He said he had “absolutely nothing to do with her tragic passing”, saying of the affair: “I made a mistake – I had a lapse in judgment and it was a lack of faith, and I take full responsibility for those actions … Since then, I’ve reconciled with my wife, Angel. I’ve asked God to forgive me, which he has, and my faith is as strong as ever.”
That's a very convenient relationship he has with God.
And unless God has been doing that burning bush / wall writing in Gonzalez's district it looks like a very presumptive relationship he has with God.
I thought the core teaching of Christianity is that you only have to ask in order to be forgiven by God?
'Core teachings' of any religious thing is dangerous ground, and angels fear to tread, but the description 'you only have to ask and....' while familiar is also transactional. Whereas the traditional model is non transactional but entirely one sided: the meaning of Good Friday is that there is nothing additional God has to do to forgive you. Already done. This is so scandalous that people will go to almost any lengths to avoid its implications.
Ah yes, I see what you mean. There's something a bit scary about unconditional love.
He said he had “absolutely nothing to do with her tragic passing”, saying of the affair: “I made a mistake – I had a lapse in judgment and it was a lack of faith, and I take full responsibility for those actions … Since then, I’ve reconciled with my wife, Angel. I’ve asked God to forgive me, which he has, and my faith is as strong as ever.”
He said he had “absolutely nothing to do with her tragic passing”, saying of the affair: “I made a mistake – I had a lapse in judgment and it was a lack of faith, and I take full responsibility for those actions … Since then, I’ve reconciled with my wife, Angel. I’ve asked God to forgive me, which he has, and my faith is as strong as ever.”
He said he had “absolutely nothing to do with her tragic passing”, saying of the affair: “I made a mistake – I had a lapse in judgment and it was a lack of faith, and I take full responsibility for those actions … Since then, I’ve reconciled with my wife, Angel. I’ve asked God to forgive me, which he has, and my faith is as strong as ever.”
That's a very convenient relationship he has with God.
And unless God has been doing that burning bush / wall writing in Gonzalez's district it looks like a very presumptive relationship he has with God.
I thought the core teaching of Christianity is that you only have to ask in order to be forgiven by God?
No. You need to admit your acts, accept you were wrong, resolve not to do it again and *then* ask for forgiveness.
Some Christians have trouble with points 2 and 3.
That's how the church has tended to codify it, but it's not what Jesus went round doing. How practical that is as a life strategy in a finite world (for example, where only some people get to be members of Congress and others don't) is another matter.
He said he had “absolutely nothing to do with her tragic passing”, saying of the affair: “I made a mistake – I had a lapse in judgment and it was a lack of faith, and I take full responsibility for those actions … Since then, I’ve reconciled with my wife, Angel. I’ve asked God to forgive me, which he has, and my faith is as strong as ever.”
He said he had “absolutely nothing to do with her tragic passing”, saying of the affair: “I made a mistake – I had a lapse in judgment and it was a lack of faith, and I take full responsibility for those actions … Since then, I’ve reconciled with my wife, Angel. I’ve asked God to forgive me, which he has, and my faith is as strong as ever.”
That's a very convenient relationship he has with God.
And unless God has been doing that burning bush / wall writing in Gonzalez's district it looks like a very presumptive relationship he has with God.
I thought the core teaching of Christianity is that you only have to ask in order to be forgiven by God?
Not as I have it.
AIUI the confusion probably comes from a split in Western (Greek?) philosophy between the motivation and the action; in more New Testament thought the action is more an indicator of the inner state.
Can anyone explain to me why people never seem to get fed up with using phones? You'd think there'd come a point where people say to themselves I've had enough of this, I want to do something different now.
Can anyone explain to me why people never seem to get fed up with using phones? You'd think there'd come a point where people say to themselves I've had enough of this, I want to do something different now.
They are addictive and play on the chemicals in our bodies - see drugs, alcohol, gambling etc.
Can anyone explain to me why people never seem to get fed up with using phones? You'd think there'd come a point where people say to themselves I've had enough of this, I want to do something different now.
Because you can do many different things on a phone, often concurrently.
Labour MP @SamanthaNiblet4 has launched a campaign to make 2026 the “summer of sex”, calling for a more open and inclusive approach to lifelong sex ed
I'm up for a summer of sex but is lifelong sex ed really necessary? I feel like you can pick up the basics pretty quickly and it's not something you forget how to do.
He said he had “absolutely nothing to do with her tragic passing”, saying of the affair: “I made a mistake – I had a lapse in judgment and it was a lack of faith, and I take full responsibility for those actions … Since then, I’ve reconciled with my wife, Angel. I’ve asked God to forgive me, which he has, and my faith is as strong as ever.”
That's a very convenient relationship he has with God.
And unless God has been doing that burning bush / wall writing in Gonzalez's district it looks like a very presumptive relationship he has with God.
I thought the core teaching of Christianity is that you only have to ask in order to be forgiven by God?
Not as I have it.
AIUI the confusion probably comes from a split in Western (Greek?) philosophy between the motivation and the action; in more New Testament thought the action is more an indicator of the inner state.
The book of James is pretty clear on this: James 2 from verse 14 (NIV):
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.
OT - That fishing boat has sailed but I hope writing that helped you cope with your frustration.
Brexit was promised to herald a new golden age of world power and prosperity for the British people. The gap between reality and the promises is what has turned people against it. Not an economic report that almost noone in the real world has heard of let alone read. History proved communism a failure, history proved fascism a failure and history has proved Brexit a failure. Not everyone from those groups is ready to accept that fact but it remains a remorseless fact none the less.
For the 94th time Brexit hasn't failed. We left the EU. We now control our own destiny. The political debates about sovereignty are no more. Brexit was never only about the best economic path for the country.
In a complex and interdependent world talk of controlling our own destiny misses the point, IMHO. The question is what is the most effective way of exercising our sovereignty given the constraints we face. To my mind, pooling our sovereignty with 28 broadly like minded European liberal democracies is a more effective strategy than jumping up and down saying look here chaps, listen to us, when we have less than 1% of global population and barely 2% of global GDP.
I could not disagree with you more.
2% of global GDP is a hell of a lot, not a tiny amount.
The point is not that we should do x, y, or z with our sovereignty, but that we can debate x, y and z and vote every few years to change course.
Pooling sovereignty would make sense if you want a country called Europe and a demos of European citizens determining laws at European elections, but that has not turned out and people adamantly claim that is not what they want.
To pool sovereignty but to not have an effective electoral debate over it that can change course on a regular basis is profoundly undemocratic.
Labour MP @SamanthaNiblet4 has launched a campaign to make 2026 the “summer of sex”, calling for a more open and inclusive approach to lifelong sex ed
I'm up for a summer of sex but is lifelong sex ed really necessary? I feel like you can pick up the basics pretty quickly and it's not something you forget how to do.
I think the evidence exists that a large cohort of people missed out on some of the essentials (consent, communication, foreplay, flirting) and could do with remedial lessons.
This is going to be in the media spotlight tomorrow after Lord Robertson's speech tonight who is apparently going to say Reeves has prioritized welfare spending over defence
None of these figures are worth the space they take up. The war and the upcoming AI implosion will radically change the economic outlook and erase growth pretty much everywhere.
Labour MP @SamanthaNiblet4 has launched a campaign to make 2026 the “summer of sex”, calling for a more open and inclusive approach to lifelong sex ed
I'm up for a summer of sex but is lifelong sex ed really necessary? I feel like you can pick up the basics pretty quickly and it's not something you forget how to do.
Of all the creatures on the Earth only one seems to need education to make the next generation. One wonders how the rest know what to do!
This is going to be in the media spotlight tomorrow after Lord Robertson's speech tonight who is apparently going to say Reeves has prioritized welfare spending over defence
Labour MP @SamanthaNiblet4 has launched a campaign to make 2026 the “summer of sex”, calling for a more open and inclusive approach to lifelong sex ed
I'm up for a summer of sex but is lifelong sex ed really necessary? I feel like you can pick up the basics pretty quickly and it's not something you forget how to do.
Of all the creatures on the Earth only one seems to need education to make the next generation. One wonders how the rest know what to do!
The human species does have a few quirks that are unusual among other mammals. For example, we have enormous heads, which makes birth unusually perilous. And secondly oestrus is not advertised.
This is going to be in the media spotlight tomorrow after Lord Robertson's speech tonight who is apparently going to say Reeves has prioritized welfare spending over defence
OT. A longer section on the row between Tucker Carlson and Victoria Derbyshire. TC is definitely the more adept but to be hair to VD she is being deliberately misunderstood. If I was scoring it on points I'd give Carlson 8 Derbyshire 4. But most of her low score is the crass Starmer government she is trying to explain.
Labour MP @SamanthaNiblet4 has launched a campaign to make 2026 the “summer of sex”, calling for a more open and inclusive approach to lifelong sex ed
I'm up for a summer of sex but is lifelong sex ed really necessary? I feel like you can pick up the basics pretty quickly and it's not something you forget how to do.
I think the evidence exists that a large cohort of people missed out on some of the essentials (consent, communication, foreplay, flirting) and could do with remedial lessons.
Tommy Tugs on LBC castigating the Labour Government for throwing away the Conservatives Golden defence legacy.
That is not what Lord Robertson is going to say in a speech tonight where underfunded defence spending has happened over years of the peace divided, but the wars in Ukraine and Iran together with Trump's demands for NATO to reach 3.5 % spending has not been taken seriously by Starmer or Reeves who have prioritized welfare spending over defence
This is Starmer's own defence review advisor and a distinguished labour party member, and to add to Starmer and Reeves woes the labour head of the defence conmitteee is equally scathing
The 2 child cap abolition was unaffordable, as is the triple lock and labour mps stopping most benefit reductions, all of which speaks to an unaffordable largesse and when taking into account the IMF report there is absolutely no case for not developing north sea oil and gas
The left will not accept this, but that is where we are and no amount of whatsboutery is going to change the narrative and demands for not only the defence review but backed by billions not apparently the 3.5 billion in defence spending cuts demanded by Reeves at present
This is going to be in the media spotlight tomorrow after Lord Robertson's speech tonight who is apparently going to say Reeves has prioritized welfare spending over defence
Tommy Tugs on LBC castigating the Labour Government for throwing away the Conservatives Golden defence legacy.
That is not what Lord Robertson is going to say in a speech tonight where underfunded defence spending has happened over years of the peace divided, but the wars in Ukraine and Iran together with Trump's demands for NATO to reach 3.5 % spending has not been taken seriously by Starmer or Reeves who have prioritized welfare spending over defence
This is Starmer's own defence review advisor and a distinguished labour party member, and to add to Starmer and Reeves woes the labour head of the defence conmitteee is equally scathing
The 2 child cap abolition was unaffordable, as is the triple lock and labour mps stopping most benefit reductions, all of which speaks to an unaffordable largesse and when taking into account the IMF report there is absolutely no case for not developing north sea oil and gas
The left will not accept this, but that is where we are and no amount of whatsboutery is going to change the narrative and demands for not only the defence review but backed by billions not apparently the 3.5 billion in defence spending cuts demanded by Reeves at present
It’s nothing to do with “the left”. Both the Conservatives and Reform also don’t accept that all of these things are not affordable.
The project cost £179 million. (Or rather non-project).
Cnuts. I hope they come back with a cheaper idea (divert and dual, as was the plan in the 1980's. Its a blight to the view of the stones right now and a pain in the arse for Shrewton, Durrington, and many other rat run villages.
This is going to be in the media spotlight tomorrow after Lord Robertson's speech tonight who is apparently going to say Reeves has prioritized welfare spending over defence
Tommy Tugs on LBC castigating the Labour Government for throwing away the Conservatives Golden defence legacy.
That is not what Lord Robertson is going to say in a speech tonight where underfunded defence spending has happened over years of the peace divided, but the wars in Ukraine and Iran together with Trump's demands for NATO to reach 3.5 % spending has not been taken seriously by Starmer or Reeves who have prioritized welfare spending over defence
This is Starmer's own defence review advisor and a distinguished labour party member, and to add to Starmer and Reeves woes the labour head of the defence conmitteee is equally scathing
The 2 child cap abolition was unaffordable, as is the triple lock and labour mps stopping most benefit reductions, all of which speaks to an unaffordable largesse and when taking into account the IMF report there is absolutely no case for not developing north sea oil and gas
The left will not accept this, but that is where we are and no amount of whatsboutery is going to change the narrative and demands for not only the defence review but backed by billions not apparently the 3.5 billion in defence spending cuts demanded by Reeves at present
Would that be the Lord Robertson who is a paid lobbyist for the Cohen group- advisors to the arms trade?
What does your milk preference in tea and coffee say about your politics? 🐄If only cow milk drinkers could vote Reform would have a big lead, especially among those who like semi-skimmed. 🌱Labour on the other hand has commanding leads among almond and oat milk drinkers.
The project cost £179 million. (Or rather non-project).
Cnuts. I hope they come back with a cheaper idea (divert and dual, as was the plan in the 1980's. Its a blight to the view of the stones right now and a pain in the arse for Shrewton, Durrington, and many other rat run villages.
I propose that instead of paying the lawyers, consultants etc to work on infrastructure projects plans, they get an IOU.
Redeemable after the project is completed, handover is done and it is operating.
The project cost £179 million. (Or rather non-project).
Cnuts. I hope they come back with a cheaper idea (divert and dual, as was the plan in the 1980's. Its a blight to the view of the stones right now and a pain in the arse for Shrewton, Durrington, and many other rat run villages.
I propose that instead of paying the lawyers, consultants etc to work on infrastructure projects plans, they get an IOU.
Redeemable after the project is completed, handover is done and it is operating.
They even spent millions laying a cable to use with the digging machines. I am staggered by the waste of money, and no one ever seems accountable.
"However, [the IMF] expects the UK to then recover, to again become the fastest growing European economy next year in the smaller G7 group of advanced economies, albeit at a slightly slower rate of growth of 1.3%." -- BBC
The project cost £179 million. (Or rather non-project).
Cnuts. I hope they come back with a cheaper idea (divert and dual, as was the plan in the 1980's. Its a blight to the view of the stones right now and a pain in the arse for Shrewton, Durrington, and many other rat run villages.
I propose that instead of paying the lawyers, consultants etc to work on infrastructure projects plans, they get an IOU.
Redeemable after the project is completed, handover is done and it is operating.
They even spent millions laying a cable to use with the digging machines. I am staggered by the waste of money, and no one ever seems accountable.
Why? Lots of people got paid. A mountain of paper was generated. What more do you want?
The project cost £179 million. (Or rather non-project).
Nah. They are just too scared of releasing the primal forces under the stones...would be an excuse that would at least get them a hearing in some quarters.
"But there is no money..." is going to be quite the excuse in the coming months, as everything grinds to a halt.
The project cost £179 million. (Or rather non-project).
Cnuts. I hope they come back with a cheaper idea (divert and dual, as was the plan in the 1980's. Its a blight to the view of the stones right now and a pain in the arse for Shrewton, Durrington, and many other rat run villages.
I propose that instead of paying the lawyers, consultants etc to work on infrastructure projects plans, they get an IOU.
Redeemable after the project is completed, handover is done and it is operating.
They even spent millions laying a cable to use with the digging machines. I am staggered by the waste of money, and no one ever seems accountable.
Why? Lots of people got paid. A mountain of paper was generated. What more do you want?
A dual carriageway to alleviate the traffic?
I presume someone will have to dig up the cable, too.
Lucky for us that most of the UK's gas and oil does not come from the Middle East. I wonder if most people know this.
Oil and gas are globally traded commodities, so it doesn't make much difference. What matters is whether the UK is rich enough to outbid other countries to avoid shortages, and the economy strong enough to deal with the higher prices that have to be paid.
Thanks Fishing for the header. A few counter points: before the GFC the UK was growing materially faster than the rest of the EU on average, so it's not that crazy to imagine that that trend could re-emerge in a world where uncertainty over the UK's place in the EU had been resolved and austerity was behind us. In financial services, for instance, we have seen significant drift of activity out of the UK after Brexit, which has prevented that sector being a major growth driver. On the synthetic GDP approach, the idea of this methodology is to avoid getting into a subjective judgement based exercise, and use an algorithm to select the comparator countries based on similarity in performance pre Brexit. You may not like the approach but it is one that is widely used in this sort of analysis, on a range of topics, to overcome the issue of economics not being an experimental science. You mention a lot of other stuff that was happening at the same time, such as Covid - true, but many of the things you mention also affected other countries, whereas Brexit was UK specific so it's not unreasonable to think it was a significant contributor. My own view is that an 8% of GDP hit may be an overestimate (to be fair to NIESR that is the top of their range, the 6% bottom of their range seems more plausble). Even if it was just 4% that would be around £120bn or close to £2,000 per person. Is that a price worth paying for some notional idea of sovereignty (when in reality we have lost sovereignty as we align with EU rules we have no voice in setting)? Not in my book.
But that "price" is just plucked out of thin air, isn't it? It has even less validity than the spurious 8%. I could just as easily assert that leaving the EU has benefited the economy by 4%, or 8%, or 50% for that matter. Without analysis to back it up, there's no reason to take one number over any other, and it should certainly not be used as a guide to set policy. OK, feel free to tell me I'm wrong and you have some rigorous basis for choosing that number rather than any other, but until then ...
Thank you for your other comments.
The synthetic approach can indeed be valid sometimes, but really to include the US and Estonia and not France and Germany, and to attempt to isolate the effects of one event in a turbulent decade is surely absurd? There are other ways to overcome the lack of controls in social sciences, most obviously doing bottom up rather than top down analysis, and I think those are more appropriate in this case.
The UK was not really growing materially faster than the EU before the runup to the financial crisis. Just taking for simplicity's sake the EU-4 (Ger, Fr, It, Sp) and ignoring the A10 whose recovery from socialism and huge receipt of EU funds makes them incomparable, in the five years before the 2009 recession they grew by the same amount as the UK - 2.0%. Of course one can pick time periods to prove whatever, and quibble about the word "material", but I don't think there's enough there to derive any points from it.
The point about other causes has been dealt with by myself and others downthread - the point is not that those factors didn't affect other countries, it's that they did so differentially. And until you split those effects out, their noise will overwhelm any validity the "synthetic comparator" approach might have.
Finally you mention Brexit was a "significant contributor". To what? To the underperformance that didn't happen relative to genuinely comparable countries like France and Germany? Also, the study didn't say that Brexit was a "significant contributor", it said that "most" of the UK's underperformance relative to Estonia and the US and whoever was due to Brexit. That means that Brexit has to be significantly more significant than all the other factors listed combined, which I would say is absurd, especially since there was no obvious change in the UK's fortunes relative to France and Germany either when we voted to leave, or when we actually did so.
Tommy Tugs on LBC castigating the Labour Government for throwing away the Conservatives Golden defence legacy.
That is not what Lord Robertson is going to say in a speech tonight where underfunded defence spending has happened over years of the peace divided, but the wars in Ukraine and Iran together with Trump's demands for NATO to reach 3.5 % spending has not been taken seriously by Starmer or Reeves who have prioritized welfare spending over defence
This is Starmer's own defence review advisor and a distinguished labour party member, and to add to Starmer and Reeves woes the labour head of the defence conmitteee is equally scathing
The 2 child cap abolition was unaffordable, as is the triple lock and labour mps stopping most benefit reductions, all of which speaks to an unaffordable largesse and when taking into account the IMF report there is absolutely no case for not developing north sea oil and gas
The left will not accept this, but that is where we are and no amount of whatsboutery is going to change the narrative and demands for not only the defence review but backed by billions not apparently the 3.5 billion in defence spending cuts demanded by Reeves at present
The IPPR's interpretation of the IMF report highlighting the UK's susceptibility to fossil fuel price shocks is that "electrification and clean, homegrown energy" are required, not North Sea Oil & Gas.
It's going to take us a while to recover from the investment backlog bequeathed by the high tax, low spending govts we had from 2010.
If it's choice between MOD spending and benefits for families where should the money be spent? Is anyone arguing that the UK will get value from money from increased MOD spending rather them wasting it on projects that will be a decade late and don't work?
This is going to be in the media spotlight tomorrow after Lord Robertson's speech tonight who is apparently going to say Reeves has prioritized welfare spending over defence
And of course the IMF damning report on UK finances
Your interpretation of the IMF report
Read and listen to it
I have seen the reports of the IMF report and you have followed Stride's line. Of course there are local considerations and welfare (including old age pensions) is a political choice taken by this Government. We need to spend on defence and quickly but it is not a binary choice of defence or welfare. We could increase wealth taxes, we could surcharge BP for their astronomical profits. We can do all sorts of things to get defence where it needs to be, and Robertson is probably correct. That said the reporting this morning was that Robertson would critique defence spending by parties of both stripes since 2010. I don't want to defend Starmer, but neither do I want to read your, or AI's interpretation of a story from your side of the fence with no balance and proposed as fact.
By the way who started the war that is leading to economic catastrophe for the UK? The metric you have used to describe the Labour generated ( nothing to do with the Tories) catastrophe is the drop of forecast growth from 1.4% to 0.8%. 0.8% would seem to be a similarly poor growth forecast alongside Italy, Germany and France.
What does your milk preference in tea and coffee say about your politics? 🐄If only cow milk drinkers could vote Reform would have a big lead, especially among those who like semi-skimmed. 🌱Labour on the other hand has commanding leads among almond and oat milk drinkers.
That makes sense. I don't have milk, and support neither!
Tommy Tugs on LBC castigating the Labour Government for throwing away the Conservatives Golden defence legacy.
That is not what Lord Robertson is going to say in a speech tonight where underfunded defence spending has happened over years of the peace divided, but the wars in Ukraine and Iran together with Trump's demands for NATO to reach 3.5 % spending has not been taken seriously by Starmer or Reeves who have prioritized welfare spending over defence
This is Starmer's own defence review advisor and a distinguished labour party member, and to add to Starmer and Reeves woes the labour head of the defence conmitteee is equally scathing
The 2 child cap abolition was unaffordable, as is the triple lock and labour mps stopping most benefit reductions, all of which speaks to an unaffordable largesse and when taking into account the IMF report there is absolutely no case for not developing north sea oil and gas
The left will not accept this, but that is where we are and no amount of whatsboutery is going to change the narrative and demands for not only the defence review but backed by billions not apparently the 3.5 billion in defence spending cuts demanded by Reeves at present
Would that be the Lord Robertson who is a paid lobbyist for the Cohen group- advisors to the arms trade?
He is Starmer's appointed own defence review chair, ex NATO chief, and a labour Lord
He is speaking truth to power and the question is - what do you disagree with in his observations ?
Tommy Tugs on LBC castigating the Labour Government for throwing away the Conservatives Golden defence legacy.
Followed by Kemi explaining to anyone who would listen that it wasn't her fault as the crass decisions that were made by the last Conservative government were made when she wasn't part of it 'or if she was she hadn't been part of it for long'.
Someone should explain to hapless Kemi that governments are a continuum.........
Tommy Tugs on LBC castigating the Labour Government for throwing away the Conservatives Golden defence legacy.
That is not what Lord Robertson is going to say in a speech tonight where underfunded defence spending has happened over years of the peace divided, but the wars in Ukraine and Iran together with Trump's demands for NATO to reach 3.5 % spending has not been taken seriously by Starmer or Reeves who have prioritized welfare spending over defence
This is Starmer's own defence review advisor and a distinguished labour party member, and to add to Starmer and Reeves woes the labour head of the defence conmitteee is equally scathing
The 2 child cap abolition was unaffordable, as is the triple lock and labour mps stopping most benefit reductions, all of which speaks to an unaffordable largesse and when taking into account the IMF report there is absolutely no case for not developing north sea oil and gas
The left will not accept this, but that is where we are and no amount of whatsboutery is going to change the narrative and demands for not only the defence review but backed by billions not apparently the 3.5 billion in defence spending cuts demanded by Reeves at present
Would that be the Lord Robertson who is a paid lobbyist for the Cohen group- advisors to the arms trade?
He is Starmer's appointed own defence review chair, ex NATO chief, and a labour Lord
He is speaking truth to power and the question is - what do you disagree with in his observations ?
I doubt whether Robertson's report when it is delivered will be quite the Tories have it right, Labour have it wrong narrative YOU or Stride are proposing. Although the SNP got in on the action earlier too.
P.S. I don't know how you managed to avoid a troll flag for your outrageous AI post yesterday. The fact you didn't get a flag brings the flag system into disrepute.
Tommy Tugs on LBC castigating the Labour Government for throwing away the Conservatives Golden defence legacy.
Followed by Kemi explaining to anyone who would listen that it wasn't her fault as the crass decisions that were made by the last Conservative government were made when she wasn't part of it 'or if she was she hadn't been part of it for long'.
Someone should explain to hapless Kemi that governments are a continuum.........
The problem for Starmer and Reeves is their own appointed defence review chair is saying this about them, and their choice to pay welfare over defence spending. Indeed the labour chair of the defence committee is also on message
Kemi, Reform, Davey and others will make this very uncomfortable for the government
I think we know the topic at PMQ's tomorrow is going to be
Tommy Tugs on LBC castigating the Labour Government for throwing away the Conservatives Golden defence legacy.
Followed by Kemi explaining to anyone who would listen that it wasn't her fault as the crass decisions that were made by the last Conservative government were made when she wasn't part of it 'or if she was she hadn't been part of it for long'.
Someone should explain to hapless Kemi that governments are a continuum.........
The problem for Starmer and Reeves is their own appointed defence review chair is saying this about them, and their choice to pay welfare over defence spending. Indeed the labour chair of the defence committee is also on message
Kemi, Reform, Davey and others will make this very uncomfortable for the government
I think we know the topic at PMQ's tomorrow is going to be
Badenoch will get creamed if she asks six questions on defence spending bearing in mind the Tory legacy. Now that isn't to say questions don't need asking on why Robertson's package of measures hasn't been confirmed in part of in whole.
This is going to be in the media spotlight tomorrow after Lord Robertson's speech tonight who is apparently going to say Reeves has prioritized welfare spending over defence
And of course the IMF damning report on UK finances
Your interpretation of the IMF report
Read and listen to it
I have seen the reports of the IMF report and you have followed Stride's line. Of course there are local considerations and welfare (including old age pensions) is a political choice taken by this Government. We need to spend on defence and quickly but it is not a binary choice of defence or welfare. We could increase wealth taxes, we could surcharge BP for their astronomical profits. We can do all sorts of things to get defence where it needs to be, and Robertson is probably correct. That said the reporting this morning was that Robertson would critique defence spending by parties of both stripes since 2010. I don't want to defend Starmer, but neither do I want to read your, or AI's interpretation of a story from your side of the fence with no balance and proposed as fact.
By the way who started the war that is leading to economic catastrophe for the UK? The metric you have used to describe the Labour generated ( nothing to do with the Tories) catastrophe is the drop of forecast growth from 1.4% to 0.8%. 0.8% would seem to be a similarly poor growth forecast alongside Italy, Germany and France.
For clarification I will never use Ai again and accepted the criticism and apologised to @TSE which is what I do
Do not accuse me of using Ai again
I know this defence review is very hard for the left to take but the truth hurts
Tommy Tugs on LBC castigating the Labour Government for throwing away the Conservatives Golden defence legacy.
That is not what Lord Robertson is going to say in a speech tonight where underfunded defence spending has happened over years of the peace divided, but the wars in Ukraine and Iran together with Trump's demands for NATO to reach 3.5 % spending has not been taken seriously by Starmer or Reeves who have prioritized welfare spending over defence
This is Starmer's own defence review advisor and a distinguished labour party member, and to add to Starmer and Reeves woes the labour head of the defence conmitteee is equally scathing
The 2 child cap abolition was unaffordable, as is the triple lock and labour mps stopping most benefit reductions, all of which speaks to an unaffordable largesse and when taking into account the IMF report there is absolutely no case for not developing north sea oil and gas
The left will not accept this, but that is where we are and no amount of whatsboutery is going to change the narrative and demands for not only the defence review but backed by billions not apparently the 3.5 billion in defence spending cuts demanded by Reeves at present
Would that be the Lord Robertson who is a paid lobbyist for the Cohen group- advisors to the arms trade?
He is Starmer's appointed own defence review chair, ex NATO chief, and a labour Lord
He is speaking truth to power and the question is - what do you disagree with in his observations ?
I doubt whether Robertson's report when it is delivered will be quite the Tories have it right, Labour have it wrong narrative YOU or Stride are proposing. Although the SNP got in on the action earlier too.
P.S. I don't know how you managed to avoid a troll flag for your outrageous AI post yesterday. The fact you didn't get a flag brings the flag system into disrepute.
I accepted my error and apologised
I still find describing Kemi as Farage with braids offensive
This is going to be in the media spotlight tomorrow after Lord Robertson's speech tonight who is apparently going to say Reeves has prioritized welfare spending over defence
And of course the IMF damning report on UK finances
Your interpretation of the IMF report
Read and listen to it
I have seen the reports of the IMF report and you have followed Stride's line. Of course there are local considerations and welfare (including old age pensions) is a political choice taken by this Government. We need to spend on defence and quickly but it is not a binary choice of defence or welfare. We could increase wealth taxes, we could surcharge BP for their astronomical profits. We can do all sorts of things to get defence where it needs to be, and Robertson is probably correct. That said the reporting this morning was that Robertson would critique defence spending by parties of both stripes since 2010. I don't want to defend Starmer, but neither do I want to read your, or AI's interpretation of a story from your side of the fence with no balance and proposed as fact.
By the way who started the war that is leading to economic catastrophe for the UK? The metric you have used to describe the Labour generated ( nothing to do with the Tories) catastrophe is the drop of forecast growth from 1.4% to 0.8%. 0.8% would seem to be a similarly poor growth forecast alongside Italy, Germany and France.
For clarification I will never use Ai again and accepted the criticism and apologised to @TSE which is what I do
Do not accuse me of using Ai again
I know this defence review is very hard for the left to take but the truth hurts
The left? It is the right that has been hacking away at the armed forces for decades.
Way offtopic, but might be of interest to some (or their kids).
British Airways has applications open, *for one week only*, for a cadet pilot academy scheme, a *fully-funded* air transport pilot’s licence with a very rare job for life at the end of it. If you were paying this yourself (to go work EasyJet or Ryanair) it would be somewhere around £250k.
Minimum age 17 on application, 18 at course start, no prior flying experience necessary (but it’s going to be very competitive, and most of the successful applicants probably will have some experience, even if it’s in gliders or air experience flights).
His opposition to wind farms is honestly baffling (he's got a point on the oil) but then you oppose wind turbines anyway for some reason, "William Glenn The Third"
Tommy Tugs on LBC castigating the Labour Government for throwing away the Conservatives Golden defence legacy.
Followed by Kemi explaining to anyone who would listen that it wasn't her fault as the crass decisions that were made by the last Conservative government were made when she wasn't part of it 'or if she was she hadn't been part of it for long'.
Someone should explain to hapless Kemi that governments are a continuum.........
The problem for Starmer and Reeves is their own appointed defence review chair is saying this about them, and their choice to pay welfare over defence spending. Indeed the labour chair of the defence committee is also on message
Kemi, Reform, Davey and others will make this very uncomfortable for the government
I think we know the topic at PMQ's tomorrow is going to be
Badenoch will get creamed if she asks six questions on defence spending bearing in mind the Tory legacy. Now that isn't to say questions don't need asking on why Robertson's package of measures hasn't been confirmed in part of in whole.
Kemi will raise Lord Robertson report and his direct attack on Starmer and Reeves concentration on welfare spending rather than defence plus I expect north sea oil and gas
No amount of whataboutery will work against Lord Robertson's comments
Tommy Tugs on LBC castigating the Labour Government for throwing away the Conservatives Golden defence legacy.
That is not what Lord Robertson is going to say in a speech tonight where underfunded defence spending has happened over years of the peace divided, but the wars in Ukraine and Iran together with Trump's demands for NATO to reach 3.5 % spending has not been taken seriously by Starmer or Reeves who have prioritized welfare spending over defence
This is Starmer's own defence review advisor and a distinguished labour party member, and to add to Starmer and Reeves woes the labour head of the defence conmitteee is equally scathing
The 2 child cap abolition was unaffordable, as is the triple lock and labour mps stopping most benefit reductions, all of which speaks to an unaffordable largesse and when taking into account the IMF report there is absolutely no case for not developing north sea oil and gas
The left will not accept this, but that is where we are and no amount of whatsboutery is going to change the narrative and demands for not only the defence review but backed by billions not apparently the 3.5 billion in defence spending cuts demanded by Reeves at present
Would that be the Lord Robertson who is a paid lobbyist for the Cohen group- advisors to the arms trade?
He is Starmer's appointed own defence review chair, ex NATO chief, and a labour Lord
He is speaking truth to power and the question is - what do you disagree with in his observations ?
I doubt whether Robertson's report when it is delivered will be quite the Tories have it right, Labour have it wrong narrative YOU or Stride are proposing. Although the SNP got in on the action earlier too.
P.S. I don't know how you managed to avoid a troll flag for your outrageous AI post yesterday. The fact you didn't get a flag brings the flag system into disrepute.
I accepted my error and apologised
I still find describing Kemi as Farage with braids offensive
I don't remember using those terms. If I did, plant a flag.
As an aside did you find Boris Johnson's "letter boxes", "water melon smiles" and "picanninies" as acceptable satirical banter. Most on here did. I didn't you will be unsurprised to learn and neither do I believe the "braids" comment to be appropriate. Flag away!
Tommy Tugs on LBC castigating the Labour Government for throwing away the Conservatives Golden defence legacy.
Followed by Kemi explaining to anyone who would listen that it wasn't her fault as the crass decisions that were made by the last Conservative government were made when she wasn't part of it 'or if she was she hadn't been part of it for long'.
Someone should explain to hapless Kemi that governments are a continuum.........
The problem for Starmer and Reeves is their own appointed defence review chair is saying this about them, and their choice to pay welfare over defence spending. Indeed the labour chair of the defence committee is also on message
Kemi, Reform, Davey and others will make this very uncomfortable for the government
I think we know the topic at PMQ's tomorrow is going to be
Reform will call for the re-introduction of National Service. Which for many people was a total waste of time and of the Government's money. And, of course, Farage was far too young to have been affected.
This is going to be in the media spotlight tomorrow after Lord Robertson's speech tonight who is apparently going to say Reeves has prioritized welfare spending over defence
And of course the IMF damning report on UK finances
Your interpretation of the IMF report
Read and listen to it
I have seen the reports of the IMF report and you have followed Stride's line. Of course there are local considerations and welfare (including old age pensions) is a political choice taken by this Government. We need to spend on defence and quickly but it is not a binary choice of defence or welfare. We could increase wealth taxes, we could surcharge BP for their astronomical profits. We can do all sorts of things to get defence where it needs to be, and Robertson is probably correct. That said the reporting this morning was that Robertson would critique defence spending by parties of both stripes since 2010. I don't want to defend Starmer, but neither do I want to read your, or AI's interpretation of a story from your side of the fence with no balance and proposed as fact.
By the way who started the war that is leading to economic catastrophe for the UK? The metric you have used to describe the Labour generated ( nothing to do with the Tories) catastrophe is the drop of forecast growth from 1.4% to 0.8%. 0.8% would seem to be a similarly poor growth forecast alongside Italy, Germany and France.
For clarification I will never use Ai again and accepted the criticism and apologised to @TSE which is what I do
Do not accuse me of using Ai again
I know this defence review is very hard for the left to take but the truth hurts
The left? It is the right that has been hacking away at the armed forces for decades.
It has been all parties since the peace dividend, but what is different with Lord Robertson's comments is his direct attack on Starmer and Reeves
OT - That fishing boat has sailed but I hope writing that helped you cope with your frustration.
Brexit was promised to herald a new golden age of world power and prosperity for the British people. The gap between reality and the promises is what has turned people against it. Not an economic report that almost noone in the real world has heard of let alone read. History proved communism a failure, history proved fascism a failure and history has proved Brexit a failure. Not everyone from those groups is ready to accept that fact but it remains a remorseless fact none the less.
For the 94th time Brexit hasn't failed. We left the EU. We now control our own destiny. The political debates about sovereignty are no more. Brexit was never only about the best economic path for the country.
In a complex and interdependent world talk of controlling our own destiny misses the point, IMHO. The question is what is the most effective way of exercising our sovereignty given the constraints we face. To my mind, pooling our sovereignty with 28 broadly like minded European liberal democracies is a more effective strategy than jumping up and down saying look here chaps, listen to us, when we have less than 1% of global population and barely 2% of global GDP.
I could not disagree with you more.
2% of global GDP is a hell of a lot, not a tiny amount.
The point is not that we should do x, y, or z with our sovereignty, but that we can debate x, y and z and vote every few years to change course.
Pooling sovereignty would make sense if you want a country called Europe and a demos of European citizens determining laws at European elections, but that has not turned out and people adamantly claim that is not what they want.
To pool sovereignty but to not have an effective electoral debate over it that can change course on a regular basis is profoundly undemocratic.
You had me up until "2% is a lot".
Why?
Would you prefer approximately £3,644,000,000,000 is a lot?
Tommy Tugs on LBC castigating the Labour Government for throwing away the Conservatives Golden defence legacy.
Followed by Kemi explaining to anyone who would listen that it wasn't her fault as the crass decisions that were made by the last Conservative government were made when she wasn't part of it 'or if she was she hadn't been part of it for long'.
Someone should explain to hapless Kemi that governments are a continuum.........
The problem for Starmer and Reeves is their own appointed defence review chair is saying this about them, and their choice to pay welfare over defence spending. Indeed the labour chair of the defence committee is also on message
Kemi, Reform, Davey and others will make this very uncomfortable for the government
I think we know the topic at PMQ's tomorrow is going to be
Badenoch will get creamed if she asks six questions on defence spending bearing in mind the Tory legacy. Now that isn't to say questions don't need asking on why Robertson's package of measures hasn't been confirmed in part of in whole.
Kemi will raise Lord Robertson report and his direct attack on Starmer and Reeves concentration on welfare spending rather than defence plus I expect north sea oil and gas
No amount of whataboutery will work against Lord Robertson's comments
Robertson hasn't made his speech yet.
Issuing new licences to drill for gas and oil doesn't help our current fuel pricing predicament. Perhaps we simply need more windmills, more EVs and a more secure domestic utility infrastructure to service them.
Tommy Tugs on LBC castigating the Labour Government for throwing away the Conservatives Golden defence legacy.
That is not what Lord Robertson is going to say in a speech tonight where underfunded defence spending has happened over years of the peace divided, but the wars in Ukraine and Iran together with Trump's demands for NATO to reach 3.5 % spending has not been taken seriously by Starmer or Reeves who have prioritized welfare spending over defence
This is Starmer's own defence review advisor and a distinguished labour party member, and to add to Starmer and Reeves woes the labour head of the defence conmitteee is equally scathing
The 2 child cap abolition was unaffordable, as is the triple lock and labour mps stopping most benefit reductions, all of which speaks to an unaffordable largesse and when taking into account the IMF report there is absolutely no case for not developing north sea oil and gas
The left will not accept this, but that is where we are and no amount of whatsboutery is going to change the narrative and demands for not only the defence review but backed by billions not apparently the 3.5 billion in defence spending cuts demanded by Reeves at present
Would that be the Lord Robertson who is a paid lobbyist for the Cohen group- advisors to the arms trade?
He is Starmer's appointed own defence review chair, ex NATO chief, and a labour Lord
He is speaking truth to power and the question is - what do you disagree with in his observations ?
I think he is wanting to fill the coffers of his mates in the arms business.
Much of our arms expenditure has been wasted, and much of it is spent on ships and vehicles unsuitable for the threats that we face.
Looking at why armed forces retention in skilled trades is so poor that we cannot crew our ships etc might be a better place to start.
The Tory record of neglect of the forces is shocking. They turn up for photo opportunities then privatise their accommodation and training to enrich their mates.
His opposition to wind farms is honestly baffling (he's got a point on the oil) but then you oppose wind turbines anyway for some reason, "William Glenn The Third"
Agreed.
Drill and wind and sun and . . . we need a diverse portfolio.
It is not more environmentally-friendly to import hydrocarbons from abroad. It is not more economically to burn hydrocarbons when we could be using sun or wind.
This is going to be in the media spotlight tomorrow after Lord Robertson's speech tonight who is apparently going to say Reeves has prioritized welfare spending over defence
And of course the IMF damning report on UK finances
Your interpretation of the IMF report
Read and listen to it
I have seen the reports of the IMF report and you have followed Stride's line. Of course there are local considerations and welfare (including old age pensions) is a political choice taken by this Government. We need to spend on defence and quickly but it is not a binary choice of defence or welfare. We could increase wealth taxes, we could surcharge BP for their astronomical profits. We can do all sorts of things to get defence where it needs to be, and Robertson is probably correct. That said the reporting this morning was that Robertson would critique defence spending by parties of both stripes since 2010. I don't want to defend Starmer, but neither do I want to read your, or AI's interpretation of a story from your side of the fence with no balance and proposed as fact.
By the way who started the war that is leading to economic catastrophe for the UK? The metric you have used to describe the Labour generated ( nothing to do with the Tories) catastrophe is the drop of forecast growth from 1.4% to 0.8%. 0.8% would seem to be a similarly poor growth forecast alongside Italy, Germany and France.
For clarification I will never use Ai again and accepted the criticism and apologised to @TSE which is what I do
Do not accuse me of using Ai again
I know this defence review is very hard for the left to take but the truth hurts
The left? It is the right that has been hacking away at the armed forces for decades.
It has been all parties since the peace dividend, but what is different with Lord Robertson's comments is his direct attack on Starmer and Reeves
Wait for the speech. Again that is YOUR interpretation of a speech that hasn't yet been made.
Tommy Tugs on LBC castigating the Labour Government for throwing away the Conservatives Golden defence legacy.
That is not what Lord Robertson is going to say in a speech tonight where underfunded defence spending has happened over years of the peace divided, but the wars in Ukraine and Iran together with Trump's demands for NATO to reach 3.5 % spending has not been taken seriously by Starmer or Reeves who have prioritized welfare spending over defence
This is Starmer's own defence review advisor and a distinguished labour party member, and to add to Starmer and Reeves woes the labour head of the defence conmitteee is equally scathing
The 2 child cap abolition was unaffordable, as is the triple lock and labour mps stopping most benefit reductions, all of which speaks to an unaffordable largesse and when taking into account the IMF report there is absolutely no case for not developing north sea oil and gas
The left will not accept this, but that is where we are and no amount of whatsboutery is going to change the narrative and demands for not only the defence review but backed by billions not apparently the 3.5 billion in defence spending cuts demanded by Reeves at present
Would that be the Lord Robertson who is a paid lobbyist for the Cohen group- advisors to the arms trade?
He is Starmer's appointed own defence review chair, ex NATO chief, and a labour Lord
He is speaking truth to power and the question is - what do you disagree with in his observations ?
I doubt whether Robertson's report when it is delivered will be quite the Tories have it right, Labour have it wrong narrative YOU or Stride are proposing. Although the SNP got in on the action earlier too.
P.S. I don't know how you managed to avoid a troll flag for your outrageous AI post yesterday. The fact you didn't get a flag brings the flag system into disrepute.
I accepted my error and apologised
I still find describing Kemi as Farage with braids offensive
I don't remember using those terms. If I did, plant a flag.
As an aside did you find Boris Johnson's "letter boxes", "water melon smiles" and "picanninies" as acceptable satirical banter. Most on here did. I didn't you will be unsurprised to learn and neither do I believe the "braids" comment to be appropriate. Flag away!
You did not make the comment nor would I expect you to
This is going to be in the media spotlight tomorrow after Lord Robertson's speech tonight who is apparently going to say Reeves has prioritized welfare spending over defence
And of course the IMF damning report on UK finances
Your interpretation of the IMF report
Read and listen to it
I have seen the reports of the IMF report and you have followed Stride's line. Of course there are local considerations and welfare (including old age pensions) is a political choice taken by this Government. We need to spend on defence and quickly but it is not a binary choice of defence or welfare. We could increase wealth taxes, we could surcharge BP for their astronomical profits. We can do all sorts of things to get defence where it needs to be, and Robertson is probably correct. That said the reporting this morning was that Robertson would critique defence spending by parties of both stripes since 2010. I don't want to defend Starmer, but neither do I want to read your, or AI's interpretation of a story from your side of the fence with no balance and proposed as fact.
By the way who started the war that is leading to economic catastrophe for the UK? The metric you have used to describe the Labour generated ( nothing to do with the Tories) catastrophe is the drop of forecast growth from 1.4% to 0.8%. 0.8% would seem to be a similarly poor growth forecast alongside Italy, Germany and France.
For clarification I will never use Ai again and accepted the criticism and apologised to @TSE which is what I do
Do not accuse me of using Ai again
I know this defence review is very hard for the left to take but the truth hurts
The left? It is the right that has been hacking away at the armed forces for decades.
It has been all parties since the peace dividend, but what is different with Lord Robertson's comments is his direct attack on Starmer and Reeves
Wait for the speech. Again that is YOUR interpretation of a speech that hasn't yet been made.
The project cost £179 million. (Or rather non-project).
Cnuts. I hope they come back with a cheaper idea (divert and dual, as was the plan in the 1980's. Its a blight to the view of the stones right now and a pain in the arse for Shrewton, Durrington, and many other rat run villages.
I propose that instead of paying the lawyers, consultants etc to work on infrastructure projects plans, they get an IOU.
Redeemable after the project is completed, handover is done and it is operating.
They even spent millions laying a cable to use with the digging machines. I am staggered by the waste of money, and no one ever seems accountable.
Why? Lots of people got paid. A mountain of paper was generated. What more do you want?
A dual carriageway to alleviate the traffic?
I presume someone will have to dig up the cable, too.
Expecting infrastructure as a result of spending millions (and decades of time) on infrastructure is insane.
As always, people seem to have missed the worst thing about leaving the EU: shitty analogy syndrome.
Since we left the EU, it seems like every bloody day, someone compares leaving the EU to having a baby.
Please.
Enough.
May I propose a new Europe wide quality standards and harmonisation directive for shitty analogies? Obviously we will need a big commission, some nice offices and a healthy budget, but think of the upside? It will be like......
His opposition to wind farms is honestly baffling (he's got a point on the oil) but then you oppose wind turbines anyway for some reason, "William Glenn The Third"
Particularly when March was the first month where American renewables produced more electricity than gas.
Tommy Tugs on LBC castigating the Labour Government for throwing away the Conservatives Golden defence legacy.
Followed by Kemi explaining to anyone who would listen that it wasn't her fault as the crass decisions that were made by the last Conservative government were made when she wasn't part of it 'or if she was she hadn't been part of it for long'.
Someone should explain to hapless Kemi that governments are a continuum.........
The problem for Starmer and Reeves is their own appointed defence review chair is saying this about them, and their choice to pay welfare over defence spending. Indeed the labour chair of the defence committee is also on message
Kemi, Reform, Davey and others will make this very uncomfortable for the government
I think we know the topic at PMQ's tomorrow is going to be
Badenoch will get creamed if she asks six questions on defence spending bearing in mind the Tory legacy. Now that isn't to say questions don't need asking on why Robertson's package of measures hasn't been confirmed in part of in whole.
Kemi will raise Lord Robertson report and his direct attack on Starmer and Reeves concentration on welfare spending rather than defence plus I expect north sea oil and gas
No amount of whataboutery will work against Lord Robertson's comments
Robertson hasn't made his speech yet.
Issuing new licences to drill for gas and oil doesn't help our current fuel pricing predicament. Perhaps we simply need more windmills, more EVs and a more secure domestic utility infrastructure to service them.
Yep - he hasn’t spoken yet. Although FT was pretty thoroughly briefed on it. I guess what strikes me is that Robertson published his review in June and we are still waiting promised investment plan (delayed since “Autumn”).
I appreciate these things take time - and let’s be honest military procurement is hardly an area ringing with successes. If I was Treasury I would want confidence that whatever money I sent their way was spent well. Who knows the 10 spending plan may come out soon and be everything Lord Robertson wants.
However, it does seem a bit of function of this Government. I don’t want them to be rushing things out and flying by the seat of their pants. But, sometimes it feels that things are just sat on. The danger of that is it leaves a vacuum to be filled and sucks the goodwill from people you’ve asked to help. Hence this speech - and no doubt, perhaps hypocritically given their record in Government, the Conservatives will make hay.
Tommy Tugs on LBC castigating the Labour Government for throwing away the Conservatives Golden defence legacy.
Followed by Kemi explaining to anyone who would listen that it wasn't her fault as the crass decisions that were made by the last Conservative government were made when she wasn't part of it 'or if she was she hadn't been part of it for long'.
Someone should explain to hapless Kemi that governments are a continuum.........
The problem for Starmer and Reeves is their own appointed defence review chair is saying this about them, and their choice to pay welfare over defence spending. Indeed the labour chair of the defence committee is also on message
Kemi, Reform, Davey and others will make this very uncomfortable for the government
I think we know the topic at PMQ's tomorrow is going to be
Badenoch will get creamed if she asks six questions on defence spending bearing in mind the Tory legacy. Now that isn't to say questions don't need asking on why Robertson's package of measures hasn't been confirmed in part of in whole.
Kemi will raise Lord Robertson report and his direct attack on Starmer and Reeves concentration on welfare spending rather than defence plus I expect north sea oil and gas
No amount of whataboutery will work against Lord Robertson's comments
Robertson hasn't made his speech yet.
Issuing new licences to drill for gas and oil doesn't help our current fuel pricing predicament. Perhaps we simply need more windmills, more EVs and a more secure domestic utility infrastructure to service them.
Yep - he hasn’t spoken yet. Although FT was pretty thoroughly briefed on it. I guess what strikes me is that Robertson published his review in June and we are still waiting promised investment plan (delayed since “Autumn”).
I appreciate these things take time - and let’s be honest military procurement is hardly an area ringing with successes. If I was Treasury I would want confidence that whatever money I sent their way was spent well. Who knows the 10 spending plan may come out soon and be everything Lord Robertson wants.
However, it does seem a bit of function of this Government. I don’t want them to be rushing things out and flying by the seat of their pants. But, sometimes it feels that things are just sat on. The danger of that is it leaves a vacuum to be filled and sucks the goodwill from people you’ve asked to help. Hence this speech - and no doubt, perhaps hypocritically given their record in Government, the Conservatives will make hay.
I don't disagree with the requirement for urgency, particularly in the light of the Iran escapade, and I don't dispute Starmer's tardiness.
I do dispute the binary choice of either welfare or defence and I also believe the defence legacy Labour inherited was a basket case, and in all fairness to the Conservatives they inherited a depleted force from Labour who were also high on the aroma of peace dividend, even if the biting cuts got worse from 2010.
What does your milk preference in tea and coffee say about your politics? 🐄If only cow milk drinkers could vote Reform would have a big lead, especially among those who like semi-skimmed. 🌱Labour on the other hand has commanding leads among almond and oat milk drinkers.
Oh dear. Does this mean I ought to vote Reform? (semi-skimmed).
Tommy Tugs on LBC castigating the Labour Government for throwing away the Conservatives Golden defence legacy.
Followed by Kemi explaining to anyone who would listen that it wasn't her fault as the crass decisions that were made by the last Conservative government were made when she wasn't part of it 'or if she was she hadn't been part of it for long'.
Someone should explain to hapless Kemi that governments are a continuum.........
The problem for Starmer and Reeves is their own appointed defence review chair is saying this about them, and their choice to pay welfare over defence spending. Indeed the labour chair of the defence committee is also on message
Kemi, Reform, Davey and others will make this very uncomfortable for the government
I think we know the topic at PMQ's tomorrow is going to be
Badenoch will get creamed if she asks six questions on defence spending bearing in mind the Tory legacy. Now that isn't to say questions don't need asking on why Robertson's package of measures hasn't been confirmed in part of in whole.
Kemi will raise Lord Robertson report and his direct attack on Starmer and Reeves concentration on welfare spending rather than defence plus I expect north sea oil and gas
No amount of whataboutery will work against Lord Robertson's comments
Robertson hasn't made his speech yet.
Issuing new licences to drill for gas and oil doesn't help our current fuel pricing predicament. Perhaps we simply need more windmills, more EVs and a more secure domestic utility infrastructure to service them.
Yep - he hasn’t spoken yet. Although FT was pretty thoroughly briefed on it. I guess what strikes me is that Robertson published his review in June and we are still waiting promised investment plan (delayed since “Autumn”).
I appreciate these things take time - and let’s be honest military procurement is hardly an area ringing with successes. If I was Treasury I would want confidence that whatever money I sent their way was spent well. Who knows the 10 spending plan may come out soon and be everything Lord Robertson wants.
However, it does seem a bit of function of this Government. I don’t want them to be rushing things out and flying by the seat of their pants. But, sometimes it feels that things are just sat on. The danger of that is it leaves a vacuum to be filled and sucks the goodwill from people you’ve asked to help. Hence this speech - and no doubt, perhaps hypocritically given their record in Government, the Conservatives will make hay.
I don't disagree with the requirement for urgency, particularly in the light of the Iran escapade, and I don't dispute Starmer's tardiness.
I do dispute the binary choice of either welfare or defence and I also believe the defence legacy Labour inherited was a basket case, and in all fairness to the Conservatives they inherited a depleted force from Labour who were also high on the aroma of peace dividend, even if the biting cuts got worse from 2010.
It would be interesting to see figures on the cost of just pensions to the state, and on when the drop-off of us oldies dying off kicks in, how quickly, and the impact that will have.
Tommy Tugs on LBC castigating the Labour Government for throwing away the Conservatives Golden defence legacy.
Followed by Kemi explaining to anyone who would listen that it wasn't her fault as the crass decisions that were made by the last Conservative government were made when she wasn't part of it 'or if she was she hadn't been part of it for long'.
Someone should explain to hapless Kemi that governments are a continuum.........
The problem for Starmer and Reeves is their own appointed defence review chair is saying this about them, and their choice to pay welfare over defence spending. Indeed the labour chair of the defence committee is also on message
Kemi, Reform, Davey and others will make this very uncomfortable for the government
I think we know the topic at PMQ's tomorrow is going to be
Badenoch will get creamed if she asks six questions on defence spending bearing in mind the Tory legacy. Now that isn't to say questions don't need asking on why Robertson's package of measures hasn't been confirmed in part of in whole.
Kemi will raise Lord Robertson report and his direct attack on Starmer and Reeves concentration on welfare spending rather than defence plus I expect north sea oil and gas
No amount of whataboutery will work against Lord Robertson's comments
Robertson hasn't made his speech yet.
Issuing new licences to drill for gas and oil doesn't help our current fuel pricing predicament. Perhaps we simply need more windmills, more EVs and a more secure domestic utility infrastructure to service them.
Yep - he hasn’t spoken yet. Although FT was pretty thoroughly briefed on it. I guess what strikes me is that Robertson published his review in June and we are still waiting promised investment plan (delayed since “Autumn”).
I appreciate these things take time - and let’s be honest military procurement is hardly an area ringing with successes. If I was Treasury I would want confidence that whatever money I sent their way was spent well. Who knows the 10 spending plan may come out soon and be everything Lord Robertson wants.
However, it does seem a bit of function of this Government. I don’t want them to be rushing things out and flying by the seat of their pants. But, sometimes it feels that things are just sat on. The danger of that is it leaves a vacuum to be filled and sucks the goodwill from people you’ve asked to help. Hence this speech - and no doubt, perhaps hypocritically given their record in Government, the Conservatives will make hay.
I think its fair enough for Robertson to criticise Labour on defence spending, particularly if he feels they aren't prioritising well.
But I dont see why he feels the need to add in the bit about welfare which is unhelpful, is only going to damage his message with labour side and outside of his remit.
Comments
Some Christians have trouble with points 2 and 3.
London gets too much heat because non white people live there.
Referring to London as a "shit hole" when places like Stoke-on-Trent etc exist is wild.
That popular youtube guy (Tom Scott?) is releasing a series on visiting every English county. I wonder whether it will take him to Stoke?
It's worse than Stoke so it's worse than a shithole.
*grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
Trentham Gardens seems to be the main attraction.
Edit - and while St Pancras and Paddington would both rival Stoke for grandeur, we only have to say 'Euston...'
The IMF has downgraded the UK's growth forecast to 0.8% - the biggest drop of any G7 nation
The IMF says the UK is particularly exposed as a net energy-importing economy, meaning the effects of the Iran war weigh more heavily on growth
Inflation will also rise to 3.2% and unemployment will hit 5.6%
In 2006 I caught a train from Manchester to London and it broke down near Stoke.
I haven’t been that scared since I visited Baghdad’s Green Zone in 2004.
UVDL already proposing QMV for EU Foreign Policy decisions.
This is the first opportunity for about 15 years to make the change.
AIUI the confusion probably comes from a split in Western (Greek?) philosophy between the motivation and the action; in more New Testament thought the action is more an indicator of the inner state.
It's v close (I think technically in teh grounds of?) to Trentham Gardens too.
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.
IMF Growth Forecast 2026:
🇺🇸 US: 2.3%
🇩🇪 Germany: 0.8%
🇫🇷 France: 0.9%
🇮🇹 Italy: 0.5%
🇪🇸 Spain: 2.1%
🇬🇧 UK: 0.8%
🇯🇵 Japan:0.7%
🇨🇦 Canada: 1.5%
🇨🇳 China: 4.4%
🇮🇳 India: 6.5%
🇷🇺 Russia: 1.1%
https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-and-reeves-accused-of-corrosive-complacency-13531577
And of course the IMF damning report on UK finances
It is all rather simpler for the average mammal.
The project cost £179 million. (Or rather non-project).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbYM78rJJSM
This is Starmer's own defence review advisor and a distinguished labour party member, and to add to Starmer and Reeves woes the labour head of the defence conmitteee is equally scathing
The 2 child cap abolition was unaffordable, as is the triple lock and labour mps stopping most benefit reductions, all of which speaks to an unaffordable largesse and when taking into account the IMF report there is absolutely no case for not developing north sea oil and gas
The left will not accept this, but that is where we are and no amount of whatsboutery is going to change the narrative and demands for not only the defence review but backed by billions not apparently the 3.5 billion in defence spending cuts demanded by Reeves at present
What does your milk preference in tea and coffee say about your politics?
🐄If only cow milk drinkers could vote Reform would have a big lead, especially among those who like semi-skimmed.
🌱Labour on the other hand has commanding leads among almond and oat milk drinkers.
Redeemable after the project is completed, handover is done and it is operating.
"However, [the IMF] expects the UK to then recover, to again become the fastest growing European economy next year in the smaller G7 group of advanced economies, albeit at a slightly slower rate of growth of 1.3%." -- BBC
(Not that 1.3% is much to crow about.)
"But there is no money..." is going to be quite the excuse in the coming months, as everything grinds to a halt.
I presume someone will have to dig up the cable, too.
Thank you for your other comments.
The synthetic approach can indeed be valid sometimes, but really to include the US and Estonia and not France and Germany, and to attempt to isolate the effects of one event in a turbulent decade is surely absurd? There are other ways to overcome the lack of controls in social sciences, most obviously doing bottom up rather than top down analysis, and I think those are more appropriate in this case.
The UK was not really growing materially faster than the EU before the runup to the financial crisis. Just taking for simplicity's sake the EU-4 (Ger, Fr, It, Sp) and ignoring the A10 whose recovery from socialism and huge receipt of EU funds makes them incomparable, in the five years before the 2009 recession they grew by the same amount as the UK - 2.0%. Of course one can pick time periods to prove whatever, and quibble about the word "material", but I don't think there's enough there to derive any points from it.
The point about other causes has been dealt with by myself and others downthread - the point is not that those factors didn't affect other countries, it's that they did so differentially. And until you split those effects out, their noise will overwhelm any validity the "synthetic comparator" approach might have.
Finally you mention Brexit was a "significant contributor". To what? To the underperformance that didn't happen relative to genuinely comparable countries like France and Germany? Also, the study didn't say that Brexit was a "significant contributor", it said that "most" of the UK's underperformance relative to Estonia and the US and whoever was due to Brexit. That means that Brexit has to be significantly more significant than all the other factors listed combined, which I would say is absurd, especially since there was no obvious change in the UK's fortunes relative to France and Germany either when we voted to leave, or when we actually did so.
It's going to take us a while to recover from the investment backlog bequeathed by the high tax, low spending govts we had from 2010.
If it's choice between MOD spending and benefits for families where should the money be spent?
Is anyone arguing that the UK will get value from money from increased MOD spending rather them wasting it on projects that will be a decade late and don't work?
By the way who started the war that is leading to economic catastrophe for the UK? The metric you have used to describe the Labour generated ( nothing to do with the Tories) catastrophe is the drop of forecast growth from 1.4% to 0.8%. 0.8% would seem to be a similarly poor growth forecast alongside Italy, Germany and France.
He is speaking truth to power and the question is - what do you disagree with in his observations ?
Someone should explain to hapless Kemi that governments are a continuum.........
P.S. I don't know how you managed to avoid a troll flag for your outrageous AI post yesterday. The fact you didn't get a flag brings the flag system into disrepute.
Kemi, Reform, Davey and others will make this very uncomfortable for the government
I think we know the topic at PMQ's tomorrow is going to be
Since we left the EU, it seems like every bloody day, someone compares leaving the EU to having a baby.
Please.
Enough.
Do not accuse me of using Ai again
I know this defence review is very hard for the left to take but the truth hurts
It's why the war in Iran is sending petrol prices shooting upwards in the US too.
I still find describing Kemi as Farage with braids offensive
British Airways has applications open, *for one week only*, for a cadet pilot academy scheme, a *fully-funded* air transport pilot’s licence with a very rare job for life at the end of it. If you were paying this yourself (to go work EasyJet or Ryanair) it would be somewhere around £250k.
https://careers.ba.com/Speedbird-Pilot-Academy-Preparation
Minimum age 17 on application, 18 at course start, no prior flying experience necessary (but it’s going to be very competitive, and most of the successful applicants probably will have some experience, even if it’s in gliders or air experience flights).
Closes on 23rd April.
No amount of whataboutery will work against Lord Robertson's comments
As an aside did you find Boris Johnson's "letter boxes", "water melon smiles" and "picanninies" as acceptable satirical banter. Most on here did. I didn't you will be unsurprised to learn and neither do I believe the "braids" comment to be appropriate. Flag away!
And, of course, Farage was far too young to have been affected.
Would you prefer approximately £3,644,000,000,000 is a lot?
Issuing new licences to drill for gas and oil doesn't help our current fuel pricing predicament. Perhaps we simply need more windmills, more EVs and a more secure domestic utility infrastructure to service them.
Much of our arms expenditure has been wasted, and much of it is spent on ships and vehicles unsuitable for the threats that we face.
Looking at why armed forces retention in skilled trades is so poor that we cannot crew our ships etc might be a better place to start.
The Tory record of neglect of the forces is shocking. They turn up for photo opportunities then privatise their accommodation and training to enrich their mates.
Drill and wind and sun and . . . we need a diverse portfolio.
It is not more environmentally-friendly to import hydrocarbons from abroad.
It is not more economically to burn hydrocarbons when we could be using sun or wind.
I found a description on here of Kemi as Farage in braids as offensive
I asked Ai if it was and posted the result
I was rebuked and maybe naive, but apologised to @TSE and will never use Ai again
Please do not mislead this forum that Ai is used as it should not be and this was a one off
I still find the term offensive
Johnson was equally out of order
https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-and-reeves-accused-of-corrosive-complacency-13531577
Also IMF
https://news.sky.com/story/uk-fares-strikingly-badly-in-second-downgrade-to-economic-growth-13531595
And probably Neon Fascist Racist NeoColonialism.
NEW THREAD
I appreciate these things take time - and let’s be honest military procurement is hardly an area ringing with successes. If I was Treasury I would want confidence that whatever money I sent their way was spent well. Who knows the 10 spending plan may come out soon and be everything Lord Robertson wants.
However, it does seem a bit of function of this Government. I don’t want them to be rushing things out and flying by the seat of their pants. But, sometimes it feels that things are just sat on. The danger of that is it leaves a vacuum to be filled and sucks the goodwill from people you’ve asked to help. Hence this speech - and no doubt, perhaps hypocritically given their record in Government, the Conservatives will make hay.
I do dispute the binary choice of either welfare or defence and I also believe the defence legacy Labour inherited was a basket case, and in all fairness to the Conservatives they inherited a depleted force from Labour who were also high on the aroma of peace dividend, even if the biting cuts got worse from 2010.
But I dont see why he feels the need to add in the bit about welfare which is unhelpful, is only going to damage his message with labour side and outside of his remit.