Healey was right on defence and if he does back Burnham after his resignation and Burnham does increase defence spending that will be good for NATO and our national security.
In terms of Kemi's comments she is taking a risk, while about half of Conservatives would back making Farage PM the other half would prefer the Tories to abstain in a hung parliament. Some would even prefer to deal with Labour or the LDs. It also won't help Conservative incumbents gain anti Reform tactical votes
If you asked 50 defence experts what to spend extra money on we'd probably get 20-30 different answers. I'm not sure it particularly matters whether we spend 2.4% or 2.5% or whatever the difference is on defence in the next few years.
What we need to do is re-imagine what defence looks like and come up with a coherent strategy that fits for the next decade and beyond, not the present and certainly not the past.
We need to do the latter and we need to spend more on defence now. We don't have the luxury of taking time to come up with a perfect defence plan. We need more capability asap.
Countries like Poland, Germany and Denmark are not messing around dithering and doing nothing. They're getting on with it. Britain needs to do the same.
And, yes, the difference between 2.6% and 2.68% is neither here nor there. The countries in Europe who are serious about defence are at, or heading to, 3.5+% before the end of this Parliament. Serious amounts of extra money, and serious amounts of extra capability as a result. Britain needs to do the same.
Not convinced. I'd say even a strategy of simply maintaining spending until maybe 2029 but spend that time planning and understanding better how tech is changing warfare before investing heavily in the 2030s will play out better than making medium and long term procurements now.
And ultimately if we think we should be spending 3.5% to deter Russia, China (and US? EU?), we should be spending at least that on managing and controlling AI which is the existential threat.
There's a lot that we need to spend in the short term just to stop from losing existing capability. The cheese-paring approach to defence spending that had been going on for at least three decades now has created so many problems that they're are masses of short-term cuts from the past that have stored up problems that are coming due now.
And there are major commitments that Britain is making that it doesn't have the capability to meet without a large expansion in defence spending now.
We're four years behind where we should be in preparing for future conflict. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 should have been a major wake-up call and Britain is still dithering about what to do and delaying doing it.
Why do you think Britain had the luxury of waiting until 2030 to work out how to rebuild its defences when so many other countries in Europe have decided they needed to spend more years ago? Are the Germans, Danes, Poles and others just stupid and wasting their money?
Something needs to be done has been a winning argument forever. Planning before starting has been a winning strategy forever.
Healey was right on defence and if he does back Burnham after his resignation and Burnham does increase defence spending that will be good for NATO and our national security.
In terms of Kemi's comments she is taking a risk, while about half of Conservatives would back making Farage PM the other half would prefer the Tories to abstain in a hung parliament. Some would even prefer to deal with Labour or the LDs. It also won't help Conservative incumbents gain anti Reform tactical votes
If you asked 50 defence experts what to spend extra money on we'd probably get 20-30 different answers. I'm not sure it particularly matters whether we spend 2.4% or 2.5% or whatever the difference is on defence in the next few years.
What we need to do is re-imagine what defence looks like and come up with a coherent strategy that fits for the next decade and beyond, not the present and certainly not the past.
We need to do the latter and we need to spend more on defence now. We don't have the luxury of taking time to come up with a perfect defence plan. We need more capability asap.
Countries like Poland, Germany and Denmark are not messing around dithering and doing nothing. They're getting on with it. Britain needs to do the same.
And, yes, the difference between 2.6% and 2.68% is neither here nor there. The countries in Europe who are serious about defence are at, or heading to, 3.5+% before the end of this Parliament. Serious amounts of extra money, and serious amounts of extra capability as a result. Britain needs to do the same.
Labour should have come into office and whacked an extra 2p on income tax, and mapped out a route towards merging NI and IT, from the outset. And then set about delivering us some worthwhile gains from spending all that extra income. Our current problems all follow from Labour’s risible ‘Ming vase’ election strategy which itself derives from the abject depths to which the previous governing Tories had sunk.
They got 33% pledging no income tax increase. They would have been mid 20s with a 2p increase, and not come into office.
And that's the problem.
Politicians are terrified of broad-based visible tax rises. And the results of elections over the last generation or two show why. It's why Jeremy Hunt no doubt thought he was playing a blinder by cutting National Insurance before the election. It's why the 2010 austerity was so loaded to spending cuts.
It's why we are where we are... because it's been the WIll Of The People.
Healey was right on defence and if he does back Burnham after his resignation and Burnham does increase defence spending that will be good for NATO and our national security.
In terms of Kemi's comments she is taking a risk, while about half of Conservatives would back making Farage PM the other half would prefer the Tories to abstain in a hung parliament. Some would even prefer to deal with Labour or the LDs. It also won't help Conservative incumbents gain anti Reform tactical votes
If you asked 50 defence experts what to spend extra money on we'd probably get 20-30 different answers. I'm not sure it particularly matters whether we spend 2.4% or 2.5% or whatever the difference is on defence in the next few years.
What we need to do is re-imagine what defence looks like and come up with a coherent strategy that fits for the next decade and beyond, not the present and certainly not the past.
We need to do the latter and we need to spend more on defence now. We don't have the luxury of taking time to come up with a perfect defence plan. We need more capability asap.
Countries like Poland, Germany and Denmark are not messing around dithering and doing nothing. They're getting on with it. Britain needs to do the same.
And, yes, the difference between 2.6% and 2.68% is neither here nor there. The countries in Europe who are serious about defence are at, or heading to, 3.5+% before the end of this Parliament. Serious amounts of extra money, and serious amounts of extra capability as a result. Britain needs to do the same.
Labour should have come into office and whacked an extra 2p on income tax, and mapped out a route towards merging NI and IT, from the outset. And then set about delivering us some worthwhile gains from spending all that extra income. Our current problems all follow from Labour’s risible ‘Ming vase’ election strategy which itself derives from the abject depths to which the previous governing Tories had sunk.
They got 33% pledging no income tax increase. They would have been mid 20s with a 2p increase, and not come into office.
They didn’t need to campaign for a 2p tax increase; just not box themselves in by ruling it out. Yes, springing it on us after the election wouldn’t have been popular, but they’d be no more unpopular than they already now are, while having a lot more money to spend turning things around.
This very thread shows what happens if you don't rule something out, it gets spun as you will be doing it.
Kai Havertz has been backed for top scorer and is now 25/1. The theory seems to be that Germany has an especially weak group stage.
But seriously, I've concluded any of the big teams can win; they've all been tipped by someone. England seems to have taken the wrong players for the likely heat and altitude (and bad pitches).
X David Wolfson@DXW_KC·2h Faced with a choice between a Defence Secretary who wanted to spend more on our armed forces, a Chancellor who wouldn’t, and an Attorney General who enjoys suing them, the Prime Minister decided he could do without … the Defence Secretary.
Christopher Hope📝@christopherhope·4h Kemi Badenoch’s six questions on defence spending at Prime Minister‘s questions yesterday suddenly look very well targeted, Christopher Hope📝@christopherhope Lessons from John Healey's resignation: - Huge blow to Sir Keir Starmer a week out from the Makerfield by-election; - Defence was of the few areas where the PM was meant to be strong; - Pressure now on Chancellor Rachel Reeves over why she drove such a hard bargain on defence; - The Labour Government feels it is fraying at the ages once again. More reporting and analysis on @GBNEWS now.
Healey was right on defence and if he does back Burnham after his resignation and Burnham does increase defence spending that will be good for NATO and our national security.
In terms of Kemi's comments she is taking a risk, while about half of Conservatives would back making Farage PM the other half would prefer the Tories to abstain in a hung parliament. Some would even prefer to deal with Labour or the LDs. It also won't help Conservative incumbents gain anti Reform tactical votes
If you asked 50 defence experts what to spend extra money on we'd probably get 20-30 different answers. I'm not sure it particularly matters whether we spend 2.4% or 2.5% or whatever the difference is on defence in the next few years.
What we need to do is re-imagine what defence looks like and come up with a coherent strategy that fits for the next decade and beyond, not the present and certainly not the past.
We need to do the latter and we need to spend more on defence now. We don't have the luxury of taking time to come up with a perfect defence plan. We need more capability asap.
Countries like Poland, Germany and Denmark are not messing around dithering and doing nothing. They're getting on with it. Britain needs to do the same.
And, yes, the difference between 2.6% and 2.68% is neither here nor there. The countries in Europe who are serious about defence are at, or heading to, 3.5+% before the end of this Parliament. Serious amounts of extra money, and serious amounts of extra capability as a result. Britain needs to do the same.
I’ve posted on here before that I think that to the likes of Starmer and Reeves defence is an anathema. They come from a world with very little real connection to the military either practically or lore.
I think they view the military in several negative ways with their political hinterlands where it’s a combination of a bad thing that does things like kill people and colonise and it’s full of chaps in flashy uniforms or scumbag squaddies, neither of which fit the bill in their circles.
I don’t think their innate “culture” can really comprehend the importance of defence other than strong words and flashy quick operations with special forces. I also think they sub-consciously think that something will come up, the US would step in or we would hold hands with our European allies and all would be ok.
Starmer’s words mean nothing - the in action about Russian shadow fleets for example.
I would think they have constantly hoping that at some point the defence review and budget for it would go away and they could get back to nice things like welfare, fairness, tax.
This could of course be grossly unfair on them but I don’t believe so.
I don't think that's right. I don't think Labour have even really been able to do the things that culturally they would like to do in government. They're timid and inept across the board.
And, culturally, you couldn't find a more pro-military party than the Tories, but look at the shambles they left behind in 2024, and there wasn't much sign of them turning things around in response to the 2022 invasion.
On defence Britain has yet to be shaken out of a complacency about the true state of its defence capability and its ability to measure up to the threat now faced.
Healey was right on defence and if he does back Burnham after his resignation and Burnham does increase defence spending that will be good for NATO and our national security.
In terms of Kemi's comments she is taking a risk, while about half of Conservatives would back making Farage PM the other half would prefer the Tories to abstain in a hung parliament. Some would even prefer to deal with Labour or the LDs. It also won't help Conservative incumbents gain anti Reform tactical votes
If you asked 50 defence experts what to spend extra money on we'd probably get 20-30 different answers. I'm not sure it particularly matters whether we spend 2.4% or 2.5% or whatever the difference is on defence in the next few years.
What we need to do is re-imagine what defence looks like and come up with a coherent strategy that fits for the next decade and beyond, not the present and certainly not the past.
We need to do the latter and we need to spend more on defence now. We don't have the luxury of taking time to come up with a perfect defence plan. We need more capability asap.
Countries like Poland, Germany and Denmark are not messing around dithering and doing nothing. They're getting on with it. Britain needs to do the same.
And, yes, the difference between 2.6% and 2.68% is neither here nor there. The countries in Europe who are serious about defence are at, or heading to, 3.5+% before the end of this Parliament. Serious amounts of extra money, and serious amounts of extra capability as a result. Britain needs to do the same.
I’ve posted on here before that I think that to the likes of Starmer and Reeves defence is an anathema. They come from a world with very little real connection to the military either practically or lore.
I think they view the military in several negative ways with their political hinterlands where it’s a combination of a bad thing that does things like kill people and colonise and it’s full of chaps in flashy uniforms or scumbag squaddies, neither of which fit the bill in their circles.
I don’t think their innate “culture” can really comprehend the importance of defence other than strong words and flashy quick operations with special forces. I also think they sub-consciously think that something will come up, the US would step in or we would hold hands with our European allies and all would be ok.
Starmer’s words mean nothing - the in action about Russian shadow fleets for example.
I would think they have constantly hoping that at some point the defence review and budget for it would go away and they could get back to nice things like welfare, fairness, tax.
This could of course be grossly unfair on them but I don’t believe so.
"You just carry on with that thinking Butch. It's what you're good at."
It must be a tough job resisting the demands of heavily-armed admirals, field marshals and air commodores on a daily basis. But our only foreseeable adversary has just been humiliated by Ukraine. What are we actually afraid of?
That's a good point re Russia. After over four years of huge spend and casualties they have failed to capture/occupy more than a small part of Ukraine and are now stuck or going backwards. Previously we'd probably have underestimated their desire to roll into Eastern Europe (hence the shock) and overestimated their ability to do it. I recall when the Ukraine war started the expert consensus was that Russia would achieve total victory within days.
Otoh we have this change with America. If they aren't allies anymore it leaves a hole to fill which will require more defence spending.
There's a quite plausible scenario of Russia rolling into the Baltics utlilising the Kaliningrad enclave, and threatening the Germans with nuclear weapons if they attempt to block them. Possibly on the rebound if Ukraine winds down, and Putin needs to keep wartime conditions going.
Except the Finnish an Polish armies are quite capable enough on their own, and the Baltic armed forces have been working very closely with the Ukrainians. Since the Russians have been given a pretty thorough hiding by the Ukrainians, you have to ask what the Russians actually have left that would persuade them that any further aggression would be in their interests. FWIW the Estonian security service sees neither intent nor capability on the Russian side for at least the next several years.
The growing view in the Baltic is that Putin is slowly but surely running out of road. Any culmination of the Russo-Ukrainian war could be very dangerous- a potential use of nuclear weapons still cannot be entirely ruled out. Nevertheless there is a growing sense of crisis on the Russian side, and a collapse is also a growing possibility. Even a post-Putin Russia would be a threat, but arguably a less urgent threat than Russia today.
The most capable army in Europe is the Ukrainian army. The second most capable army in Europe is the Russian army. NATO armies aren't at the races in comparison because they don't have the recent war-fighting experience with drones to compete.
Ukraine keep on beating NATO forces with ease in exercises. But Russia are able to hold them to a standstill or inch forward.
I can't say for sure how it would go if the Russians tried to invade the Baltic States after a ceasefire with Ukraine. But I think assistance from Ukraine would be more valuable to the Baltic States than from Britain, Germany or Poland.
I think it's a little more complicated than that.
Take airpower. In Ukraine, both side have ex-Soviet, S-400 systems which are highly capable radar guided gound to air missiles. When facing aircraft with no stealth -which includes all Russian planes, and the 1980s and 1990s F-16s that Ukraine has been gifted- these are incredible systems.
But how would they hold up against F35s, which Western countries have lots of? If the answer is 'badly', then it would be a very different kind of war, with Western planes taking out said S-400 systems, and destroying supply lines. That -in turn- would make it very hard for the Russian army, no matter how skilled in the way of drones, to advance.
Now, it could be that stealth is much overrated. But we don't know that.
What we do know, however, is that Iran (which had those S-400 air defence systems) had a pretty miserable time against US and Israeli jets.
Largely because the weight of British bettors will always push the odds into what Casino would tell us represents value.
Were England fans more clued up, they’d all be betting against England, so that they would have something to celebrate, whether our team wins or loses. But, like our Casino, they don’t factor the financial current value of their happiness or disappointment into their optimum betting strategy.
Betting is more worldwide now so I'd be wary of assuming England is necessarily bad value. (Your consolation prize betting strategy... maybe.)
Healey was right on defence and if he does back Burnham after his resignation and Burnham does increase defence spending that will be good for NATO and our national security.
In terms of Kemi's comments she is taking a risk, while about half of Conservatives would back making Farage PM the other half would prefer the Tories to abstain in a hung parliament. Some would even prefer to deal with Labour or the LDs. It also won't help Conservative incumbents gain anti Reform tactical votes
If you asked 50 defence experts what to spend extra money on we'd probably get 20-30 different answers. I'm not sure it particularly matters whether we spend 2.4% or 2.5% or whatever the difference is on defence in the next few years.
What we need to do is re-imagine what defence looks like and come up with a coherent strategy that fits for the next decade and beyond, not the present and certainly not the past.
We need to do the latter and we need to spend more on defence now. We don't have the luxury of taking time to come up with a perfect defence plan. We need more capability asap.
Countries like Poland, Germany and Denmark are not messing around dithering and doing nothing. They're getting on with it. Britain needs to do the same.
And, yes, the difference between 2.6% and 2.68% is neither here nor there. The countries in Europe who are serious about defence are at, or heading to, 3.5+% before the end of this Parliament. Serious amounts of extra money, and serious amounts of extra capability as a result. Britain needs to do the same.
Not convinced. I'd say even a strategy of simply maintaining spending until maybe 2029 but spend that time planning and understanding better how tech is changing warfare before investing heavily in the 2030s will play out better than making medium and long term procurements now.
And ultimately if we think we should be spending 3.5% to deter Russia, China (and US? EU?), we should be spending at least that on managing and controlling AI which is the existential threat.
There's a lot that we need to spend in the short term just to stop from losing existing capability. The cheese-paring approach to defence spending that had been going on for at least three decades now has created so many problems that they're are masses of short-term cuts from the past that have stored up problems that are coming due now.
And there are major commitments that Britain is making that it doesn't have the capability to meet without a large expansion in defence spending now.
We're four years behind where we should be in preparing for future conflict. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 should have been a major wake-up call and Britain is still dithering about what to do and delaying doing it.
Why do you think Britain had the luxury of waiting until 2030 to work out how to rebuild its defences when so many other countries in Europe have decided they needed to spend more years ago? Are the Germans, Danes, Poles and others just stupid and wasting their money?
Something needs to be done has been a winning argument forever. Planning before starting has been a winning strategy forever.
I think you're being complacent about the timescales faced and, also, there has been lots of planning, there's been a defence review, there's been loads of work in creating the defence investment plan. Britain doesn't need more planning. It has the plans. It needs to fund them.
Kai Havertz has been backed for top scorer and is now 25/1. The theory seems to be that Germany has an especially weak group stage.
But seriously, I've concluded any of the big teams can win; they've all been tipped by someone. England seems to have taken the wrong players for the likely heat and altitude (and bad pitches).
Continue with the highest of 2.5% annually, inflation and earnings, but rather than continuing to calculate the highest of those on an annual basis, freeze the date against which these are baselined to 6th April 2025 (the latest calculated lock date).
Triple lock.protected, but no longer such an escalator.
That’s not a bad idea as a political solution. Still mad compared to just fixing to CPI like other benefits.
For me the perfect policy would be making landlords ineligible for the State Pension. Your retired lifestyle should not rely on milking young people dry, and anyone with more than one house is minted anyway.
That would simply result in a stampede to sell second homes..
Crashing house prices for first time buyers
"milking young people dry"?
Do you think rents are high because all landlords are grasping greedy bastards or because there are not enough houses for the population?
I think it’s because there are so many young people on decent salaries who can pay that high rent but can’t build the capital to compete with investors.
I was repeatedly outbid by cash buying pensioners when I bought my first flat, some going 25% over home report. If we make housing a rubbish investment then demand, and therefore price, will crater in places like Edinburgh.
Telegraph guy was proposing bringing back MIRAS for first time buyers for their first ten years of mortgage the other day. And some thinktank proposed young people cutting their state pension in exchange for a deposit for house when young.
Interesting ideas but again supply is the issue.
Labour have failed in spades to build their target house building. It has been dismal.
Supply is an issue, but not the only one. We’ve built millions of homes over the last 30 years but the number being rented out has grown even faster.
Labour’s target was to increase the housing stock by 6% , which would have decreased prices by about 3% on current price elasticity. To put that in perspective, house prices have increased by 26% in the last 10 years.
The owning vs renting thing is a sideshow. The root problem is that homes are really expensive either way, if the weren't, it wouldn't be possible to make loads of money out of renting them out.
The real problem is that every single one of those millions of houses built has been insufficient to keep up with population growth. This population growth stems almost entirely from 30 years of almost unfettered mass immigration, largely against the fairly clearly expressed will of the population.
We can't begin to fix house prices without stopping the population growing, and by far the easiest way to fix it quickly is to get the population shrinking via a near total block on immigration.
Housing stock has grown faster than the population, significantly so in Scotland. Population growth accounts for very little in the increase in housing costs - our population has grown by 9% over the past 30 years, dwellings up more than double that, and real house prices up 65%.
Healey was right on defence and if he does back Burnham after his resignation and Burnham does increase defence spending that will be good for NATO and our national security.
In terms of Kemi's comments she is taking a risk, while about half of Conservatives would back making Farage PM the other half would prefer the Tories to abstain in a hung parliament. Some would even prefer to deal with Labour or the LDs. It also won't help Conservative incumbents gain anti Reform tactical votes
If you asked 50 defence experts what to spend extra money on we'd probably get 20-30 different answers. I'm not sure it particularly matters whether we spend 2.4% or 2.5% or whatever the difference is on defence in the next few years.
What we need to do is re-imagine what defence looks like and come up with a coherent strategy that fits for the next decade and beyond, not the present and certainly not the past.
We need to do the latter and we need to spend more on defence now. We don't have the luxury of taking time to come up with a perfect defence plan. We need more capability asap.
Countries like Poland, Germany and Denmark are not messing around dithering and doing nothing. They're getting on with it. Britain needs to do the same.
And, yes, the difference between 2.6% and 2.68% is neither here nor there. The countries in Europe who are serious about defence are at, or heading to, 3.5+% before the end of this Parliament. Serious amounts of extra money, and serious amounts of extra capability as a result. Britain needs to do the same.
Not convinced. I'd say even a strategy of simply maintaining spending until maybe 2029 but spend that time planning and understanding better how tech is changing warfare before investing heavily in the 2030s will play out better than making medium and long term procurements now.
And ultimately if we think we should be spending 3.5% to deter Russia, China (and US? EU?), we should be spending at least that on managing and controlling AI which is the existential threat.
There's a lot that we need to spend in the short term just to stop from losing existing capability. The cheese-paring approach to defence spending that had been going on for at least three decades now has created so many problems that they're are masses of short-term cuts from the past that have stored up problems that are coming due now.
And there are major commitments that Britain is making that it doesn't have the capability to meet without a large expansion in defence spending now.
We're four years behind where we should be in preparing for future conflict. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 should have been a major wake-up call and Britain is still dithering about what to do and delaying doing it.
Why do you think Britain had the luxury of waiting until 2030 to work out how to rebuild its defences when so many other countries in Europe have decided they needed to spend more years ago? Are the Germans, Danes, Poles and others just stupid and wasting their money?
Something needs to be done has been a winning argument forever. Planning before starting has been a winning strategy forever.
I think you're being complacent about the timescales faced and, also, there has been lots of planning, there's been a defence review, there's been loads of work in creating the defence investment plan. Britain doesn't need more planning. It has the plans. It needs to fund them.
If the plans don't take account of the last six months of the Ukraine war they are already out of date. And todays plans may well be completely out of date by 2030.
Healey was right on defence and if he does back Burnham after his resignation and Burnham does increase defence spending that will be good for NATO and our national security.
In terms of Kemi's comments she is taking a risk, while about half of Conservatives would back making Farage PM the other half would prefer the Tories to abstain in a hung parliament. Some would even prefer to deal with Labour or the LDs. It also won't help Conservative incumbents gain anti Reform tactical votes
If you asked 50 defence experts what to spend extra money on we'd probably get 20-30 different answers. I'm not sure it particularly matters whether we spend 2.4% or 2.5% or whatever the difference is on defence in the next few years.
What we need to do is re-imagine what defence looks like and come up with a coherent strategy that fits for the next decade and beyond, not the present and certainly not the past.
We need to do the latter and we need to spend more on defence now. We don't have the luxury of taking time to come up with a perfect defence plan. We need more capability asap.
Countries like Poland, Germany and Denmark are not messing around dithering and doing nothing. They're getting on with it. Britain needs to do the same.
And, yes, the difference between 2.6% and 2.68% is neither here nor there. The countries in Europe who are serious about defence are at, or heading to, 3.5+% before the end of this Parliament. Serious amounts of extra money, and serious amounts of extra capability as a result. Britain needs to do the same.
Labour should have come into office and whacked an extra 2p on income tax, and mapped out a route towards merging NI and IT, from the outset. And then set about delivering us some worthwhile gains from spending all that extra income. Our current problems all follow from Labour’s risible ‘Ming vase’ election strategy which itself derives from the abject depths to which the previous governing Tories had sunk.
They got 33% pledging no income tax increase. They would have been mid 20s with a 2p increase, and not come into office.
They didn’t need to campaign for a 2p tax increase; just not box themselves in by ruling it out. Yes, springing it on us after the election wouldn’t have been popular, but they’d be no more unpopular than they already now are, while having a lot more money to spend turning things around.
This very thread shows what happens if you don't rule something out, it gets spun as you will be doing it.
They’d have won, anyway, just without having a superfluous fifty extra MPs on their side frustrated from having nothing useful to do and remote prospects of any career advancement, pending their inevitable defeat in 2029.
All very grave and big beasty from Healey but I don't attach much political significance to this resignation. Starmer was toast anyway. Can toast be toasted? Not really. There'll be a new Burnham led government by summer's end. Since this is known SKS has no political authority within the cabinet or with MPs or the party. Therefore a well-regarded, prime-of-career minister in a high profile spending dept who has lost a battle with the Treasury for more £££ might as well resign, have a moment, detach from the old regime and stake a claim to be a big part of the new one. That's my take on what's happened here. It's not that this finishes Starmer. It's more that Starmer being finished has triggered this.
I suppose there is also a vague, unlikely possibility that the defence investment plan is a load of old shite.
they will do usual and buy usual tat that does not work
Kai Havertz has been backed for top scorer and is now 25/1. The theory seems to be that Germany has an especially weak group stage.
But seriously, I've concluded any of the big teams can win; they've all been tipped by someone. England seems to have taken the wrong players for the likely heat and altitude (and bad pitches).
Largely because the weight of British bettors will always push the odds into what Casino would tell us represents value.
Were England fans more clued up, they’d all be betting against England, so that they would have something to celebrate, whether our team wins or loses. But, like our Casino, they don’t factor the financial current value of their happiness or disappointment into their optimum betting strategy.
Betting is more worldwide now so I'd be wary of assuming England is necessarily bad value. (Your consolation prize betting strategy... maybe.)
Polymarket seems to be doing bigger volumes than Betfair today. Think would have been Betfair 10x bigger at the last Euros, just a couple of years ago. Its still smaller than the Asian markets that really set the prices.
Kai Havertz has been backed for top scorer and is now 25/1. The theory seems to be that Germany has an especially weak group stage.
But seriously, I've concluded any of the big teams can win; they've all been tipped by someone. England seems to have taken the wrong players for the likely heat and altitude (and bad pitches).
X David Wolfson@DXW_KC·2h Faced with a choice between a Defence Secretary who wanted to spend more on our armed forces, a Chancellor who wouldn’t, and an Attorney General who enjoys suing them, the Prime Minister decided he could do without … the Defence Secretary.
Christopher Hope📝@christopherhope·4h Kemi Badenoch’s six questions on defence spending at Prime Minister‘s questions yesterday suddenly look very well targeted, Christopher Hope📝@christopherhope Lessons from John Healey's resignation: - Huge blow to Sir Keir Starmer a week out from the Makerfield by-election; - Defence was of the few areas where the PM was meant to be strong; - Pressure now on Chancellor Rachel Reeves over why she drove such a hard bargain on defence; - The Labour Government feels it is fraying at the ages once again. More reporting and analysis on @GBNEWS now.
It's not really huge blow to Starmer for the Makerfield by-election as Starmer's Labour isn't standing in the contest!!
X David Wolfson@DXW_KC·2h Faced with a choice between a Defence Secretary who wanted to spend more on our armed forces, a Chancellor who wouldn’t, and an Attorney General who enjoys suing them, the Prime Minister decided he could do without … the Defence Secretary.
Christopher Hope📝@christopherhope·4h Kemi Badenoch’s six questions on defence spending at Prime Minister‘s questions yesterday suddenly look very well targeted, Christopher Hope📝@christopherhope Lessons from John Healey's resignation: - Huge blow to Sir Keir Starmer a week out from the Makerfield by-election; - Defence was of the few areas where the PM was meant to be strong; - Pressure now on Chancellor Rachel Reeves over why she drove such a hard bargain on defence; - The Labour Government feels it is fraying at the ages once again. More reporting and analysis on @GBNEWS now.
Kai Havertz has been backed for top scorer and is now 25/1. The theory seems to be that Germany has an especially weak group stage.
But seriously, I've concluded any of the big teams can win; they've all been tipped by someone. England seems to have taken the wrong players for the likely heat and altitude (and bad pitches).
Kai Havertz has been backed for top scorer and is now 25/1. The theory seems to be that Germany has an especially weak group stage.
But seriously, I've concluded any of the big teams can win; they've all been tipped by someone. England seems to have taken the wrong players for the likely heat and altitude (and bad pitches).
Healey was right on defence and if he does back Burnham after his resignation and Burnham does increase defence spending that will be good for NATO and our national security.
In terms of Kemi's comments she is taking a risk, while about half of Conservatives would back making Farage PM the other half would prefer the Tories to abstain in a hung parliament. Some would even prefer to deal with Labour or the LDs. It also won't help Conservative incumbents gain anti Reform tactical votes
If you asked 50 defence experts what to spend extra money on we'd probably get 20-30 different answers. I'm not sure it particularly matters whether we spend 2.4% or 2.5% or whatever the difference is on defence in the next few years.
What we need to do is re-imagine what defence looks like and come up with a coherent strategy that fits for the next decade and beyond, not the present and certainly not the past.
We need to do the latter and we need to spend more on defence now. We don't have the luxury of taking time to come up with a perfect defence plan. We need more capability asap.
Countries like Poland, Germany and Denmark are not messing around dithering and doing nothing. They're getting on with it. Britain needs to do the same.
And, yes, the difference between 2.6% and 2.68% is neither here nor there. The countries in Europe who are serious about defence are at, or heading to, 3.5+% before the end of this Parliament. Serious amounts of extra money, and serious amounts of extra capability as a result. Britain needs to do the same.
I’ve posted on here before that I think that to the likes of Starmer and Reeves defence is an anathema. They come from a world with very little real connection to the military either practically or lore.
I think they view the military in several negative ways with their political hinterlands where it’s a combination of a bad thing that does things like kill people and colonise and it’s full of chaps in flashy uniforms or scumbag squaddies, neither of which fit the bill in their circles.
I don’t think their innate “culture” can really comprehend the importance of defence other than strong words and flashy quick operations with special forces. I also think they sub-consciously think that something will come up, the US would step in or we would hold hands with our European allies and all would be ok.
Starmer’s words mean nothing - the in action about Russian shadow fleets for example.
I would think they have constantly hoping that at some point the defence review and budget for it would go away and they could get back to nice things like welfare, fairness, tax.
This could of course be grossly unfair on them but I don’t believe so.
I don't think that's right. I don't think Labour have even really been able to do the things that culturally they would like to do in government. They're timid and inept across the board.
And, culturally, you couldn't find a more pro-military party than the Tories, but look at the shambles they left behind in 2024, and there wasn't much sign of them turning things around in response to the 2022 invasion.
On defence Britain has yet to be shaken out of a complacency about the true state of its defence capability and its ability to measure up to the threat now faced.
We have the prancing around in fancy dress being shown live on BBC1 in two days.
Healey was right on defence and if he does back Burnham after his resignation and Burnham does increase defence spending that will be good for NATO and our national security.
In terms of Kemi's comments she is taking a risk, while about half of Conservatives would back making Farage PM the other half would prefer the Tories to abstain in a hung parliament. Some would even prefer to deal with Labour or the LDs. It also won't help Conservative incumbents gain anti Reform tactical votes
If you asked 50 defence experts what to spend extra money on we'd probably get 20-30 different answers. I'm not sure it particularly matters whether we spend 2.4% or 2.5% or whatever the difference is on defence in the next few years.
What we need to do is re-imagine what defence looks like and come up with a coherent strategy that fits for the next decade and beyond, not the present and certainly not the past.
We need to do the latter and we need to spend more on defence now. We don't have the luxury of taking time to come up with a perfect defence plan. We need more capability asap.
Countries like Poland, Germany and Denmark are not messing around dithering and doing nothing. They're getting on with it. Britain needs to do the same.
And, yes, the difference between 2.6% and 2.68% is neither here nor there. The countries in Europe who are serious about defence are at, or heading to, 3.5+% before the end of this Parliament. Serious amounts of extra money, and serious amounts of extra capability as a result. Britain needs to do the same.
I’ve posted on here before that I think that to the likes of Starmer and Reeves defence is an anathema. They come from a world with very little real connection to the military either practically or lore.
I think they view the military in several negative ways with their political hinterlands where it’s a combination of a bad thing that does things like kill people and colonise and it’s full of chaps in flashy uniforms or scumbag squaddies, neither of which fit the bill in their circles.
I don’t think their innate “culture” can really comprehend the importance of defence other than strong words and flashy quick operations with special forces. I also think they sub-consciously think that something will come up, the US would step in or we would hold hands with our European allies and all would be ok.
Starmer’s words mean nothing - the in action about Russian shadow fleets for example.
I would think they have constantly hoping that at some point the defence review and budget for it would go away and they could get back to nice things like welfare, fairness, tax.
This could of course be grossly unfair on them but I don’t believe so.
"You just carry on with that thinking Butch. It's what you're good at."
Can you please tell us how Keir and Rachel managed to defund, hollow out and reduce UK Armed Forces between 2010 and 2024.
Kai Havertz has been backed for top scorer and is now 25/1. The theory seems to be that Germany has an especially weak group stage.
But seriously, I've concluded any of the big teams can win; they've all been tipped by someone. England seems to have taken the wrong players for the likely heat and altitude (and bad pitches).
Three host countries means three opening ceremonies! Can't wait. /s
Ok I’ll bite on this. Which England players are suited to the heat and bad pitches?
They've left Foden behind thank god
He just gets in the way of everyone.
Luckily the British Hairdressers and Barbers association had some incriminating photos of Tuchel, Palmer was omitted too. Never underestimate the power of Hairdressers, they have all the gossip and are vicious.
X David Wolfson@DXW_KC·2h Faced with a choice between a Defence Secretary who wanted to spend more on our armed forces, a Chancellor who wouldn’t, and an Attorney General who enjoys suing them, the Prime Minister decided he could do without … the Defence Secretary.
Christopher Hope📝@christopherhope·4h Kemi Badenoch’s six questions on defence spending at Prime Minister‘s questions yesterday suddenly look very well targeted, Christopher Hope📝@christopherhope Lessons from John Healey's resignation: - Huge blow to Sir Keir Starmer a week out from the Makerfield by-election; - Defence was of the few areas where the PM was meant to be strong; - Pressure now on Chancellor Rachel Reeves over why she drove such a hard bargain on defence; - The Labour Government feels it is fraying at the ages once again. More reporting and analysis on @GBNEWS now.
Healey was right on defence and if he does back Burnham after his resignation and Burnham does increase defence spending that will be good for NATO and our national security.
In terms of Kemi's comments she is taking a risk, while about half of Conservatives would back making Farage PM the other half would prefer the Tories to abstain in a hung parliament. Some would even prefer to deal with Labour or the LDs. It also won't help Conservative incumbents gain anti Reform tactical votes
If you asked 50 defence experts what to spend extra money on we'd probably get 20-30 different answers. I'm not sure it particularly matters whether we spend 2.4% or 2.5% or whatever the difference is on defence in the next few years.
What we need to do is re-imagine what defence looks like and come up with a coherent strategy that fits for the next decade and beyond, not the present and certainly not the past.
We need to do the latter and we need to spend more on defence now. We don't have the luxury of taking time to come up with a perfect defence plan. We need more capability asap.
Countries like Poland, Germany and Denmark are not messing around dithering and doing nothing. They're getting on with it. Britain needs to do the same.
And, yes, the difference between 2.6% and 2.68% is neither here nor there. The countries in Europe who are serious about defence are at, or heading to, 3.5+% before the end of this Parliament. Serious amounts of extra money, and serious amounts of extra capability as a result. Britain needs to do the same.
Not convinced. I'd say even a strategy of simply maintaining spending until maybe 2029 but spend that time planning and understanding better how tech is changing warfare before investing heavily in the 2030s will play out better than making medium and long term procurements now.
And ultimately if we think we should be spending 3.5% to deter Russia, China (and US? EU?), we should be spending at least that on managing and controlling AI which is the existential threat.
There's a lot that we need to spend in the short term just to stop from losing existing capability. The cheese-paring approach to defence spending that had been going on for at least three decades now has created so many problems that they're are masses of short-term cuts from the past that have stored up problems that are coming due now.
And there are major commitments that Britain is making that it doesn't have the capability to meet without a large expansion in defence spending now.
We're four years behind where we should be in preparing for future conflict. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 should have been a major wake-up call and Britain is still dithering about what to do and delaying doing it.
Why do you think Britain had the luxury of waiting until 2030 to work out how to rebuild its defences when so many other countries in Europe have decided they needed to spend more years ago? Are the Germans, Danes, Poles and others just stupid and wasting their money?
Something needs to be done has been a winning argument forever. Planning before starting has been a winning strategy forever.
I think you're being complacent about the timescales faced and, also, there has been lots of planning, there's been a defence review, there's been loads of work in creating the defence investment plan. Britain doesn't need more planning. It has the plans. It needs to fund them.
If the plans don't take account of the last six months of the Ukraine war they are already out of date. And todays plans may well be completely out of date by 2030.
I see little reason to spend any money in the UK on defence. Spend that money in Ukraine and see what works. Once that war is over, have a deal that the Ukrainians will come and train us.
Spend on drones, sea drones, autonomous land fighting vehicles, artillery and satellites.
Healey was right on defence and if he does back Burnham after his resignation and Burnham does increase defence spending that will be good for NATO and our national security.
In terms of Kemi's comments she is taking a risk, while about half of Conservatives would back making Farage PM the other half would prefer the Tories to abstain in a hung parliament. Some would even prefer to deal with Labour or the LDs. It also won't help Conservative incumbents gain anti Reform tactical votes
If you asked 50 defence experts what to spend extra money on we'd probably get 20-30 different answers. I'm not sure it particularly matters whether we spend 2.4% or 2.5% or whatever the difference is on defence in the next few years.
What we need to do is re-imagine what defence looks like and come up with a coherent strategy that fits for the next decade and beyond, not the present and certainly not the past.
We need to do the latter and we need to spend more on defence now. We don't have the luxury of taking time to come up with a perfect defence plan. We need more capability asap.
Countries like Poland, Germany and Denmark are not messing around dithering and doing nothing. They're getting on with it. Britain needs to do the same.
And, yes, the difference between 2.6% and 2.68% is neither here nor there. The countries in Europe who are serious about defence are at, or heading to, 3.5+% before the end of this Parliament. Serious amounts of extra money, and serious amounts of extra capability as a result. Britain needs to do the same.
I’ve posted on here before that I think that to the likes of Starmer and Reeves defence is an anathema. They come from a world with very little real connection to the military either practically or lore.
I think they view the military in several negative ways with their political hinterlands where it’s a combination of a bad thing that does things like kill people and colonise and it’s full of chaps in flashy uniforms or scumbag squaddies, neither of which fit the bill in their circles.
I don’t think their innate “culture” can really comprehend the importance of defence other than strong words and flashy quick operations with special forces. I also think they sub-consciously think that something will come up, the US would step in or we would hold hands with our European allies and all would be ok.
Starmer’s words mean nothing - the in action about Russian shadow fleets for example.
I would think they have constantly hoping that at some point the defence review and budget for it would go away and they could get back to nice things like welfare, fairness, tax.
This could of course be grossly unfair on them but I don’t believe so.
"You just carry on with that thinking Butch. It's what you're good at."
Can you please tell us how Keir and Rachel managed to defund, hollow out and reduce UK Armed Forces between 2010 and 2024.
As a Tory I am very angry with their behaviour on defence too. But Labour are in charge right now and need to sort it otherwise why did they bother getting elected if they want to hide from tough decisions.
What does one make of Healey resigning on a point of principle but conversely had no idea how many ships we had and why it took ages to get an insufficient response to Cyprus. I think its better he has gone if indirectly sticking it to Starmer. Looking forward to the oncoming bunfight in the Labour Party. I wonder what "Jonathan" of this parish thinks of it all?
Burnham walked back his compensation offer and spun it into cheap transport as if women born in the 1950s do not already qualify for bus passes. Fortunately any damage to his reputation as a deep thinker has been buried by worse news.
Kai Havertz has been backed for top scorer and is now 25/1. The theory seems to be that Germany has an especially weak group stage.
But seriously, I've concluded any of the big teams can win; they've all been tipped by someone. England seems to have taken the wrong players for the likely heat and altitude (and bad pitches).
If I was brave, I’d be laying France. I think they’re due a meltdown and given the group they’ve got, it could come early.
I am going to suggest that might be a canny observation having recently watched the Netflix documentary The Bus: A French Football Mutiny about the drama that unfolded in the French team camp during the 2010 World Cup in South Africa.
Healey was right on defence and if he does back Burnham after his resignation and Burnham does increase defence spending that will be good for NATO and our national security.
In terms of Kemi's comments she is taking a risk, while about half of Conservatives would back making Farage PM the other half would prefer the Tories to abstain in a hung parliament. Some would even prefer to deal with Labour or the LDs. It also won't help Conservative incumbents gain anti Reform tactical votes
If you asked 50 defence experts what to spend extra money on we'd probably get 20-30 different answers. I'm not sure it particularly matters whether we spend 2.4% or 2.5% or whatever the difference is on defence in the next few years.
What we need to do is re-imagine what defence looks like and come up with a coherent strategy that fits for the next decade and beyond, not the present and certainly not the past.
We need to do the latter and we need to spend more on defence now. We don't have the luxury of taking time to come up with a perfect defence plan. We need more capability asap.
Countries like Poland, Germany and Denmark are not messing around dithering and doing nothing. They're getting on with it. Britain needs to do the same.
And, yes, the difference between 2.6% and 2.68% is neither here nor there. The countries in Europe who are serious about defence are at, or heading to, 3.5+% before the end of this Parliament. Serious amounts of extra money, and serious amounts of extra capability as a result. Britain needs to do the same.
I’ve posted on here before that I think that to the likes of Starmer and Reeves defence is an anathema. They come from a world with very little real connection to the military either practically or lore.
I think they view the military in several negative ways with their political hinterlands where it’s a combination of a bad thing that does things like kill people and colonise and it’s full of chaps in flashy uniforms or scumbag squaddies, neither of which fit the bill in their circles.
I don’t think their innate “culture” can really comprehend the importance of defence other than strong words and flashy quick operations with special forces. I also think they sub-consciously think that something will come up, the US would step in or we would hold hands with our European allies and all would be ok.
Starmer’s words mean nothing - the in action about Russian shadow fleets for example.
I would think they have constantly hoping that at some point the defence review and budget for it would go away and they could get back to nice things like welfare, fairness, tax.
This could of course be grossly unfair on them but I don’t believe so.
I don't think that's right. I don't think Labour have even really been able to do the things that culturally they would like to do in government. They're timid and inept across the board.
And, culturally, you couldn't find a more pro-military party than the Tories, but look at the shambles they left behind in 2024, and there wasn't much sign of them turning things around in response to the 2022 invasion.
On defence Britain has yet to be shaken out of a complacency about the true state of its defence capability and its ability to measure up to the threat now faced.
We have the prancing around in fancy dress being shown live on BBC1 in two days.
Kai Havertz has been backed for top scorer and is now 25/1. The theory seems to be that Germany has an especially weak group stage.
But seriously, I've concluded any of the big teams can win; they've all been tipped by someone. England seems to have taken the wrong players for the likely heat and altitude (and bad pitches).
Healey was right on defence and if he does back Burnham after his resignation and Burnham does increase defence spending that will be good for NATO and our national security.
In terms of Kemi's comments she is taking a risk, while about half of Conservatives would back making Farage PM the other half would prefer the Tories to abstain in a hung parliament. Some would even prefer to deal with Labour or the LDs. It also won't help Conservative incumbents gain anti Reform tactical votes
If you asked 50 defence experts what to spend extra money on we'd probably get 20-30 different answers. I'm not sure it particularly matters whether we spend 2.4% or 2.5% or whatever the difference is on defence in the next few years.
What we need to do is re-imagine what defence looks like and come up with a coherent strategy that fits for the next decade and beyond, not the present and certainly not the past.
We need to do the latter and we need to spend more on defence now. We don't have the luxury of taking time to come up with a perfect defence plan. We need more capability asap.
Countries like Poland, Germany and Denmark are not messing around dithering and doing nothing. They're getting on with it. Britain needs to do the same.
And, yes, the difference between 2.6% and 2.68% is neither here nor there. The countries in Europe who are serious about defence are at, or heading to, 3.5+% before the end of this Parliament. Serious amounts of extra money, and serious amounts of extra capability as a result. Britain needs to do the same.
I’ve posted on here before that I think that to the likes of Starmer and Reeves defence is an anathema. They come from a world with very little real connection to the military either practically or lore.
I think they view the military in several negative ways with their political hinterlands where it’s a combination of a bad thing that does things like kill people and colonise and it’s full of chaps in flashy uniforms or scumbag squaddies, neither of which fit the bill in their circles.
I don’t think their innate “culture” can really comprehend the importance of defence other than strong words and flashy quick operations with special forces. I also think they sub-consciously think that something will come up, the US would step in or we would hold hands with our European allies and all would be ok.
Starmer’s words mean nothing - the in action about Russian shadow fleets for example.
I would think they have constantly hoping that at some point the defence review and budget for it would go away and they could get back to nice things like welfare, fairness, tax.
This could of course be grossly unfair on them but I don’t believe so.
I don't think that's right. I don't think Labour have even really been able to do the things that culturally they would like to do in government. They're timid and inept across the board.
And, culturally, you couldn't find a more pro-military party than the Tories, but look at the shambles they left behind in 2024, and there wasn't much sign of them turning things around in response to the 2022 invasion.
On defence Britain has yet to be shaken out of a complacency about the true state of its defence capability and its ability to measure up to the threat now faced.
We have the prancing around in fancy dress being shown live on BBC1 in two days.
Potemkin village in action.
You have a real issue with the ceremonial side of the Army. Did a guardsman in Hyde park run off without paying or something?
Dozens of children questioning their gender, including some under 13 years old, were inappropriately prescribed medication by a Brighton GP practice, an NHS safety investigation has found.
A year-long inquiry into the WellBN clinic found that 78 young patients were potentially harmed after puberty-blocking drugs and cross-sex hormones were prescribed without proper checks.
More than 20 children were given medication without a face-to-face appointment between February 2023 and December 2025.
In a website statement, WellBN said it recognised "the seriousness and sensitivity of the matters raised" and that its priority remained providing "compassionate, safe and effective care for all patients".
NHS England has told the clinic it must stop offering new prescriptions to children, and said a number of current and former clinicians had been referred to medical regulators.
One of the doctors identified in the report has been suspended from working as an NHS GP while further investigations are ongoing.
Dr Christopher Tibbs, regional medical director for NHS England, said that young people were put at a high risk of harm because clinicians provided "specialist diagnosis, care and treatment that they were neither qualified, nor commissioned to deliver".
"Under no circumstances should this have happened," he added.
Healey was right on defence and if he does back Burnham after his resignation and Burnham does increase defence spending that will be good for NATO and our national security.
In terms of Kemi's comments she is taking a risk, while about half of Conservatives would back making Farage PM the other half would prefer the Tories to abstain in a hung parliament. Some would even prefer to deal with Labour or the LDs. It also won't help Conservative incumbents gain anti Reform tactical votes
If you asked 50 defence experts what to spend extra money on we'd probably get 20-30 different answers. I'm not sure it particularly matters whether we spend 2.4% or 2.5% or whatever the difference is on defence in the next few years.
What we need to do is re-imagine what defence looks like and come up with a coherent strategy that fits for the next decade and beyond, not the present and certainly not the past.
We need to do the latter and we need to spend more on defence now. We don't have the luxury of taking time to come up with a perfect defence plan. We need more capability asap.
Countries like Poland, Germany and Denmark are not messing around dithering and doing nothing. They're getting on with it. Britain needs to do the same.
And, yes, the difference between 2.6% and 2.68% is neither here nor there. The countries in Europe who are serious about defence are at, or heading to, 3.5+% before the end of this Parliament. Serious amounts of extra money, and serious amounts of extra capability as a result. Britain needs to do the same.
Not convinced. I'd say even a strategy of simply maintaining spending until maybe 2029 but spend that time planning and understanding better how tech is changing warfare before investing heavily in the 2030s will play out better than making medium and long term procurements now.
And ultimately if we think we should be spending 3.5% to deter Russia, China (and US? EU?), we should be spending at least that on managing and controlling AI which is the existential threat.
There's a lot that we need to spend in the short term just to stop from losing existing capability. The cheese-paring approach to defence spending that had been going on for at least three decades now has created so many problems that they're are masses of short-term cuts from the past that have stored up problems that are coming due now.
And there are major commitments that Britain is making that it doesn't have the capability to meet without a large expansion in defence spending now.
We're four years behind where we should be in preparing for future conflict. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 should have been a major wake-up call and Britain is still dithering about what to do and delaying doing it.
Why do you think Britain had the luxury of waiting until 2030 to work out how to rebuild its defences when so many other countries in Europe have decided they needed to spend more years ago? Are the Germans, Danes, Poles and others just stupid and wasting their money?
Something needs to be done has been a winning argument forever. Planning before starting has been a winning strategy forever.
I think you're being complacent about the timescales faced and, also, there has been lots of planning, there's been a defence review, there's been loads of work in creating the defence investment plan. Britain doesn't need more planning. It has the plans. It needs to fund them.
If the plans don't take account of the last six months of the Ukraine war they are already out of date. And todays plans may well be completely out of date by 2030.
I see little reason to spend any money in the UK on defence. Spend that money in Ukraine and see what works. Once that war is over, have a deal that the Ukrainians will come and train us.
Spend on drones, sea drones, autonomous land fighting vehicles, artillery and satellites.
Spend the money in the UK on kit for Ukraine. With some JVs.
Healey was right on defence and if he does back Burnham after his resignation and Burnham does increase defence spending that will be good for NATO and our national security.
In terms of Kemi's comments she is taking a risk, while about half of Conservatives would back making Farage PM the other half would prefer the Tories to abstain in a hung parliament. Some would even prefer to deal with Labour or the LDs. It also won't help Conservative incumbents gain anti Reform tactical votes
If you asked 50 defence experts what to spend extra money on we'd probably get 20-30 different answers. I'm not sure it particularly matters whether we spend 2.4% or 2.5% or whatever the difference is on defence in the next few years.
What we need to do is re-imagine what defence looks like and come up with a coherent strategy that fits for the next decade and beyond, not the present and certainly not the past.
We need to do the latter and we need to spend more on defence now. We don't have the luxury of taking time to come up with a perfect defence plan. We need more capability asap.
Countries like Poland, Germany and Denmark are not messing around dithering and doing nothing. They're getting on with it. Britain needs to do the same.
And, yes, the difference between 2.6% and 2.68% is neither here nor there. The countries in Europe who are serious about defence are at, or heading to, 3.5+% before the end of this Parliament. Serious amounts of extra money, and serious amounts of extra capability as a result. Britain needs to do the same.
I’ve posted on here before that I think that to the likes of Starmer and Reeves defence is an anathema. They come from a world with very little real connection to the military either practically or lore.
I think they view the military in several negative ways with their political hinterlands where it’s a combination of a bad thing that does things like kill people and colonise and it’s full of chaps in flashy uniforms or scumbag squaddies, neither of which fit the bill in their circles.
I don’t think their innate “culture” can really comprehend the importance of defence other than strong words and flashy quick operations with special forces. I also think they sub-consciously think that something will come up, the US would step in or we would hold hands with our European allies and all would be ok.
Starmer’s words mean nothing - the in action about Russian shadow fleets for example.
I would think they have constantly hoping that at some point the defence review and budget for it would go away and they could get back to nice things like welfare, fairness, tax.
This could of course be grossly unfair on them but I don’t believe so.
I don't think that's right. I don't think Labour have even really been able to do the things that culturally they would like to do in government. They're timid and inept across the board.
And, culturally, you couldn't find a more pro-military party than the Tories, but look at the shambles they left behind in 2024, and there wasn't much sign of them turning things around in response to the 2022 invasion.
On defence Britain has yet to be shaken out of a complacency about the true state of its defence capability and its ability to measure up to the threat now faced.
We have the prancing around in fancy dress being shown live on BBC1 in two days.
Potemkin village in action.
You have a real issue with the ceremonial side of the Army. Did a guardsman in Hyde park run off without paying or something?
I have a real issue with any organisation I am funding which spends time and money on playing silly buggers instead of being capable of its primary purpose.
Though I dare say some think that the primary purpose of the British military is prancing around for royals and tourists.
Healey was right on defence and if he does back Burnham after his resignation and Burnham does increase defence spending that will be good for NATO and our national security.
In terms of Kemi's comments she is taking a risk, while about half of Conservatives would back making Farage PM the other half would prefer the Tories to abstain in a hung parliament. Some would even prefer to deal with Labour or the LDs. It also won't help Conservative incumbents gain anti Reform tactical votes
If you asked 50 defence experts what to spend extra money on we'd probably get 20-30 different answers. I'm not sure it particularly matters whether we spend 2.4% or 2.5% or whatever the difference is on defence in the next few years.
What we need to do is re-imagine what defence looks like and come up with a coherent strategy that fits for the next decade and beyond, not the present and certainly not the past.
We need to do the latter and we need to spend more on defence now. We don't have the luxury of taking time to come up with a perfect defence plan. We need more capability asap.
Countries like Poland, Germany and Denmark are not messing around dithering and doing nothing. They're getting on with it. Britain needs to do the same.
And, yes, the difference between 2.6% and 2.68% is neither here nor there. The countries in Europe who are serious about defence are at, or heading to, 3.5+% before the end of this Parliament. Serious amounts of extra money, and serious amounts of extra capability as a result. Britain needs to do the same.
I’ve posted on here before that I think that to the likes of Starmer and Reeves defence is an anathema. They come from a world with very little real connection to the military either practically or lore.
I think they view the military in several negative ways with their political hinterlands where it’s a combination of a bad thing that does things like kill people and colonise and it’s full of chaps in flashy uniforms or scumbag squaddies, neither of which fit the bill in their circles.
I don’t think their innate “culture” can really comprehend the importance of defence other than strong words and flashy quick operations with special forces. I also think they sub-consciously think that something will come up, the US would step in or we would hold hands with our European allies and all would be ok.
Starmer’s words mean nothing - the in action about Russian shadow fleets for example.
I would think they have constantly hoping that at some point the defence review and budget for it would go away and they could get back to nice things like welfare, fairness, tax.
This could of course be grossly unfair on them but I don’t believe so.
I don't think that's right. I don't think Labour have even really been able to do the things that culturally they would like to do in government. They're timid and inept across the board.
And, culturally, you couldn't find a more pro-military party than the Tories, but look at the shambles they left behind in 2024, and there wasn't much sign of them turning things around in response to the 2022 invasion.
On defence Britain has yet to be shaken out of a complacency about the true state of its defence capability and its ability to measure up to the threat now faced.
We have the prancing around in fancy dress being shown live on BBC1 in two days.
Potemkin village in action.
You have a real issue with the ceremonial side of the Army. Did a guardsman in Hyde park run off without paying or something?
I have a real issue with any organisation I am funding which spends time and money on playing silly buggers instead of being capable of its primary purpose.
Though I dare say some think that the primary purpose of the British military is prancing around for royals and tourists.
That constant drilling does have a purpose: it reinforces the need to follow orders exactly and according to a precise timeline. There's a reason why basically every professional army at peace does similar.
Healey was right on defence and if he does back Burnham after his resignation and Burnham does increase defence spending that will be good for NATO and our national security.
In terms of Kemi's comments she is taking a risk, while about half of Conservatives would back making Farage PM the other half would prefer the Tories to abstain in a hung parliament. Some would even prefer to deal with Labour or the LDs. It also won't help Conservative incumbents gain anti Reform tactical votes
If you asked 50 defence experts what to spend extra money on we'd probably get 20-30 different answers. I'm not sure it particularly matters whether we spend 2.4% or 2.5% or whatever the difference is on defence in the next few years.
What we need to do is re-imagine what defence looks like and come up with a coherent strategy that fits for the next decade and beyond, not the present and certainly not the past.
We need to do the latter and we need to spend more on defence now. We don't have the luxury of taking time to come up with a perfect defence plan. We need more capability asap.
Countries like Poland, Germany and Denmark are not messing around dithering and doing nothing. They're getting on with it. Britain needs to do the same.
And, yes, the difference between 2.6% and 2.68% is neither here nor there. The countries in Europe who are serious about defence are at, or heading to, 3.5+% before the end of this Parliament. Serious amounts of extra money, and serious amounts of extra capability as a result. Britain needs to do the same.
I’ve posted on here before that I think that to the likes of Starmer and Reeves defence is an anathema. They come from a world with very little real connection to the military either practically or lore.
I think they view the military in several negative ways with their political hinterlands where it’s a combination of a bad thing that does things like kill people and colonise and it’s full of chaps in flashy uniforms or scumbag squaddies, neither of which fit the bill in their circles.
I don’t think their innate “culture” can really comprehend the importance of defence other than strong words and flashy quick operations with special forces. I also think they sub-consciously think that something will come up, the US would step in or we would hold hands with our European allies and all would be ok.
Starmer’s words mean nothing - the in action about Russian shadow fleets for example.
I would think they have constantly hoping that at some point the defence review and budget for it would go away and they could get back to nice things like welfare, fairness, tax.
This could of course be grossly unfair on them but I don’t believe so.
I don't think that's right. I don't think Labour have even really been able to do the things that culturally they would like to do in government. They're timid and inept across the board.
And, culturally, you couldn't find a more pro-military party than the Tories, but look at the shambles they left behind in 2024, and there wasn't much sign of them turning things around in response to the 2022 invasion.
On defence Britain has yet to be shaken out of a complacency about the true state of its defence capability and its ability to measure up to the threat now faced.
We have the prancing around in fancy dress being shown live on BBC1 in two days.
Potemkin village in action.
You have a real issue with the ceremonial side of the Army. Did a guardsman in Hyde park run off without paying or something?
I have a real issue with any organisation I am funding which spends time and money on playing silly buggers instead of being capable of its primary purpose.
Though I dare say some think that the primary purpose of the British military is prancing around for royals and tourists.
Nobody thinks that it is their primary function. It’s tradition which is very important for a lot of the military, it’s a very public reminder of the armed forces for the likes of the Treasury amongst others and also a useful recruiting tool.
Those troops are also good at their primary purpose, being soldiers, it’s just they also do other things, like the military offer sports, adventure training, etc.
It’s a fraction of the defence budget that is ultimately a “good” to the country. But please feel free to approach those guardsmen and laugh at their “prancing”.
Dozens of children questioning their gender, including some under 13 years old, were inappropriately prescribed medication by a Brighton GP practice, an NHS safety investigation has found.
A year-long inquiry into the WellBN clinic found that 78 young patients were potentially harmed after puberty-blocking drugs and cross-sex hormones were prescribed without proper checks.
More than 20 children were given medication without a face-to-face appointment between February 2023 and December 2025.
In a website statement, WellBN said it recognised "the seriousness and sensitivity of the matters raised" and that its priority remained providing "compassionate, safe and effective care for all patients".
NHS England has told the clinic it must stop offering new prescriptions to children, and said a number of current and former clinicians had been referred to medical regulators.
One of the doctors identified in the report has been suspended from working as an NHS GP while further investigations are ongoing.
Dr Christopher Tibbs, regional medical director for NHS England, said that young people were put at a high risk of harm because clinicians provided "specialist diagnosis, care and treatment that they were neither qualified, nor commissioned to deliver".
"Under no circumstances should this have happened," he added.
Though you may recall that the tsunami of litigation over the Tavistock clinic never materisalised. There were a handful of complains and those mostly about delays to treatment.
Pls dont tell the Orange man! He'll have them deported, then realise they are in Mexico not the US, still want to deport them, so decide to invade. Best just not to let him know.
Healey was right on defence and if he does back Burnham after his resignation and Burnham does increase defence spending that will be good for NATO and our national security.
In terms of Kemi's comments she is taking a risk, while about half of Conservatives would back making Farage PM the other half would prefer the Tories to abstain in a hung parliament. Some would even prefer to deal with Labour or the LDs. It also won't help Conservative incumbents gain anti Reform tactical votes
If you asked 50 defence experts what to spend extra money on we'd probably get 20-30 different answers. I'm not sure it particularly matters whether we spend 2.4% or 2.5% or whatever the difference is on defence in the next few years.
What we need to do is re-imagine what defence looks like and come up with a coherent strategy that fits for the next decade and beyond, not the present and certainly not the past.
We need to do the latter and we need to spend more on defence now. We don't have the luxury of taking time to come up with a perfect defence plan. We need more capability asap.
Countries like Poland, Germany and Denmark are not messing around dithering and doing nothing. They're getting on with it. Britain needs to do the same.
And, yes, the difference between 2.6% and 2.68% is neither here nor there. The countries in Europe who are serious about defence are at, or heading to, 3.5+% before the end of this Parliament. Serious amounts of extra money, and serious amounts of extra capability as a result. Britain needs to do the same.
I’ve posted on here before that I think that to the likes of Starmer and Reeves defence is an anathema. They come from a world with very little real connection to the military either practically or lore.
I think they view the military in several negative ways with their political hinterlands where it’s a combination of a bad thing that does things like kill people and colonise and it’s full of chaps in flashy uniforms or scumbag squaddies, neither of which fit the bill in their circles.
I don’t think their innate “culture” can really comprehend the importance of defence other than strong words and flashy quick operations with special forces. I also think they sub-consciously think that something will come up, the US would step in or we would hold hands with our European allies and all would be ok.
Starmer’s words mean nothing - the in action about Russian shadow fleets for example.
I would think they have constantly hoping that at some point the defence review and budget for it would go away and they could get back to nice things like welfare, fairness, tax.
This could of course be grossly unfair on them but I don’t believe so.
I don't think that's right. I don't think Labour have even really been able to do the things that culturally they would like to do in government. They're timid and inept across the board.
And, culturally, you couldn't find a more pro-military party than the Tories, but look at the shambles they left behind in 2024, and there wasn't much sign of them turning things around in response to the 2022 invasion.
On defence Britain has yet to be shaken out of a complacency about the true state of its defence capability and its ability to measure up to the threat now faced.
We have the prancing around in fancy dress being shown live on BBC1 in two days.
Potemkin village in action.
You have a real issue with the ceremonial side of the Army. Did a guardsman in Hyde park run off without paying or something?
I have a real issue with any organisation I am funding which spends time and money on playing silly buggers instead of being capable of its primary purpose.
Though I dare say some think that the primary purpose of the British military is prancing around for royals and tourists.
Nobody thinks that it is their primary function. It’s tradition which is very important for a lot of the military, it’s a very public reminder of the armed forces for the likes of the Treasury amongst others and also a useful recruiting tool.
Those troops are also good at their primary purpose, being soldiers, it’s just they also do other things, like the military offer sports, adventure training, etc.
It’s a fraction of the defence budget that is ultimately a “good” to the country. But please feel free to approach those guardsmen and laugh at their “prancing”.
Well if its a public reminder to the Treasury then its clearly not worked.
Perhaps cancelling it would be a better reminder.
Still, keep waving the pompoms if it makes you happy.
Understand the delay in appointing a new defence secretary is, in part, due to the propriety and ethics process in government.
No10 is required to submit its potential names for a fast-tracked check by the Cabinet Office to look for any skeletons. They can then be approached.
In this case, obviously, the delay may have been compounded by some people on the list not wanting to take on the job…
Apparently Number Ten has struggled to find MPs with the required number of skeletons in their closets, meaning Peter Mandelson is tipped for a return to the Cabinet.
Healey was right on defence and if he does back Burnham after his resignation and Burnham does increase defence spending that will be good for NATO and our national security.
In terms of Kemi's comments she is taking a risk, while about half of Conservatives would back making Farage PM the other half would prefer the Tories to abstain in a hung parliament. Some would even prefer to deal with Labour or the LDs. It also won't help Conservative incumbents gain anti Reform tactical votes
If you asked 50 defence experts what to spend extra money on we'd probably get 20-30 different answers. I'm not sure it particularly matters whether we spend 2.4% or 2.5% or whatever the difference is on defence in the next few years.
What we need to do is re-imagine what defence looks like and come up with a coherent strategy that fits for the next decade and beyond, not the present and certainly not the past.
We need to do the latter and we need to spend more on defence now. We don't have the luxury of taking time to come up with a perfect defence plan. We need more capability asap.
Countries like Poland, Germany and Denmark are not messing around dithering and doing nothing. They're getting on with it. Britain needs to do the same.
And, yes, the difference between 2.6% and 2.68% is neither here nor there. The countries in Europe who are serious about defence are at, or heading to, 3.5+% before the end of this Parliament. Serious amounts of extra money, and serious amounts of extra capability as a result. Britain needs to do the same.
I’ve posted on here before that I think that to the likes of Starmer and Reeves defence is an anathema. They come from a world with very little real connection to the military either practically or lore.
I think they view the military in several negative ways with their political hinterlands where it’s a combination of a bad thing that does things like kill people and colonise and it’s full of chaps in flashy uniforms or scumbag squaddies, neither of which fit the bill in their circles.
I don’t think their innate “culture” can really comprehend the importance of defence other than strong words and flashy quick operations with special forces. I also think they sub-consciously think that something will come up, the US would step in or we would hold hands with our European allies and all would be ok.
Starmer’s words mean nothing - the in action about Russian shadow fleets for example.
I would think they have constantly hoping that at some point the defence review and budget for it would go away and they could get back to nice things like welfare, fairness, tax.
This could of course be grossly unfair on them but I don’t believe so.
I don't think that's right. I don't think Labour have even really been able to do the things that culturally they would like to do in government. They're timid and inept across the board.
And, culturally, you couldn't find a more pro-military party than the Tories, but look at the shambles they left behind in 2024, and there wasn't much sign of them turning things around in response to the 2022 invasion.
On defence Britain has yet to be shaken out of a complacency about the true state of its defence capability and its ability to measure up to the threat now faced.
We have the prancing around in fancy dress being shown live on BBC1 in two days.
Potemkin village in action.
You have a real issue with the ceremonial side of the Army. Did a guardsman in Hyde park run off without paying or something?
I have a real issue with any organisation I am funding which spends time and money on playing silly buggers instead of being capable of its primary purpose.
Though I dare say some think that the primary purpose of the British military is prancing around for royals and tourists.
That constant drilling does have a purpose: it reinforces the need to follow orders exactly and according to a precise timeline. There's a reason why basically every professional army at peace does similar.
Splendid training for when they need a massed volley to stop the French cuirassiers.
Healey was right on defence and if he does back Burnham after his resignation and Burnham does increase defence spending that will be good for NATO and our national security.
In terms of Kemi's comments she is taking a risk, while about half of Conservatives would back making Farage PM the other half would prefer the Tories to abstain in a hung parliament. Some would even prefer to deal with Labour or the LDs. It also won't help Conservative incumbents gain anti Reform tactical votes
If you asked 50 defence experts what to spend extra money on we'd probably get 20-30 different answers. I'm not sure it particularly matters whether we spend 2.4% or 2.5% or whatever the difference is on defence in the next few years.
What we need to do is re-imagine what defence looks like and come up with a coherent strategy that fits for the next decade and beyond, not the present and certainly not the past.
We need to do the latter and we need to spend more on defence now. We don't have the luxury of taking time to come up with a perfect defence plan. We need more capability asap.
Countries like Poland, Germany and Denmark are not messing around dithering and doing nothing. They're getting on with it. Britain needs to do the same.
And, yes, the difference between 2.6% and 2.68% is neither here nor there. The countries in Europe who are serious about defence are at, or heading to, 3.5+% before the end of this Parliament. Serious amounts of extra money, and serious amounts of extra capability as a result. Britain needs to do the same.
I’ve posted on here before that I think that to the likes of Starmer and Reeves defence is an anathema. They come from a world with very little real connection to the military either practically or lore.
I think they view the military in several negative ways with their political hinterlands where it’s a combination of a bad thing that does things like kill people and colonise and it’s full of chaps in flashy uniforms or scumbag squaddies, neither of which fit the bill in their circles.
I don’t think their innate “culture” can really comprehend the importance of defence other than strong words and flashy quick operations with special forces. I also think they sub-consciously think that something will come up, the US would step in or we would hold hands with our European allies and all would be ok.
Starmer’s words mean nothing - the in action about Russian shadow fleets for example.
I would think they have constantly hoping that at some point the defence review and budget for it would go away and they could get back to nice things like welfare, fairness, tax.
This could of course be grossly unfair on them but I don’t believe so.
I don't think that's right. I don't think Labour have even really been able to do the things that culturally they would like to do in government. They're timid and inept across the board.
And, culturally, you couldn't find a more pro-military party than the Tories, but look at the shambles they left behind in 2024, and there wasn't much sign of them turning things around in response to the 2022 invasion.
On defence Britain has yet to be shaken out of a complacency about the true state of its defence capability and its ability to measure up to the threat now faced.
We have the prancing around in fancy dress being shown live on BBC1 in two days.
Potemkin village in action.
You have a real issue with the ceremonial side of the Army. Did a guardsman in Hyde park run off without paying or something?
I have a real issue with any organisation I am funding which spends time and money on playing silly buggers instead of being capable of its primary purpose.
Though I dare say some think that the primary purpose of the British military is prancing around for royals and tourists.
That constant drilling does have a purpose: it reinforces the need to follow orders exactly and according to a precise timeline. There's a reason why basically every professional army at peace does similar.
Splendid training for when they need a massed volley to stop the French cuirassiers.
When you are given an order, you need to follow it. That's what the training is for.
Healey was right on defence and if he does back Burnham after his resignation and Burnham does increase defence spending that will be good for NATO and our national security.
In terms of Kemi's comments she is taking a risk, while about half of Conservatives would back making Farage PM the other half would prefer the Tories to abstain in a hung parliament. Some would even prefer to deal with Labour or the LDs. It also won't help Conservative incumbents gain anti Reform tactical votes
'This is bullshit.
What I ACTUALLY said is we "cannot have another left-wing government. But I'm afraid that Reform has quite a lot of left-wing ideas. They want more benefits. They want nationalisation” I then said. On "deals, non-aggression pacts and so on....I'm just saying no. It's just no, no, no, no, no, no, no."
Kemi now rules out any deals with Reform, at least until a GE result is through
It's utter clownville over there, isn't it. Never such a confluence of power, nastiness, stupidity and incompetence. Tbh I don't think much can be achieved on anything anywhere until he's gone.
"John Healey’s dramatic resignation has stunned Westminster – but it did not come out of a clear blue sky.
Storm clouds were gathering over the Ministry of Defence 24 hours earlier when the former defence secretary had what friends describe as a ‘stand-up row’ with Rachel Reeves.
The Chancellor told him bluntly that she would not sign up to his demand that defence spending should rise to three per cent of GDP by the end of the decade.
And she warned him that, after months of wrangling, he would effectively be offered just £10billion to shore up Britain’s defences – barely a third of the £28billion deemed necessary.
Mr Healey, who was due to be unveiling the first elements of the plan on Friday morning, was appalled.
He told Keir Starmer that the Treasury’s position was unacceptable and urged him to intervene.
After a night’s deliberation and tense talks with Ms Reeves, the PM rang Mr Healey on Thursday morning to say he was siding with the Chancellor. Sir Keir invited him in to discuss the situation face to face, arguing that the cash injection would still amount to the largest for years.
Mr Healey took the PM’s call while he was travelling to Gosport for an event with his Australian counterpart Richard Marles. He declined the invitation for a further discussion with the PM and tendered his resignation with immediate effect."
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/12/relax-starmergeddon-not-happened-grownups-in-charge
Politicians are terrified of broad-based visible tax rises. And the results of elections over the last generation or two show why. It's why Jeremy Hunt no doubt thought he was playing a blinder by cutting National Insurance before the election. It's why the 2010 austerity was so loaded to spending cuts.
It's why we are where we are... because it's been the WIll Of The People.
If I was brave, I’d be laying France. I think they’re due a meltdown and given the group they’ve got, it could come early.
But seriously, I've concluded any of the big teams can win; they've all been tipped by someone. England seems to have taken the wrong players for the likely heat and altitude (and bad pitches).
I've not tried it but have heard good things about the Guardian's bracketology:-
https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2026/jun/04/bracketology-predict-a-path-to-world-cup-victory
Three host countries means three opening ceremonies! Can't wait. /s
There's 'reporting and analysis on @GBNEWS' ?!
And, culturally, you couldn't find a more pro-military party than the Tories, but look at the shambles they left behind in 2024, and there wasn't much sign of them turning things around in response to the 2022 invasion.
On defence Britain has yet to be shaken out of a complacency about the true state of its defence capability and its ability to measure up to the threat now faced.
Because they kept saying that 'the whole world is supporting South Africa today' four world cups ago.
Take airpower. In Ukraine, both side have ex-Soviet, S-400 systems which are highly capable radar guided gound to air missiles. When facing aircraft with no stealth -which includes all Russian planes, and the 1980s and 1990s F-16s that Ukraine has been gifted- these are incredible systems.
But how would they hold up against F35s, which Western countries have lots of? If the answer is 'badly', then it would be a very different kind of war, with Western planes taking out said S-400 systems, and destroying supply lines. That -in turn- would make it very hard for the Russian army, no matter how skilled in the way of drones, to advance.
Now, it could be that stealth is much overrated. But we don't know that.
What we do know, however, is that Iran (which had those S-400 air defence systems) had a pretty miserable time against US and Israeli jets.
Making the invisible visible
A landmark achievement in microscopy is poised to reveal the molecular machinery of life inside cells, at near-atomic detail.
https://biohub.org/blog/laser-phase-plate-cryo-em-making-invisible-visible/
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/11/andy-burnham-rules-out-compensation-waspi-women
He just gets in the way of everyone.
But I wouldn’t worry too much. England are good. They can win it.
On Germany having a weak group, I don’t think they do actually. Ecuador can defend and Ivory Coast won’t be easy. Curacao might surprise too.
Spain have a weak group.
Would be a good time to lose your phone Luke..
Potemkin village in action.
PAMELA NASH resigns as defence PPS.
Must be really pissed off he's not been sent to Dover since October
Spend on drones, sea drones, autonomous land fighting vehicles, artillery and satellites.
Al
AI
or @noneoftheabove
(Who the hell thought it was a good idea to design a typeface where capital i and lowercase L are identical?)
I think its better he has gone if indirectly sticking it to Starmer.
Looking forward to the oncoming bunfight in the Labour Party.
I wonder what "Jonathan" of this parish thinks of it all?
It is wall to wall on Healey Starmer and Reeves
Strictly ?
Dozens of children questioning their gender, including some under 13 years old, were inappropriately prescribed medication by a Brighton GP practice, an NHS safety investigation has found.
A year-long inquiry into the WellBN clinic found that 78 young patients were potentially harmed after puberty-blocking drugs and cross-sex hormones were prescribed without proper checks.
More than 20 children were given medication without a face-to-face appointment between February 2023 and December 2025.
In a website statement, WellBN said it recognised "the seriousness and sensitivity of the matters raised" and that its priority remained providing "compassionate, safe and effective care for all patients".
NHS England has told the clinic it must stop offering new prescriptions to children, and said a number of current and former clinicians had been referred to medical regulators.
One of the doctors identified in the report has been suspended from working as an NHS GP while further investigations are ongoing.
Dr Christopher Tibbs, regional medical director for NHS England, said that young people were put at a high risk of harm because clinicians provided "specialist diagnosis, care and treatment that they were neither qualified, nor commissioned to deliver".
"Under no circumstances should this have happened," he added.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c932y3q09qro
With some JVs.
Though I dare say some think that the primary purpose of the British military is prancing around for royals and tourists.
Understand the delay in appointing a new defence secretary is, in part, due to the propriety and ethics process in government.
No10 is required to submit its potential names for a fast-tracked check by the Cabinet Office to look for any skeletons. They can then be approached.
In this case, obviously, the delay may have been compounded by some people on the list not wanting to take on the job…
Those troops are also good at their primary purpose, being soldiers, it’s just they also do other things, like the military offer sports, adventure training, etc.
It’s a fraction of the defence budget that is ultimately a “good” to the country. But please feel free to approach those guardsmen and laugh at their “prancing”.
Perhaps cancelling it would be a better reminder.
Still, keep waving the pompoms if it makes you happy.
Talk about Andy the people pleaser.
(They do have one on the bench btw)
What I ACTUALLY said is we "cannot have another left-wing government. But I'm afraid that Reform has quite a lot of left-wing ideas. They want more benefits. They want nationalisation”
I then said.
On "deals, non-aggression pacts and so on....I'm just saying no. It's just no, no, no, no, no, no, no."
Kemi now rules out any deals with Reform, at least until a GE result is through
https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2065076212855124166?s=20
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15892761/Healeys-stand-row-Reeves-Starmers-decision-Chancellor-forced-defence-secretary-quit.html
"John Healey’s dramatic resignation has stunned Westminster – but it did not come out of a clear blue sky.
Storm clouds were gathering over the Ministry of Defence 24 hours earlier when the former defence secretary had what friends describe as a ‘stand-up row’ with Rachel Reeves.
The Chancellor told him bluntly that she would not sign up to his demand that defence spending should rise to three per cent of GDP by the end of the decade.
And she warned him that, after months of wrangling, he would effectively be offered just £10billion to shore up Britain’s defences – barely a third of the £28billion deemed necessary.
Mr Healey, who was due to be unveiling the first elements of the plan on Friday morning, was appalled.
He told Keir Starmer that the Treasury’s position was unacceptable and urged him to intervene.
After a night’s deliberation and tense talks with Ms Reeves, the PM rang Mr Healey on Thursday morning to say he was siding with the Chancellor. Sir Keir invited him in to discuss the situation face to face, arguing that the cash injection would still amount to the largest for years.
Mr Healey took the PM’s call while he was travelling to Gosport for an event with his Australian counterpart Richard Marles. He declined the invitation for a further discussion with the PM and tendered his resignation with immediate effect."