Healey has shortened significantly in last few hours.
Now 13 on Betfair, was approx 26 a few hours ago.
He's now 4th favourite.
Young cardinals backing old popes? Healey is 66 years old. I've mentioned him before as a possible caretaker but can't see him as the next Prime Minister. Most bookmakers do not pay out on temporary or caretaker leaders.
I was surprised by odds on Next Labour leader vs Next Prime Minister.
Healey is 29 and 14. Lammy is 95 and 32.
Why the huge differences for some candidates?
(I've cashed out of this market and taken my profit, though I'm still in SKS exit date.)
Healey's odds are moving fast based on article in today's Telegraph.
Assuming you are looking at Betfair the 29 has now gone and he is now 19.5 for leader (still 14 for PM).
Telegraph is not suggesting Healey as a caretaker - report says he is seen as the only candidate who can unite the left and right of the party and be highly credible as PM.
He is obviously very strong on defence and will have stature dealing with world leaders. But he is also attractive to the soft left as he used to be in the Tribune group.
If Labour MPs want to win the next GE they should absolutely go for him.
Clutching at straws, they are trying to find a 4 legged donkey in among the herd that is Labour, we are doomed.
In more exciting news, I bought a lapis bracelet last night from a jeweller on sisowath quay. Where they have posh pop ups on weekends
It looked suspiciously real so I thought why not. $28 for real lapis? Turns out it’s not only real lapis it’s the top quality stuff from Afghanistan. There’s a known trading route which extends from the prehistoric Afghan mines to Indochina - to dealers in Bangkok and PP - a remnant of the Silk Road!
Nice, although isn't all lapis lazuli from Afghanistan?
In more exciting news, I bought a lapis bracelet last night from a jeweller on sisowath quay. Where they have posh pop ups on weekends
It looked suspiciously real so I thought why not. $28 for real lapis? Turns out it’s not only real lapis it’s the top quality stuff from Afghanistan. There’s a known trading route which extends from the prehistoric Afghan mines to Indochina - to dealers in Bangkok and PP - a remnant of the Silk Road!
Nice, although isn't all lapis lazuli from Afghanistan?
Used to be. There's some been found in Chile and Argentina now.
Healey has shortened significantly in last few hours.
Now 13 on Betfair, was approx 26 a few hours ago.
He's now 4th favourite.
Young cardinals backing old popes? Healey is 66 years old. I've mentioned him before as a possible caretaker but can't see him as the next Prime Minister. Most bookmakers do not pay out on temporary or caretaker leaders.
I was surprised by odds on Next Labour leader vs Next Prime Minister.
Healey is 29 and 14. Lammy is 95 and 32.
Why the huge differences for some candidates?
(I've cashed out of this market and taken my profit, though I'm still in SKS exit date.)
Healey's odds are moving fast based on article in today's Telegraph.
Assuming you are looking at Betfair the 29 has now gone and he is now 19.5 for leader (still 14 for PM).
Telegraph is not suggesting Healey as a caretaker - report says he is seen as the only candidate who can unite the left and right of the party and be highly credible as PM.
He is obviously very strong on defence and will have stature dealing with world leaders. But he is also attractive to the soft left as he used to be in the Tribune group.
If Labour MPs want to win the next GE they should absolutely go for him.
That could also be the Telegraph shit-stirring.
It has been known.
Or it could be you are ignoring somebody obvious who could do the job and get the Labour Party united around him.
As I suggested earlier last week. When his odds were 80/1....
Healey has shortened significantly in last few hours.
Now 13 on Betfair, was approx 26 a few hours ago.
He's now 4th favourite.
Young cardinals backing old popes? Healey is 66 years old. I've mentioned him before as a possible caretaker but can't see him as the next Prime Minister. Most bookmakers do not pay out on temporary or caretaker leaders.
I was surprised by odds on Next Labour leader vs Next Prime Minister.
Healey is 29 and 14. Lammy is 95 and 32.
Why the huge differences for some candidates?
(I've cashed out of this market and taken my profit, though I'm still in SKS exit date.)
Healey's odds are moving fast based on article in today's Telegraph.
Assuming you are looking at Betfair the 29 has now gone and he is now 19.5 for leader (still 14 for PM).
Telegraph is not suggesting Healey as a caretaker - report says he is seen as the only candidate who can unite the left and right of the party and be highly credible as PM.
He is obviously very strong on defence and will have stature dealing with world leaders. But he is also attractive to the soft left as he used to be in the Tribune group.
If Labour MPs want to win the next GE they should absolutely go for him.
That could also be the Telegraph shit-stirring.
It has been known.
Or it could be you are ignoring somebody obvious who could do the job and get the Labour Party united around him.
As I suggested earlier last week. When his odds were 80/1....
He’s 66. Remember the problems Menzies Campbell had as LibDem leader at 65.
Healey has shortened significantly in last few hours.
Now 13 on Betfair, was approx 26 a few hours ago.
He's now 4th favourite.
Young cardinals backing old popes? Healey is 66 years old. I've mentioned him before as a possible caretaker but can't see him as the next Prime Minister. Most bookmakers do not pay out on temporary or caretaker leaders.
I was surprised by odds on Next Labour leader vs Next Prime Minister.
Healey is 29 and 14. Lammy is 95 and 32.
Why the huge differences for some candidates?
(I've cashed out of this market and taken my profit, though I'm still in SKS exit date.)
Healey's odds are moving fast based on article in today's Telegraph.
Assuming you are looking at Betfair the 29 has now gone and he is now 19.5 for leader (still 14 for PM).
Telegraph is not suggesting Healey as a caretaker - report says he is seen as the only candidate who can unite the left and right of the party and be highly credible as PM.
He is obviously very strong on defence and will have stature dealing with world leaders. But he is also attractive to the soft left as he used to be in the Tribune group.
If Labour MPs want to win the next GE they should absolutely go for him.
That could also be the Telegraph shit-stirring.
It has been known.
Or it could be you are ignoring somebody obvious who could do the job and get the Labour Party united around him.
As I suggested earlier last week. When his odds were 80/1....
He’s 66. Remember the problems Menzies Campbell had as LibDem leader at 65.
Healey was looking pretty spry when I saw him in December.
Healey has shortened significantly in last few hours.
Now 13 on Betfair, was approx 26 a few hours ago.
He's now 4th favourite.
Young cardinals backing old popes? Healey is 66 years old. I've mentioned him before as a possible caretaker but can't see him as the next Prime Minister. Most bookmakers do not pay out on temporary or caretaker leaders.
I was surprised by odds on Next Labour leader vs Next Prime Minister.
Healey is 29 and 14. Lammy is 95 and 32.
Why the huge differences for some candidates?
(I've cashed out of this market and taken my profit, though I'm still in SKS exit date.)
Healey's odds are moving fast based on article in today's Telegraph.
Assuming you are looking at Betfair the 29 has now gone and he is now 19.5 for leader (still 14 for PM).
Telegraph is not suggesting Healey as a caretaker - report says he is seen as the only candidate who can unite the left and right of the party and be highly credible as PM.
He is obviously very strong on defence and will have stature dealing with world leaders. But he is also attractive to the soft left as he used to be in the Tribune group.
If Labour MPs want to win the next GE they should absolutely go for him.
That could also be the Telegraph shit-stirring.
It has been known.
Or it could be you are ignoring somebody obvious who could do the job and get the Labour Party united around him.
As I suggested earlier last week. When his odds were 80/1....
Yes. Definitely a unity candidate. I had also been backing him here at long odds (EDIT: In a post on Sat 7th at 66/1), as the best value outside bet if you did were not content to back only Rayner and Miliband. Best odds anywhere are now down to 22/1, still looks decent value.
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
Healey has shortened significantly in last few hours.
Now 13 on Betfair, was approx 26 a few hours ago.
He's now 4th favourite.
Young cardinals backing old popes? Healey is 66 years old. I've mentioned him before as a possible caretaker but can't see him as the next Prime Minister. Most bookmakers do not pay out on temporary or caretaker leaders.
I was surprised by odds on Next Labour leader vs Next Prime Minister.
Healey is 29 and 14. Lammy is 95 and 32.
Why the huge differences for some candidates?
(I've cashed out of this market and taken my profit, though I'm still in SKS exit date.)
Healey's odds are moving fast based on article in today's Telegraph.
Assuming you are looking at Betfair the 29 has now gone and he is now 19.5 for leader (still 14 for PM).
Telegraph is not suggesting Healey as a caretaker - report says he is seen as the only candidate who can unite the left and right of the party and be highly credible as PM.
He is obviously very strong on defence and will have stature dealing with world leaders. But he is also attractive to the soft left as he used to be in the Tribune group.
If Labour MPs want to win the next GE they should absolutely go for him.
That could also be the Telegraph shit-stirring.
It has been known.
Or it could be you are ignoring somebody obvious who could do the job and get the Labour Party united around him.
As I suggested earlier last week. When his odds were 80/1....
He’s 66. Remember the problems Menzies Campbell had as LibDem leader at 65.
Wasn’t that more to how he looked rather than his mind, he looked like a doddery old man even though in his youth he was a high quality runner.
Healey has shortened significantly in last few hours.
Now 13 on Betfair, was approx 26 a few hours ago.
He's now 4th favourite.
Young cardinals backing old popes? Healey is 66 years old. I've mentioned him before as a possible caretaker but can't see him as the next Prime Minister. Most bookmakers do not pay out on temporary or caretaker leaders.
I was surprised by odds on Next Labour leader vs Next Prime Minister.
Healey is 29 and 14. Lammy is 95 and 32.
Why the huge differences for some candidates?
(I've cashed out of this market and taken my profit, though I'm still in SKS exit date.)
Healey's odds are moving fast based on article in today's Telegraph.
Assuming you are looking at Betfair the 29 has now gone and he is now 19.5 for leader (still 14 for PM).
Telegraph is not suggesting Healey as a caretaker - report says he is seen as the only candidate who can unite the left and right of the party and be highly credible as PM.
He is obviously very strong on defence and will have stature dealing with world leaders. But he is also attractive to the soft left as he used to be in the Tribune group.
If Labour MPs want to win the next GE they should absolutely go for him.
That could also be the Telegraph shit-stirring.
It has been known.
Or it could be you are ignoring somebody obvious who could do the job and get the Labour Party united around him.
As I suggested earlier last week. When his odds were 80/1....
He’s 66. Remember the problems Menzies Campbell had as LibDem leader at 65.
Healey was looking pretty spry when I saw him in December.
Campbell held the British 100 metres record for 7 years.
Healey has shortened significantly in last few hours.
Now 13 on Betfair, was approx 26 a few hours ago.
He's now 4th favourite.
Young cardinals backing old popes? Healey is 66 years old. I've mentioned him before as a possible caretaker but can't see him as the next Prime Minister. Most bookmakers do not pay out on temporary or caretaker leaders.
I was surprised by odds on Next Labour leader vs Next Prime Minister.
Healey is 29 and 14. Lammy is 95 and 32.
Why the huge differences for some candidates?
(I've cashed out of this market and taken my profit, though I'm still in SKS exit date.)
Healey's odds are moving fast based on article in today's Telegraph.
Assuming you are looking at Betfair the 29 has now gone and he is now 19.5 for leader (still 14 for PM).
Telegraph is not suggesting Healey as a caretaker - report says he is seen as the only candidate who can unite the left and right of the party and be highly credible as PM.
He is obviously very strong on defence and will have stature dealing with world leaders. But he is also attractive to the soft left as he used to be in the Tribune group.
If Labour MPs want to win the next GE they should absolutely go for him.
That could also be the Telegraph shit-stirring.
It has been known.
Or it could be you are ignoring somebody obvious who could do the job and get the Labour Party united around him.
As I suggested earlier last week. When his odds were 80/1....
He’s 66. Remember the problems Menzies Campbell had as LibDem leader at 65.
Wasn’t that more to how he looked rather than his mind, he looked like a doddery old man even though in his youth he was a high quality runner.
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
Emigrants have always tended to be of working age. I don’t think that’s new.
Those coming in on work visas are mostly highly skilled.
No not new but 91% is high. I think it’s something policy makers should be concerned about. Not complacent and just shrug their shoulders and say it’s always been the case.
Not everyone comes in on work Visa’s, even those of working age, it’s less than three quarters, and not all jobs are highly skilled. Whatever that much abused phrase means these days.
Also a high proportion of kids and over 65’s neither of whom will be a net beneficiary to the economy although in time some of the kids will.
Still, one area where we lead the rest of Europe is Youth Unemployment.
You do know we can't just defend the UK with Focus leaflets, right?
I think one of the lessons the politicians need to avoid is being manipulated, firstly by suppliers, and then by military establishments and retired senior officers from one or three decades ago.
I'm sure we are due another unidentified General from the USA to pop up in the Times and declare that X, Y or Z in the UK Armed forces is now second rate, or unfit for purpose, and lots of more money must be spent on something something something or the UK is finished. There seems to be a rota of them.
If I recall the SDR, it proposed a possible increase to 12 hunter killer submarines over time. There is not money for everything now, and were there money for everything now trying to use it that fast would be very poor economy and continue the feast and famine cycle that has damaged our industry over 40 years.
The pols need to make sure that our scarce resources are allocated as carefully and effectively as possible. And that is going to involve reining in the various lobbies.
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
You do know we can't just defend the UK with Focus leaflets, right?
I think one of the lessons the politicians need to avoid is being manipulated, firstly by suppliers, and then by military establishments and retired senior officers from one or three decades ago.
I'm sure we are due another unidentified General from the USA to pop up in the Times and declare that X, Y or Z in the UK Armed forces is now second rate, or unfit for purpose, and lots of more money must be spent on something something something or the UK is finished. There seems to be a rota of them.
If I recall the SDR, it proposed a possible increase to 12 hunter killer submarines over time. There is not money for everything now, and were there money for everything now trying to use it that fast would be very poor economy and continue the feast and famine cycle that has damaged our industry over 40 years.
The pols need to make sure that our scarce resources are allocated as carefully and effectively as possible. And that is going to involve reining in the various lobbies.
Ukraine are now looking towards military exports, that’s a blooming good starting point as well as existing collaborations there.
The biggest current problem is a lack of ammunition, as much as a lack of base weapons systems.
And yes, there needs to be a way to stop the brass hats in Whitehall from retiring early, then ending up shortly afterwards as well-paid sales managers for defence companies giving the nudge-nudge wink-wink to the current set of brass hats in Whitehall.
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
Emigrants have always tended to be of working age. I don’t think that’s new.
Those coming in on work visas are mostly highly skilled.
No not new but 91% is high. I think it’s something policy makers should be concerned about. Not complacent and just shrug their shoulders and say it’s always been the case.
Not everyone comes in on work Visa’s, even those of working age, it’s less than three quarters, and not all jobs are highly skilled. Whatever that much abused phrase means these days.
Also a high proportion of kids and over 65’s neither of whom will be a net beneficiary to the economy although in time some of the kids will.
Still, one area where we lead the rest of Europe is Youth Unemployment.
yes and they bring extended families once in as well, so far from ideal. This country is a soft mark and the arses running the show do not want to do anything about it.
Below is what the first bit of the (paywalled) Telegraph article actually says. Important points if they are correct: 1. Sources on right of the party are turning against Streeting. 2. Sources on left are worried about Rayner's prospects while HMRC investigations continues. In that context a compromise unity candidate without baggage could have some traction. After 11 years of being led by factional leaders, I sense that there is actually quite a desire amongst many of the MPs and the members remaining in the party to reunite as a broad church. ________________________
Labour rebels are lining up John Healey, the Defence Secretary, as a “unity candidate” to challenge Sir Keir Starmer for the leadership, The Telegraph understands. A rising number of backbenchers believe Mr Healey would draw support from both the Right and Left of the parliamentary party. Some on the moderate wing of the party believe that Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, has become too “toxic”, particularly following his decision to publish his WhatsApp messages with Lord Mandelson. Meanwhile, allies of Angela Rayner admit it will be difficult for her to run in a leadership contest while HMRC continues its investigation into her tax affairs. It comes amid a push from within the party to steer Labour in a different direction to the one piloted by Morgan McSweeney, who quit as Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff this month over the Mandelson scandal. On Saturday night Labour’s biggest union backers, along with 25 backbench MPs, accused the Prime Minister of pursuing a “narrow factional agenda”. They said this was proving “increasingly unpopular with the public” and called for the party to “work together to strengthen our democracy and reverse this damaging behaviour”.
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
Below is what the first bit of the (paywalled) Telegraph article actually says. Important points if they are correct: 1. Sources on right of the party are turning against Streeting. 2. Sources on left are worried about Rayner's prospects while HMRC investigations continues. In that context a compromise unity candidate without baggage could have some traction. After 11 years of being led by factional leaders, I sense that there is actually quite a desire amongst many of the MPs and the members remaining in the party to reunite as a broad church. ________________________
Labour rebels are lining up John Healey, the Defence Secretary, as a “unity candidate” to challenge Sir Keir Starmer for the leadership, The Telegraph understands. A rising number of backbenchers believe Mr Healey would draw support from both the Right and Left of the parliamentary party. Some on the moderate wing of the party believe that Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, has become too “toxic”, particularly following his decision to publish his WhatsApp messages with Lord Mandelson. Meanwhile, allies of Angela Rayner admit it will be difficult for her to run in a leadership contest while HMRC continues its investigation into her tax affairs. It comes amid a push from within the party to steer Labour in a different direction to the one piloted by Morgan McSweeney, who quit as Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff this month over the Mandelson scandal. On Saturday night Labour’s biggest union backers, along with 25 backbench MPs, accused the Prime Minister of pursuing a “narrow factional agenda”. They said this was proving “increasingly unpopular with the public” and called for the party to “work together to strengthen our democracy and reverse this damaging behaviour”.
You do know we can't just defend the UK with Focus leaflets, right?
I think one of the lessons the politicians need to avoid is being manipulated, firstly by suppliers, and then by military establishments and retired senior officers from one or three decades ago.
I'm sure we are due another unidentified General from the USA to pop up in the Times and declare that X, Y or Z in the UK Armed forces is now second rate, or unfit for purpose, and lots of more money must be spent on something something something or the UK is finished. There seems to be a rota of them.
If I recall the SDR, it proposed a possible increase to 12 hunter killer submarines over time. There is not money for everything now, and were there money for everything now trying to use it that fast would be very poor economy and continue the feast and famine cycle that has damaged our industry over 40 years.
The pols need to make sure that our scarce resources are allocated as carefully and effectively as possible. And that is going to involve reining in the various lobbies.
Ukraine are now looking towards military exports, that’s a blooming good starting point as well as existing collaborations there.
The biggest current problem is a lack of ammunition, as much as a lack of base weapons systems.
And yes, there needs to be a way to stop the brass hats in Whitehall from retiring early, then ending up shortly afterwards as well-paid sales managers for defence companies giving the nudge-nudge wink-wink to the current set of brass hats in Whitehall.
Agreed on that.
I also think the Govt could do with publishing a bit more specific information in a lot of areas. Not much more, just enough.
Ammunition supply is one example - where is manufacturing capacity for 155mm shells in UK/Europe these days? I think it was transformed by last.
The numbers I see are that it is up 10 fold or more, including in the UK, where we in 2022 were targetting a x16 increase by 2026 (and I think 8x by 2025) - done under both the current and previous Governments, but the Govt (both of them) don't talk about it very much.
Over in the USA aiui they are still partly on a Royal Ordnance style model.
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
Emigrants have always tended to be of working age. I don’t think that’s new.
Those coming in on work visas are mostly highly skilled.
No not new but 91% is high. I think it’s something policy makers should be concerned about. Not complacent and just shrug their shoulders and say it’s always been the case.
Not everyone comes in on work Visa’s, even those of working age, it’s less than three quarters, and not all jobs are highly skilled. Whatever that much abused phrase means these days.
Also a high proportion of kids and over 65’s neither of whom will be a net beneficiary to the economy although in time some of the kids will.
Still, one area where we lead the rest of Europe is Youth Unemployment.
yes and they bring extended families once in as well, so far from ideal. This country is a soft mark and the arses running the show do not want to do anything about it.
The ability to bring in extended families has pretty much disappeared over the last years.
The moves toward Labour victory in the betting, the 'rush of people to join Labour', and perhaps even the Labour stabilisation in the polls (though that seems to be gone now), can all be attributed to one thing. The imminent departure of Sir Working Class Hero.
The only working class hero born in the sixties who wasn’t brought up in social housing
The principled vegetarian who eats meat when he’s peckish
The multi millionaire whose brother died in poverty
What a guy
Random question, you for isam, as I knew back in the day you used to vote Labour and left when Ed didn't fully get on board with Glasman. Would you still consider for voting a genuine 'Blue Labour' government/party? And if so, what would they need to do policy wise - and what kind of leader would they need to have - that the current government isn't doing? I'm genuinely curious, as I think McSweeney tried - and very much failed - to get voters like you back onside. For one if the Blue Labour strategy isn't viable, maybe they should just go for some kind 'National Popular Front' strategy (i.e. try to cannabilise the Greens and max out the left liberal vote as much as possible).
You know me well. I would vote for any party that I agreed with at the time really, it's not that I would vote for X but not Y out of loyalty.
If McSweeney wanted to get Leave voters onboard, he couldn't have made a worse choice as leader than Sir Keir - Mr Remain, who did everything he could to prevent the winning side from enacting their victory, a Human Rights lawyer too scared to say that transwoman are men, and constantly breaking pledges and promises etc
I will vote for a party that holds no truck with trans nonsense at schools, is strict on immigration, has no time for identity politics, and isn't afraid of upsetting people by saying what they think and sticking to it. I am too tired to write a manifesto! Keep the two child cap and abolish the triple lock. Make work pay and give youngsters a chance. I think at the moment Badenoch's Conservatives align most with my thinking. Reform have lost me a bit by being too boorish and USA/Dubai influenced, despite me probably agreeing with them on most things. it does come down to image a bit. Obviously it is a matter of taste, but I find almost all Labour politicians really unlikeable, they are such whiners. Takes one to know one I suppose.
The funny thing is, I think Nandy (not that I think she'd be a brilliant Labour leader) was the more Blue Labour-like *anti-Corbynite* candidate in the 2020 leadership election than Starmer was. But Starmer was a trojan horse, who McSweeney probably believed would have a better chance of beating RLB in that contest because he could more easily convince Labour members who'd previously backed Corbyn he was on their side and would continue much of Corbyn's policies. Obviously we saw how that turned out... Part of the issue is, I do think Labour is at heart a liberal party. While Blue Labour probably has some things mainstream Labour politicians can take away from it, Glasman's project is probably ultimately misconceived. Some of its greatest achievements in government, such as the abolition of the death penalty, legalisation of abortion etc. were rooted in the party's liberalism. Is the Labour party a viable party, for instance, if everyone on Bluesky ends up despising it? Glasman thinks it can be, but I'm not so sure at all.
I suppose in my mind Blue Labour is the Tories if they don’t suck up to the wealthy. Boris was kind of elected on a Blue Labour platform, but the pandemic put paid to us being able to know if he’d see it through. Glasman’s interview with Giles Fraser is a good explanation of the left wing case for Brexit (or Breggsit, as he says). For me, leaving the EU was necessary to stop the conveyer belt of cheap labour undercutting our low paid workers, which Glasman calls ‘Capitslism’s greatest con trick’ (I think). I just couldn’t believe Labour were so in favour of something that was so obviously detrimental to those on low wages, and was bound to cause resentment
Below is what the first bit of the (paywalled) Telegraph article actually says. Important points if they are correct: 1. Sources on right of the party are turning against Streeting. 2. Sources on left are worried about Rayner's prospects while HMRC investigations continues. In that context a compromise unity candidate without baggage could have some traction. After 11 years of being led by factional leaders, I sense that there is actually quite a desire amongst many of the MPs and the members remaining in the party to reunite as a broad church. ________________________
Labour rebels are lining up John Healey, the Defence Secretary, as a “unity candidate” to challenge Sir Keir Starmer for the leadership, The Telegraph understands. A rising number of backbenchers believe Mr Healey would draw support from both the Right and Left of the parliamentary party. Some on the moderate wing of the party believe that Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, has become too “toxic”, particularly following his decision to publish his WhatsApp messages with Lord Mandelson. Meanwhile, allies of Angela Rayner admit it will be difficult for her to run in a leadership contest while HMRC continues its investigation into her tax affairs. It comes amid a push from within the party to steer Labour in a different direction to the one piloted by Morgan McSweeney, who quit as Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff this month over the Mandelson scandal. On Saturday night Labour’s biggest union backers, along with 25 backbench MPs, accused the Prime Minister of pursuing a “narrow factional agenda”. They said this was proving “increasingly unpopular with the public” and called for the party to “work together to strengthen our democracy and reverse this damaging behaviour”.
Replacing a bland non entity with another bland not entity in a leadership battle seems quite unlikely to create unity. Just saying.
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
Emigrants have always tended to be of working age. I don’t think that’s new.
Those coming in on work visas are mostly highly skilled.
No not new but 91% is high. I think it’s something policy makers should be concerned about. Not complacent and just shrug their shoulders and say it’s always been the case.
Not everyone comes in on work Visa’s, even those of working age, it’s less than three quarters, and not all jobs are highly skilled. Whatever that much abused phrase means these days.
Also a high proportion of kids and over 65’s neither of whom will be a net beneficiary to the economy although in time some of the kids will.
Still, one area where we lead the rest of Europe is Youth Unemployment.
"A high proportion of ....over 65s" coming in? Are you kidding.
The net flow of over 65s is strongly out not in to this country, including retirees off to the likes of Spain and Portugal. Despite that, the UK's population is still ageing rapidly, a big problem.
Immigration into the UK is reducing the rate at which the UK population is ageing. What matters is that immigration and net population growth is kept at manageable levels, rather than at the levels reached in the first part of this decade which are now reducing rapidly.
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
Emigrants have always tended to be of working age. I don’t think that’s new.
Those coming in on work visas are mostly highly skilled.
No not new but 91% is high. I think it’s something policy makers should be concerned about. Not complacent and just shrug their shoulders and say it’s always been the case.
Not everyone comes in on work Visa’s, even those of working age, it’s less than three quarters, and not all jobs are highly skilled. Whatever that much abused phrase means these days.
Also a high proportion of kids and over 65’s neither of whom will be a net beneficiary to the economy although in time some of the kids will.
Still, one area where we lead the rest of Europe is Youth Unemployment.
yes and they bring extended families once in as well, so far from ideal. This country is a soft mark and the arses running the show do not want to do anything about it.
The ability to bring in extended families has pretty much disappeared over the last years.
Yet in the most recent figures cited in the article upthread of those coming in 13 per cent were children and 8 per cent were 65-plus.
If this is what is classed as disappeared I’d hate to think what it was before.
You do know we can't just defend the UK with Focus leaflets, right?
I think one of the lessons the politicians need to avoid is being manipulated, firstly by suppliers, and then by military establishments and retired senior officers from one or three decades ago.
I'm sure we are due another unidentified General from the USA to pop up in the Times and declare that X, Y or Z in the UK Armed forces is now second rate, or unfit for purpose, and lots of more money must be spent on something something something or the UK is finished. There seems to be a rota of them.
If I recall the SDR, it proposed a possible increase to 12 hunter killer submarines over time. There is not money for everything now, and were there money for everything now trying to use it that fast would be very poor economy and continue the feast and famine cycle that has damaged our industry over 40 years.
The pols need to make sure that our scarce resources are allocated as carefully and effectively as possible. And that is going to involve reining in the various lobbies.
Ukraine are now looking towards military exports, that’s a blooming good starting point as well as existing collaborations there.
The biggest current problem is a lack of ammunition, as much as a lack of base weapons systems.
And yes, there needs to be a way to stop the brass hats in Whitehall from retiring early, then ending up shortly afterwards as well-paid sales managers for defence companies giving the nudge-nudge wink-wink to the current set of brass hats in Whitehall.
The cosy relationship where army bids migrate to jobs with GDLS is one reasons we accepted Ajax as fit for service when it obviously isn't.
Below is what the first bit of the (paywalled) Telegraph article actually says. Important points if they are correct: 1. Sources on right of the party are turning against Streeting. 2. Sources on left are worried about Rayner's prospects while HMRC investigations continues. In that context a compromise unity candidate without baggage could have some traction. After 11 years of being led by factional leaders, I sense that there is actually quite a desire amongst many of the MPs and the members remaining in the party to reunite as a broad church. ________________________
Labour rebels are lining up John Healey, the Defence Secretary, as a “unity candidate” to challenge Sir Keir Starmer for the leadership, The Telegraph understands. A rising number of backbenchers believe Mr Healey would draw support from both the Right and Left of the parliamentary party. Some on the moderate wing of the party believe that Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, has become too “toxic”, particularly following his decision to publish his WhatsApp messages with Lord Mandelson. Meanwhile, allies of Angela Rayner admit it will be difficult for her to run in a leadership contest while HMRC continues its investigation into her tax affairs. It comes amid a push from within the party to steer Labour in a different direction to the one piloted by Morgan McSweeney, who quit as Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff this month over the Mandelson scandal. On Saturday night Labour’s biggest union backers, along with 25 backbench MPs, accused the Prime Minister of pursuing a “narrow factional agenda”. They said this was proving “increasingly unpopular with the public” and called for the party to “work together to strengthen our democracy and reverse this damaging behaviour”.
Replacing a bland non entity with another bland not entity in a leadership battle seems quite unlikely to create unity. Just saying.
Indeed.
EICIPM is far more likely, to revive a decade old aphorism.
You do know we can't just defend the UK with Focus leaflets, right?
I think one of the lessons the politicians need to avoid is being manipulated, firstly by suppliers, and then by military establishments and retired senior officers from one or three decades ago.
I'm sure we are due another unidentified General from the USA to pop up in the Times and declare that X, Y or Z in the UK Armed forces is now second rate, or unfit for purpose, and lots of more money must be spent on something something something or the UK is finished. There seems to be a rota of them.
If I recall the SDR, it proposed a possible increase to 12 hunter killer submarines over time. There is not money for everything now, and were there money for everything now trying to use it that fast would be very poor economy and continue the feast and famine cycle that has damaged our industry over 40 years.
The pols need to make sure that our scarce resources are allocated as carefully and effectively as possible. And that is going to involve reining in the various lobbies.
Meanwhile our £3.7bn carrier just broke down again and has had to drop out of a NATO exercise.
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
Emigrants have always tended to be of working age. I don’t think that’s new.
Those coming in on work visas are mostly highly skilled.
No not new but 91% is high. I think it’s something policy makers should be concerned about. Not complacent and just shrug their shoulders and say it’s always been the case.
Not everyone comes in on work Visa’s, even those of working age, it’s less than three quarters, and not all jobs are highly skilled. Whatever that much abused phrase means these days.
Also a high proportion of kids and over 65’s neither of whom will be a net beneficiary to the economy although in time some of the kids will.
Still, one area where we lead the rest of Europe is Youth Unemployment.
yes and they bring extended families once in as well, so far from ideal. This country is a soft mark and the arses running the show do not want to do anything about it.
The ability to bring in extended families has pretty much disappeared over the last years.
Yet in the most recent figures cited in the article upthread of those coming in 13 per cent were children and 8 per cent were 65-plus.
Even merchant bankers and top surgeons have families.
Below is what the first bit of the (paywalled) Telegraph article actually says. Important points if they are correct: 1. Sources on right of the party are turning against Streeting. 2. Sources on left are worried about Rayner's prospects while HMRC investigations continues. In that context a compromise unity candidate without baggage could have some traction. After 11 years of being led by factional leaders, I sense that there is actually quite a desire amongst many of the MPs and the members remaining in the party to reunite as a broad church. ________________________
Labour rebels are lining up John Healey, the Defence Secretary, as a “unity candidate” to challenge Sir Keir Starmer for the leadership, The Telegraph understands. A rising number of backbenchers believe Mr Healey would draw support from both the Right and Left of the parliamentary party. Some on the moderate wing of the party believe that Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, has become too “toxic”, particularly following his decision to publish his WhatsApp messages with Lord Mandelson. Meanwhile, allies of Angela Rayner admit it will be difficult for her to run in a leadership contest while HMRC continues its investigation into her tax affairs. It comes amid a push from within the party to steer Labour in a different direction to the one piloted by Morgan McSweeney, who quit as Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff this month over the Mandelson scandal. On Saturday night Labour’s biggest union backers, along with 25 backbench MPs, accused the Prime Minister of pursuing a “narrow factional agenda”. They said this was proving “increasingly unpopular with the public” and called for the party to “work together to strengthen our democracy and reverse this damaging behaviour”.
Replacing a bland non entity with another bland not entity in a leadership battle seems quite unlikely to create unity. Just saying.
You can just say as much as you like, if that's the best you can come up with.
You do know we can't just defend the UK with Focus leaflets, right?
I think one of the lessons the politicians need to avoid is being manipulated, firstly by suppliers, and then by military establishments and retired senior officers from one or three decades ago.
I'm sure we are due another unidentified General from the USA to pop up in the Times and declare that X, Y or Z in the UK Armed forces is now second rate, or unfit for purpose, and lots of more money must be spent on something something something or the UK is finished. There seems to be a rota of them.
If I recall the SDR, it proposed a possible increase to 12 hunter killer submarines over time. There is not money for everything now, and were there money for everything now trying to use it that fast would be very poor economy and continue the feast and famine cycle that has damaged our industry over 40 years.
The pols need to make sure that our scarce resources are allocated as carefully and effectively as possible. And that is going to involve reining in the various lobbies.
Ukraine are now looking towards military exports, that’s a blooming good starting point as well as existing collaborations there.
The biggest current problem is a lack of ammunition, as much as a lack of base weapons systems.
And yes, there needs to be a way to stop the brass hats in Whitehall from retiring early, then ending up shortly afterwards as well-paid sales managers for defence companies giving the nudge-nudge wink-wink to the current set of brass hats in Whitehall.
Agreed on that.
I also think the Govt could do with publishing a bit more specific information in a lot of areas. Not much more, just enough.
Ammunition supply is one example - where is manufacturing capacity for 155mm shells in UK/Europe these days? I think it was transformed by last.
The numbers I see are that it is up 10 fold or more, including in the UK, where we in 2022 were targetting a x16 increase by 2026 (and I think 8x by 2025) - done under both the current and previous Governments, but the Govt (both of them) don't talk about it very much.
Over in the USA aiui they are still partly on a Royal Ordnance style model.
Artillery shells are becoming less of an issue. Whereas in the past you'd send in 100 shells to flatten an entire area whilst maybe hitting a couple of combatants, you now send in ten drones to kill 5. The battlefield is now far more intensely targeted than it was even two years ago.
Plus, the drones now target the artillery sending in those 100 shells. Their range is greater than the artillery.
Below is what the first bit of the (paywalled) Telegraph article actually says. Important points if they are correct: 1. Sources on right of the party are turning against Streeting. 2. Sources on left are worried about Rayner's prospects while HMRC investigations continues. In that context a compromise unity candidate without baggage could have some traction. After 11 years of being led by factional leaders, I sense that there is actually quite a desire amongst many of the MPs and the members remaining in the party to reunite as a broad church. ________________________
Labour rebels are lining up John Healey, the Defence Secretary, as a “unity candidate” to challenge Sir Keir Starmer for the leadership, The Telegraph understands. A rising number of backbenchers believe Mr Healey would draw support from both the Right and Left of the parliamentary party. Some on the moderate wing of the party believe that Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, has become too “toxic”, particularly following his decision to publish his WhatsApp messages with Lord Mandelson. Meanwhile, allies of Angela Rayner admit it will be difficult for her to run in a leadership contest while HMRC continues its investigation into her tax affairs. It comes amid a push from within the party to steer Labour in a different direction to the one piloted by Morgan McSweeney, who quit as Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff this month over the Mandelson scandal. On Saturday night Labour’s biggest union backers, along with 25 backbench MPs, accused the Prime Minister of pursuing a “narrow factional agenda”. They said this was proving “increasingly unpopular with the public” and called for the party to “work together to strengthen our democracy and reverse this damaging behaviour”.
Replacing a bland non entity with another bland not entity in a leadership battle seems quite unlikely to create unity. Just saying.
Indeed.
EICIPM is far more likely, to revive a decade old aphorism.
Below is what the first bit of the (paywalled) Telegraph article actually says. Important points if they are correct: 1. Sources on right of the party are turning against Streeting. 2. Sources on left are worried about Rayner's prospects while HMRC investigations continues. In that context a compromise unity candidate without baggage could have some traction. After 11 years of being led by factional leaders, I sense that there is actually quite a desire amongst many of the MPs and the members remaining in the party to reunite as a broad church. ________________________
Labour rebels are lining up John Healey, the Defence Secretary, as a “unity candidate” to challenge Sir Keir Starmer for the leadership, The Telegraph understands. A rising number of backbenchers believe Mr Healey would draw support from both the Right and Left of the parliamentary party. Some on the moderate wing of the party believe that Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, has become too “toxic”, particularly following his decision to publish his WhatsApp messages with Lord Mandelson. Meanwhile, allies of Angela Rayner admit it will be difficult for her to run in a leadership contest while HMRC continues its investigation into her tax affairs. It comes amid a push from within the party to steer Labour in a different direction to the one piloted by Morgan McSweeney, who quit as Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff this month over the Mandelson scandal. On Saturday night Labour’s biggest union backers, along with 25 backbench MPs, accused the Prime Minister of pursuing a “narrow factional agenda”. They said this was proving “increasingly unpopular with the public” and called for the party to “work together to strengthen our democracy and reverse this damaging behaviour”.
Replacing a bland non entity with another bland not entity in a leadership battle seems quite unlikely to create unity. Just saying.
But see who the unions get behind. Healey will suit them.
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
Emigrants have always tended to be of working age. I don’t think that’s new.
Those coming in on work visas are mostly highly skilled.
No not new but 91% is high. I think it’s something policy makers should be concerned about. Not complacent and just shrug their shoulders and say it’s always been the case.
Not everyone comes in on work Visa’s, even those of working age, it’s less than three quarters, and not all jobs are highly skilled. Whatever that much abused phrase means these days.
Also a high proportion of kids and over 65’s neither of whom will be a net beneficiary to the economy although in time some of the kids will.
Still, one area where we lead the rest of Europe is Youth Unemployment.
"A high proportion of ....over 65s" coming in? Are you kidding.
The net flow of over 65s is strongly out not in to this country, including retirees off to the likes of Spain and Portugal. Despite that, the UK's population is still ageing rapidly, a big problem.
Immigration into the UK is reducing the rate at which the UK population is ageing. What matters is that immigration and net population growth is kept at manageable levels, rather than at the levels reached in the first part of this decade which are now reducing rapidly.
I said kids and over 65s, not just over 65’s, and it is just over a fifth. I’d call that a high proportion and unless they can pay their way why should any over 65s come in ?
and whereas you may have been right historically that is not what the most recent figures show as it is 91% working age leaving. To quote.
“What do we know about British people who emigrated in the latest year? Most, 91 per cent, were of working age (16-64), 8 per cent were children and only 1 per cent were in the 65-plus age group. There is ammunition there for those who think we are losing working-age talent.“
I’d say what matters also is the quality of immigration as well as managing the quantity.
Below is what the first bit of the (paywalled) Telegraph article actually says. Important points if they are correct: 1. Sources on right of the party are turning against Streeting. 2. Sources on left are worried about Rayner's prospects while HMRC investigations continues. In that context a compromise unity candidate without baggage could have some traction. After 11 years of being led by factional leaders, I sense that there is actually quite a desire amongst many of the MPs and the members remaining in the party to reunite as a broad church. ________________________
Labour rebels are lining up John Healey, the Defence Secretary, as a “unity candidate” to challenge Sir Keir Starmer for the leadership, The Telegraph understands. A rising number of backbenchers believe Mr Healey would draw support from both the Right and Left of the parliamentary party. Some on the moderate wing of the party believe that Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, has become too “toxic”, particularly following his decision to publish his WhatsApp messages with Lord Mandelson. Meanwhile, allies of Angela Rayner admit it will be difficult for her to run in a leadership contest while HMRC continues its investigation into her tax affairs. It comes amid a push from within the party to steer Labour in a different direction to the one piloted by Morgan McSweeney, who quit as Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff this month over the Mandelson scandal. On Saturday night Labour’s biggest union backers, along with 25 backbench MPs, accused the Prime Minister of pursuing a “narrow factional agenda”. They said this was proving “increasingly unpopular with the public” and called for the party to “work together to strengthen our democracy and reverse this damaging behaviour”.
Replacing a bland non entity with another bland not entity in a leadership battle seems quite unlikely to create unity. Just saying.
Indeed.
EICIPM is far more likely, to revive a decade old aphorism.
Eh?
Ed (Miliband) is crap is Prime Minister.
Said so frequently in 2014-5 that the abbreviaction came into common use on PB.
You do know we can't just defend the UK with Focus leaflets, right?
I think one of the lessons the politicians need to avoid is being manipulated, firstly by suppliers, and then by military establishments and retired senior officers from one or three decades ago.
I'm sure we are due another unidentified General from the USA to pop up in the Times and declare that X, Y or Z in the UK Armed forces is now second rate, or unfit for purpose, and lots of more money must be spent on something something something or the UK is finished. There seems to be a rota of them.
If I recall the SDR, it proposed a possible increase to 12 hunter killer submarines over time. There is not money for everything now, and were there money for everything now trying to use it that fast would be very poor economy and continue the feast and famine cycle that has damaged our industry over 40 years.
The pols need to make sure that our scarce resources are allocated as carefully and effectively as possible. And that is going to involve reining in the various lobbies.
Meanwhile our £3.7bn carrier just broke down again and has had to drop out of a NATO exercise.
Healey has shortened significantly in last few hours.
Now 13 on Betfair, was approx 26 a few hours ago.
He's now 4th favourite.
Young cardinals backing old popes? Healey is 66 years old. I've mentioned him before as a possible caretaker but can't see him as the next Prime Minister. Most bookmakers do not pay out on temporary or caretaker leaders.
I was surprised by odds on Next Labour leader vs Next Prime Minister.
Healey is 29 and 14. Lammy is 95 and 32.
Why the huge differences for some candidates?
(I've cashed out of this market and taken my profit, though I'm still in SKS exit date.)
Healey's odds are moving fast based on article in today's Telegraph.
Assuming you are looking at Betfair the 29 has now gone and he is now 19.5 for leader (still 14 for PM).
Telegraph is not suggesting Healey as a caretaker - report says he is seen as the only candidate who can unite the left and right of the party and be highly credible as PM.
He is obviously very strong on defence and will have stature dealing with world leaders. But he is also attractive to the soft left as he used to be in the Tribune group.
If Labour MPs want to win the next GE they should absolutely go for him.
That could also be the Telegraph shit-stirring.
It has been known.
Or it could be you are ignoring somebody obvious who could do the job and get the Labour Party united around him.
As I suggested earlier last week. When his odds were 80/1....
The principal problem this government had is failure to deliver. We're still waiting for the overdue defence spending plan after last summer's SDR (which is full of obsolete assumptions anyway).
It's possible Healey has something about him (he did, minimally, acknowledge the disaster that is Ajax), but it's also very possible he's just another donkey as malc says.
What he certainly hasn't done is make a case for taking the top job. He's yet to convince that he can do the existing one.
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
Emigrants have always tended to be of working age. I don’t think that’s new.
Those coming in on work visas are mostly highly skilled.
No not new but 91% is high. I think it’s something policy makers should be concerned about. Not complacent and just shrug their shoulders and say it’s always been the case.
Not everyone comes in on work Visa’s, even those of working age, it’s less than three quarters, and not all jobs are highly skilled. Whatever that much abused phrase means these days.
Also a high proportion of kids and over 65’s neither of whom will be a net beneficiary to the economy although in time some of the kids will.
Still, one area where we lead the rest of Europe is Youth Unemployment.
yes and they bring extended families once in as well, so far from ideal. This country is a soft mark and the arses running the show do not want to do anything about it.
The ability to bring in extended families has pretty much disappeared over the last years.
Yet in the most recent figures cited in the article upthread of those coming in 13 per cent were children and 8 per cent were 65-plus.
Even merchant bankers and top surgeons have families.
It is never going to be zero in those numbers.
So hardly ‘pretty much disappeared’ as you claimed.
In the numbers exactly how many were merchant bankers and top surgeons ?
Almost as though Trump is actively on one side and not just mediating, hmm.
Comment 2:Zelensky has yielded to virtually every Trump demand: ceasefire, minerals deal, new elections. Russia, conversely, has refused a ceasefire and expanded its air war on Ukrainian cities and civilian infrastructure. At the same time, Trump has reduced direct military assistance to Ukraine to near zero. Offcials in Europe and Ukraine tell me Putin reads that as an invitation to continue the war and stick to his maximalist demands.
Comment 1: Trump urges Zelensky to reach a deal with Russia quickly
“Russia wants to make a deal, and Zelensky will have to hurry. Otherwise, he will miss a great opportunity. He needs to act.”
Healey has shortened significantly in last few hours.
Now 13 on Betfair, was approx 26 a few hours ago.
He's now 4th favourite.
Young cardinals backing old popes? Healey is 66 years old. I've mentioned him before as a possible caretaker but can't see him as the next Prime Minister. Most bookmakers do not pay out on temporary or caretaker leaders.
I was surprised by odds on Next Labour leader vs Next Prime Minister.
Healey is 29 and 14. Lammy is 95 and 32.
Why the huge differences for some candidates?
(I've cashed out of this market and taken my profit, though I'm still in SKS exit date.)
Healey's odds are moving fast based on article in today's Telegraph.
Assuming you are looking at Betfair the 29 has now gone and he is now 19.5 for leader (still 14 for PM).
Telegraph is not suggesting Healey as a caretaker - report says he is seen as the only candidate who can unite the left and right of the party and be highly credible as PM.
He is obviously very strong on defence and will have stature dealing with world leaders. But he is also attractive to the soft left as he used to be in the Tribune group.
If Labour MPs want to win the next GE they should absolutely go for him.
That could also be the Telegraph shit-stirring.
It has been known.
Or it could be you are ignoring somebody obvious who could do the job and get the Labour Party united around him.
As I suggested earlier last week. When his odds were 80/1....
He’s 66. Remember the problems Menzies Campbell had as LibDem leader at 65.
Healey was looking pretty spry when I saw him in December.
Campbell held the British 100 metres record for 7 years.
But he didn't age well. He looked...doddery. Old before his years.
It is not clear if this is a new (or revised) drop or just a reannouncement of what had already been released. The embedded video suggests new, but then that is not dated.
I think it was CNN that posted an analysis that said we have seen something like 300GB of files so far. There are 15TB...
Sounds like a lot of video files if it is that much.
To start my Sunday and even before coffee and breakfast, I decided to have a look at the thoughts of Rupert Lowe on the Restore UK website.
I'm sure some will agree with every word but apart from the fiscally incoherent nonsense which seems to blight parties like this - Reform isn't quite as bad but still it's all about cutting everything and little thought on improving public provision.
Presumably he has a plan for all the Halal and Kosher businesses he is going to ruin - to be fair, he doesn't explictly say Halal or Kosher products can't be imported but he performs the wondrous feat of coming over as both anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic at the same time.
It's a crude form of Christian ethno-nationalism and I doubt it would be a pleasant place even for those who might meet his ethnic criteria but not his cultural. It's not as though Christianity is being "pushed out" - I live opposite a Church, that Church houses Christian services as well as evangelical groups. I'm not far from a mosque and a gurdwara and a Hindu temple. All those of faith in my part of the world have a place of worship and that's how it should be.
It would be an inward-looking isolationist Britain he would lead and I don't think that's where most people want to be if they think about it. Shutting the door and trying to create your version of paradise is what happens in North Korea, not Britain. He will have his supporters doubtless and the antics of him and his lynch mob going up the coast trying to harrass a group of innocent and legitimate seafarers shows the depths of his idiocy.
I'm sure in his own mind he means well but as words on a webpage they came over as deeply unpleasant and divisive.
It is not clear if this is a new (or revised) drop or just a reannouncement of what had already been released. The embedded video suggests new, but then that is not dated.
They have certainly redacted information on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity though, even though the law apparently says not to do so. There's not really another explanation for lots of individual names not to have been incldued in the released files given those people, innocent of wrongdoing or unverified, are not victims.
Below is what the first bit of the (paywalled) Telegraph article actually says. Important points if they are correct: 1. Sources on right of the party are turning against Streeting. 2. Sources on left are worried about Rayner's prospects while HMRC investigations continues. In that context a compromise unity candidate without baggage could have some traction. After 11 years of being led by factional leaders, I sense that there is actually quite a desire amongst many of the MPs and the members remaining in the party to reunite as a broad church. ________________________
Labour rebels are lining up John Healey, the Defence Secretary, as a “unity candidate” to challenge Sir Keir Starmer for the leadership, The Telegraph understands. A rising number of backbenchers believe Mr Healey would draw support from both the Right and Left of the parliamentary party. Some on the moderate wing of the party believe that Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, has become too “toxic”, particularly following his decision to publish his WhatsApp messages with Lord Mandelson. Meanwhile, allies of Angela Rayner admit it will be difficult for her to run in a leadership contest while HMRC continues its investigation into her tax affairs. It comes amid a push from within the party to steer Labour in a different direction to the one piloted by Morgan McSweeney, who quit as Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff this month over the Mandelson scandal. On Saturday night Labour’s biggest union backers, along with 25 backbench MPs, accused the Prime Minister of pursuing a “narrow factional agenda”. They said this was proving “increasingly unpopular with the public” and called for the party to “work together to strengthen our democracy and reverse this damaging behaviour”.
Replacing a bland non entity with another bland not entity in a leadership battle seems quite unlikely to create unity. Just saying.
You can just say as much as you like, if that's the best you can come up with.
Unity, which is a rarity in party politics, comes from a strong leader able to lead and dominate the conversation, not "trolleys" who everyone thinks they can drive down their preferred path.
Perhaps Healey is a good compromise, or he'll do for now, candidate but he is not one who will create unity.
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
Emigrants have always tended to be of working age. I don’t think that’s new.
Those coming in on work visas are mostly highly skilled.
No not new but 91% is high. I think it’s something policy makers should be concerned about. Not complacent and just shrug their shoulders and say it’s always been the case.
Not everyone comes in on work Visa’s, even those of working age, it’s less than three quarters, and not all jobs are highly skilled. Whatever that much abused phrase means these days.
Also a high proportion of kids and over 65’s neither of whom will be a net beneficiary to the economy although in time some of the kids will.
Still, one area where we lead the rest of Europe is Youth Unemployment.
yes and they bring extended families once in as well, so far from ideal. This country is a soft mark and the arses running the show do not want to do anything about it.
The ability to bring in extended families has pretty much disappeared over the last years.
Yet in the most recent figures cited in the article upthread of those coming in 13 per cent were children and 8 per cent were 65-plus.
Even merchant bankers and top surgeons have families.
It is never going to be zero in those numbers.
So hardly ‘pretty much disappeared’ as you claimed.
In the numbers exactly how many were merchant bankers and top surgeons ?
Last year there were 20 000 doctors from abroad newly registered with the GMC, so significant numbers.
Not so easy to find out the numbers working in financial services, but anyone working in the City can confirm that a large number of immigrants work there.
You do know we can't just defend the UK with Focus leaflets, right?
I think one of the lessons the politicians need to avoid is being manipulated, firstly by suppliers, and then by military establishments and retired senior officers from one or three decades ago.
I'm sure we are due another unidentified General from the USA to pop up in the Times and declare that X, Y or Z in the UK Armed forces is now second rate, or unfit for purpose, and lots of more money must be spent on something something something or the UK is finished. There seems to be a rota of them.
If I recall the SDR, it proposed a possible increase to 12 hunter killer submarines over time. There is not money for everything now, and were there money for everything now trying to use it that fast would be very poor economy and continue the feast and famine cycle that has damaged our industry over 40 years.
The pols need to make sure that our scarce resources are allocated as carefully and effectively as possible. And that is going to involve reining in the various lobbies.
Meanwhile our £3.7bn carrier just broke down again and has had to drop out of a NATO exercise.
Perhaps it would have been better to cancel the damn things after all, even though the cost of that was apparently just as much as completing them.
I don't diminish the complexity of building military vehicles and equipment, but utter uselessness of much of it seems to be more than a little uncommon.
You do know we can't just defend the UK with Focus leaflets, right?
I think one of the lessons the politicians need to avoid is being manipulated, firstly by suppliers, and then by military establishments and retired senior officers from one or three decades ago.
I'm sure we are due another unidentified General from the USA to pop up in the Times and declare that X, Y or Z in the UK Armed forces is now second rate, or unfit for purpose, and lots of more money must be spent on something something something or the UK is finished. There seems to be a rota of them.
If I recall the SDR, it proposed a possible increase to 12 hunter killer submarines over time. There is not money for everything now, and were there money for everything now trying to use it that fast would be very poor economy and continue the feast and famine cycle that has damaged our industry over 40 years.
The pols need to make sure that our scarce resources are allocated as carefully and effectively as possible. And that is going to involve reining in the various lobbies.
Ukraine are now looking towards military exports, that’s a blooming good starting point as well as existing collaborations there.
The biggest current problem is a lack of ammunition, as much as a lack of base weapons systems.
And yes, there needs to be a way to stop the brass hats in Whitehall from retiring early, then ending up shortly afterwards as well-paid sales managers for defence companies giving the nudge-nudge wink-wink to the current set of brass hats in Whitehall.
Agreed on that.
I also think the Govt could do with publishing a bit more specific information in a lot of areas. Not much more, just enough.
Ammunition supply is one example - where is manufacturing capacity for 155mm shells in UK/Europe these days? I think it was transformed by last.
The numbers I see are that it is up 10 fold or more, including in the UK, where we in 2022 were targetting a x16 increase by 2026 (and I think 8x by 2025) - done under both the current and previous Governments, but the Govt (both of them) don't talk about it very much.
Over in the USA aiui they are still partly on a Royal Ordnance style model.
Artillery shells are becoming less of an issue. Whereas in the past you'd send in 100 shells to flatten an entire area whilst maybe hitting a couple of combatants, you now send in ten drones to kill 5. The battlefield is now far more intensely targeted than it was even two years ago.
Plus, the drones now target the artillery sending in those 100 shells. Their range is greater than the artillery.
That is the big issue with defence planning. All of our assumptions of five years ago are overturned, and future needs are becoming less predictable.
But it's easy to make some predictions - that air defence is likely to be far more important to the defence of UK than is fielding large numbers of armoured vehicles, for example.
It is not clear if this is a new (or revised) drop or just a reannouncement of what had already been released. The embedded video suggests new, but then that is not dated.
They have certainly redacted information on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity though, even though the law apparently says not to do so. There's not really another explanation for lots of individual names not to have been incldued in the released files given those people, innocent of wrongdoing or unverified, are not victims.
It's also quite clear that rather than have their names redacted as required, many of the Epstein victims have been "accidentally" named, to try to spoil their lives and prevent others still coming forward.
Pam Bondi should go to jail for an age for being party to that. And the State should be paying out billions in punitive damages.
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
Emigrants have always tended to be of working age. I don’t think that’s new.
Those coming in on work visas are mostly highly skilled.
No not new but 91% is high. I think it’s something policy makers should be concerned about. Not complacent and just shrug their shoulders and say it’s always been the case.
Not everyone comes in on work Visa’s, even those of working age, it’s less than three quarters, and not all jobs are highly skilled. Whatever that much abused phrase means these days.
Also a high proportion of kids and over 65’s neither of whom will be a net beneficiary to the economy although in time some of the kids will.
Still, one area where we lead the rest of Europe is Youth Unemployment.
"A high proportion of ....over 65s" coming in? Are you kidding.
The net flow of over 65s is strongly out not in to this country, including retirees off to the likes of Spain and Portugal. Despite that, the UK's population is still ageing rapidly, a big problem.
Immigration into the UK is reducing the rate at which the UK population is ageing. What matters is that immigration and net population growth is kept at manageable levels, rather than at the levels reached in the first part of this decade which are now reducing rapidly.
I said kids and over 65s, not just over 65’s, and it is just over a fifth. I’d call that a high proportion and unless they can pay their way why should any over 65s come in ?
and whereas you may have been right historically that is not what the most recent figures show as it is 91% working age leaving. To quote.
“What do we know about British people who emigrated in the latest year? Most, 91 per cent, were of working age (16-64), 8 per cent were children and only 1 per cent were in the 65-plus age group. There is ammunition there for those who think we are losing working-age talent.“
I’d say what matters also is the quality of immigration as well as managing the quantity.
The 8 percent are British expats deciding to repat. Whilst it's probably true that they have huge amounts of sauce buggering off elsewhere as taxpayers and then expecting the NHS to care for them once healthcare is expensive, I'm not sure we can stop them.
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
Below is what the first bit of the (paywalled) Telegraph article actually says. Important points if they are correct: 1. Sources on right of the party are turning against Streeting. 2. Sources on left are worried about Rayner's prospects while HMRC investigations continues. In that context a compromise unity candidate without baggage could have some traction. After 11 years of being led by factional leaders, I sense that there is actually quite a desire amongst many of the MPs and the members remaining in the party to reunite as a broad church. ________________________
Labour rebels are lining up John Healey, the Defence Secretary, as a “unity candidate” to challenge Sir Keir Starmer for the leadership, The Telegraph understands. A rising number of backbenchers believe Mr Healey would draw support from both the Right and Left of the parliamentary party. Some on the moderate wing of the party believe that Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, has become too “toxic”, particularly following his decision to publish his WhatsApp messages with Lord Mandelson. Meanwhile, allies of Angela Rayner admit it will be difficult for her to run in a leadership contest while HMRC continues its investigation into her tax affairs. It comes amid a push from within the party to steer Labour in a different direction to the one piloted by Morgan McSweeney, who quit as Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff this month over the Mandelson scandal. On Saturday night Labour’s biggest union backers, along with 25 backbench MPs, accused the Prime Minister of pursuing a “narrow factional agenda”. They said this was proving “increasingly unpopular with the public” and called for the party to “work together to strengthen our democracy and reverse this damaging behaviour”.
Replacing a bland non entity with another bland not entity in a leadership battle seems quite unlikely to create unity. Just saying.
When bland doesn't work, you need to take a gamble on someone with charisma and vision.
It can go wrong, but when it works they will swing people round to them who were initially opposed better than a milquetoast automaton petrified of offending one faction or another, or a partisan disguised through being very boring.
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
Healey has shortened significantly in last few hours.
Now 13 on Betfair, was approx 26 a few hours ago.
He's now 4th favourite.
Young cardinals backing old popes? Healey is 66 years old. I've mentioned him before as a possible caretaker but can't see him as the next Prime Minister. Most bookmakers do not pay out on temporary or caretaker leaders.
I was surprised by odds on Next Labour leader vs Next Prime Minister.
Healey is 29 and 14. Lammy is 95 and 32.
Why the huge differences for some candidates?
(I've cashed out of this market and taken my profit, though I'm still in SKS exit date.)
Healey's odds are moving fast based on article in today's Telegraph.
Assuming you are looking at Betfair the 29 has now gone and he is now 19.5 for leader (still 14 for PM).
Telegraph is not suggesting Healey as a caretaker - report says he is seen as the only candidate who can unite the left and right of the party and be highly credible as PM.
He is obviously very strong on defence and will have stature dealing with world leaders. But he is also attractive to the soft left as he used to be in the Tribune group.
If Labour MPs want to win the next GE they should absolutely go for him.
That could also be the Telegraph shit-stirring.
It has been known.
Or it could be you are ignoring somebody obvious who could do the job and get the Labour Party united around him.
As I suggested earlier last week. When his odds were 80/1....
He’s 66. Remember the problems Menzies Campbell had as LibDem leader at 65.
Healey was looking pretty spry when I saw him in December.
Campbell held the British 100 metres record for 7 years.
But he didn't age well. He looked...doddery. Old before his years.
That’s the point. He was very fit, but he looked old and the voters didn’t like that. Healey is only 3 years older than Starmer, but looks 10 years older. I don’t know what the voters will make of that. (This shouldn’t matter. I am not endorsing the electorate’s ageism.)
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
You do know we can't just defend the UK with Focus leaflets, right?
I think one of the lessons the politicians need to avoid is being manipulated, firstly by suppliers, and then by military establishments and retired senior officers from one or three decades ago.
I'm sure we are due another unidentified General from the USA to pop up in the Times and declare that X, Y or Z in the UK Armed forces is now second rate, or unfit for purpose, and lots of more money must be spent on something something something or the UK is finished. There seems to be a rota of them.
If I recall the SDR, it proposed a possible increase to 12 hunter killer submarines over time. There is not money for everything now, and were there money for everything now trying to use it that fast would be very poor economy and continue the feast and famine cycle that has damaged our industry over 40 years.
The pols need to make sure that our scarce resources are allocated as carefully and effectively as possible. And that is going to involve reining in the various lobbies.
Meanwhile our £3.7bn carrier just broke down again and has had to drop out of a NATO exercise.
Perhaps it would have been better to cancel the damn things after all, even though the cost of that was apparently just as much as completing them.
I don't diminish the complexity of building military vehicles and equipment, but utter uselessness of much of it seems to be more than a little uncommon.
In times of piece, pretty much all Western military equipment is prototype rather than production based.
This was one of the clear problems with Ajax, in that the source vehicles were hand built and no two were the same.
Which is why friendly countries should collaborate on standardised equipment, rather than everyone trying to design their own.
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
Emigrants have always tended to be of working age. I don’t think that’s new.
Those coming in on work visas are mostly highly skilled.
No not new but 91% is high. I think it’s something policy makers should be concerned about. Not complacent and just shrug their shoulders and say it’s always been the case.
Not everyone comes in on work Visa’s, even those of working age, it’s less than three quarters, and not all jobs are highly skilled. Whatever that much abused phrase means these days.
Also a high proportion of kids and over 65’s neither of whom will be a net beneficiary to the economy although in time some of the kids will.
Still, one area where we lead the rest of Europe is Youth Unemployment.
yes and they bring extended families once in as well, so far from ideal. This country is a soft mark and the arses running the show do not want to do anything about it.
The ability to bring in extended families has pretty much disappeared over the last years.
Yet in the most recent figures cited in the article upthread of those coming in 13 per cent were children and 8 per cent were 65-plus.
Even merchant bankers and top surgeons have families.
It is never going to be zero in those numbers.
So hardly ‘pretty much disappeared’ as you claimed.
In the numbers exactly how many were merchant bankers and top surgeons ?
Last year there were 20 000 doctors from abroad newly registered with the GMC, so significant numbers.
Not so easy to find out the numbers working in financial services, but anyone working in the City can confirm that a large number of immigrants work there.
But how many were ‘top surgeons’ as opposed to resident Doctors. You specifically said ‘Top Surgeons’. We know theres an issue with Resident Doctor places and competition from overseas which is feeding into the strikes.
As for the city, you stated Merchant Bankers and city jobs are far more than just thst, there will be many, I have some friends who are, but many will be historic and it doesn’t say how many came in the last twelve months. Quite frankly anyone coming to work in the city should be welcomed with open arms if it’s high paying jobs that contribute.
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
Emigrants have always tended to be of working age. I don’t think that’s new.
Those coming in on work visas are mostly highly skilled.
No not new but 91% is high. I think it’s something policy makers should be concerned about. Not complacent and just shrug their shoulders and say it’s always been the case.
Not everyone comes in on work Visa’s, even those of working age, it’s less than three quarters, and not all jobs are highly skilled. Whatever that much abused phrase means these days.
Also a high proportion of kids and over 65’s neither of whom will be a net beneficiary to the economy although in time some of the kids will.
Still, one area where we lead the rest of Europe is Youth Unemployment.
"A high proportion of ....over 65s" coming in? Are you kidding.
The net flow of over 65s is strongly out not in to this country, including retirees off to the likes of Spain and Portugal. Despite that, the UK's population is still ageing rapidly, a big problem.
Immigration into the UK is reducing the rate at which the UK population is ageing. What matters is that immigration and net population growth is kept at manageable levels, rather than at the levels reached in the first part of this decade which are now reducing rapidly.
I said kids and over 65s, not just over 65’s, and it is just over a fifth. I’d call that a high proportion and unless they can pay their way why should any over 65s come in ?
and whereas you may have been right historically that is not what the most recent figures show as it is 91% working age leaving. To quote.
“What do we know about British people who emigrated in the latest year? Most, 91 per cent, were of working age (16-64), 8 per cent were children and only 1 per cent were in the 65-plus age group. There is ammunition there for those who think we are losing working-age talent.“
I’d say what matters also is the quality of immigration as well as managing the quantity.
exactly , all skilled workers leaving and at least big proportion of non workers ( ie burdens ) coming in.
You do know we can't just defend the UK with Focus leaflets, right?
I think one of the lessons the politicians need to avoid is being manipulated, firstly by suppliers, and then by military establishments and retired senior officers from one or three decades ago.
I'm sure we are due another unidentified General from the USA to pop up in the Times and declare that X, Y or Z in the UK Armed forces is now second rate, or unfit for purpose, and lots of more money must be spent on something something something or the UK is finished. There seems to be a rota of them.
If I recall the SDR, it proposed a possible increase to 12 hunter killer submarines over time. There is not money for everything now, and were there money for everything now trying to use it that fast would be very poor economy and continue the feast and famine cycle that has damaged our industry over 40 years.
The pols need to make sure that our scarce resources are allocated as carefully and effectively as possible. And that is going to involve reining in the various lobbies.
Meanwhile our £3.7bn carrier just broke down again and has had to drop out of a NATO exercise.
Perhaps it would have been better to cancel the damn things after all, even though the cost of that was apparently just as much as completing them.
I don't diminish the complexity of building military vehicles and equipment, but utter uselessness of much of it seems to be more than a little uncommon.
In times of piece, pretty much all Western military equipment is prototype rather than production based.
This was one of the clear problems with Ajax, in that the source vehicles were hand built and no two were the same.
Which is why friendly countries should collaborate on standardised equipment, rather than everyone trying to design their own.
The problem is you think you’re collaborating with a friendly country and then they elect Donald Trump.
You do know we can't just defend the UK with Focus leaflets, right?
I think one of the lessons the politicians need to avoid is being manipulated, firstly by suppliers, and then by military establishments and retired senior officers from one or three decades ago.
I'm sure we are due another unidentified General from the USA to pop up in the Times and declare that X, Y or Z in the UK Armed forces is now second rate, or unfit for purpose, and lots of more money must be spent on something something something or the UK is finished. There seems to be a rota of them.
If I recall the SDR, it proposed a possible increase to 12 hunter killer submarines over time. There is not money for everything now, and were there money for everything now trying to use it that fast would be very poor economy and continue the feast and famine cycle that has damaged our industry over 40 years.
The pols need to make sure that our scarce resources are allocated as carefully and effectively as possible. And that is going to involve reining in the various lobbies.
Meanwhile our £3.7bn carrier just broke down again and has had to drop out of a NATO exercise.
Do you have a report?
Everything up until 10 minutes ago is full of "carrier strike group going to the High North".
You do know we can't just defend the UK with Focus leaflets, right?
I think one of the lessons the politicians need to avoid is being manipulated, firstly by suppliers, and then by military establishments and retired senior officers from one or three decades ago.
I'm sure we are due another unidentified General from the USA to pop up in the Times and declare that X, Y or Z in the UK Armed forces is now second rate, or unfit for purpose, and lots of more money must be spent on something something something or the UK is finished. There seems to be a rota of them.
If I recall the SDR, it proposed a possible increase to 12 hunter killer submarines over time. There is not money for everything now, and were there money for everything now trying to use it that fast would be very poor economy and continue the feast and famine cycle that has damaged our industry over 40 years.
The pols need to make sure that our scarce resources are allocated as carefully and effectively as possible. And that is going to involve reining in the various lobbies.
Ukraine are now looking towards military exports, that’s a blooming good starting point as well as existing collaborations there.
The biggest current problem is a lack of ammunition, as much as a lack of base weapons systems.
And yes, there needs to be a way to stop the brass hats in Whitehall from retiring early, then ending up shortly afterwards as well-paid sales managers for defence companies giving the nudge-nudge wink-wink to the current set of brass hats in Whitehall.
Agreed on that.
I also think the Govt could do with publishing a bit more specific information in a lot of areas. Not much more, just enough.
Ammunition supply is one example - where is manufacturing capacity for 155mm shells in UK/Europe these days? I think it was transformed by last.
The numbers I see are that it is up 10 fold or more, including in the UK, where we in 2022 were targetting a x16 increase by 2026 (and I think 8x by 2025) - done under both the current and previous Governments, but the Govt (both of them) don't talk about it very much.
Over in the USA aiui they are still partly on a Royal Ordnance style model.
Artillery shells are becoming less of an issue. Whereas in the past you'd send in 100 shells to flatten an entire area whilst maybe hitting a couple of combatants, you now send in ten drones to kill 5. The battlefield is now far more intensely targeted than it was even two years ago.
Plus, the drones now target the artillery sending in those 100 shells. Their range is greater than the artillery.
That is the big issue with defence planning. All of our assumptions of five years ago are overturned, and future needs are becoming less predictable.
But it's easy to make some predictions - that air defence is likely to be far more important to the defence of UK than is fielding large numbers of armoured vehicles, for example.
I'd add protection of undersea cables and piplelines to that. Vital to trade and power.
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
Emigrants have always tended to be of working age. I don’t think that’s new.
Those coming in on work visas are mostly highly skilled.
those are not the problem ones
The English?
some of them as well, and some Scottish ones. Far too many slackers in the UK happy to suck on the public teat.
Well, as Art Laffer says, if you pay people to be idle they’ll be idle.
We live in a nation of entitled people who expect others to pick up,the tab when they’ve finiancially contributed little. people say ‘but the state pension’ but that is a contribution based benefit unlike the majority of the other benefits.
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
Under the Tories, breaches of standards in public office went to the heart of their mismanagement of the nation. But under him, they are of secondary importance. Not to be confused with the serious business of establishing breakfast clubs and preventing teenagers from accessing TikTok.
Then there are the rules surrounding ministerial responsibility. Prior to last week, Starmer was again clear.
During the Labour leadership election he piously demanded: ‘Hear me out! I had 8,000 staff for five years as the Director of Public Prosecutions… when they made mistakes, I carried the can. I never turn on my staff, and you should never turn on your staff.’
It was a theme he repeatedly pressed, to devastating effect, against Johnson and his Cabinet through the Covid crisis and beyond. ‘It’s no good the Prime Minister flailing around, trying to blame others. It’s time he took responsibility for his own failures,’ he railed repeatedly.
Yet, in the past week, this rule has also now been inverted.
He has turned on – and turfed out – every one of his most senior officials. His chief of staff. His director of communications. His Cabinet Secretary.
As another senior government official told me: ‘I struggle to think of a PM more willing to throw under the bus those who have been loyal to him.’
So this is the other new Starmer Rule. The buck should have stopped with Boris Johnson. But there is no need for it to even pause for breath when it’s in the vicinity of himself.
Below is what the first bit of the (paywalled) Telegraph article actually says. Important points if they are correct: 1. Sources on right of the party are turning against Streeting. 2. Sources on left are worried about Rayner's prospects while HMRC investigations continues. In that context a compromise unity candidate without baggage could have some traction. After 11 years of being led by factional leaders, I sense that there is actually quite a desire amongst many of the MPs and the members remaining in the party to reunite as a broad church. ________________________
Labour rebels are lining up John Healey, the Defence Secretary, as a “unity candidate” to challenge Sir Keir Starmer for the leadership, The Telegraph understands. A rising number of backbenchers believe Mr Healey would draw support from both the Right and Left of the parliamentary party. Some on the moderate wing of the party believe that Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, has become too “toxic”, particularly following his decision to publish his WhatsApp messages with Lord Mandelson. Meanwhile, allies of Angela Rayner admit it will be difficult for her to run in a leadership contest while HMRC continues its investigation into her tax affairs. It comes amid a push from within the party to steer Labour in a different direction to the one piloted by Morgan McSweeney, who quit as Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff this month over the Mandelson scandal. On Saturday night Labour’s biggest union backers, along with 25 backbench MPs, accused the Prime Minister of pursuing a “narrow factional agenda”. They said this was proving “increasingly unpopular with the public” and called for the party to “work together to strengthen our democracy and reverse this damaging behaviour”.
Replacing a bland non entity with another bland not entity in a leadership battle seems quite unlikely to create unity. Just saying.
You can just say as much as you like, if that's the best you can come up with.
Unity, which is a rarity in party politics, comes from a strong leader able to lead and dominate the conversation, not "trolleys" who everyone thinks they can drive down their preferred path.
Perhaps Healey is a good compromise, or he'll do for now, candidate but he is not one who will create unity.
You're both wrong - what creates unity is success. Parties which are doing well are always united - parties which aren't become divided as those frustrated by failure can't conceal their frustration.
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
Emigrants have always tended to be of working age. I don’t think that’s new.
Those coming in on work visas are mostly highly skilled.
No not new but 91% is high. I think it’s something policy makers should be concerned about. Not complacent and just shrug their shoulders and say it’s always been the case.
Not everyone comes in on work Visa’s, even those of working age, it’s less than three quarters, and not all jobs are highly skilled. Whatever that much abused phrase means these days.
Also a high proportion of kids and over 65’s neither of whom will be a net beneficiary to the economy although in time some of the kids will.
Still, one area where we lead the rest of Europe is Youth Unemployment.
"A high proportion of ....over 65s" coming in? Are you kidding.
The net flow of over 65s is strongly out not in to this country, including retirees off to the likes of Spain and Portugal. Despite that, the UK's population is still ageing rapidly, a big problem.
Immigration into the UK is reducing the rate at which the UK population is ageing. What matters is that immigration and net population growth is kept at manageable levels, rather than at the levels reached in the first part of this decade which are now reducing rapidly.
I said kids and over 65s, not just over 65’s, and it is just over a fifth. I’d call that a high proportion and unless they can pay their way why should any over 65s come in ?
and whereas you may have been right historically that is not what the most recent figures show as it is 91% working age leaving. To quote.
“What do we know about British people who emigrated in the latest year? Most, 91 per cent, were of working age (16-64), 8 per cent were children and only 1 per cent were in the 65-plus age group. There is ammunition there for those who think we are losing working-age talent.“
I’d say what matters also is the quality of immigration as well as managing the quantity.
The 8 percent are British expats deciding to repat. Whilst it's probably true that they have huge amounts of sauce buggering off elsewhere as taxpayers and then expecting the NHS to care for them once healthcare is expensive, I'm not sure we can stop them.
Apparently curling is the most popular Olympic sport, that the average person thinks they could get good at with a little training and practice.
So how come those actually at the Olympics are all young and fit, same as athletes for any other sport? There’s no random unfit 50-year-old who makes the team.
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
Emigrants have always tended to be of working age. I don’t think that’s new.
Those coming in on work visas are mostly highly skilled.
those are not the problem ones
The English?
some of them as well, and some Scottish ones. Far too many slackers in the UK happy to suck on the public teat.
Well, as Art Laffer says, if you pay people to be idle they’ll be idle.
We live in a nation of entitled people who expect others to pick up,the tab when they’ve finiancially contributed little. people say ‘but the state pension’ but that is a contribution based benefit unlike the majority of the other benefits.
Totally agree Taz, lazy barstewards are taken by the hand and showered with freebies whilst workers get robbed to pay for their largesse and Labour think it is great and always want to give more.
You do know we can't just defend the UK with Focus leaflets, right?
I think one of the lessons the politicians need to avoid is being manipulated, firstly by suppliers, and then by military establishments and retired senior officers from one or three decades ago.
I'm sure we are due another unidentified General from the USA to pop up in the Times and declare that X, Y or Z in the UK Armed forces is now second rate, or unfit for purpose, and lots of more money must be spent on something something something or the UK is finished. There seems to be a rota of them.
If I recall the SDR, it proposed a possible increase to 12 hunter killer submarines over time. There is not money for everything now, and were there money for everything now trying to use it that fast would be very poor economy and continue the feast and famine cycle that has damaged our industry over 40 years.
The pols need to make sure that our scarce resources are allocated as carefully and effectively as possible. And that is going to involve reining in the various lobbies.
Meanwhile our £3.7bn carrier just broke down again and has had to drop out of a NATO exercise.
Perhaps it would have been better to cancel the damn things after all, even though the cost of that was apparently just as much as completing them.
I don't diminish the complexity of building military vehicles and equipment, but utter uselessness of much of it seems to be more than a little uncommon.
We don't have the resources to sink such vast amounts of money into single systems which don't work - or which naval development might render obsolete during their planned lifetime.
If we want to do that then 5% of GDP on defence is the only realistic way. As it is, 3.5% is a long term aspiration.
If I were SecDef then I'd demand more money, and if (as would be inevitable) denied, would be ruthless in prioritising.
You do know we can't just defend the UK with Focus leaflets, right?
I think one of the lessons the politicians need to avoid is being manipulated, firstly by suppliers, and then by military establishments and retired senior officers from one or three decades ago.
I'm sure we are due another unidentified General from the USA to pop up in the Times and declare that X, Y or Z in the UK Armed forces is now second rate, or unfit for purpose, and lots of more money must be spent on something something something or the UK is finished. There seems to be a rota of them.
If I recall the SDR, it proposed a possible increase to 12 hunter killer submarines over time. There is not money for everything now, and were there money for everything now trying to use it that fast would be very poor economy and continue the feast and famine cycle that has damaged our industry over 40 years.
The pols need to make sure that our scarce resources are allocated as carefully and effectively as possible. And that is going to involve reining in the various lobbies.
Ukraine are now looking towards military exports, that’s a blooming good starting point as well as existing collaborations there.
The biggest current problem is a lack of ammunition, as much as a lack of base weapons systems.
And yes, there needs to be a way to stop the brass hats in Whitehall from retiring early, then ending up shortly afterwards as well-paid sales managers for defence companies giving the nudge-nudge wink-wink to the current set of brass hats in Whitehall.
Agreed on that.
I also think the Govt could do with publishing a bit more specific information in a lot of areas. Not much more, just enough.
Ammunition supply is one example - where is manufacturing capacity for 155mm shells in UK/Europe these days? I think it was transformed by last.
The numbers I see are that it is up 10 fold or more, including in the UK, where we in 2022 were targetting a x16 increase by 2026 (and I think 8x by 2025) - done under both the current and previous Governments, but the Govt (both of them) don't talk about it very much.
Over in the USA aiui they are still partly on a Royal Ordnance style model.
Artillery shells are becoming less of an issue. Whereas in the past you'd send in 100 shells to flatten an entire area whilst maybe hitting a couple of combatants, you now send in ten drones to kill 5. The battlefield is now far more intensely targeted than it was even two years ago.
Plus, the drones now target the artillery sending in those 100 shells. Their range is greater than the artillery.
That is the big issue with defence planning. All of our assumptions of five years ago are overturned, and future needs are becoming less predictable.
But it's easy to make some predictions - that air defence is likely to be far more important to the defence of UK than is fielding large numbers of armoured vehicles, for example.
I'd add protection of undersea cables and piplelines to that. Vital to trade and power.
Absolutely. Whereas (for example) our role in providing armour for the defence of Europe is effectively gone. And what we do have is obsolete.
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
Emigrants have always tended to be of working age. I don’t think that’s new.
Those coming in on work visas are mostly highly skilled.
those are not the problem ones
The English?
some of them as well, and some Scottish ones. Far too many slackers in the UK happy to suck on the public teat.
Well, as Art Laffer says, if you pay people to be idle they’ll be idle.
We live in a nation of entitled people who expect others to pick up,the tab when they’ve finiancially contributed little. people say ‘but the state pension’ but that is a contribution based benefit unlike the majority of the other benefits.
So we're back once again to the "9 million" - or in truth 8.4 million who claim Universal Credit as distinct from the 22 million in receipt of some form of housing benefit or are they fair game too?
Now, within those numbers we will have Carers who are looking after relatives with disabilities and presumably all those who say they cannot work have completed a Work Capability Assessment.
Given the prevailing view among some that anyone receiving public money is a "sponger" (to use a more charitable term), what should we do?
You can make the assessment more stringent to get people to go back into the workplace but how easy are jobs to find currently? We hear tales of graduate unemployment and people with degrees working in coffee shops (nothing wrong with that in truth). We also know of individuals who have never worked and have chosen to live on benefits and I can understand the sentiment when the country is £150 billion in the hole we shouldn't be supporting those who will not contribute (as distinct from cannot contribute which is different).
I'll be honest - I'm uncomfortable with impoverishing people just to make a political point. I see in my part of the world rough sleepers, addicts and shoplifters and they are often all the same people. To have to live that way to survive or to feed an addiction is something I struggle with - my instinct says we should be doing all we can to break them out of their addiction no matter the cost but I appreciate that's certainly a minority view at this time.
Apparently curling is the most popular Olympic sport, that the average person thinks they could get good at with a little training and practice.
So how come those actually at the Olympics are all young and fit, same as athletes for any other sport? There’s no random unfit 50-year-old who makes the team.
There are a couple actually
The US 5th is 54
The GB women's skip is not anybody's idea of an Olympic athlete
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
Emigrants have always tended to be of working age. I don’t think that’s new.
Those coming in on work visas are mostly highly skilled.
No not new but 91% is high. I think it’s something policy makers should be concerned about. Not complacent and just shrug their shoulders and say it’s always been the case.
Not everyone comes in on work Visa’s, even those of working age, it’s less than three quarters, and not all jobs are highly skilled. Whatever that much abused phrase means these days.
Also a high proportion of kids and over 65’s neither of whom will be a net beneficiary to the economy although in time some of the kids will.
Still, one area where we lead the rest of Europe is Youth Unemployment.
"A high proportion of ....over 65s" coming in? Are you kidding.
The net flow of over 65s is strongly out not in to this country, including retirees off to the likes of Spain and Portugal. Despite that, the UK's population is still ageing rapidly, a big problem.
Immigration into the UK is reducing the rate at which the UK population is ageing. What matters is that immigration and net population growth is kept at manageable levels, rather than at the levels reached in the first part of this decade which are now reducing rapidly.
I said kids and over 65s, not just over 65’s, and it is just over a fifth. I’d call that a high proportion and unless they can pay their way why should any over 65s come in ?
and whereas you may have been right historically that is not what the most recent figures show as it is 91% working age leaving. To quote.
“What do we know about British people who emigrated in the latest year? Most, 91 per cent, were of working age (16-64), 8 per cent were children and only 1 per cent were in the 65-plus age group. There is ammunition there for those who think we are losing working-age talent.“
I’d say what matters also is the quality of immigration as well as managing the quantity.
The 8 percent are British expats deciding to repat. Whilst it's probably true that they have huge amounts of sauce buggering off elsewhere as taxpayers and then expecting the NHS to care for them once healthcare is expensive, I'm not sure we can stop them.
Where in the article does it say the entire 8% are expats coming back ?
I’m sure some are but not all and I’d agree fully with your sentiment, however we do have GHIC cards so perhaps limit expats to that provision ?
From the article:
What do we know about British people who emigrated in the latest year? Most, 91 per cent, were of working age (16-64), 8 per cent were children and only 1 per cent were in the 65-plus age group. There is ammunition there for those who think we are losing working-age talent.
While more than a quarter of a million British people emigrated, however, 143,000 came the other way. Again, most were of working age, 79 per cent, while 13 per cent were children and 8 per cent were 65-plus.
Suspect the bit where Japanese Defence Minister said, "OK, give me an exact date for contract signature for the next stage of GCAP" was a bit uncomfortable. A chat about this last week saw an amazing comment: "in GCAP, we thought Italy was going to be the problem, not the UK." https://x.com/FTusa284/status/2022639406319046863
Apparently curling is the most popular Olympic sport, that the average person thinks they could get good at with a little training and practice.
So how come those actually at the Olympics are all young and fit, same as athletes for any other sport? There’s no random unfit 50-year-old who makes the team.
There are a couple actually
The US 5th is 54
The GB women's skip is not anybody's idea of an Olympic athlete
But in general you're right
I did think of the US 5th guy, but he’s been in or around the US team for three decades and is the senior champion, rather than some random who first picked up a stone a couple of years ago.
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
Emigrants have always tended to be of working age. I don’t think that’s new.
Those coming in on work visas are mostly highly skilled.
No not new but 91% is high. I think it’s something policy makers should be concerned about. Not complacent and just shrug their shoulders and say it’s always been the case.
Not everyone comes in on work Visa’s, even those of working age, it’s less than three quarters, and not all jobs are highly skilled. Whatever that much abused phrase means these days.
Also a high proportion of kids and over 65’s neither of whom will be a net beneficiary to the economy although in time some of the kids will.
Still, one area where we lead the rest of Europe is Youth Unemployment.
"A high proportion of ....over 65s" coming in? Are you kidding.
The net flow of over 65s is strongly out not in to this country, including retirees off to the likes of Spain and Portugal. Despite that, the UK's population is still ageing rapidly, a big problem.
Immigration into the UK is reducing the rate at which the UK population is ageing. What matters is that immigration and net population growth is kept at manageable levels, rather than at the levels reached in the first part of this decade which are now reducing rapidly.
I said kids and over 65s, not just over 65’s, and it is just over a fifth. I’d call that a high proportion and unless they can pay their way why should any over 65s come in ?
and whereas you may have been right historically that is not what the most recent figures show as it is 91% working age leaving. To quote.
“What do we know about British people who emigrated in the latest year? Most, 91 per cent, were of working age (16-64), 8 per cent were children and only 1 per cent were in the 65-plus age group. There is ammunition there for those who think we are losing working-age talent.“
I’d say what matters also is the quality of immigration as well as managing the quantity.
The 8 percent are British expats deciding to repat. Whilst it's probably true that they have huge amounts of sauce buggering off elsewhere as taxpayers and then expecting the NHS to care for them once healthcare is expensive, I'm not sure we can stop them.
Where in the article does it say the entire 8% are expats coming back ?
I’m sure some are but not all and I’d agree fully with your sentiment, however we do have GHIC cards so perhaps limit expats to that provision ?
From the article:
What do we know about British people who emigrated in the latest year? Most, 91 per cent, were of working age (16-64), 8 per cent were children and only 1 per cent were in the 65-plus age group. There is ammunition there for those who think we are losing working-age talent.
While more than a quarter of a million British people emigrated, however, 143,000 came the other way. Again, most were of working age, 79 per cent, while 13 per cent were children and 8 per cent were 65-plus.
That doesn’t mean all of the 65 plus people who came here were Brits. I asked about the entire quantity of the 65 plus. There was far more inward migration than 143,000. Returning Brits are a subset.
Net migration reducing to manageable levels is fine but it is the quality in and out that matters too.
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
Emigrants have always tended to be of working age. I don’t think that’s new.
Those coming in on work visas are mostly highly skilled.
those are not the problem ones
The English?
some of them as well, and some Scottish ones. Far too many slackers in the UK happy to suck on the public teat.
Well, as Art Laffer says, if you pay people to be idle they’ll be idle.
We live in a nation of entitled people who expect others to pick up,the tab when they’ve finiancially contributed little. people say ‘but the state pension’ but that is a contribution based benefit unlike the majority of the other benefits.
Totally agree Taz, lazy barstewards are taken by the hand and showered with freebies whilst workers get robbed to pay for their largesse and Labour think it is great and always want to give more.
Who bought in record numbers of immigrants?
Who allowed record numbers if NEETS to claim benefits?
Boris Truss Sunak
2019 to 2024
Of course no fecking Tory will ever apologise and take responsibility
You do know we can't just defend the UK with Focus leaflets, right?
I think one of the lessons the politicians need to avoid is being manipulated, firstly by suppliers, and then by military establishments and retired senior officers from one or three decades ago.
I'm sure we are due another unidentified General from the USA to pop up in the Times and declare that X, Y or Z in the UK Armed forces is now second rate, or unfit for purpose, and lots of more money must be spent on something something something or the UK is finished. There seems to be a rota of them.
If I recall the SDR, it proposed a possible increase to 12 hunter killer submarines over time. There is not money for everything now, and were there money for everything now trying to use it that fast would be very poor economy and continue the feast and famine cycle that has damaged our industry over 40 years.
The pols need to make sure that our scarce resources are allocated as carefully and effectively as possible. And that is going to involve reining in the various lobbies.
Meanwhile our £3.7bn carrier just broke down again and has had to drop out of a NATO exercise.
They could fix some, but not all, of what's wrong with the RN by mothballing (ie abandoning) the PoW once the QE comes out of refit. That would free up a lot of crew, money and serve as a souce of parts.
An embarked F-35 Bravo force is a very weak offensive option as currently constituted because there's no EW, SEAD or stand off weapons so it makes more sense to bin off one carrier and have the other concentrate on rotary wing ASW ops in the North Atlantic rather than #globalbritain grandstanding in the Indo-Pacific. If the threat environment is as hostile as the febrile knicker wetters on here would have us believe then it's time get real and make choices.
A Brexit / Withdrawal agreement question if anyone has experience or will be experiencing the same issues.
Have a family member who made extensive use of the FoM* to work in Germany, Switzerland, Spain and the UK. There are now 4 (possible) pension entitlements. Under the Withdrawal agreement the 4 entitlements/years worked can be lumped together to make an EU wide pension with the 4 nations paying their share of the calculated pension.
She is reaching pension age and wondered if any PB'er has faced this sort of issue or will be facing this sort of issue? Any views.
* FoM was a great idea but it really bu**ers up getting a pension.
Healey has shortened significantly in last few hours.
Now 13 on Betfair, was approx 26 a few hours ago.
He's now 4th favourite.
Young cardinals backing old popes? Healey is 66 years old. I've mentioned him before as a possible caretaker but can't see him as the next Prime Minister. Most bookmakers do not pay out on temporary or caretaker leaders.
I was surprised by odds on Next Labour leader vs Next Prime Minister.
Healey is 29 and 14. Lammy is 95 and 32.
Why the huge differences for some candidates?
(I've cashed out of this market and taken my profit, though I'm still in SKS exit date.)
Healey's odds are moving fast based on article in today's Telegraph.
Assuming you are looking at Betfair the 29 has now gone and he is now 19.5 for leader (still 14 for PM).
Telegraph is not suggesting Healey as a caretaker - report says he is seen as the only candidate who can unite the left and right of the party and be highly credible as PM.
He is obviously very strong on defence and will have stature dealing with world leaders. But he is also attractive to the soft left as he used to be in the Tribune group.
If Labour MPs want to win the next GE they should absolutely go for him.
That could also be the Telegraph shit-stirring.
It has been known.
Or it could be you are ignoring somebody obvious who could do the job and get the Labour Party united around him.
As I suggested earlier last week. When his odds were 80/1....
He’s 66. Remember the problems Menzies Campbell had as LibDem leader at 65.
Yes but he's a fit 66, and Campbell looked 80. Plus the biggest voting block is old Boomers who might like a bit of crumbly totty.
But sadly, this is not relevant. What's relevant is what ideas has he generated/espoused, and answer comes there none. He might get away with "Defence good. Defence unfunded! Fund Defence now! Apes together strong.", which although it's only one idea is one more than Starmer, but it's thin gruel
You do know we can't just defend the UK with Focus leaflets, right?
I think one of the lessons the politicians need to avoid is being manipulated, firstly by suppliers, and then by military establishments and retired senior officers from one or three decades ago.
I'm sure we are due another unidentified General from the USA to pop up in the Times and declare that X, Y or Z in the UK Armed forces is now second rate, or unfit for purpose, and lots of more money must be spent on something something something or the UK is finished. There seems to be a rota of them.
If I recall the SDR, it proposed a possible increase to 12 hunter killer submarines over time. There is not money for everything now, and were there money for everything now trying to use it that fast would be very poor economy and continue the feast and famine cycle that has damaged our industry over 40 years.
The pols need to make sure that our scarce resources are allocated as carefully and effectively as possible. And that is going to involve reining in the various lobbies.
Meanwhile our £3.7bn carrier just broke down again and has had to drop out of a NATO exercise.
They could fix some, but not all, of what's wrong with the RN by mothballing (ie abandoning) the PoW once the QE comes out of refit. That would free up a lot of crew, money and serve as a souce of parts.
An embarked F-35 Bravo force is a very weak offensive option as currently constituted because there's no EW, SEAD or stand off weapons so it makes more sense to bin off one carrier and have the other concentrate on rotary wing ASW ops in the North Atlantic rather than #globalbritain grandstanding in the Indo-Pacific. If the threat environment is as hostile as the febrile knicker wetters on here would have us believe then it's time get real and make choices.
As the Supreme Commander of the Grand Order Of Febrile Knicker Wetters (1st Class) I must agree, and I have pointed out in the past that there is no point us taking part in the coming Sino-Taiwanese war because our role would be to I) turn up and ii) die, since we are too etiolated to contribute meaningfully.
However since Britain has not yet developed the stones to tell America to fuck off, there is a high probability that the Americans would join in and demand our help, we'd go Igor mode, lisp "yeth Marthter" and then I) turn up and ii) die. So it would be best to reinforce/rebuild the RN now while we still can.
In short: I agree with you but we are so pussy-whipped we have to go with Operation Certain Death so let's prepare. Which Starmer won't because he fired his decision making module.
Comments
There's some been found in Chile and Argentina now.
As I suggested earlier last week. When his odds were 80/1....
Trump's first term, one year in, his position with independent voters on the economy was +11
Trump's second term, one year in, his position with independent voters on the economy is -43
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YefTLiCMRXg
If we are losing the brightest and the best, and as youth unemployment sky rockets they will go elsewhere, and gaining roadmen delivering takeaways in big cities that does nothing for us.
https://x.com/jcharleslondon/status/2022948936403591471?s=61
Those coming in on work visas are mostly highly skilled.
Not everyone comes in on work Visa’s, even those of working age, it’s less than three quarters, and not all jobs are highly skilled. Whatever that much abused phrase means these days.
Also a high proportion of kids and over 65’s neither of whom will be a net beneficiary to the economy although in time some of the kids will.
Still, one area where we lead the rest of Europe is Youth Unemployment.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/02/14/britains-youth-unemployment-tops-europe-first-time-history/
Reform have been lying for a few years.
The Tories have a head start of 100 years !
I'm sure we are due another unidentified General from the USA to pop up in the Times and declare that X, Y or Z in the UK Armed forces is now second rate, or unfit for purpose, and lots of more money must be spent on something something something or the UK is finished. There seems to be a rota of them.
If I recall the SDR, it proposed a possible increase to 12 hunter killer submarines over time. There is not money for everything now, and were there money for everything now trying to use it that fast would be very poor economy and continue the feast and famine cycle that has damaged our industry over 40 years.
The pols need to make sure that our scarce resources are allocated as carefully and effectively as possible. And that is going to involve reining in the various lobbies.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/dVniN7Ri_DY
The biggest current problem is a lack of ammunition, as much as a lack of base weapons systems.
And yes, there needs to be a way to stop the brass hats in Whitehall from retiring early, then ending up shortly afterwards as well-paid sales managers for defence companies giving the nudge-nudge wink-wink to the current set of brass hats in Whitehall.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/feb/14/uk-migration-negative-economy?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
1. Sources on right of the party are turning against Streeting.
2. Sources on left are worried about Rayner's prospects while HMRC investigations continues.
In that context a compromise unity candidate without baggage could have some traction. After 11 years of being led by factional leaders, I sense that there is actually quite a desire amongst many of the MPs and the members remaining in the party to reunite as a broad church.
________________________
Labour rebels are lining up John Healey, the Defence Secretary, as a “unity candidate” to challenge Sir Keir Starmer for the leadership, The Telegraph understands. A rising number of backbenchers believe Mr Healey would draw support from both the Right and Left of the parliamentary party. Some on the moderate wing of the party believe that Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, has become too “toxic”, particularly following his decision to publish his WhatsApp messages with Lord Mandelson.
Meanwhile, allies of Angela Rayner admit it will be difficult for her to run in a leadership contest while HMRC continues its investigation into her tax affairs. It comes amid a push from within the party to steer Labour in a different direction to the one piloted by Morgan McSweeney, who quit as Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff this month over the Mandelson scandal.
On Saturday night Labour’s biggest union backers, along with 25 backbench MPs, accused the Prime Minister of pursuing a “narrow factional agenda”. They said this was proving “increasingly unpopular with the public” and called for the party to “work together to strengthen our democracy and reverse this damaging behaviour”.
I also think the Govt could do with publishing a bit more specific information in a lot of areas. Not much more, just enough.
Ammunition supply is one example - where is manufacturing capacity for 155mm shells in UK/Europe these days? I think it was transformed by last.
The numbers I see are that it is up 10 fold or more, including in the UK, where we in 2022 were targetting a x16 increase by 2026 (and I think 8x by 2025) - done under both the current and previous Governments, but the Govt (both of them) don't talk about it very much.
Over in the USA aiui they are still partly on a Royal Ordnance style model.
Listening to the politics shows this morning can we proscribe the words 'we have been very clear '
https://youtu.be/Pa5vsa1FLKY?si=XbZfAvF-AwL5hih5
I think you mean proscribe?
Prescribe means they would be deemed compulsory for your health.
The net flow of over 65s is strongly out not in to this country, including retirees off to the likes of Spain and Portugal. Despite that, the UK's population is still ageing rapidly, a big problem.
Immigration into the UK is reducing the rate at which the UK population is ageing. What matters is that immigration and net population growth is kept at manageable levels, rather than at the levels reached in the first part of this decade which are now reducing rapidly.
If this is what is classed as disappeared I’d hate to think what it was before.
EICIPM is far more likely, to revive a decade old aphorism.
It is never going to be zero in those numbers.
Plus, the drones now target the artillery sending in those 100 shells. Their range is greater than the artillery.
and whereas you may have been right historically that is not what the most recent figures show as it is 91% working age leaving. To quote.
“What do we know about British people who emigrated in the latest year? Most, 91 per cent, were of working age (16-64), 8 per cent were children and only 1 per cent were in the 65-plus age group. There is ammunition there for those who think we are losing working-age talent.“
I’d say what matters also is the quality of immigration as well as managing the quantity.
Said so frequently in 2014-5 that the abbreviaction came into common use on PB.
And we shall sit on the wooden terrace, beneath the fans, and talk of places East of Suez, where a man can raise a thirst
We're still waiting for the overdue defence spending plan after last summer's SDR (which is full of obsolete assumptions anyway).
It's possible Healey has something about him (he did, minimally, acknowledge the disaster that is Ajax), but it's also very possible he's just another donkey as malc says.
What he certainly hasn't done is make a case for taking the top job.
He's yet to convince that he can do the existing one.
In the numbers exactly how many were merchant bankers and top surgeons ?
Comment 2:Zelensky has yielded to virtually every Trump demand: ceasefire, minerals deal, new elections. Russia, conversely, has refused a ceasefire and expanded its air war on Ukrainian cities and civilian infrastructure. At the same time, Trump has reduced direct military assistance to Ukraine to near zero. Offcials in Europe and Ukraine tell me Putin reads that as an invitation to continue the war and stick to his maximalist demands.
Comment 1: Trump urges Zelensky to reach a deal with Russia quickly
“Russia wants to make a deal, and Zelensky will have to hurry. Otherwise, he will miss a great opportunity. He needs to act.”
https://nitter.poast.org/jimsciutto/status/2022516949964730829#m
To start my Sunday and even before coffee and breakfast, I decided to have a look at the thoughts of Rupert Lowe on the Restore UK website.
I'm sure some will agree with every word but apart from the fiscally incoherent nonsense which seems to blight parties like this - Reform isn't quite as bad but still it's all about cutting everything and little thought on improving public provision.
Presumably he has a plan for all the Halal and Kosher businesses he is going to ruin - to be fair, he doesn't explictly say Halal or Kosher products can't be imported but he performs the wondrous feat of coming over as both anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic at the same time.
It's a crude form of Christian ethno-nationalism and I doubt it would be a pleasant place even for those who might meet his ethnic criteria but not his cultural. It's not as though Christianity is being "pushed out" - I live opposite a Church, that Church houses Christian services as well as evangelical groups. I'm not far from a mosque and a gurdwara and a Hindu temple. All those of faith in my part of the world have a place of worship and that's how it should be.
It would be an inward-looking isolationist Britain he would lead and I don't think that's where most people want to be if they think about it. Shutting the door and trying to create your version of paradise is what happens in North Korea, not Britain. He will have his supporters doubtless and the antics of him and his lynch mob going up the coast trying to harrass a group of innocent and legitimate seafarers shows the depths of his idiocy.
I'm sure in his own mind he means well but as words on a webpage they came over as deeply unpleasant and divisive.
Now, for some coffee...
Perhaps Healey is a good compromise, or he'll do for now, candidate but he is not one who will create unity.
Although most of the old soaks who covered the Vietnam war and never left must have succumbed to cirrhosis by now.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/21/highest-ever-number-migrant-doctors-joined-medical-register/#:~:text=A record 20,000 migrant doctors,them graduated outside of Europe.
Not so easy to find out the numbers working in financial services, but anyone working in the City can confirm that a large number of immigrants work there.
I don't diminish the complexity of building military vehicles and equipment, but utter uselessness of much of it seems to be more than a little uncommon.
All of our assumptions of five years ago are overturned, and future needs are becoming less predictable.
But it's easy to make some predictions - that air defence is likely to be far more important to the defence of UK than is fielding large numbers of armoured vehicles, for example.
Pam Bondi should go to jail for an age for being party to that. And the State should be paying out billions in punitive damages.
Article here:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/439cb3d7-4e22-4cf3-9e8c-9b8174b61e61?shareToken=3ad75bd342182ce149b5ec0f647ca00c
It can go wrong, but when it works they will swing people round to them who were initially opposed better than a milquetoast automaton petrified of offending one faction or another, or a partisan disguised through being very boring.
Pretty much a typical Labour government then.
This was one of the clear problems with Ajax, in that the source vehicles were hand built and no two were the same.
Which is why friendly countries should collaborate on standardised equipment, rather than everyone trying to design their own.
As for the city, you stated Merchant Bankers and city jobs are far more than just thst, there will be many, I have some friends who are, but many will be historic and it doesn’t say how many came in the last twelve months. Quite frankly anyone coming to work in the city should be welcomed with open arms if it’s high paying jobs that contribute.
Everything up until 10 minutes ago is full of "carrier strike group going to the High North".
If it died that will be a touch embarrassing.
We live in a nation of entitled people who expect others to pick up,the tab when they’ve finiancially contributed little. people say ‘but the state pension’ but that is a contribution based benefit unlike the majority of the other benefits.
NEW THREAD
Then there are the rules surrounding ministerial responsibility. Prior to last week, Starmer was again clear.
During the Labour leadership election he piously demanded: ‘Hear me out! I had 8,000 staff for five years as the Director of Public Prosecutions… when they made mistakes, I carried the can. I never turn on my staff, and you should never turn on your staff.’
It was a theme he repeatedly pressed, to devastating effect, against Johnson and his Cabinet through the Covid crisis and beyond. ‘It’s no good the Prime Minister flailing around, trying to blame others. It’s time he took responsibility for his own failures,’ he railed repeatedly.
Yet, in the past week, this rule has also now been inverted.
He has turned on – and turfed out – every one of his most senior officials. His chief of staff. His director of communications. His Cabinet Secretary.
As another senior government official told me: ‘I struggle to think of a PM more willing to throw under the bus those who have been loyal to him.’
So this is the other new Starmer Rule. The buck should have stopped with Boris Johnson. But there is no need for it to even pause for breath when it’s in the vicinity of himself.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-15560039/DAN-HODGES-Ill-never-turn-staff-Starmer-said-Try-telling-trio-just-thrown-bus.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=social-twitter_mailonline#
It's less to do with the "leader".
I’m sure some are but not all and I’d agree fully with your sentiment, however we do have GHIC cards so perhaps limit expats to that provision ?
So how come those actually at the Olympics are all young and fit, same as athletes for any other sport? There’s no random unfit 50-year-old who makes the team.
If we want to do that then 5% of GDP on defence is the only realistic way.
As it is, 3.5% is a long term aspiration.
If I were SecDef then I'd demand more money, and if (as would be inevitable) denied, would be ruthless in prioritising.
Whereas (for example) our role in providing armour for the defence of Europe is effectively gone. And what we do have is obsolete.
Now, within those numbers we will have Carers who are looking after relatives with disabilities and presumably all those who say they cannot work have completed a Work Capability Assessment.
Given the prevailing view among some that anyone receiving public money is a "sponger" (to use a more charitable term), what should we do?
You can make the assessment more stringent to get people to go back into the workplace but how easy are jobs to find currently? We hear tales of graduate unemployment and people with degrees working in coffee shops (nothing wrong with that in truth). We also know of individuals who have never worked and have chosen to live on benefits and I can understand the sentiment when the country is £150 billion in the hole we shouldn't be supporting those who will not contribute (as distinct from cannot contribute which is different).
I'll be honest - I'm uncomfortable with impoverishing people just to make a political point. I see in my part of the world rough sleepers, addicts and shoplifters and they are often all the same people. To have to live that way to survive or to feed an addiction is something I struggle with - my instinct says we should be doing all we can to break them out of their addiction no matter the cost but I appreciate that's certainly a minority view at this time.
The US 5th is 54
The GB women's skip is not anybody's idea of an Olympic athlete
But in general you're right
What do we know about British people who emigrated in the latest year? Most, 91 per cent, were of working age (16-64), 8 per cent were children and only 1 per cent were in the 65-plus age group. There is ammunition there for those who think we are losing working-age talent.
While more than a quarter of a million British people emigrated, however, 143,000 came the other way. Again, most were of working age, 79 per cent, while 13 per cent were children and 8 per cent were 65-plus.
https://x.com/FTusa284/status/2022639406319046863
https://abcnews.com/GMA/Living/curler-rich-ruohonen-makes-history-oldest-us-winter/story?id=130114068
Who allowed record numbers if NEETS to claim benefits?
Boris
Truss
Sunak
2019 to 2024
Of course no fecking Tory will ever apologise and take responsibility
An embarked F-35 Bravo force is a very weak offensive option as currently constituted because there's no EW, SEAD or stand off weapons so it makes more sense to bin off one carrier and have the other concentrate on rotary wing ASW ops in the North Atlantic rather than #globalbritain grandstanding in the Indo-Pacific. If the threat environment is as hostile as the febrile knicker wetters on here would have us believe then it's time get real and make choices.
Have a family member who made extensive use of the FoM* to work in Germany, Switzerland, Spain and the UK. There are now 4 (possible) pension entitlements. Under the Withdrawal agreement the 4 entitlements/years worked can be lumped together to make an EU wide pension with the 4 nations paying their share of the calculated pension.
She is reaching pension age and wondered if any PB'er has faced this sort of issue or will be facing this sort of issue? Any views.
* FoM was a great idea but it really bu**ers up getting a pension.
But sadly, this is not relevant. What's relevant is what ideas has he generated/espoused, and answer comes there none. He might get away with "Defence good. Defence unfunded! Fund Defence now! Apes together strong.", which although it's only one idea is one more than Starmer, but it's thin gruel
However since Britain has not yet developed the stones to tell America to fuck off, there is a high probability that the Americans would join in and demand our help, we'd go Igor mode, lisp "yeth Marthter" and then I) turn up and ii) die. So it would be best to reinforce/rebuild the RN now while we still can.
In short: I agree with you but we are so pussy-whipped we have to go with Operation Certain Death so let's prepare. Which Starmer won't because he fired his decision making module.