1970s northern England were a lot closer to Kes than the 'new Jerusalem'.
Which goes to the heart of it - large sections of heavy industry were dying long before Thatcher became an MP. This was because, when faced with modernisation and the resultant productivity increasse, the unions, management and the governments of the day balked.
This was because, in those days, productivity increases were seen as creating unemployment*. The fact that productivity increases creates more work than is "destroyed" was not generally accepted, outside economists. When you added in a basic nationalism - "People will always buy British".....
*Even well into the 80s, it was considered unremarkable when a trade union official stated that they would only accept productivity improvements as a last resort. This wasn't because he was evil or stupid - he was stating the orthodoxy.
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
Almost at the fiftieth anniversary of Blame Thatcher. How long can they drag it out? I assume this is aimed at the Party Faithful.
The blame attaches more to her successors who adopted bits of her dogma blindly (which obviously includes the Blair/Brown era).
Thatcher undoubtedly made mistakes. Her policies which directly disastrous for the north of England.
But she also did quite a lot of necessary stuff, and I don't think she did all that much which wasn't capable of remediation, had her successors diagnosed and addressed where she went wrong. The reason it can still be "dragged out" is that they have never been addressed.
Then there is the difference between Thatcher the reality and Thatcher the myth.
Industrial areas of 1970s northern England were a lot closer to Kes than the 'new Jerusalem'.
Again with the strawmanning. No one is saying they were; I was rather pointing out the dramatic economic decline of the north relative to the south east, since the 1980s.
A familiar pattern, if you've been following police shootings in the US since... a long time back*
That is, a spray of bullets, initially. What seems to happen is that they start blasting without thinking or getting a sight picture etc. Then 1-2 shots that actually kill - after a second or so, they actually start aiming.
*My eldest daughter asked why I had Rage Against The Machine in my music library since the 90s....
I see Trump is threatening to invoke NATO article 5 to protect the US southern border from illegal immigration. Perhaps we can do that with the channel??
Has he managed not to call it the Southern boulevard this time ?
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
Almost at the fiftieth anniversary of Blame Thatcher. How long can they drag it out? I assume this is aimed at the Party Faithful.
The blame attaches more to her successors who adopted bits of her dogma blindly (which obviously includes the Blair/Brown era).
Thatcher undoubtedly made mistakes. Her policies which directly disastrous for the north of England.
But she also did quite a lot of necessary stuff, and I don't think she did all that much which wasn't capable of remediation, had her successors diagnosed and addressed where she went wrong. The reason it can still be "dragged out" is that they have never been addressed.
Then there is the difference between Thatcher the reality and Thatcher the myth.
Industrial areas of 1970s northern England were a lot closer to Kes than the 'new Jerusalem'.
Which goes to the heart of it - large sections of heavy industry were dying long before Thatcher became an MP. This was because, when faced with modernisation and the resultant productivity increasse, the unions, management and the governments of the day balked.
This was because, in those days, productivity increases were seen as creating unemployment*. The fact that productivity increases creates more work than is "destroyed" was not generally accepted, outside economists. When you added in a basic nationalism - "People will always buy British".....
*Even well into the 80s, it was considered unremarkable when a trade union official stated that they would only accept productivity improvements as a last resort. This wasn't because he was evil or stupid - he was stating the orthodoxy.
He was stupid though
No - he was wrong. But remember, plenty of people have been wrong for *centuries* on economics. Imperialism was built on mercantilism. Which was wrong - it is cheaper to buy resources from people than conquering their country to take them.
F1: According to TwX, so boulder of salt, the Mercedes engine (and, therefore, the Red Bull one too) has been approved as ok. Assuming that's accurate, very good news for Russell. Also McLaren and Williams. And whoever the fourth team is, whom I always forget...
Tory MP Simon Hoare has given a very vivid quote about Donald Trump's comments on Nato allies, which could actually be used in many contexts about the US president:
"Frankly Trump makes my flesh creep and my stomach turn. Where are his advisors? Where is his nurse? Where is his sense of shame?"
'Makes my flesh creep.....' as do his sycophants. Everyone everywhere is talking about Mark Carney. That's good for Canada. Starmer is just another flunky
The other day we were talking about Neville Chamberlain. My view - which I think others share - is that when Neville Chamberlain made his speech following the Munich agreement, he had a very clear and accurate idea of the sort of person Hitler was and his likely plans; he knew his 'piece of paper' was worthless. He believed (possibly wrongly, it turned out, but that takes nothing away from him) that Germany's ability to fight a war was in 1938 streets ahead of that of France and Britain. He took the (in my view, heroic) decision to sacrifice his reputation to buy the allis another 12-18 months to prepare for the war he knew was coming. But the point is, what was said and known about publicly was very different to what was going on behind the scenes.
The point here is that we - rightly - don't know what's going on behind the scenes. We would hope that Starmer's palliative public pronouncements are being accompanied by a shedload of behind the scenes work to prepare for what comes when the USA leaves NATO. It's not particularly to Britain's advantage to hurry this along by having our elected leaders saying what we really think of Donald Trump. Donald Trupm is saying what he really thinks of other countries, and it's not really gaining America any benefits.
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
Almost at the fiftieth anniversary of Blame Thatcher. How long can they drag it out? I assume this is aimed at the Party Faithful.
The blame attaches more to her successors who adopted bits of her dogma blindly (which obviously includes the Blair/Brown era).
Thatcher undoubtedly made mistakes. Her policies which directly disastrous for the north of England.
But she also did quite a lot of necessary stuff, and I don't think she did all that much which wasn't capable of remediation, had her successors diagnosed and addressed where she went wrong. The reason it can still be "dragged out" is that they have never been addressed.
Then there is the difference between Thatcher the reality and Thatcher the myth.
Industrial areas of 1970s northern England were a lot closer to Kes than the 'new Jerusalem'.
Which goes to the heart of it - large sections of heavy industry were dying long before Thatcher became an MP. This was because, when faced with modernisation and the resultant productivity increasse, the unions, management and the governments of the day balked.
This was because, in those days, productivity increases were seen as creating unemployment*. The fact that productivity increases creates more work than is "destroyed" was not generally accepted, outside economists. When you added in a basic nationalism - "People will always buy British".....
*Even well into the 80s, it was considered unremarkable when a trade union official stated that they would only accept productivity improvements as a last resort. This wasn't because he was evil or stupid - he was stating the orthodoxy.
He was stupid though
No - he was wrong. But remember, plenty of people have been wrong for *centuries* on economics. Imperialism was built on mercantilism. Which was wrong - it is cheaper to buy resources from people than conquering their country to take them.
I thought we were talking about unions wanting more money for doing same or less work, where did conquering countries come in. PS I agree he was wrong and stupid, the unions killed their own jobs aided and abetted by hooray henry inadequate management
F1: According to TwX, so boulder of salt, the Mercedes engine (and, therefore, the Red Bull one too) has been approved as ok. Assuming that's accurate, very good news for Russell. Also McLaren and Williams. And whoever the fourth team is, whom I always forget...
Revealed: McLaren Racing, the Formula One constructors' champion, has been awarded more than $12m in damages for commercial losses suffered when top IndyCar driver Alex Palou reneged on a commitment to drive for the team and keep his seat at Chip Ganassi Racing instead...
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
Almost at the fiftieth anniversary of Blame Thatcher. How long can they drag it out? I assume this is aimed at the Party Faithful.
The blame attaches more to her successors who adopted bits of her dogma blindly (which obviously includes the Blair/Brown era).
Thatcher undoubtedly made mistakes. Her policies which directly disastrous for the north of England.
But she also did quite a lot of necessary stuff, and I don't think she did all that much which wasn't capable of remediation, had her successors diagnosed and addressed where she went wrong. The reason it can still be "dragged out" is that they have never been addressed.
Then there is the difference between Thatcher the reality and Thatcher the myth.
Industrial areas of 1970s northern England were a lot closer to Kes than the 'new Jerusalem'.
Again with the strawmanning. No one is saying they were; I was rather pointing out the dramatic economic decline of the north relative to the south east, since the 1980s.
And that is the sentiment that Burnham is appealling to.
There is a very strong congruence between those old coalfield areas de-industrialised in the Thatcher period and the Brexit vote. There was a strong resentment at being left behind and neglected by the new economy.
There is a great irony that those same old coalfield areas are now strongly Reform, which is led by an unashamed Thatcher fan. Sooner or later that is likely to be an issue for Reform to resolve hopefully before rather than after forming a government.
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
Almost at the fiftieth anniversary of Blame Thatcher. How long can they drag it out? I assume this is aimed at the Party Faithful.
The blame attaches more to her successors who adopted bits of her dogma blindly (which obviously includes the Blair/Brown era).
Thatcher undoubtedly made mistakes. Her policies which directly disastrous for the north of England.
But she also did quite a lot of necessary stuff, and I don't think she did all that much which wasn't capable of remediation, had her successors diagnosed and addressed where she went wrong. The reason it can still be "dragged out" is that they have never been addressed.
Then there is the difference between Thatcher the reality and Thatcher the myth.
Industrial areas of 1970s northern England were a lot closer to Kes than the 'new Jerusalem'.
Which goes to the heart of it - large sections of heavy industry were dying long before Thatcher became an MP. This was because, when faced with modernisation and the resultant productivity increasse, the unions, management and the governments of the day balked.
This was because, in those days, productivity increases were seen as creating unemployment*. The fact that productivity increases creates more work than is "destroyed" was not generally accepted, outside economists. When you added in a basic nationalism - "People will always buy British".....
*Even well into the 80s, it was considered unremarkable when a trade union official stated that they would only accept productivity improvements as a last resort. This wasn't because he was evil or stupid - he was stating the orthodoxy.
He was stupid though
No - he was wrong. But remember, plenty of people have been wrong for *centuries* on economics. Imperialism was built on mercantilism. Which was wrong - it is cheaper to buy resources from people than conquering their country to take them.
I thought we were talking about unions wanting more money for doing same or less work, where did conquering countries come in.
The Sea of Ideas that the union official swam in were wrong.
Blaming him for that is like blaming a merchant in 18th Century London for advocating Mercantilism.
F1: According to TwX, so boulder of salt, the Mercedes engine (and, therefore, the Red Bull one too) has been approved as ok. Assuming that's accurate, very good news for Russell. Also McLaren and Williams. And whoever the fourth team is, whom I always forget...
If they want to change the rules (so it can catch Red Bull / Mercedes out) they need to vote on the change.
And 6 F1 teams (or 55% of the votes) very much like the additional power their engines provide
Powerful and much needed framing from Andy Burnham in the Guardian..should be repeated every day by ministers or they will find they are blamed for ‘broken Britain’: “If the question at the centre of British politics is “who broke Britain?”, let’s be clear and unequivocal. The four horsemen of Britain’s apocalypse are deindustrialisation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. In my time in politics, there has been a tendency for too many in Labour to accept too much of the framing of the right, but we must firmly reject its narrative and call it out in no uncertain terms. Figures on the British right talk of taking back control, but people can see that they are the ones who gave it away.”
Almost at the fiftieth anniversary of Blame Thatcher. How long can they drag it out? I assume this is aimed at the Party Faithful.
The blame attaches more to her successors who adopted bits of her dogma blindly (which obviously includes the Blair/Brown era).
Thatcher undoubtedly made mistakes. Her policies which directly disastrous for the north of England.
But she also did quite a lot of necessary stuff, and I don't think she did all that much which wasn't capable of remediation, had her successors diagnosed and addressed where she went wrong. The reason it can still be "dragged out" is that they have never been addressed.
Then there is the difference between Thatcher the reality and Thatcher the myth.
Industrial areas of 1970s northern England were a lot closer to Kes than the 'new Jerusalem'.
Which goes to the heart of it - large sections of heavy industry were dying long before Thatcher became an MP. This was because, when faced with modernisation and the resultant productivity increasse, the unions, management and the governments of the day balked.
This was because, in those days, productivity increases were seen as creating unemployment*. The fact that productivity increases creates more work than is "destroyed" was not generally accepted, outside economists. When you added in a basic nationalism - "People will always buy British".....
*Even well into the 80s, it was considered unremarkable when a trade union official stated that they would only accept productivity improvements as a last resort. This wasn't because he was evil or stupid - he was stating the orthodoxy.
He was stupid though
No - he was wrong. But remember, plenty of people have been wrong for *centuries* on economics. Imperialism was built on mercantilism. Which was wrong - it is cheaper to buy resources from people than conquering their country to take them.
I thought we were talking about unions wanting more money for doing same or less work, where did conquering countries come in.
The Sea of Ideas that the union official swam in were wrong.
Blaming him for that is like blaming a merchant in 18th Century London for advocating Mercantilism.
for sure there were lots of wrong and stupidity to go around
Tory MP Simon Hoare has given a very vivid quote about Donald Trump's comments on Nato allies, which could actually be used in many contexts about the US president:
"Frankly Trump makes my flesh creep and my stomach turn. Where are his advisors? Where is his nurse? Where is his sense of shame?"
'Makes my flesh creep.....' as do his sycophants. Everyone everywhere is talking about Mark Carney. That's good for Canada. Starmer is just another flunky
I was speaking to my eldest in Vancouver last night, and whilst Carney is rightly congratulated over his speech in Davos, his appointment came in utter relief at the end of Trudeau's catastrophic period in office and one of the reason's Carney is succeeding in Canada is apparently his move to the right in cutting taxes, encouraging business, and veering away from a liberal left attitude
He is also seen as a technocrat rather than a politician
Apparently he was raised in Edmonton, which is the birthplace of our daughter in law and her family who are all originally from Ukraine
Can we do anything in the UK without it taking 10 20 years....
500km of railway, 20+ years. China, 50000km, 10 years. They built a bloody 20 million person world class city from scratch in 30 years. Are we still talking about new garden cities (that aren't really new cities), haven't they been in the works for 15 years???
China isn't necessarily tge best example to follow. They have 80 million empty houses because they built far too many because it made the GDP figure go up; their trains ferry around a lot of empty air, and their infrastructure is quite fally-downy
If you don't like China, you can have Singapore.
But having been in China for a month, I can tell you for instance "trains ferry a lot of empty air" isn't true, certainly not in Eastern China. The 1000 person trains were full. And the bullet trains are miles ahead of the rest of the world now in every aspect and they can make more in a year than the rest of the world combined x10. They have production lined train manufacture in a similar way to cars, but in a way no other company has. The train lines in the far north are the criticism for empty air, but it kinda of irrevelant in the grand scheme. There is politics / "control" in play, but also engineering testing for high speed in very cold temps and high desert, as they are exporting high speed to rest of the world now.
I think a lot of the poor quality stuff ends up being linked to corruption in lower tier cities. The Tier 1 cities are better than basically every Western city now.
Yes China keep their GDP up by doing effectively Keynsian ecomics of building in the down times and have overbuilt housing. But the point was they get shit done....the West, particularly the UK, don't get shit done, its more shit stuff gets done.
China gets stuff done by having no democracy, planning law, health & safety or environmental standards.
If they want to build something, they'll move you out of your house in 24 hrs - no questions- then bulldoze it, and they don't really care how many die in building the new stuff.
If you take that attitude, you can get quite a lot done quite quickly with an authoritarian state.
But would you want to live in one?
Isn't there pretty much always an inverse relationship between speed of infrastructure development and democracy?
So the Chinese could build railways, Stalin could do his 5 year plan, Hiltler build the Autobhans, Mussolini the new Railway stations, Louis Napoleon modern Paris, etc etc?
You can however go too far the other way, where a £40bn project gets delayed for a decade because someone claims to have found some not-particularly-rare newts on the site, then when they do build it there’s £100m bat tunnels.
For major infrastructure projects, the democratic oversight should be Parliament. The Bill gets passed, and spades go in the ground a fortnight later. Property in the way gets purchased with a 50-100% uplift. The Western world is strangling itself with process and lawyers.
Note that the UK Railways were built, pretty much, in the above manner.
Parliament passed an Act - the horse trading was done in the wording of the act. After it was passed, it was law, and the idea of the courts challenging it would have ben seen as absurd.
How else are you supposed to build railways? (And motorways, and runways…)
You don’t want to know how infuriating it is, to be watching from somewhere where they JFDI.
Oh, and if you’re buying a 100m strip of land, just make it 150m, because, you know, future expansion.
A familiar pattern, if you've been following police shootings in the US since... a long time back*
That is, a spray of bullets, initially. What seems to happen is that they start blasting without thinking or getting a sight picture etc. Then 1-2 shots that actually kill - after a second or so, they actually start aiming.
*My eldest daughter asked why I had Rage Against The Machine in my music library since the 90s....
I have often mused over the actual effectiveness of giving every copper a pistol like the U.S. does. Assuming they don’t focus all of their training on marksmanship, their effective range with it will look a lot like mine. 20ft max, in controlled conditions. So all you’re really using it for is close in self defence, and you can forget about it helping you with properly tooled up criminals. Basically, you might as well just have CS spray and tasers, and that way you will kill fewer people in error.
Tory MP Simon Hoare has given a very vivid quote about Donald Trump's comments on Nato allies, which could actually be used in many contexts about the US president:
"Frankly Trump makes my flesh creep and my stomach turn. Where are his advisors? Where is his nurse? Where is his sense of shame?"
'Makes my flesh creep.....' as do his sycophants. Everyone everywhere is talking about Mark Carney. That's good for Canada. Starmer is just another flunky
The other day we were talking about Neville Chamberlain. My view - which I think others share - is that when Neville Chamberlain made his speech following the Munich agreement, he had a very clear and accurate idea of the sort of person Hitler was and his likely plans; he knew his 'piece of paper' was worthless. He believed (possibly wrongly, it turned out, but that takes nothing away from him) that Germany's ability to fight a war was in 1938 streets ahead of that of France and Britain. He took the (in my view, heroic) decision to sacrifice his reputation to buy the allis another 12-18 months to prepare for the war he knew was coming. But the point is, what was said and known about publicly was very different to what was going on behind the scenes.
The point here is that we - rightly - don't know what's going on behind the scenes. We would hope that Starmer's palliative public pronouncements are being accompanied by a shedload of behind the scenes work to prepare for what comes when the USA leaves NATO. It's not particularly to Britain's advantage to hurry this along by having our elected leaders saying what we really think of Donald Trump. Donald Trupm is saying what he really thinks of other countries, and it's not really gaining America any benefits.
The evidence from diaries etc was that Chamberlain thought that "Giving Peace A Chance" was worth it, even if it was an absurdly long shot.
After the Anschluss -
"It is perfectly evident now that force is the only argument Germany understands and that "collective security" cannot offer any prospect of preventing such events until it can show a visible force of overwhelming strength backed by the determination to use it. ... Heaven knows I don't want to get back to alliances but if Germany continues to behave as she has done lately she may drive us to it."
Tory MP Simon Hoare has given a very vivid quote about Donald Trump's comments on Nato allies, which could actually be used in many contexts about the US president:
"Frankly Trump makes my flesh creep and my stomach turn. Where are his advisors? Where is his nurse? Where is his sense of shame?"
'Makes my flesh creep.....' as do his sycophants. Everyone everywhere is talking about Mark Carney. That's good for Canada. Starmer is just another flunky
The other day we were talking about Neville Chamberlain. My view - which I think others share - is that when Neville Chamberlain made his speech following the Munich agreement, he had a very clear and accurate idea of the sort of person Hitler was and his likely plans; he knew his 'piece of paper' was worthless. He believed (possibly wrongly, it turned out, but that takes nothing away from him) that Germany's ability to fight a war was in 1938 streets ahead of that of France and Britain. He took the (in my view, heroic) decision to sacrifice his reputation to buy the allis another 12-18 months to prepare for the war he knew was coming. But the point is, what was said and known about publicly was very different to what was going on behind the scenes.
The point here is that we - rightly - don't know what's going on behind the scenes. We would hope that Starmer's palliative public pronouncements are being accompanied by a shedload of behind the scenes work to prepare for what comes when the USA leaves NATO. It's not particularly to Britain's advantage to hurry this along by having our elected leaders saying what we really think of Donald Trump. Donald Trupm is saying what he really thinks of other countries, and it's not really gaining America any benefits.
That would be nice to believe, but what evidence there is regarding defence procurement is that no such thing is happening. Since last summer's defence review, for example, this is about the only major capital project announced (an much needed upgrade to the radar of 40 Typhoons). And re-announced.
Glad to see ECRS Mk2 moving forward, but this is the second time in six months that a minister has been to Edinburgh to announce funding for this radar (this latest contract includes the funding from the last announcement, BTW). Really hope the government has more to offer than perpetually reannouncing this radar upgrade... https://x.com/GarethJennings3/status/2014387351695298991
Tory MP Simon Hoare has given a very vivid quote about Donald Trump's comments on Nato allies, which could actually be used in many contexts about the US president:
"Frankly Trump makes my flesh creep and my stomach turn. Where are his advisors? Where is his nurse? Where is his sense of shame?"
'Makes my flesh creep.....' as do his sycophants. Everyone everywhere is talking about Mark Carney. That's good for Canada. Starmer is just another flunky
The other day we were talking about Neville Chamberlain. My view - which I think others share - is that when Neville Chamberlain made his speech following the Munich agreement, he had a very clear and accurate idea of the sort of person Hitler was and his likely plans; he knew his 'piece of paper' was worthless. He believed (possibly wrongly, it turned out, but that takes nothing away from him) that Germany's ability to fight a war was in 1938 streets ahead of that of France and Britain. He took the (in my view, heroic) decision to sacrifice his reputation to buy the allis another 12-18 months to prepare for the war he knew was coming. But the point is, what was said and known about publicly was very different to what was going on behind the scenes.
The point here is that we - rightly - don't know what's going on behind the scenes. We would hope that Starmer's palliative public pronouncements are being accompanied by a shedload of behind the scenes work to prepare for what comes when the USA leaves NATO. It's not particularly to Britain's advantage to hurry this along by having our elected leaders saying what we really think of Donald Trump. Donald Trupm is saying what he really thinks of other countries, and it's not really gaining America any benefits.
That would be nice to believe, but what evidence there is regarding defence procurement is that no such thing is happening. Since last summer's defence review, for example, this is about the only major capital project announced (an much needed upgrade to the radar of 40 Typhoons). And re-announced.
Glad to see ECRS Mk2 moving forward, but this is the second time in six months that a minister has been to Edinburgh to announce funding for this radar (this latest contract includes the funding from the last announcement, BTW). Really hope the government has more to offer than perpetually reannouncing this radar upgrade... https://x.com/GarethJennings3/status/2014387351695298991
Just doing 40 all suggests another instance of the British disease of fleets within fleets of aircraft.
Tory MP Simon Hoare has given a very vivid quote about Donald Trump's comments on Nato allies, which could actually be used in many contexts about the US president:
"Frankly Trump makes my flesh creep and my stomach turn. Where are his advisors? Where is his nurse? Where is his sense of shame?"
'Makes my flesh creep.....' as do his sycophants. Everyone everywhere is talking about Mark Carney. That's good for Canada. Starmer is just another flunky
The other day we were talking about Neville Chamberlain. My view - which I think others share - is that when Neville Chamberlain made his speech following the Munich agreement, he had a very clear and accurate idea of the sort of person Hitler was and his likely plans; he knew his 'piece of paper' was worthless. He believed (possibly wrongly, it turned out, but that takes nothing away from him) that Germany's ability to fight a war was in 1938 streets ahead of that of France and Britain. He took the (in my view, heroic) decision to sacrifice his reputation to buy the allis another 12-18 months to prepare for the war he knew was coming. But the point is, what was said and known about publicly was very different to what was going on behind the scenes.
The point here is that we - rightly - don't know what's going on behind the scenes. We would hope that Starmer's palliative public pronouncements are being accompanied by a shedload of behind the scenes work to prepare for what comes when the USA leaves NATO. It's not particularly to Britain's advantage to hurry this along by having our elected leaders saying what we really think of Donald Trump. Donald Trupm is saying what he really thinks of other countries, and it's not really gaining America any benefits.
That would be nice to believe, but what evidence there is regarding defence procurement is that no such thing is happening. Since last summer's defence review, for example, this is about the only major capital project announced (an much needed upgrade to the radar of 40 Typhoons). And re-announced.
Glad to see ECRS Mk2 moving forward, but this is the second time in six months that a minister has been to Edinburgh to announce funding for this radar (this latest contract includes the funding from the last announcement, BTW). Really hope the government has more to offer than perpetually reannouncing this radar upgrade... https://x.com/GarethJennings3/status/2014387351695298991
The best £100m they could possibly spend right now, is buying shares in the Ukranian drone companies, both for getting hold of their IP and giving them working capital for f*****g up more Russians.
Comments
EDIT: lots of useful graphs here - https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5326/economics/government-spending/
The notion that the US is the only country that fights has no basis in reality.
The fact that electorates are broadly in favour, and von der Leyen herself has publicly expressed support for the idea, suggests that I am probably closer to the truth than you, but of course no one will really know unless it becomes a formal proposal.
"On Wednesday, the House of Lords voted in favor of banning the use of VPNs by under-18s. The chamber backed the amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill by 207 votes to 159, marking a significant government defeat."
https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/uk-government-targets-vpns-in-new-online-safety-consultation-as-lords-vote-for-ban
That might well enjoy broad support.
But actually there's a fair chance he gets kicked out of office this year.
Parliament passed an Act - the horse trading was done in the wording of the act. After it was passed, it was law, and the idea of the courts challenging it would have ben seen as absurd.
1) Buy it all from China.
2) Build ultra efficient, highly automated, low employment factories here. See Dark Factories.
3) Subsidise inefficiency here.
Governments sometimes talk about 2) but generally end up with 3)
It would have been possible (could still be) to build shipyards in the Korean style. That is, on a new location (where you can build 100,000 ton ships easily) setup a huge, high automated, ship assembly line system. This would have meant demolishing the existing shipyards and starting from scratch. Massive strikes, and the owners didn't want to do that anyway. So subsiding the existing yards to the next election was the selected solution.
https://x.com/Gabriel64869839/status/2014638119841099843
A large amount of the blame surely lies with the manufacturer ?
If not, then the entire massive failure by those in government responsible for managing this disaster can't be laid at the door of a single civil servant.
The buck stops with him.
Please let this letter serve to represent that the Board of Breathtakingly Awesome People Who Stay Awake at Meetings is withdrawing its invitation to you joining the prestigious Board of Leaders Who Know That Iceland is Not Greenland.
Love,
Gavin The Magnificent
https://x.com/AwesomeNewsom/status/2014551540107710905?s=20
The famous Carrington resignation over the Falklands covered up what had been happening in the Foreigner* Office. The lead MI6 guy in Argentina had been providing detailed reports about the build up. Since this went against the Departmental Policy, various senior civil servants worked to have him silenced. To the point of destroying his career.
What is fun, is the way you get called "vindictive" if, after the initial resignation, you keep digging.
*Its called that, because it represents the interests of foreigners in the British Government
The real killer would be full open borders.
And the EU having seen the tricks played to avoid joining it have changed their rules to make avoiding joining the Euro far harder
More planning legal challenges
Pour encourager les autres.
I'd be surprised if a coherent argument could be made for WW2. Up to and including D-Day, the contribution from Britain, Canada and the rest of the commonwealth was predominant, and the early episodes of the European war from the Americans somewhere between underwhelming and embarassing. To their credit US command learned fast, and from D-Day onwards they carried the bulk of the fighting. You can criticise the British for ignoring intelligence reports and over-engineering Market Garden; failings in the fields of intelligence and pre-planning where the British usually outperformed the Americans. But not much else of significance?
Tory MP Simon Hoare has given a very vivid quote about Donald Trump's comments on Nato allies, which could actually be used in many contexts about the US president:
"Frankly Trump makes my flesh creep and my stomach turn. Where are his advisors? Where is his nurse? Where is his sense of shame?"
Industrial areas of 1970s northern England were a lot closer to Kes than the 'new Jerusalem'.
Which is why the backlog for large gas turbines is currently 5+ years and various companies are looking at finding anything they can re-enable.
As I’ve pointed out in the past the biggest AI hurdle at the moment is actually getting a large enough power supply to meet the energy demands
The reasons that we were involved in Iraq and Afghanistan etc wasn't because we were needed militarily, it was because we were needed politically. Trump changes all that because he finds allies an encumbrance and only wants vassal states.
https://www.credaily.com/briefs/colossus-2-becomes-fastest-growing-ai-data-center-in-the-world/
Though the point about environmental impact by a poster above is well-taken.
An independent autopsy shows it was the 3rd shot that killed Renee Good.
Non-lethal shot through her forearm.
Non-lethal shot through her breast.
Lethal 3rd shot through the temple.
https://x.com/Daractenus/status/2014385409619374339
1. The initial entry to the city was a fucking rampage. We trashed it from one end to the other and shot anything that moved.
2. "Sophisticated" British style counter insurgency ops as if we were in the 6C. The Iraqis never got the text message regarding this and ran wild with IEDs and sniping.
3. Force protection became the priority for political reasons and not taking casualties was the prime directive.
The USMC in Basra were pretty dismissive of this flexible doctrine and the piss poor logistics backing it up. They preferred working with the Australians and were not shy about expressing that preference.
https://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/eiir/search
* Once had a client who had 15 years of restrictions and a shotgun wound to her stomach. The restrictions were because she hadn't repaid the monies as ordered by the court. The shotgun wound may have been the reason she didn't have the money but people are strange.
Sacking him would be fine (though there's no evidence he's actually been sacked). Making him the fall guy is just deflection, and has no such salutary effect; quite the opposite..
https://x.com/VoteHub/status/2014410609329373540
https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/workplace/ceos-say-ai-is-making-work-more-efficient-employees-tell-a-different-story-6613ce9d?mod=hp_lead_pos11
Which is why one of the most common questions asked of AI is "how do I switch off AI"
This was because, in those days, productivity increases were seen as creating unemployment*. The fact that productivity increases creates more work than is "destroyed" was not generally accepted, outside economists. When you added in a basic nationalism - "People will always buy British".....
*Even well into the 80s, it was considered unremarkable when a trade union official stated that they would only accept productivity improvements as a last resort. This wasn't because he was evil or stupid - he was stating the orthodoxy.
This is where they are, they will say absolutely whatever they want to in the knowledge that many MAGA will believe them and hope that more will come to believe them.
The Trump comments about NATO and frontline are just another manifestation of the insular nature of the US and how much Americans in general have no knowledge of what other countries do and have done - this comes through in war films where history is changed to make the IS look great or do things it didn’t do and these films become the truth.
Anytime you see a WW2 film the Americans are tough soldiers, the Brits, when they appear a silly comedy figures who are piggy-backing off the US brilliance. Then you have millions of people in the US thinking The Patriot is an accurate depiction of the Revolutionary War.
https://x.com/disclosetv/status/2013934991550357684
https://bsky.app/profile/jael.bsky.social/post/3mczuogts3227
But, maybe, US energy policy shouldn't be determined by the failing memories of a demented rapist.
British shipyard owners have never been keen on investment and even the Norwegian yards that have survived have focused on cruise ships or smaller specialist vessels and do their hull fabrication, if not the full-build, somewhere cheaper.
No one is saying they were; I was rather pointing out the dramatic economic decline of the north relative to the south east, since the 1980s.
That is, a spray of bullets, initially. What seems to happen is that they start blasting without thinking or getting a sight picture etc. Then 1-2 shots that actually kill - after a second or so, they actually start aiming.
*My eldest daughter asked why I had Rage Against The Machine in my music library since the 90s....
The point here is that we - rightly - don't know what's going on behind the scenes. We would hope that Starmer's palliative public pronouncements are being accompanied by a shedload of behind the scenes work to prepare for what comes when the USA leaves NATO. It's not particularly to Britain's advantage to hurry this along by having our elected leaders saying what we really think of Donald Trump. Donald Trupm is saying what he really thinks of other countries, and it's not really gaining America any benefits.
PS
I agree he was wrong and stupid, the unions killed their own jobs aided and abetted by hooray henry inadequate management
Revealed: McLaren Racing, the Formula One constructors' champion, has been awarded more than $12m in damages for commercial losses suffered when top IndyCar driver Alex Palou reneged on a commitment to drive for the team and keep his seat at Chip Ganassi Racing instead...
There is a very strong congruence between those old coalfield areas de-industrialised in the Thatcher period and the Brexit vote. There was a strong resentment at being left behind and neglected by the new economy.
There is a great irony that those same old coalfield areas are now strongly Reform, which is led by an unashamed Thatcher fan. Sooner or later that is likely to be an issue for Reform to resolve hopefully before rather than after forming a government.
Blaming him for that is like blaming a merchant in 18th Century London for advocating Mercantilism.
And 6 F1 teams (or 55% of the votes) very much like the additional power their engines provide
He is also seen as a technocrat rather than a politician
Apparently he was raised in Edmonton, which is the birthplace of our daughter in law and her family who are all originally from Ukraine
You don’t want to know how infuriating it is, to be watching from somewhere where they JFDI.
Oh, and if you’re buying a 100m strip of land, just make it 150m, because, you know, future expansion.
After the Anschluss -
"It is perfectly evident now that force is the only argument Germany understands and that "collective security" cannot offer any prospect of preventing such events until it can show a visible force of overwhelming strength backed by the determination to use it. ... Heaven knows I don't want to get back to alliances but if Germany continues to behave as she has done lately she may drive us to it."
https://x.com/mrmbrown/status/2014631724156653980?s=61
Since last summer's defence review, for example, this is about the only major capital project announced (an much needed upgrade to the radar of 40 Typhoons).
And re-announced.
Glad to see ECRS Mk2 moving forward, but this is the second time in six months that a minister has been to Edinburgh to announce funding for this radar (this latest contract includes the funding from the last announcement, BTW). Really hope the government has more to offer than perpetually reannouncing this radar upgrade...
https://x.com/GarethJennings3/status/2014387351695298991
For the price of one F-35 or Typhoon.