'Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey is calling on the government to start building a "fully independent British nuclear deterrent" to end the UK's reliance on the US.
The UK has operational control of its nuclear arsenal, including British-built warheads, but it depends on the US to supply and maintain the Trident missiles that would deliver them.
In a speech to his party's spring conference in York on Sunday, Sir Ed will argue the UK's continued reliance on US support is an unacceptable risk to national security..France, the only other European country with nuclear weapons, has always maintained a fully independent system.
The Lib Dems say France's approach proves a sovereign British capability is achievable.
They argue it could be done in two stages - developing a way to maintain the existing Trident weapons system domestically, and in the longer term manufacturing a fully British-made replacement.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0dz1k0rr4o
I'm a bit worried that there may have been something odd in my tea this morning. I agree with Ed!
He could be recruiting for the Green Party. Many LibDems are nuclear disarmers. Of course if we were back in the the EC we'd be (partially at least) getting 'benefit' of French weapons.
And Good Morning one and all.
A good point. I'd forgotten that the Greens had gone all 'big oil' and jingoistic. Is it Reform who are in to crocheted buildings these days? So hard to keep up.
'Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey is calling on the government to start building a "fully independent British nuclear deterrent" to end the UK's reliance on the US.
The UK has operational control of its nuclear arsenal, including British-built warheads, but it depends on the US to supply and maintain the Trident missiles that would deliver them.
In a speech to his party's spring conference in York on Sunday, Sir Ed will argue the UK's continued reliance on US support is an unacceptable risk to national security..France, the only other European country with nuclear weapons, has always maintained a fully independent system.
The Lib Dems say France's approach proves a sovereign British capability is achievable.
They argue it could be done in two stages - developing a way to maintain the existing Trident weapons system domestically, and in the longer term manufacturing a fully British-made replacement.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0dz1k0rr4o
I'm a bit worried that there may have been something odd in my tea this morning. I agree with Ed!
He could be recruiting for the Green Party. Many LibDems are nuclear disarmers. Of course if we were back in the the EC we'd be (partially at least) getting 'benefit' of French weapons.
And Good Morning one and all.
They aren't now, most LD voters now voted for Cameron or Clegg in 2015.
The Charles Kennedy pacifist CND types left for Labour and the Greens long ago
If the CIA knew that he was talking to the Iranians, then President Trump would have known that also, when he invited Tucker into the Oval a few days before the strike.
Which means Trump may have used Tucker to deceive the Iranians about the likelihood of an impending attack
TBH that suggests a level of tactical intelligence (in the everyday sense) absent from the rest of the conduct of this war
'Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey is calling on the government to start building a "fully independent British nuclear deterrent" to end the UK's reliance on the US.
The UK has operational control of its nuclear arsenal, including British-built warheads, but it depends on the US to supply and maintain the Trident missiles that would deliver them.
In a speech to his party's spring conference in York on Sunday, Sir Ed will argue the UK's continued reliance on US support is an unacceptable risk to national security..France, the only other European country with nuclear weapons, has always maintained a fully independent system.
The Lib Dems say France's approach proves a sovereign British capability is achievable.
They argue it could be done in two stages - developing a way to maintain the existing Trident weapons system domestically, and in the longer term manufacturing a fully British-made replacement.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0dz1k0rr4o
I'm a bit worried that there may have been something odd in my tea this morning. I agree with Ed!
He could be recruiting for the Green Party. Many LibDems are nuclear disarmers. Of course if we were back in the the EC we'd be (partially at least) getting 'benefit' of French weapons.
And Good Morning one and all.
They aren't now, most LD voters now voted for Cameron or Clegg in 2015.
The Charles Kennedy pacifist CND types left for Labour and the Greens long ago.
Macron has also included the UK in a wider European deterrence group so it has nothing to do with the EU 'He said eight other European countries – the UK, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Sweden and Denmark – had agreed to participate in a new "advanced deterrence" strategy.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4zlnezrl7o
Kennedy was by no means a pacifist. He opposed the Gulf War. Not the same thing in the slightest.
These concerns of an undefended Britain with an effette metropolitan population unwilling to fight with sufficient vigour are not new. See for instance Saki's 1913 novella When William Came. Such concerns proved unfounded, as subsequent events demonstrated.
Yes but notions of civilians fighting invading tanks with improvised molotov cocktails and pitchforks are as fanciful now as they were then.
There's little or no "fighting" involved - absent nuclear war, against which the only defence seems to be mutual suicide, the real "threat" is chaos and disorder not an invading army.
The speed at which civilisation can unravel is frightening - someone once said the modern world is only three meals away from anarchy. How would we cope with no electricity for a week or a month? Many wouldn't, some would. Your survival might come down to stealing your neigthbour's food and killing them though you'd hope people would collaborate and co-operate to get through it together. Past history offers both scenarios as possible.
We've also seen societies can evolve very quickly in times of crisis - who knows?
Actually, civilians taking up arms in the early days of the Ukraine war had an effect.
There was a very good article in the New Yorker (I think) that detailed what happened in a small town in the line of the Russian advance.
The militia unit assigned the vital bridge came in form their homes. A local construction company owner recalled from His military service that Russian amphibious vehicles had a limit on how steep a river bank they could climb. So he bought all his diggers to the river and started scarping the river bank to make is unclimbable. The men of the town went to the town armoury and equipped themselves. When the Russians arrived, they blew the bridge. An attempt at an amphibious crossing was made. Which ended in disaster for the Russians, since they couldn’t climb the scarped bank.
This was apparently one of many actions that stalled the Russian advance. Remember the long, long parking lot?
'Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey is calling on the government to start building a "fully independent British nuclear deterrent" to end the UK's reliance on the US.
The UK has operational control of its nuclear arsenal, including British-built warheads, but it depends on the US to supply and maintain the Trident missiles that would deliver them.
In a speech to his party's spring conference in York on Sunday, Sir Ed will argue the UK's continued reliance on US support is an unacceptable risk to national security..France, the only other European country with nuclear weapons, has always maintained a fully independent system.
The Lib Dems say France's approach proves a sovereign British capability is achievable.
They argue it could be done in two stages - developing a way to maintain the existing Trident weapons system domestically, and in the longer term manufacturing a fully British-made replacement.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0dz1k0rr4o
I'm a bit worried that there may have been something odd in my tea this morning. I agree with Ed!
He could be recruiting for the Green Party. Many LibDems are nuclear disarmers. Of course if we were back in the the EC we'd be (partially at least) getting 'benefit' of French weapons.
And Good Morning one and all.
They aren't now, most LD voters now voted for Cameron or Clegg in 2015.
The Charles Kennedy pacifist CND types left for Labour and the Greens long ago.
Macron has also included the UK in a wider European deterrence group so it has nothing to do with the EU 'He said eight other European countries – the UK, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Sweden and Denmark – had agreed to participate in a new "advanced deterrence" strategy.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4zlnezrl7o
Kennedy was by no means a pacifist. He opposed the Gulf War. Not the same thing in the slightest.
Most Charles Kennedy voters went LD until the 2010 coalition, then Ed Miliband Labour, then Corbyn Labour and most of them now vote Green. Kennedy was left of Blair let alone the Tories on most things not just being anti the 2003 Iraq War.
Most LD voters now voted for Cameron or Clegg in 2015, LD voters now are firmly centrist indeed as most of their seats were won by Cameron in 2015 if anything the median LD voter under Davey is fractionally right of centre but just anti Brexit
Yes, Reform down eight since November would seem to be the cheerfully bigger story.
Super Kemi in joint 3rd/4th place behind Starmer is intriguing.
Won't her war "bonus" take until the next poll to work into the system.
One does wonder where that 8 point Reform decline has gone with the Conservatives still languishing in the basement. Even with churn one would expect some reasonable net benefit.
A fascinating reminder from Mallen Baker in his weekly "viewer's question" that the UN was designed after WW2 around the art of the possible - to prevent a WW3, and with compromises attached. It is designed for Real Politik, not Morality.
Sometimes you are a little bit naughty when you frame a story. Did you ever work for the Daily Telegraph?
And you are not ??????
Pete just posts the link. You have a tendency to slightly disingenuously frame, typically, Sky reporting.
There was an incident a few months ago where you were saying Sky were reporting Starmer’s “”whack a mole” pressure on European HoG’s to accept Trump’s Ukraine “peace deal”, when what they were actually reporting on was his attempts not to reject it too forcefully at that specific moment. It was quite a telling interpretation.
Tories tied 3rd with the Green Party on 17% each not good for Kemi either.
Good poll for Starmer as well as Polanski with Labour on 21% and a clear second, Reform on 28% so still most seats but Labour closing the gap a bit with Farage's party
'Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey is calling on the government to start building a "fully independent British nuclear deterrent" to end the UK's reliance on the US.
The UK has operational control of its nuclear arsenal, including British-built warheads, but it depends on the US to supply and maintain the Trident missiles that would deliver them.
In a speech to his party's spring conference in York on Sunday, Sir Ed will argue the UK's continued reliance on US support is an unacceptable risk to national security..France, the only other European country with nuclear weapons, has always maintained a fully independent system.
The Lib Dems say France's approach proves a sovereign British capability is achievable.
They argue it could be done in two stages - developing a way to maintain the existing Trident weapons system domestically, and in the longer term manufacturing a fully British-made replacement.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0dz1k0rr4o
I'm a bit worried that there may have been something odd in my tea this morning. I agree with Ed!
The way to do it would be to buy the South Korean Hyunmoo-5, invest in their program and go from there.
The important tech is winding large carbon fibre solid fuel rocket casings, and building large nozzles for the rocket. Grain pouring in large sizes is also a bit of an art.
You’d build a factory to build them here, test facilities. Once you have the skills on line, you’d develop the next one as about double the mass. Same as Trident D5
'Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey is calling on the government to start building a "fully independent British nuclear deterrent" to end the UK's reliance on the US.
The UK has operational control of its nuclear arsenal, including British-built warheads, but it depends on the US to supply and maintain the Trident missiles that would deliver them.
In a speech to his party's spring conference in York on Sunday, Sir Ed will argue the UK's continued reliance on US support is an unacceptable risk to national security..France, the only other European country with nuclear weapons, has always maintained a fully independent system.
The Lib Dems say France's approach proves a sovereign British capability is achievable.
They argue it could be done in two stages - developing a way to maintain the existing Trident weapons system domestically, and in the longer term manufacturing a fully British-made replacement.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0dz1k0rr4o
I'm a bit worried that there may have been something odd in my tea this morning. I agree with Ed!
He could be recruiting for the Green Party. Many LibDems are nuclear disarmers. Of course if we were back in the the EC we'd be (partially at least) getting 'benefit' of French weapons.
And Good Morning one and all.
They aren't now, most LD voters now voted for Cameron or Clegg in 2015.
The Charles Kennedy pacifist CND types left for Labour and the Greens long ago.
Macron has also included the UK in a wider European deterrence group so it has nothing to do with the EU 'He said eight other European countries – the UK, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Sweden and Denmark – had agreed to participate in a new "advanced deterrence" strategy.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4zlnezrl7o
Kennedy was by no means a pacifist. He opposed the Gulf War. Not the same thing in the slightest.
Most Charles Kennedy voters went LD until the 2010 coalition, then Ed Miliband Labour, then Corbyn Labour and most of them now vote Green. Kennedy was left of Blair let alone the Tories on most things not just being anti the 2003 Iraq War.
Most LD voters now voted for Cameron or Clegg in 2015, LD voters now are firmly centrist indeed as most of their seats were won by Cameron in 2015 if anything the median LD voter under Davey is fractionally right of centre but just anti Brexit
That’s not the point you made.
Anyway, I’m a Kennedy Lib Dem who has, not wholly enthusiastically it has to be said, returned to the fold.
'Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey is calling on the government to start building a "fully independent British nuclear deterrent" to end the UK's reliance on the US.
The UK has operational control of its nuclear arsenal, including British-built warheads, but it depends on the US to supply and maintain the Trident missiles that would deliver them.
In a speech to his party's spring conference in York on Sunday, Sir Ed will argue the UK's continued reliance on US support is an unacceptable risk to national security..France, the only other European country with nuclear weapons, has always maintained a fully independent system.
The Lib Dems say France's approach proves a sovereign British capability is achievable.
They argue it could be done in two stages - developing a way to maintain the existing Trident weapons system domestically, and in the longer term manufacturing a fully British-made replacement.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0dz1k0rr4o
This seems like a no brainer that ought to be supported across the political spectrum (but probably won't be by Reform, who are so far up Trump's arse they could clean his teeth).
Sometimes you are a little bit naughty when you frame a story. Did you ever work for the Daily Telegraph?
And you are not ??????
Pete just posts the link. You have a tendency to slightly disingenuously frame, typically, Sky reporting.
There was an incident a few months ago where you were saying Sky were reporting Starmer’s “”whack a mole” pressure on European HoG’s to accept Trump’s Ukraine “peace deal”, when what they were actually reporting on was his attempts not to reject it too forcefully at that specific moment. It was quite a telling interpretation.
Seems I have really touched a nerve
And of course nobody else is 'slightly disengenous' in their comments - This is a politics site
I link my posts as much as possible and when wrong I apologise
'Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey is calling on the government to start building a "fully independent British nuclear deterrent" to end the UK's reliance on the US.
The UK has operational control of its nuclear arsenal, including British-built warheads, but it depends on the US to supply and maintain the Trident missiles that would deliver them.
In a speech to his party's spring conference in York on Sunday, Sir Ed will argue the UK's continued reliance on US support is an unacceptable risk to national security..France, the only other European country with nuclear weapons, has always maintained a fully independent system.
The Lib Dems say France's approach proves a sovereign British capability is achievable.
They argue it could be done in two stages - developing a way to maintain the existing Trident weapons system domestically, and in the longer term manufacturing a fully British-made replacement.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0dz1k0rr4o
This seems like a no brainer that ought to be supported across the political spectrum (but probably won't be by Reform, who are so far up Trump's arse they could clean his teeth).
Yeah, it's a "no brainer" until the government works out what it would cost and realises that BAE would have to be involved.
Sometimes you are a little bit naughty when you frame a story. Did you ever work for the Daily Telegraph?
And you are not ??????
Pete just posts the link. You have a tendency to slightly disingenuously frame, typically, Sky reporting.
There was an incident a few months ago where you were saying Sky were reporting Starmer’s “”whack a mole” pressure on European HoG’s to accept Trump’s Ukraine “peace deal”, when what they were actually reporting on was his attempts not to reject it too forcefully at that specific moment. It was quite a telling interpretation.
Seems I have really touched a nerve
And of course nobodgy else is 'slightly disengenous' in their comments - This is a politics site
I link my posts as much as possible and when wrong I apologise
No nerves touched here. I admit am quite touchy - but not really about that. If you were Leon I’d still be typing.
Tories tied 3rd with the Green Party on 17% each not good for Kemi either.
Good poll for Starmer as well as Polanski with Labour on 21% and a clear second, Reform on 28% so still most seats but Labour closing the gap a bit with Farage's party
The fact is the political climate is all over the place and May will be a real poll giving a good idea of public opinion
'Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey is calling on the government to start building a "fully independent British nuclear deterrent" to end the UK's reliance on the US.
The UK has operational control of its nuclear arsenal, including British-built warheads, but it depends on the US to supply and maintain the Trident missiles that would deliver them.
In a speech to his party's spring conference in York on Sunday, Sir Ed will argue the UK's continued reliance on US support is an unacceptable risk to national security..France, the only other European country with nuclear weapons, has always maintained a fully independent system.
The Lib Dems say France's approach proves a sovereign British capability is achievable.
They argue it could be done in two stages - developing a way to maintain the existing Trident weapons system domestically, and in the longer term manufacturing a fully British-made replacement.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0dz1k0rr4o
I'm a bit worried that there may have been something odd in my tea this morning. I agree with Ed!
The way to do it would be to buy the South Korean Hyunmoo-5, invest in their program and go from there.
The important tech is winding large carbon fibre solid fuel rocket casings, and building large nozzles for the rocket. Grain pouring in large sizes is also a bit of an art.
You’d build a factory to build them here, test facilities. Once you have the skills on line, you’d develop the next one as about double the mass. Same as Trident D5
I presume we have many of the skills anyway in that we do make smaller missile systems.
Also, is the idea of one big multi-warhead missile still the best in terms of 'getting through'?
Lib Dems down by 3pp is the second largest move in the Ipsos poll since January, with the Greens up 5pp, Tories and Reform down 2pp and Labour down 1pp.
Others on 8% is +3pp from the 5% in January. Is Restore actually gaining some traction at Reform's expense, or are the SNP + PC surging in advance of the devolved elections?
We await the details. Thanks to Big_G for the link.
Sometimes you are a little bit naughty when you frame a story. Did you ever work for the Daily Telegraph?
And you are not ??????
Pete just posts the link. You have a tendency to slightly disingenuously frame, typically, Sky reporting.
There was an incident a few months ago where you were saying Sky were reporting Starmer’s “”whack a mole” pressure on European HoG’s to accept Trump’s Ukraine “peace deal”, when what they were actually reporting on was his attempts not to reject it too forcefully at that specific moment. It was quite a telling interpretation.
Seems I have really touched a nerve
And of course nobody else is 'slightly disengenous' in their comments - This is a politics site
I link my posts as much as possible and when wrong I apologise
The art of politics is not only to enthuse your supporters but also not to enthuse your opponents. The most successful politicians are those who make their opponents willing to accept the fact you might win and not work too hard to prevent it happening.
The more you antagonise and criticise your opponents, the more likely they are to respond by redoubling their efforts against you.
Making your opponents angry enough to go that extra mile can be cumulatively counter productive.
The canny opposition politician realises you catch more flies with honey than with fly paper and that doesn't mean making ridiculous promises - it means respecting the fact people disagree with you, accepting you won't get them to switch to your side but at the same time reassuring them (to a point) in Government you won't govern in a vengeful, vindictive way.
This is what Badenoch and Farage do so badly and Blair, for example, did so well.
EXCL: In a phone call shortly after he was elected, President Trump suggested that Sir Keir Starmer keep Karen Pierce on as UK ambassador to Washington.
Starmer was noncommittal (and then chose to send Peter Mandelson instead)
Tories tied 3rd with the Green Party on 17% each not good for Kemi either.
Good poll for Starmer as well as Polanski with Labour on 21% and a clear second, Reform on 28% so still most seats but Labour closing the gap a bit with Farage's party
The fact is the political climate is all over the place and May will be a real poll giving a good idea of public opinion
The electorates of our countries (note the plural) are very divided and inconsistent in their voting intentions. N=2; Mrs C and I might vote any way of Lab, LibDem or Green next time, and she and I might well vote differently.
EXCL: In a phone call shortly after he was elected, President Trump suggested that Sir Keir Starmer keep Karen Pierce on as UK ambassador to Washington.
Starmer was noncommittal (and then chose to send Peter Mandelson instead)
Whoops. You can understand why it’s a key appointment, but the way it played out showed terrible judgement from the PM.
If there wasn’t a war on, Mandy and the fallout would have led the news for the last week.
Lib Dems down by 3pp is the second largest move in the Ipsos poll since January, with the Greens up 5pp, Tories and Reform down 2pp and Labour down 1pp.
Others on 8% is +3pp from the 5% in January. Is Restore actually gaining some traction at Reform's expense, or are the SNP + PC surging in advance of the devolved elections?
We await the details. Thanks to Big_G for the link.
My guess, from Focaldata and FON, is that there is perhaps a couple of per cent support for Restore, among Others, although whether that shows up in the ballot box, outside Great Yarmouth, is doubtful.
EXCL: In a phone call shortly after he was elected, President Trump suggested that Sir Keir Starmer keep Karen Pierce on as UK ambassador to Washington.
Starmer was noncommittal (and then chose to send Peter Mandelson instead)
Whoops. You can understand why it’s a key appointment, but the way it played out showed terrible judgement from the PM.
If there wasn’t a war on, Mandy and the fallout would have led the news for the last week.
Yeah. As I said previously, and to paraphrase Hemingway, my faith in Starmer declined slowly, then suddenly. Mandelson was the suddenly bit. Hence like a prodigal son I trudge unenthusiastically back to the LDs
Here are the moves since their last poll in February:
Reform 28 (-2) Labour 21 (-1) Conservative 17 (-2) Green 17 (+5) Lib Dem 9 (-3) Other 8 (+3)
Thanks for typing it the shares and changes, though the last Ipsos poll has fieldwork dates of 22nd-27th January.
They posted it on 1 Feb, so that’s the same poll.
I don't doubt that it's the same poll, but it's correctly described as a January poll, as that's when the fieldwork was conducted, regardless of when the results were published.
'Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey is calling on the government to start building a "fully independent British nuclear deterrent" to end the UK's reliance on the US.
The UK has operational control of its nuclear arsenal, including British-built warheads, but it depends on the US to supply and maintain the Trident missiles that would deliver them.
In a speech to his party's spring conference in York on Sunday, Sir Ed will argue the UK's continued reliance on US support is an unacceptable risk to national security..France, the only other European country with nuclear weapons, has always maintained a fully independent system.
The Lib Dems say France's approach proves a sovereign British capability is achievable.
They arguŝ'20e it could be done in two stages - developing a way to maintain the existing Trident weapons system domestically, and in the longer term manufacturing a fully British-made replacement.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0dz1k0rr4o
This seems like a no brainer that ought to be supported across the political spectrum (but probably won't be by Reform, who are so far up Trump's arse they could clean his teeth).
Yeah, it's a "no brainer" until the government works out what it would cost and realises that BAE would have to be involved.
We are always being told 'what if [insert rogue state here] gets fissile material, they could hold the world to ransom.' So why couldn't we, with more resources, and presumably access to what we would need, do the same?
By the way, I note the complete lack of this narrative by centrists or left leaning parties when I was the only one saying that 'our' nuclear deterrent was wholly at the whim of the USA here, and getting roundly scolded as a traitor to PB morale for saying so. Now apparently it's a 'no brainer that should be supported across the political spectrum'.
In response to the thread header, when I was a student around 1980 the hard right "Monday Club" types were claiming that WW3 was already in progress in places like Angola , and the communists were winning it.
Move fast and break things has consequences. Your problem matey.
Tell America we're willing to help once they have a President who can behave like an adult. Their choice.
Thereby both gratuitously and pointlessly insulting the current President, and positioning us to be involved in whatever global dickery the next one gets involved in, as long as they ask nicely. Great idea.
In response to the thread header, when I was a student around 1980 the hard right "Monday Club" types were claiming that WW3 was already in progress in places like Angola , and the communists were winning it.
'Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey is calling on the government to start building a "fully independent British nuclear deterrent" to end the UK's reliance on the US.
The UK has operational control of its nuclear arsenal, including British-built warheads, but it depends on the US to supply and maintain the Trident missiles that would deliver them.
In a speech to his party's spring conference in York on Sunday, Sir Ed will argue the UK's continued reliance on US support is an unacceptable risk to national security..France, the only other European country with nuclear weapons, has always maintained a fully independent system.
The Lib Dems say France's approach proves a sovereign British capability is achievable.
They arguŝ'20e it could be done in two stages - developing a way to maintain the existing Trident weapons system domestically, and in the longer term manufacturing a fully British-made replacement.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0dz1k0rr4o
This seems like a no brainer that ought to be supported across the political spectrum (but probably won't be by Reform, who are so far up Trump's arse they could clean his teeth).
Yeah, it's a "no brainer" until the government works out what it would cost and realises that BAE would have to be involved.
We are always being told 'what if [insert rogue state here] gets fissile material, they could hold the world to ransom.' So why couldn't we, with more resources, and presumably access to what we would need, do the same?
By the way, I note the complete lack of this narrative by centrists or left leaning parties when I was the only one saying that 'our' nuclear deterrent was wholly at the whim of the USA here, and getting roundly scolded as a traitor to PB morale for saying so. Now apparently it's a 'no brainer that should be supported across the political spectrum'.
Not sure who you're referring to but it certainly wasn't me. Our reliance on the Americans for Trident has long been a source of vulnerability and I've always thought that. I don't trust the Americans at all, they have their own interests as has always been apparent, from when they bled us dry during WW2, screwed us over Suez and dragged us into Iraq. The fact they now have a president who has tariffed our exporters and insulted our war dead should have brought the point home to even the most hard of thinking.
Move fast and break things has consequences. Your problem matey.
Tell America we're willing to help once they have a President who can behave like an adult. Their choice.
Thereby both gratuitously and pointlessly insulting the current President, and positioning us to be involved in whatever global dickery the next one gets involved in, as long as they ask nicely. Great idea.
Well, sure, a government would actually convey the message more diplomatically, and part of, "behaving like an adult," is being willing to listen to people telling you that your proposed action is, "global dickery."
In response to the thread header, when I was a student around 1980 the hard right "Monday Club" types were claiming that WW3 was already in progress in places like Angola , and the communists were winning it.
Sometimes you are a little bit naughty when you frame a story. Did you ever work for the Daily Telegraph?
And you are not ??????
Pete just posts the link. You have a tendency to slightly disingenuously frame, typically, Sky reporting.
There was an incident a few months ago where you were saying Sky were reporting Starmer’s “”whack a mole” pressure on European HoG’s to accept Trump’s Ukraine “peace deal”, when what they were actually reporting on was his attempts not to reject it too forcefully at that specific moment. It was quite a telling interpretation.
Seems I have really touched a nerve
And of course nobody else is 'slightly disengenous' in their comments - This is a politics site
I link my posts as much as possible and when wrong I apologise
The art of politics is not only to enthuse your supporters but also not to enthuse your opponents. The most successful politicians are those who make their opponents willing to accept the fact you might win and not work too hard to prevent it happening.
The more you antagonise and criticise your opponents, the more likely they are to respond by redoubling their efforts against you.
Making your opponents angry enough to go that extra mile can be cumulatively counter productive.
The canny opposition politician realises you catch more flies with honey than with fly paper and that doesn't mean making ridiculous promises - it means respecting the fact people disagree with you, accepting you won't get them to switch to your side but at the same time reassuring them (to a point) in Government you won't govern in a vengeful, vindictive way.
This is what Badenoch and Farage do so badly and Blair, for example, did so well.
When I'm out campaigning as a Lib Dem in a traditionally Tory area, I often encounter friendly but politically naive folk, mostly pensioners, whose options typically reflect those of the right wing press: Brexit is being betrayed, the triple lock is in danger, crime is rife, etc. I know there is no point arguing my case with these people and instead adopt an amiable but noncommittal approach (aside from enthusiastically agreeing on what a poor job the Labour council is doing) and hope that a few of them might vote on the basis of that nice Lib Dem chap they met!
'Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey is calling on the government to start building a "fully independent British nuclear deterrent" to end the UK's reliance on the US.
The UK has operational control of its nuclear arsenal, including British-built warheads, but it depends on the US to supply and maintain the Trident missiles that would deliver them.
In a speech to his party's spring conference in York on Sunday, Sir Ed will argue the UK's continued reliance on US support is an unacceptable risk to national security..France, the only other European country with nuclear weapons, has always maintained a fully independent system.
The Lib Dems say France's approach proves a sovereign British capability is achievable.
They arguŝ'20e it could be done in two stages - developing a way to maintain the existing Trident weapons system domestically, and in the longer term manufacturing a fully British-made replacement.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0dz1k0rr4o
This seems like a no brainer that ought to be supported across the political spectrum (but probably won't be by Reform, who are so far up Trump's arse they could clean his teeth).
Yeah, it's a "no brainer" until the government works out what it would cost and realises that BAE would have to be involved.
We are always being told 'what if [insert rogue state here] gets fissile material, they could hold the world to ransom.' So why couldn't we, with more resources, and presumably access to what we would need, do the same?
By the way, I note the complete lack of this narrative by centrists or left leaning parties when I was the only one saying that 'our' nuclear deterrent was wholly at the whim of the USA here, and getting roundly scolded as a traitor to PB morale for saying so. Now apparently it's a 'no brainer that should be supported across the political spectrum'.
Not sure who you're referring to but it certainly wasn't me. Our reliance on the Americans for Trident has long been a source of vulnerability and I've always thought that. I don't trust the Americans at all, they have their own interests as has always been apparent, from when they bled us dry during WW2, screwed us over Suez and dragged us into Iraq. The fact they now have a president who has tariffed our exporters and insulted our war dead should have brought the point home to even the most hard of thinking.
Fair enough, sorry I implied otherwise.
That has very much not been a widely held view though.
Here are the moves since their last poll in February:
Reform 28 (-2) Labour 21 (-1) Conservative 17 (-2) Green 17 (+5) Lib Dem 9 (-3) Other 8 (+3)
Thanks for typing it the shares and changes, though the last Ipsos poll has fieldwork dates of 22nd-27th January.
They posted it on 1 Feb, so that’s the same poll.
I don't doubt that it's the same poll, but it's correctly described as a January poll, as that's when the fieldwork was conducted, regardless of when the results were published.
I do apologise. Just as well you caught this in time or who knows what other terrifying things might have happened.
Move fast and break things has consequences. Your problem matey.
Tell America we're willing to help once they have a President who can behave like an adult. Their choice.
Thereby both gratuitously and pointlessly insulting the current President, and positioning us to be involved in whatever global dickery the next one gets involved in, as long as they ask nicely. Great idea.
Why are you called "Lucky" when you are invariably on the wrong side of history? Trump and Truss to name two examples.
Looking at IPSOS, it's not the first poll since the 2024 GE which has had the LDs at 9%. Almost exactly a year ago, a Lord Ashcroft poll and just before that a Freshwater Strategy poll also had the party at 9%.
It contrasts with Techne at 14% as well as recent Focaldata and YouGov polls.
We can clearly see different sampling, methodology and weighting at work here across different pollsters which generate different results so whether any of them are "correct" will only be tested when we have a General Election.
There are pollsters who are "good" for Reform, Green and now seemingly the LDs while both Labour and Conservative seem to be more consistent across the polls. Labour are at or just above 20%, the Conservatives in the 16-18% range, both well down on 2024.
As for how these varying numbers will translate into local election results in May, short answer is, they won't. Even the NEV on which all manner of hopes and fears will doubtless be hung, will be an imperfect calculation given local party strengths and weakness and the willingness of voters to split votes across parties in local contests.
The problem with this is that the “World War” appellation is arbitrary. 1939 (earlier if you’re Chinese) to 1945 was a genuinely global conflict. However, the Seven Years War had major theatres in America, Europe, and South Asia, yet the 1914-1918 conflict which was largely confined to Europe (with due regard to Gallipolli, Arab Revolt etc, but even they were “Europe adjacent”) is labelled WW1.
You can argue the toss but the point is we might have a world war and not recognise it. WW3 is pre-recognised as a nuclear exchange, possible, but other scenarios exist.
WW1 was originally called the Great War until the second one happened. And there were certainly campaigns in Africa and the Middle East, and transatlantic and Pacific naval war. And the USA and Japan were belligerents.
The Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars were fairly global too, there was certainly an African campaign (Egypt) and Malacca was surrendered to the British as a result for example.although I don't think much action was seen in the colonies. And the War of 1812 can be regarded as a theatre of the Napoleonic Wars, much as the Pacific and European wars were separate until Pearl Harbor.
I always liked The Great War's moniker 'The war to end all wars'.
Rubbish title. We want our money back.
And our generation of young men.
Indeed, the pals battalions had such noble intentions but the reality was disastrous.
Yes, unintended consequences sadly.
About 15 years ago I bought a 10 CD boxset of interviews with former WW1 veterans. It was harrowing.
The pals battalions were a disaster. Whole towns or districts lost many of their young men.
Yep. And there are horrific stories of the telegrams arriving to multiple houses in a street on the same day. I can’t imagine what it was like to go to war with your mates and see them killed all around you. Bad enough when it’s men you’ve only known through the army.
The chap I was talking to last night was moved several times during the war ... ending up in Coventry. He remembers going back to school one morning, and finding three newly empty desks in his classroom.
The resting state of WW3 risk is low but it's unnaturally elevated atm by the presence of a nutcase in the White House. We shouldn't, imo, be basing our longer term defence strategy on the assumption of this, nutcase in the WH, being a new normal. Stay out of the ME, help Ukraine, work with Europe, keep Trump at arms length and be transactional with the US, don't commit to any big new defence spend or direction (inc on nuclear) until things are clearer, particularly across the pond.
Move fast and break things has consequences. Your problem matey.
Tell America we're willing to help once they have a President who can behave like an adult. Their choice.
Thereby both gratuitously and pointlessly insulting the current President, and positioning us to be involved in whatever global dickery the next one gets involved in, as long as they ask nicely. Great idea.
Why are you called "Lucky" when you are invariably on the wrong side of history? Trump and Truss to name two examples.
I think you've spelt 'centrist daddery' [right side of] wrong above.
So why couldn't we, with more resources, and presumably access to what we would need, do the same?
Organisational capture of the government by BAE.
If we did succumb to the grip of national neurosis and decide we need nuclear weapons then the least shit way of doing it probably to license the M45 design from Airbus then build a facility in the south of England to build and maintain them. Expecting to generate the requisite industrial and scientific capacity at Faslane is a complete non-starter no matter how politically convenient that would be.
We'd also need a test range though we could probably bribe some remote shithole like Nauru to host it for us. And a range instrumentation ship like the French Navy's Monge. And a degaussing facility, this probably could be built in Faslane,
100bn+? Just think of all the benefits we could cut! Exciting times ahead for our program of national rebirth.
Move fast and break things has consequences. Your problem matey.
Tell America we're willing to help once they have a President who can behave like an adult. Their choice.
Thereby both gratuitously and pointlessly insulting the current President, and positioning us to be involved in whatever global dickery the next one gets involved in, as long as they ask nicely. Great idea.
Why are you called "Lucky" when you are invariably on the wrong side of history? Trump and Truss to name two examples.
Having bad (or good) judgement is nothing to do with fortune, so a bit weird why you would seek to relate them to each other.
Maybe LG'83 considers themselves lucky in their parentage, love life, or continued survival on a harsh unforgiving planet?
So why couldn't we, with more resources, and presumably access to what we would need, do the same?
Organisational capture of the government by BAE.
If we did succumb to the grip of national neurosis and decide we need nuclear weapons then the least shit way of doing it probably to license the M45 design from Airbus then build a facility in the south of England to build and maintain them. Expecting to generate the requisite industrial and scientific capacity at Faslane is a complete non-starter no matter how politically convenient that would be.
We'd also need a test range though we could probably bribe some remote shithole like Nauru to host it for us. And a range instrumentation ship like the French Navy's Monge. And a degaussing facility, this probably could be built in Faslane,
100bn+? Just think of all the benefits we could cut! Exciting times ahead for our program of national rebirth.
Looking at IPSOS, it's not the first poll since the 2024 GE which has had the LDs at 9%. Almost exactly a year ago, a Lord Ashcroft poll and just before that a Freshwater Strategy poll also had the party at 9%.
It contrasts with Techne at 14% as well as recent Focaldata and YouGov polls.
We can clearly see different sampling, methodology and weighting at work here across different pollsters which generate different results so whether any of them are "correct" will only be tested when we have a General Election.
There are pollsters who are "good" for Reform, Green and now seemingly the LDs while both Labour and Conservative seem to be more consistent across the polls. Labour are at or just above 20%, the Conservatives in the 16-18% range, both well down on 2024.
As for how these varying numbers will translate into local election results in May, short answer is, they won't. Even the NEV on which all manner of hopes and fears will doubtless be hung, will be an imperfect calculation given local party strengths and weakness and the willingness of voters to split votes across parties in local contests.
And local elections have very different turnouts to general elections, which is what these polls are trying to predict.
The problem with this is that the “World War” appellation is arbitrary. 1939 (earlier if you’re Chinese) to 1945 was a genuinely global conflict. However, the Seven Years War had major theatres in America, Europe, and South Asia, yet the 1914-1918 conflict which was largely confined to Europe (with due regard to Gallipolli, Arab Revolt etc, but even they were “Europe adjacent”) is labelled WW1.
You can argue the toss but the point is we might have a world war and not recognise it. WW3 is pre-recognised as a nuclear exchange, possible, but other scenarios exist.
WW1 was originally called the Great War until the second one happened. And there were certainly campaigns in Africa and the Middle East, and transatlantic and Pacific naval war. And the USA and Japan were belligerents.
The Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars were fairly global too, there was certainly an African campaign (Egypt) and Malacca was surrendered to the British as a result for example.although I don't think much action was seen in the colonies. And the War of 1812 can be regarded as a theatre of the Napoleonic Wars, much as the Pacific and European wars were separate until Pearl Harbor.
I always liked The Great War's moniker 'The war to end all wars'.
Rubbish title. We want our money back.
And our generation of young men.
Indeed, the pals battalions had such noble intentions but the reality was disastrous.
Yes, unintended consequences sadly.
About 15 years ago I bought a 10 CD boxset of interviews with former WW1 veterans. It was harrowing.
The pals battalions were a disaster. Whole towns or districts lost many of their young men.
Yep. And there are horrific stories of the telegrams arriving to multiple houses in a street on the same day. I can’t imagine what it was like to go to war with your mates and see them killed all around you. Bad enough when it’s men you’ve only known through the army.
The chap I was talking to last night was moved several times during the war ... ending up in Coventry. He remembers going back to school one morning, and finding three newly empty desks in his classroom.
A fate now being inflicted on Ukraine, Lebanon, Iran and Sudan.
Morning all Ipsos excellent for Greens who break through the 15% barrier with another pollster, you could argue poor for everyone else
Reform- more evidence of a decline and now tley are only at 30 with 3 pollsters - Deltapoll (who have not reported since December), MiC and Freshwater
Labour - stuck at about 20 with no sign of a (no to) war bounce
Tories - stuck in the mid/high teens and off a point or two since their post conference season hop
Lib Dems - first single figure score this parliament with BPC pollster (prev on 9 twice with Ashcroft Feb/Mar 2025 not BPC and Feb 2025 with Freshwster not BPC at the time)
So why couldn't we, with more resources, and presumably access to what we would need, do the same?
Organisational capture of the government by BAE.
If we did succumb to the grip of national neurosis and decide we need nuclear weapons then the least shit way of doing it probably to license the M45 design from Airbus then build a facility in the south of England to build and maintain them. Expecting to generate the requisite industrial and scientific capacity at Faslane is a complete non-starter no matter how politically convenient that would be.
We'd also need a test range though we could probably bribe some remote shithole like Nauru to host it for us. And a range instrumentation ship like the French Navy's Monge. And a degaussing facility, this probably could be built in Faslane,
100bn+? Just think of all the benefits we could cut! Exciting times ahead for our program of national rebirth.
Sometimes you are a little bit naughty when you frame a story. Did you ever work for the Daily Telegraph?
And you are not ??????
Pete just posts the link. You have a tendency to slightly disingenuously frame, typically, Sky reporting.
There was an incident a few months ago where you were saying Sky were reporting Starmer’s “”whack a mole” pressure on European HoG’s to accept Trump’s Ukraine “peace deal”, when what they were actually reporting on was his attempts not to reject it too forcefully at that specific moment. It was quite a telling interpretation.
Seems I have really touched a nerve
And of course nobody else is 'slightly disengenous' in their comments - This is a politics site
I link my posts as much as possible and when wrong I apologise
The art of politics is not only to enthuse your supporters but also not to enthuse your opponents. The most successful politicians are those who make their opponents willing to accept the fact you might win and not work too hard to prevent it happening.
The more you antagonise and criticise your opponents, the more likely they are to respond by redoubling their efforts against you.
Making your opponents angry enough to go that extra mile can be cumulatively counter productive.
The canny opposition politician realises you catch more flies with honey than with fly paper and that doesn't mean making ridiculous promises - it means respecting the fact people disagree with you, accepting you won't get them to switch to your side but at the same time reassuring them (to a point) in Government you won't govern in a vengeful, vindictive way.
This is what Badenoch and Farage do so badly and Blair, for example, did so well.
Fair comment, but the immediate response from Lib Dems was rather touchy rather than ask the question where have these votes gone and if to the greens how will this play out in May ?
You know I like and respect your posts, and certainly I accept criticism of Kemi and the conservatives though I do not see a better leader than Kemi at present in the same way I do not see anyone better than Starmer but that in itself is a worry
'Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey is calling on the government to start building a "fully independent British nuclear deterrent" to end the UK's reliance on the US.
The UK has operational control of its nuclear arsenal, including British-built warheads, but it depends on the US to supply and maintain the Trident missiles that would deliver them.
In a speech to his party's spring conference in York on Sunday, Sir Ed will argue the UK's continued reliance on US support is an unacceptable risk to national security..France, the only other European country with nuclear weapons, has always maintained a fully independent system.
The Lib Dems say France's approach proves a sovereign British capability is achievable.
They argue it could be done in two stages - developing a way to maintain the existing Trident weapons system domestically, and in the longer term manufacturing a fully British-made replacement.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0dz1k0rr4o
I'm a bit worried that there may have been something odd in my tea this morning. I agree with Ed!
The way to do it would be to buy the South Korean Hyunmoo-5, invest in their program and go from there.
The important tech is winding large carbon fibre solid fuel rocket casings, and building large nozzles for the rocket. Grain pouring in large sizes is also a bit of an art.
You’d build a factory to build them here, test facilities. Once you have the skills on line, you’d develop the next one as about double the mass. Same as Trident D5
I presume we have many of the skills anyway in that we do make smaller missile systems.
Also, is the idea of one big multi-warhead missile still the best in terms of 'getting through'?
At a random finger in the air guess, a Hyunmoo-5 with a single warhead (or maybe 3?) woukd have the same range as Minuteman 3. The South Koreans have given it an 8 ton conventional warhead - to disguise they are building and deploying an ICBM
The problem with this is that the “World War” appellation is arbitrary. 1939 (earlier if you’re Chinese) to 1945 was a genuinely global conflict. However, the Seven Years War had major theatres in America, Europe, and South Asia, yet the 1914-1918 conflict which was largely confined to Europe (with due regard to Gallipolli, Arab Revolt etc, but even they were “Europe adjacent”) is labelled WW1.
You can argue the toss but the point is we might have a world war and not recognise it. WW3 is pre-recognised as a nuclear exchange, possible, but other scenarios exist.
WW1 was originally called the Great War until the second one happened. And there were certainly campaigns in Africa and the Middle East, and transatlantic and Pacific naval war. And the USA and Japan were belligerents.
The Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars were fairly global too, there was certainly an African campaign (Egypt) and Malacca was surrendered to the British as a result for example.although I don't think much action was seen in the colonies. And the War of 1812 can be regarded as a theatre of the Napoleonic Wars, much as the Pacific and European wars were separate until Pearl Harbor.
I always liked The Great War's moniker 'The war to end all wars'.
Rubbish title. We want our money back.
And our generation of young men.
Indeed, the pals battalions had such noble intentions but the reality was disastrous.
Yes, unintended consequences sadly.
About 15 years ago I bought a 10 CD boxset of interviews with former WW1 veterans. It was harrowing.
The pals battalions were a disaster. Whole towns or districts lost many of their young men.
Yep. And there are horrific stories of the telegrams arriving to multiple houses in a street on the same day. I can’t imagine what it was like to go to war with your mates and see them killed all around you. Bad enough when it’s men you’ve only known through the army.
The chap I was talking to last night was moved several times during the war ... ending up in Coventry. He remembers going back to school one morning, and finding three newly empty desks in his classroom.
I recall reading somewhere that the arrival of multiple telegrams in a street, particularly when there was a 'Pals' battalion involved was one of the reasons for conscription being brought in in 1916, and for men being assigned to different regiments. One of my uncles originally joined the Hertfordshire Yeomanry and ended up in a Yorkshire regiment. Looks a bit odd on the war memorial in the small Hertfordshire village where he'd lived.
Sometimes you are a little bit naughty when you frame a story. Did you ever work for the Daily Telegraph?
And you are not ??????
Pete just posts the link. You have a tendency to slightly disingenuously frame, typically, Sky reporting.
There was an incident a few months ago where you were saying Sky were reporting Starmer’s “”whack a mole” pressure on European HoG’s to accept Trump’s Ukraine “peace deal”, when what they were actually reporting on was his attempts not to reject it too forcefully at that specific moment. It was quite a telling interpretation.
Seems I have really touched a nerve
And of course nobody else is 'slightly disengenous' in their comments - This is a politics site
I link my posts as much as possible and when wrong I apologise
The art of politics is not only to enthuse your supporters but also not to enthuse your opponents. The most successful politicians are those who make their opponents willing to accept the fact you might win and not work too hard to prevent it happening.
The more you antagonise and criticise your opponents, the more likely they are to respond by redoubling their efforts against you.
Making your opponents angry enough to go that extra mile can be cumulatively counter productive.
The canny opposition politician realises you catch more flies with honey than with fly paper and that doesn't mean making ridiculous promises - it means respecting the fact people disagree with you, accepting you won't get them to switch to your side but at the same time reassuring them (to a point) in Government you won't govern in a vengeful, vindictive way.
This is what Badenoch and Farage do so badly and Blair, for example, did so well.
Fair comment, but the immediate response from Lib Dems was rather touchy rather than ask the question where have these votes gone and if to the greens how will this play out in May ?
You know I like and respect your posts, and certainly I accept criticism of Kemi and the conservatives though I do not see a better leader than Kemi at present in the same way I do not see anyone better than Starmer but that in itself is a worry
Cleverly, Burnham and Streeting for starters could all be considered better options to them by some
Sometimes you are a little bit naughty when you frame a story. Did you ever work for the Daily Telegraph?
And you are not ??????
Pete just posts the link. You have a tendency to slightly disingenuously frame, typically, Sky reporting.
There was an incident a few months ago where you were saying Sky were reporting Starmer’s “”whack a mole” pressure on European HoG’s to accept Trump’s Ukraine “peace deal”, when what they were actually reporting on was his attempts not to reject it too forcefully at that specific moment. It was quite a telling interpretation.
Seems I have really touched a nerve
And of course nobody else is 'slightly disengenous' in their comments - This is a politics site
I link my posts as much as possible and when wrong I apologise
The art of politics is not only to enthuse your supporters but also not to enthuse your opponents. The most successful politicians are those who make their opponents willing to accept the fact you might win and not work too hard to prevent it happening.
The more you antagonise and criticise your opponents, the more likely they are to respond by redoubling their efforts against you.
Making your opponents angry enough to go that extra mile can be cumulatively counter productive.
The canny opposition politician realises you catch more flies with honey than with fly paper and that doesn't mean making ridiculous promises - it means respecting the fact people disagree with you, accepting you won't get them to switch to your side but at the same time reassuring them (to a point) in Government you won't govern in a vengeful, vindictive way.
This is what Badenoch and Farage do so badly and Blair, for example, did so well.
Fair comment, but the immediate response from Lib Dems was rather touchy rather than ask the question where have these votes gone and if to the greens how will this play out in May ?
You know I like and respect your posts, and certainly I accept criticism of Kemi and the conservatives though I do not see a better leader than Kemi at present in the same way I do not see anyone better than Starmer but that in itself is a worry
Cleverly, Burnham and Streeting for starters could all be considered better options to them by some
By you you mean
Cleverly is not the messiah you think he is, Burnham is not on Parliament , and Streeting's 'WhatsApp' messages and his own election prospects ends his ambition
'Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey is calling on the government to start building a "fully independent British nuclear deterrent" to end the UK's reliance on the US.
The UK has operational control of its nuclear arsenal, including British-built warheads, but it depends on the US to supply and maintain the Trident missiles that would deliver them.
In a speech to his party's spring conference in York on Sunday, Sir Ed will argue the UK's continued reliance on US support is an unacceptable risk to national security..France, the only other European country with nuclear weapons, has always maintained a fully independent system.
The Lib Dems say France's approach proves a sovereign British capability is achievable.
They arguŝ'20e it could be done in two stages - developing a way to maintain the existing Trident weapons system domestically, and in the longer term manufacturing a fully British-made replacement.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0dz1k0rr4o
This seems like a no brainer that ought to be supported across the political spectrum (but probably won't be by Reform, who are so far up Trump's arse they could clean his teeth).
Yeah, it's a "no brainer" until the government works out what it would cost and realises that BAE would have to be involved.
We are always being told 'what if [insert rogue state here] gets fissile material, they could hold the world to ransom.' So why couldn't we, with more resources, and presumably access to what we would need, do the same?
By the way, I note the complete lack of this narrative by centrists or left leaning parties when I was the only one saying that 'our' nuclear deterrent was wholly at the whim of the USA here, and getting roundly scolded as a traitor to PB morale for saying so. Now apparently it's a 'no brainer that should be supported across the political spectrum'.
Not sure who you're referring to but it certainly wasn't me. Our reliance on the Americans for Trident has long been a source of vulnerability and I've always thought that. I don't trust the Americans at all, they have their own interests as has always been apparent, from when they bled us dry during WW2, screwed us over Suez and dragged us into Iraq. The fact they now have a president who has tariffed our exporters and insulted our war dead should have brought the point home to even the most hard of thinking.
It's not quite black and white (which is probably why this comes up regularly as an argument).
Trident operates independently of the US, but requires their assistance to keep operating on an ongoing basis. That's been discussed here many times.
We're not starting from a good place, heavily relying on a deeply unreliable principal ally, and with budget constraints that make doing anything about that even harder. But I don't think for a moment that we should, as Kinabalu proposes, ignore the problem.
The science behind the polling for local elections 2026
Bombe describes itself as 'the UK's leading AI agent powered audience insight platform'.
It has launched a machine learning powered local elections model for England, which they have called Results Based Modelling. It’s the first publicly released ward-level prediction model of its kind anywhere in the world.
The model is validated against real-world election results and correctly projected the 20 most recent by-election outcomes, with 85% accuracy, calling 17 out of 20 results correct.
The model will be updated weekly in the run up to the May 2026 elections as real-world data evolves, developing its continued accuracy over time and keeping it in step with public sentiment and shifts in the national mood, says Mike Joslin, co-founder and CEO of Bombe.
Bombe was founded to pioneer Result Based Prediction in consumer insight. It has worked out how to model what motivates people to do things like vote and buy things.
Working with some of the UK's leading data scientists, they have divided the population into nine demographic and seven commercial personas, based on what drives them; all the way down to postcode level.
The election predictions are based on the behaviour of personas in the ward areas between 2022-2026. Using Gradient Boosted Regression Prediction, they have created dozens of models that overlay voting over the behaviour of the personas in those wards over that time period.
This allows Bombe to produce 'highly accurate predictions that are based on real world behaviour over a four year period' - not just polling samples from a small window.
NOTE: The firm says the current model is based on support levels, not actual candidates. Once the list of candidates is published this will be factored into the model. As a result it says it recognises some polling outcomes may change significantly.
Cooper had not come for a dressing down. "I'm sure everyone made promises in the manifesto that look a bit more difficult to stick to in government," she replied, archly. "But we are where we are."
Reeves exploded. She gathered her papers. "This meeting is over," she said, storming out of her own boardroom. As she left, those present heard her complain that Cooper was "trying to lecture me on economic strategy".
Jones, rising to leave, declared: "Well, that's it." Cooper persisted, continuing to explain her position to a Treasury official frozen in their seat by second-hand embarrassment. Jones ordered the official to get up. He turned to the home secretary: "That's it, the chancellor has asked you to leave, you need to leave."
Thats the Bombe AI that was also reported for London Theres an article in the Mail on the overall picture - it has Labour fourth in wards won iosing 1700 seats
The problem with this is that the “World War” appellation is arbitrary. 1939 (earlier if you’re Chinese) to 1945 was a genuinely global conflict. However, the Seven Years War had major theatres in America, Europe, and South Asia, yet the 1914-1918 conflict which was largely confined to Europe (with due regard to Gallipolli, Arab Revolt etc, but even they were “Europe adjacent”) is labelled WW1.
You can argue the toss but the point is we might have a world war and not recognise it. WW3 is pre-recognised as a nuclear exchange, possible, but other scenarios exist.
WW1 was originally called the Great War until the second one happened. And there were certainly campaigns in Africa and the Middle East, and transatlantic and Pacific naval war. And the USA and Japan were belligerents.
The Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars were fairly global too, there was certainly an African campaign (Egypt) and Malacca was surrendered to the British as a result for example.although I don't think much action was seen in the colonies. And the War of 1812 can be regarded as a theatre of the Napoleonic Wars, much as the Pacific and European wars were separate until Pearl Harbor.
I always liked The Great War's moniker 'The war to end all wars'.
Rubbish title. We want our money back.
And our generation of young men.
Indeed, the pals battalions had such noble intentions but the reality was disastrous.
Yes, unintended consequences sadly.
About 15 years ago I bought a 10 CD boxset of interviews with former WW1 veterans. It was harrowing.
The pals battalions were a disaster. Whole towns or districts lost many of their young men.
Yep. And there are horrific stories of the telegrams arriving to multiple houses in a street on the same day. I can’t imagine what it was like to go to war with your mates and see them killed all around you. Bad enough when it’s men you’ve only known through the army.
The chap I was talking to last night was moved several times during the war ... ending up in Coventry. He remembers going back to school one morning, and finding three newly empty desks in his classroom.
A fate now being inflicted on Ukraine, Lebanon, Iran and Sudan.
Quite. Also a reminder that life carries on during war; he got moved about for family reasons.
Move fast and break things has consequences. Your problem matey.
Tell America we're willing to help once they have a President who can behave like an adult. Their choice.
Thereby both gratuitously and pointlessly insulting the current President, and positioning us to be involved in whatever global dickery the next one gets involved in, as long as they ask nicely. Great idea.
Why are you called "Lucky" when you are invariably on the wrong side of history? Trump and Truss to name two examples.
Generally a big fan of yours on here Pete, but the phrase "wrong side of history" boils my piss in multiple ways. We left liberal types tend to employ it as if history takes sides.
Take the Vandals. Wrong side of history, which has literally appropriated their name as a word for indiscriminate destruction. Yet, when I hear the phrase "wrong side of history" I imagine some well-meaning young Roman in 455 telling a Vandal ransacking his house
"Stop! Don't you know you're on the wrong side of history?!?".
"Oh, well, I hadn't thought of it like that. Guys, we need to stop sacking Rome! This young gent in a toga has told me we're on the wrong side of history"
Of course, they didn't care, and don't because they're all dead, in fact they established some successful kingdoms in the Iberian Peninsula and North Africa that lasted a while before the Byzantines conquered them. Gibbon famously regarded the Byzantines as being "on the wrong side of history".
Similarly, I don't think "wrong side of history" is the killer line to today's reactionaries we think it is. Sorry to be critical but, as I say, it's a phrase that boils my piss.
Thats the Bombe AI that was also reported for London Theres an article in the Mail on the overall picture - it has Labour fourth in wards won iosing 1700 seats
Its also for my taste way too bullish on The Tories nationally, losing just 40 or 50 net seats and only 1 council net
'Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey is calling on the government to start building a "fully independent British nuclear deterrent" to end the UK's reliance on the US.
The UK has operational control of its nuclear arsenal, including British-built warheads, but it depends on the US to supply and maintain the Trident missiles that would deliver them.
In a speech to his party's spring conference in York on Sunday, Sir Ed will argue the UK's continued reliance on US support is an unacceptable risk to national security..France, the only other European country with nuclear weapons, has always maintained a fully independent system.
The Lib Dems say France's approach proves a sovereign British capability is achievable.
They argue it could be done in two stages - developing a way to maintain the existing Trident weapons system domestically, and in the longer term manufacturing a fully British-made replacement.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0dz1k0rr4o
I'm a bit worried that there may have been something odd in my tea this morning. I agree with Ed!
The way to do it would be to buy the South Korean Hyunmoo-5, invest in their program and go from there.
The important tech is winding large carbon fibre solid fuel rocket casings, and building large nozzles for the rocket. Grain pouring in large sizes is also a bit of an art.
You’d build a factory to build them here, test facilities. Once you have the skills on line, you’d develop the next one as about double the mass. Same as Trident D5
I presume we have many of the skills anyway in that we do make smaller missile systems.
Also, is the idea of one big multi-warhead missile still the best in terms of 'getting through'?
At a random finger in the air guess, a Hyunmoo-5 with a single warhead (or maybe 3?) woukd have the same range as Minuteman 3. The South Koreans have given it an 8 ton conventional warhead - to disguise they are building and deploying an ICBM
Not exactly. It's a genuine non-nuclear deterrent designed to be able to kill Kim however deep he might burrow. But potential nuclear capability is an obvious and intended side effect of that. And it's both a reminder to the US that they aren't indispensable, and insurance against the almost inevitable betrayal if MAGA stays in power.
If S Korea is capable of building it, then so are we. But we'd best sort out our defence procurement incapacity before we even think about trying to do so.
Sometimes you are a little bit naughty when you frame a story. Did you ever work for the Daily Telegraph?
And you are not ??????
Pete just posts the link. You have a tendency to slightly disingenuously frame, typically, Sky reporting.
There was an incident a few months ago where you were saying Sky were reporting Starmer’s “”whack a mole” pressure on European HoG’s to accept Trump’s Ukraine “peace deal”, when what they were actually reporting on was his attempts not to reject it too forcefully at that specific moment. It was quite a telling interpretation.
Seems I have really touched a nerve
And of course nobody else is 'slightly disengenous' in their comments - This is a politics site
I link my posts as much as possible and when wrong I apologise
The art of politics is not only to enthuse your supporters but also not to enthuse your opponents. The most successful politicians are those who make their opponents willing to accept the fact you might win and not work too hard to prevent it happening.
The more you antagonise and criticise your opponents, the more likely they are to respond by redoubling their efforts against you.
Making your opponents angry enough to go that extra mile can be cumulatively counter productive.
The canny opposition politician realises you catch more flies with honey than with fly paper and that doesn't mean making ridiculous promises - it means respecting the fact people disagree with you, accepting you won't get them to switch to your side but at the same time reassuring them (to a point) in Government you won't govern in a vengeful, vindictive way.
This is what Badenoch and Farage do so badly and Blair, for example, did so well.
Fair comment, but the immediate response from Lib Dems was rather touchy rather than ask the question where have these votes gone and if to the greens how will this play out in May ?
You know I like and respect your posts, and certainly I accept criticism of Kemi and the conservatives though I do not see a better leader than Kemi at present in the same way I do not see anyone better than Starmer but that in itself is a worry
Cleverly, Burnham and Streeting for starters could all be considered better options to them by some
By you you mean
Cleverly is not the messiah you think he is, Burnham is not on Parliament , and Streeting's 'WhatsApp' messages and his own election prospects ends his ambition
Trump: "The last person we need help from is Zelenskyy." He acknowledges Russia is providing intelligence to Iran to hit American positions but doesn't think it's important. Unlike his friend Putin, Zelenskyy is not willing to make a deal.
Move fast and break things has consequences. Your problem matey.
Tell America we're willing to help once they have a President who can behave like an adult. Their choice.
Thereby both gratuitously and pointlessly insulting the current President, and positioning us to be involved in whatever global dickery the next one gets involved in, as long as they ask nicely. Great idea.
Why are you called "Lucky" when you are invariably on the wrong side of history? Trump and Truss to name two examples.
Generally a big fan of yours on here Pete, but the phrase "wrong side of history" boils my piss in multiple ways. We left liberal types tend to employ it as if history takes sides.
Take the Vandals. Wrong side of history, which has literally appropriated their name as a word for indiscriminate destruction. Yet, when I hear the phrase "wrong side of history" I imagine some well-meaning young Roman in 455 telling a Vandal ransacking his house
"Stop! Don't you know you're on the wrong side of history?!?".
"Oh, well, I hadn't thought of it like that. Guys, we need to stop sacking Rome! This young gent in a toga has told me we're on the wrong side of history"
Of course, they didn't care, and don't because they're all dead, in fact they established some successful kingdoms in the Iberian Peninsula and North Africa that lasted a while before the Byzantines conquered them. Gibbon famously regarded the Byzantines as being "on the wrong side of history".
Similarly, I don't think "wrong side of history" is the killer line to today's reactionaries we think it is. Sorry to be critical but, as I say, it's a phrase that boils my piss.
Yes, at the very most, "frequently wrong". But that applies to almost all of us.
Comments
There was a very good article in the New Yorker (I think) that detailed what happened in a small town in the line of the Russian advance.
The militia unit assigned the vital bridge came in form their homes.
A local construction company owner recalled from
His military service that Russian amphibious vehicles had a limit on how steep a river bank they could climb. So he bought all his diggers to the river and started scarping the river bank to make is unclimbable.
The men of the town went to the town armoury and equipped themselves.
When the Russians arrived, they blew the bridge. An attempt at an amphibious crossing was made. Which ended in disaster for the Russians, since they couldn’t climb the scarped bank.
This was apparently one of many actions that stalled the Russian advance. Remember the long, long parking lot?
Most LD voters now voted for Cameron or Clegg in 2015, LD voters now are firmly centrist indeed as most of their seats were won by Cameron in 2015 if anything the median LD voter under Davey is fractionally right of centre but just anti Brexit
One does wonder where that 8 point Reform decline has gone with the Conservatives still languishing in the basement. Even with churn one would expect some reasonable net benefit.
https://youtu.be/5rATf5Ee1nQ?t=1137
Anyway my wife and I leave tomorrow on a 2 day train excursion to Edinburgh and intend enjoying the travel and not being online much
There was an incident a few months ago where you were saying Sky were reporting Starmer’s “”whack a mole” pressure on European HoG’s to accept Trump’s Ukraine “peace deal”, when what they were actually reporting on was his attempts not to reject it too forcefully at that specific moment. It was quite a telling interpretation.
Good poll for Starmer as well as Polanski with Labour on 21% and a clear second, Reform on 28% so still most seats but Labour closing the gap a bit with Farage's party
The important tech is winding large carbon fibre solid fuel rocket casings, and building large nozzles for the rocket. Grain pouring in large sizes is also a bit of an art.
You’d build a factory to build them here, test facilities. Once you have the skills on line, you’d develop the next one as about double the mass. Same as Trident D5
Anyway, I’m a Kennedy Lib Dem who has, not wholly enthusiastically it has to be said, returned to the fold.
And of course nobody else is 'slightly disengenous' in their comments - This is a politics site
I link my posts as much as possible and when wrong I apologise
Reform 28 (-2)
Labour 21 (-1)
Conservative 17 (-2)
Green 17 (+5)
Lib Dem 9 (-3)
Other 8 (+3)
Also, is the idea of one big multi-warhead missile still the best in terms of 'getting through'?
Others on 8% is +3pp from the 5% in January. Is Restore actually gaining some traction at Reform's expense, or are the SNP + PC surging in advance of the devolved elections?
We await the details.
Thanks to Big_G for the link.
The more you antagonise and criticise your opponents, the more likely they are to respond by redoubling their efforts against you.
Making your opponents angry enough to go that extra mile can be cumulatively counter productive.
The canny opposition politician realises you catch more flies with honey than with fly paper and that doesn't mean making ridiculous promises - it means respecting the fact people disagree with you, accepting you won't get them to switch to your side but at the same time reassuring them (to a point) in Government you won't govern in a vengeful, vindictive way.
This is what Badenoch and Farage do so badly and Blair, for example, did so well.
EXCL: In a phone call shortly after he was elected, President Trump suggested that Sir Keir Starmer keep Karen Pierce on as UK ambassador to Washington.
Starmer was noncommittal (and then chose to send Peter Mandelson instead)
If there wasn’t a war on, Mandy and the fallout would have led the news for the last week.
@anneapplebaum.bsky.social
Trump insulted, patronized and tariffed American allies. Now he wants their help. How should they respond?
https://bsky.app/profile/anneapplebaum.bsky.social/post/3mh3krfktms2x
Tell him to do one.
Move fast and break things has consequences. Your problem matey.
By the way, I note the complete lack of this narrative by centrists or left leaning parties when I was the only one saying that 'our' nuclear deterrent was wholly at the whim of the USA here, and getting roundly scolded as a traitor to PB morale for saying so. Now apparently it's a 'no brainer that should be supported across the political spectrum'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World_War_(comics)
That has very much not been a widely held view though.
https://electionmaps.uk/nowcast/custom
It contrasts with Techne at 14% as well as recent Focaldata and YouGov polls.
We can clearly see different sampling, methodology and weighting at work here across different pollsters which generate different results so whether any of them are "correct" will only be tested when we have a General Election.
There are pollsters who are "good" for Reform, Green and now seemingly the LDs while both Labour and Conservative seem to be more consistent across the polls. Labour are at or just above 20%, the Conservatives in the 16-18% range, both well down on 2024.
As for how these varying numbers will translate into local election results in May, short answer is, they won't. Even the NEV on which all manner of hopes and fears will doubtless be hung, will be an imperfect calculation given local party strengths and weakness and the willingness of voters to split votes across parties in local contests.
He remembers going back to school one morning, and finding three newly empty desks in his classroom.
If we did succumb to the grip of national neurosis and decide we need nuclear weapons then the least shit way of doing it probably to license the M45 design from Airbus then build a facility in the south of England to build and maintain them. Expecting to generate the requisite industrial and scientific capacity at Faslane is a complete non-starter no matter how politically convenient that would be.
We'd also need a test range though we could probably bribe some remote shithole like Nauru to host it for us. And a range instrumentation ship like the French Navy's Monge. And a degaussing facility, this probably could be built in Faslane,
100bn+? Just think of all the benefits we could cut! Exciting times ahead for our program of national rebirth.
Go figure?
Maybe LG'83 considers themselves lucky in their parentage, love life, or continued survival on a harsh unforgiving planet?
Ipsos excellent for Greens who break through the 15% barrier with another pollster, you could argue poor for everyone else
Reform- more evidence of a decline and now tley are only at 30 with 3 pollsters - Deltapoll (who have not reported since December), MiC and Freshwater
Labour - stuck at about 20 with no sign of a (no to) war bounce
Tories - stuck in the mid/high teens and off a point or two since their post conference season hop
Lib Dems - first single figure score this parliament with BPC pollster (prev on 9 twice with Ashcroft Feb/Mar 2025 not BPC and Feb 2025 with Freshwster not BPC at the time)
You know I like and respect your posts, and certainly I accept criticism of Kemi and the conservatives though I do not see a better leader than Kemi at present in the same way I do not see anyone better than Starmer but that in itself is a worry
One of my uncles originally joined the Hertfordshire Yeomanry and ended up in a Yorkshire regiment. Looks a bit odd on the war memorial in the small Hertfordshire village where he'd lived.
Farage is a long distance away from PM, and I instinctively I do not see it anymore than Polanski being PM
Cleverly is not the messiah you think he is, Burnham is not on Parliament , and Streeting's 'WhatsApp' messages and his own election prospects ends his ambition
Very sanguine wise words on Sky.
Cautioning against getting too involved with Trump especially Naval requests.
Far closer to Government line that current Tory position.
Trident operates independently of the US, but requires their assistance to keep operating on an ongoing basis.
That's been discussed here many times.
We're not starting from a good place, heavily relying on a deeply unreliable principal ally, and with budget constraints that make doing anything about that even harder.
But I don't think for a moment that we should, as Kinabalu proposes, ignore the problem.
Bombe describes itself as 'the UK's leading AI agent powered audience insight platform'.
It has launched a machine learning powered local elections model for England, which they have called Results Based Modelling. It’s the first publicly released ward-level prediction model of its kind anywhere in the world.
The model is validated against real-world election results and correctly projected the 20 most recent by-election outcomes, with 85% accuracy, calling 17 out of 20 results correct.
The model will be updated weekly in the run up to the May 2026 elections as real-world data evolves, developing its continued accuracy over time and keeping it in step with public sentiment and shifts in the national mood, says Mike Joslin, co-founder and CEO of Bombe.
Bombe was founded to pioneer Result Based Prediction in consumer insight. It has worked out how to model what motivates people to do things like vote and buy things.
Working with some of the UK's leading data scientists, they have divided the population into nine demographic and seven commercial personas, based on what drives them; all the way down to postcode level.
The election predictions are based on the behaviour of personas in the ward areas between 2022-2026. Using Gradient Boosted Regression Prediction, they have created dozens of models that overlay voting over the behaviour of the personas in those wards over that time period.
This allows Bombe to produce 'highly accurate predictions that are based on real world behaviour over a four year period' - not just polling samples from a small window.
NOTE: The firm says the current model is based on support levels, not actual candidates. Once the list of candidates is published this will be factored into the model. As a result it says it recognises some polling outcomes may change significantly.
https://x.com/NeilDotObrien/status/2033098535143428521
Cooper had not come for a dressing down. "I'm sure everyone made promises in the manifesto that look a bit more difficult to stick to in government," she replied, archly. "But we are where we are."
Reeves exploded. She gathered her papers. "This meeting is over," she said, storming out of her own boardroom. As she left, those present heard her complain that Cooper was "trying to lecture me on economic strategy".
Jones, rising to leave, declared: "Well, that's it." Cooper persisted, continuing to explain her position to a Treasury official frozen in their seat by second-hand embarrassment. Jones ordered the official to get up. He turned to the home secretary: "That's it, the chancellor has asked you to leave, you need to leave."
Theres an article in the Mail on the overall picture - it has Labour fourth in wards won iosing 1700 seats
Also a reminder that life carries on during war; he got moved about for family reasons.
Take the Vandals. Wrong side of history, which has literally appropriated their name as a word for indiscriminate destruction. Yet, when I hear the phrase "wrong side of history" I imagine some well-meaning young Roman in 455 telling a Vandal ransacking his house
"Stop! Don't you know you're on the wrong side of history?!?".
"Oh, well, I hadn't thought of it like that. Guys, we need to stop sacking Rome! This young gent in a toga has told me we're on the wrong side of history"
Of course, they didn't care, and don't because they're all dead, in fact they established some successful kingdoms in the Iberian Peninsula and North Africa that lasted a while before the Byzantines conquered them. Gibbon famously regarded the Byzantines as being "on the wrong side of history".
Similarly, I don't think "wrong side of history" is the killer line to today's reactionaries we think it is. Sorry to be critical but, as I say, it's a phrase that boils my piss.
It's a genuine non-nuclear deterrent designed to be able to kill Kim however deep he might burrow.
But potential nuclear capability is an obvious and intended side effect of that.
And it's both a reminder to the US that they aren't indispensable, and insurance against the almost inevitable betrayal if MAGA stays in power.
If S Korea is capable of building it, then so are we.
But we'd best sort out our defence procurement incapacity before we even think about trying to do so.
Ipsos - Tories on 3% with 18 to 34 y/o
He's not the Messiah, he's just a naughty boy...
What an utter shithead.
But that applies to almost all of us.