NEW: Admiral Sir Tony Radakin has written an explosive op-ed for The Sunday Times.
It is the first time the former chief of the defence staff has spoken since retiring last year.
He said:
💥 Andy Burnham must appoint a "wartime cabinet" that will properly fund the military. 💥 The "peace dividend" is over - and the role of the PM is now a "quasi-wartime" one. 💥 The UK is "looking like a laggard" in Nato and we are bottom of the Nato league table to meet our military commitments. 💥 Warned Burnham to avoid antagonising Donald Trump - or else the USA could withdraw its "unconditional support" for the UK. 💥 Says the next PM must "protect the nuclear deterrent."
Wartime Cabinet - Why? Which War? Where? what's changed!? The role of any PM has never been any different! The UK was a laggard, a laggard on his watch - the hollowing out from 2010 to 2024 is being reversed, it can't be done in 2 or 3 years If we have to base any policy in keeping Trump happy then the problem is Trump not the POlicy. Tell him to fuck off! What nuclear deterrent , an aging system we pay an extortionate sum for that we cannot control. Its obsolete and can we trust anything Trump has control over.
Yeah, what would he know about the military situation.
The UK has the second biggest defence budget in Europe. If the UK's military is so crap whose fault is that?
We are looking somewhat ordinary. We don’t have the excuse, unlike against Ghana, that they are playing a low block.
Serious lack of a cutting edge again. England really need to work out how to get Kane in the game. He's been invisible so far.
We don’t seem to have that player who can get the ball in the middle of the pitch, hold it then spot runs. And Kane probably needs to stay up more so there is someone for the long ball to go to.
Well, Mainoo did that a lot for Man U this last season but he doesn't seem to get a game.
NEW: Admiral Sir Tony Radakin has written an explosive op-ed for The Sunday Times.
It is the first time the former chief of the defence staff has spoken since retiring last year.
He said:
💥 Andy Burnham must appoint a "wartime cabinet" that will properly fund the military. 💥 The "peace dividend" is over - and the role of the PM is now a "quasi-wartime" one. 💥 The UK is "looking like a laggard" in Nato and we are bottom of the Nato league table to meet our military commitments. 💥 Warned Burnham to avoid antagonising Donald Trump - or else the USA could withdraw its "unconditional support" for the UK. 💥 Says the next PM must "protect the nuclear deterrent."
Wartime Cabinet - Why? Which War? Where? what's changed!? The role of any PM has never been any different! The UK was a laggard, a laggard on his watch - the hollowing out from 2010 to 2024 is being reversed, it can't be done in 2 or 3 years If we have to base any policy in keeping Trump happy then the problem is Trump not the POlicy. Tell him to fuck off! What nuclear deterrent , an aging system we pay an extortionate sum for that we cannot control. Its obsolete and can we trust anything Trump has control over.
Yeah, what would he know about the military situation.
The UK has the second biggest defence budget in Europe. If the UK's military is so crap whose fault is that?
Funnily enough it’s complicated. IMHO the nuclear deterrent should be stripped from the defence budget as it’s such a fundamental cost. It’s not however Radikin’s fault. It’s decades of Treasury, top brass, complacency, the gradual, understandable time shift which has resulted in few politicians and the public experiencing war and so it not seeming “real”.
I would still take Radikin’s opinion over say, Brixian’s or Starmer and Reeves.
We are looking somewhat ordinary. We don’t have the excuse, unlike against Ghana, that they are playing a low block.
Serious lack of a cutting edge again. England really need to work out how to get Kane in the game. He's been invisible so far.
We don’t seem to have that player who can get the ball in the middle of the pitch, hold it then spot runs. And Kane probably needs to stay up more so there is someone for the long ball to go to.
Well, Mainoo did that a lot for Man U this last season but he doesn't seem to get a game.
Just seen an ad for The Odyssey. Looks worryingly like the pile of poo that Troy was but will watch it having loved the story since a child.
A major problem is that everybody has an American accent. It should respect the convention that the good guys have American accents and the bad guys British accents, thereby providing employment for British character actors and enabling the audience to distinguish things easily.
And proper refiyned decadent Olivier acksents, not some bloody Estuary accents. Honestly, Call Of Duty has a lot to answer for...
NEW: Admiral Sir Tony Radakin has written an explosive op-ed for The Sunday Times.
It is the first time the former chief of the defence staff has spoken since retiring last year.
He said:
💥 Andy Burnham must appoint a "wartime cabinet" that will properly fund the military. 💥 The "peace dividend" is over - and the role of the PM is now a "quasi-wartime" one. 💥 The UK is "looking like a laggard" in Nato and we are bottom of the Nato league table to meet our military commitments. 💥 Warned Burnham to avoid antagonising Donald Trump - or else the USA could withdraw its "unconditional support" for the UK. 💥 Says the next PM must "protect the nuclear deterrent."
Wartime Cabinet - Why? Which War? Where? what's changed!? The role of any PM has never been any different! The UK was a laggard, a laggard on his watch - the hollowing out from 2010 to 2024 is being reversed, it can't be done in 2 or 3 years If we have to base any policy in keeping Trump happy then the problem is Trump not the POlicy. Tell him to fuck off! What nuclear deterrent , an aging system we pay an extortionate sum for that we cannot control. Its obsolete and can we trust anything Trump has control over.
Yeah, what would he know about the military situation.
The UK has the second biggest defence budget in Europe. If the UK's military is so crap whose fault is that?
Funnily enough it’s complicated. IMHO the nuclear deterrent should be stripped from the defence budget as it’s such a fundamental cost. It’s not however Radikin’s fault. It’s decades of Treasury, top brass, complacency, the gradual, understandable time shift which has resulted in few politicians and the public experiencing war and so it not seeming “real”.
I would still take Radikin’s opinion over say, Brixian’s or Starmer and Reeves.
What are the biggest threats to the UK? Are they military? Or are they from political destabilisation? Or from another pandemic? Or from another global crash? Or from a tariff war with Trump?
We are much more likely to see deaths from avian flu than we are to see foreign soldiers invade the British Isles. Radakin has a hammer and sees only nails.
NEW: Admiral Sir Tony Radakin has written an explosive op-ed for The Sunday Times.
It is the first time the former chief of the defence staff has spoken since retiring last year.
He said:
💥 Andy Burnham must appoint a "wartime cabinet" that will properly fund the military. 💥 The "peace dividend" is over - and the role of the PM is now a "quasi-wartime" one. 💥 The UK is "looking like a laggard" in Nato and we are bottom of the Nato league table to meet our military commitments. 💥 Warned Burnham to avoid antagonising Donald Trump - or else the USA could withdraw its "unconditional support" for the UK. 💥 Says the next PM must "protect the nuclear deterrent."
Wartime Cabinet - Why? Which War? Where? what's changed!? The role of any PM has never been any different! The UK was a laggard, a laggard on his watch - the hollowing out from 2010 to 2024 is being reversed, it can't be done in 2 or 3 years If we have to base any policy in keeping Trump happy then the problem is Trump not the POlicy. Tell him to fuck off! What nuclear deterrent , an aging system we pay an extortionate sum for that we cannot control. Its obsolete and can we trust anything Trump has control over.
Yeah, what would he know about the military situation.
The UK has the second biggest defence budget in Europe. If the UK's military is so crap whose fault is that?
Funnily enough it’s complicated. IMHO the nuclear deterrent should be stripped from the defence budget as it’s such a fundamental cost. It’s not however Radikin’s fault. It’s decades of Treasury, top brass, complacency, the gradual, understandable time shift which has resulted in few politicians and the public experiencing war and so it not seeming “real”.
I would still take Radikin’s opinion over say, Brixian’s or Starmer and Reeves.
Yeah but if the UK's military is not the second best in Europe on the second biggest budget Radikin should at least be required to explain why not before he screams for more funds.
Just seen an ad for The Odyssey. Looks worryingly like the pile of poo that Troy was but will watch it having loved the story since a child.
Same but it is a Christopher Nolan film and he is the finest director in the world, extant.
Seeing it in 70mm at the Filmhouse. I don’t really understand how all this stuff works but having seeing Dune in a “real” IMAX in Australia, I can never go back to the one we have in Edinburgh - far too brutal an experience.
The Burnham has no mandate argument is utter horse manure.
He commands the House. Therefore he has a mandate. We do not elect a PM; we elect a House of Commons.
Up to a point. Burnham will inherit Labour's Ming Vase mandate from 2024. What Burnham cannot do reasonably is claim that his Makersfield victory, however impressive, gives him a shiny new mandate to do something else entirely, and the same is true of winning an internal party leadership election. The last PM who did make such a claim was Liz Truss.
If over 300 MPs nominate him to become party leader and Prime Minister then he can claim that as a mandate, whether you like it or not.
We elect MPs, not manifestos.
Yes, in practice, Burnham can do whatever he likes. What he cannot do, however, is state that either the Makersfield by-election or an internal leadership election constitutes a new mandate that is distinct from the mandate given to the Labour government by its 2024 election victory.
Why not?
Because in common parlance, governments get mandates from general elections.
In common parlance maybe, but reality is PMs get authority from commanding the majority of the Commons.
And if a new PM comprehensively commands a majority of the Commons he can point to whatever he wants to. And if MPs are prepared to follow him, then that is that.
Especially when Labour's manifesto was the word CHANGE in size 256 font.
NEW: Admiral Sir Tony Radakin has written an explosive op-ed for The Sunday Times.
It is the first time the former chief of the defence staff has spoken since retiring last year.
He said:
💥 Andy Burnham must appoint a "wartime cabinet" that will properly fund the military. 💥 The "peace dividend" is over - and the role of the PM is now a "quasi-wartime" one. 💥 The UK is "looking like a laggard" in Nato and we are bottom of the Nato league table to meet our military commitments. 💥 Warned Burnham to avoid antagonising Donald Trump - or else the USA could withdraw its "unconditional support" for the UK. 💥 Says the next PM must "protect the nuclear deterrent."
How does one avoid 'antagonising' Trump, when sometimes that antagonism takes the form of objecting to him threatening to invade Greenland and other irrational actions?
Just seen an ad for The Odyssey. Looks worryingly like the pile of poo that Troy was but will watch it having loved the story since a child.
From the trailer(s)
I dislike the dialogue
I adore the cinematography
I don't really know if I'm going to like it.
But I'm going to see it anyway (I've seen Tenet in the cinema twice now, so gluttony for punishment confirmed)
I'm expecting a Nolan film - superbly produced, well acted, shoddily written, and probably going to be overhyped because critics are suckers for good cinematography.
This is why I hate inverted wingers. Saka should have crossed it first time just then as the England players were still in the box from the corner instead he turned back inside and passed back.
Just seen an ad for The Odyssey. Looks worryingly like the pile of poo that Troy was but will watch it having loved the story since a child.
From the trailer(s)
I dislike the dialogue
I adore the cinematography
I don't really know if I'm going to like it.
But I'm going to see it anyway (I've seen Tenet in the cinema twice now, so gluttony for punishment confirmed)
I'm expecting a Nolan film - superbly produced, well acted, shoddily written, and probably going to be overhyped because critics are suckers for good cinematography.
Just seen an ad for The Odyssey. Looks worryingly like the pile of poo that Troy was but will watch it having loved the story since a child.
From the trailer(s)
I dislike the dialogue
I adore the cinematography
I don't really know if I'm going to like it.
But I'm going to see it anyway (I've seen Tenet in the cinema twice now, so gluttony for punishment confirmed)
I'm expecting a Nolan film - superbly produced, well acted, shoddily written, and probably going to be overhyped because critics are suckers for good cinematography.
Which Nolan films are shoddily written?
2 of the 3 Batman films, Tenet, The Prestige, and Oppenheimer. Several of them are still good movies, but writing is not his strongest weapon (way better than James Cameron though).
I've not seen Memento and Following, and as I'm not generally a fan of non-linear narratives I probably wouldn't like them so would not be able to judge how well they were written.
Just seen an ad for The Odyssey. Looks worryingly like the pile of poo that Troy was but will watch it having loved the story since a child.
From the trailer(s)
I dislike the dialogue
I adore the cinematography
I don't really know if I'm going to like it.
But I'm going to see it anyway (I've seen Tenet in the cinema twice now, so gluttony for punishment confirmed)
I'm expecting a Nolan film - superbly produced, well acted, shoddily written, and probably going to be overhyped because critics are suckers for good cinematography.
Just seen an ad for The Odyssey. Looks worryingly like the pile of poo that Troy was but will watch it having loved the story since a child.
From the trailer(s)
I dislike the dialogue
I adore the cinematography
I don't really know if I'm going to like it.
But I'm going to see it anyway (I've seen Tenet in the cinema twice now, so gluttony for punishment confirmed)
I'm expecting a Nolan film - superbly produced, well acted, shoddily written, and probably going to be overhyped because critics are suckers for good cinematography.
Which Nolan films are shoddily written?
Memento, it was all over the shop. Felt like it was back to front.
NEW: Admiral Sir Tony Radakin has written an explosive op-ed for The Sunday Times.
It is the first time the former chief of the defence staff has spoken since retiring last year.
He said:
💥 Andy Burnham must appoint a "wartime cabinet" that will properly fund the military. 💥 The "peace dividend" is over - and the role of the PM is now a "quasi-wartime" one. 💥 The UK is "looking like a laggard" in Nato and we are bottom of the Nato league table to meet our military commitments. 💥 Warned Burnham to avoid antagonising Donald Trump - or else the USA could withdraw its "unconditional support" for the UK. 💥 Says the next PM must "protect the nuclear deterrent."
How does one avoid 'antagonising' Trump, when sometimes that antagonism takes the form of objecting to him threatening to invade Greenland and other irrational actions?
The Burnham has no mandate argument is utter horse manure.
He commands the House. Therefore he has a mandate. We do not elect a PM; we elect a House of Commons.
Up to a point. Burnham will inherit Labour's Ming Vase mandate from 2024. What Burnham cannot do reasonably is claim that his Makersfield victory, however impressive, gives him a shiny new mandate to do something else entirely, and the same is true of winning an internal party leadership election. The last PM who did make such a claim was Liz Truss.
If over 300 MPs nominate him to become party leader and Prime Minister then he can claim that as a mandate, whether you like it or not.
We elect MPs, not manifestos.
Yes, in practice, Burnham can do whatever he likes. What he cannot do, however, is state that either the Makersfield by-election or an internal leadership election constitutes a new mandate that is distinct from the mandate given to the Labour government by its 2024 election victory.
Why not?
Because in common parlance, governments get mandates from general elections.
Especially when Labour's manifesto was the word CHANGE in size 256 font.
And 300 times on the inside cover. Nothing about portraying a picture of Starmer as a dull grey figure next to the word change has come back to haunt them though.
Just seen an ad for The Odyssey. Looks worryingly like the pile of poo that Troy was but will watch it having loved the story since a child.
From the trailer(s)
I dislike the dialogue
I adore the cinematography
I don't really know if I'm going to like it.
But I'm going to see it anyway (I've seen Tenet in the cinema twice now, so gluttony for punishment confirmed)
I'm expecting a Nolan film - superbly produced, well acted, shoddily written, and probably going to be overhyped because critics are suckers for good cinematography.
Which Nolan films are shoddily written?
2 of the 3 Batman films, Tenet, The Prestige, and Oppenheimer. Several of them are still good movies, but writing is not his strongest weapon (way better than James Cameron though).
I've not seen Memento and Following, and as I'm not generally a fan of non-linear narratives I probably wouldn't like them so would not be able to judge how well they were written.
You'd probably find Memento to clever for its own good - but it is very clever.
Agree on Tenet. The Prestige is magnificent. Oppenheimer was too long. Needed editing
Just seen an ad for The Odyssey. Looks worryingly like the pile of poo that Troy was but will watch it having loved the story since a child.
From the trailer(s)
I dislike the dialogue
I adore the cinematography
I don't really know if I'm going to like it.
But I'm going to see it anyway (I've seen Tenet in the cinema twice now, so gluttony for punishment confirmed)
I'm expecting a Nolan film - superbly produced, well acted, shoddily written, and probably going to be overhyped because critics are suckers for good cinematography.
Which Nolan films are shoddily written?
2 of the 3 Batman films, Tenet, The Prestige, and Oppenheimer. Several of them are still good movies, but writing is not his strongest weapon (way better than James Cameron though).
I've not seen Memento and Following, and as I'm not generally a fan of non-linear narratives I probably wouldn't like them so would not be able to judge how well they were written.
Oppenheimer was too long. Needed editing
Classic successful auteur who can no longer be reined in trap.
Someone should have told Spielberg to toss out Disclosure Day after reading it's dull as dishwater dog's breakfast of a script. And tell Ridley Scott he needs to stop making movies entirely.
In fairness people did tell Francis Ford Coppola not to make Megalopolis. Closest I've ever been to walking out of a film, so much talent utterly wasted on that dreck.
Just seen an ad for The Odyssey. Looks worryingly like the pile of poo that Troy was but will watch it having loved the story since a child.
From the trailer(s)
I dislike the dialogue
I adore the cinematography
I don't really know if I'm going to like it.
But I'm going to see it anyway (I've seen Tenet in the cinema twice now, so gluttony for punishment confirmed)
I'm expecting a Nolan film - superbly produced, well acted, shoddily written, and probably going to be overhyped because critics are suckers for good cinematography.
Which Nolan films are shoddily written?
2 of the 3 Batman films, Tenet, The Prestige, and Oppenheimer. Several of them are still good movies, but writing is not his strongest weapon (way better than James Cameron though).
I've not seen Memento and Following, and as I'm not generally a fan of non-linear narratives I probably wouldn't like them so would not be able to judge how well they were written.
"Interstellar" is awful. I have no idea why it was so well liked. "Inception" was brilliant. I really like TDKR but nobody else does.
Just seen an ad for The Odyssey. Looks worryingly like the pile of poo that Troy was but will watch it having loved the story since a child.
From the trailer(s)
I dislike the dialogue
I adore the cinematography
I don't really know if I'm going to like it.
But I'm going to see it anyway (I've seen Tenet in the cinema twice now, so gluttony for punishment confirmed)
I'm expecting a Nolan film - superbly produced, well acted, shoddily written, and probably going to be overhyped because critics are suckers for good cinematography.
Which Nolan films are shoddily written?
2 of the 3 Batman films, Tenet, The Prestige, and Oppenheimer. Several of them are still good movies, but writing is not his strongest weapon (way better than James Cameron though).
I've not seen Memento and Following, and as I'm not generally a fan of non-linear narratives I probably wouldn't like them so would not be able to judge how well they were written.
Oppenheimer was too long. Needed editing
Classic successful auteur who can no longer be reined in trap.
Someone should have told Spielberg to toss out Disclosure Day after reading it's dull as dishwater dog's breakfast of a script. And tell Ridley Scott he needs to stop making movies entirely.
In fairness people did tell Francis Ford Coppola not to make Megalopolis. Closest I've ever been to walking out of a film, so much talent utterly wasted on that dreck.
Closest I’ve come to walking out of a cinema is “Inland Empire” and the first Lord of the Rings.
Just seen an ad for The Odyssey. Looks worryingly like the pile of poo that Troy was but will watch it having loved the story since a child.
From the trailer(s)
I dislike the dialogue
I adore the cinematography
I don't really know if I'm going to like it.
But I'm going to see it anyway (I've seen Tenet in the cinema twice now, so gluttony for punishment confirmed)
I'm expecting a Nolan film - superbly produced, well acted, shoddily written, and probably going to be overhyped because critics are suckers for good cinematography.
Which Nolan films are shoddily written?
2 of the 3 Batman films, Tenet, The Prestige, and Oppenheimer. Several of them are still good movies, but writing is not his strongest weapon (way better than James Cameron though).
I've not seen Memento and Following, and as I'm not generally a fan of non-linear narratives I probably wouldn't like them so would not be able to judge how well they were written.
"Interstellar" is awful. I have no idea why it was so well liked. "Inception" was brilliant. I really like TDKR but nobody else does.
I'm not on the Matthew McConaughey love that many had after Interstellar and other projects. I don't think he was wasted on romantic comedies in the 2000s, I think that was his natural level - everything else I'm always very aware of his acting, if that makes sense.
Edit: And I've said it before and will again, Marlon Brando was not good in The Godfather, it was a silly performance that wasn't the slightest bit intimidating.
Just seen an ad for The Odyssey. Looks worryingly like the pile of poo that Troy was but will watch it having loved the story since a child.
From the trailer(s)
I dislike the dialogue
I adore the cinematography
I don't really know if I'm going to like it.
But I'm going to see it anyway (I've seen Tenet in the cinema twice now, so gluttony for punishment confirmed)
I'm expecting a Nolan film - superbly produced, well acted, shoddily written, and probably going to be overhyped because critics are suckers for good cinematography.
Which Nolan films are shoddily written?
2 of the 3 Batman films, Tenet, The Prestige, and Oppenheimer. Several of them are still good movies, but writing is not his strongest weapon (way better than James Cameron though).
I've not seen Memento and Following, and as I'm not generally a fan of non-linear narratives I probably wouldn't like them so would not be able to judge how well they were written.
Oppenheimer was too long. Needed editing
Classic successful auteur who can no longer be reined in trap.
Someone should have told Spielberg to toss out Disclosure Day after reading it's dull as dishwater dog's breakfast of a script. And tell Ridley Scott he needs to stop making movies entirely.
In fairness people did tell Francis Ford Coppola not to make Megalopolis. Closest I've ever been to walking out of a film, so much talent utterly wasted on that dreck.
Closest I’ve come to walking out of a cinema is “Inland Empire” and the first Lord of the Rings.
[Inland Empire] has defied categorization, with its genre being variously interpreted as drama,[3] experimental,[4] fantasy,[5] horror,[6] mystery,[5] neo-noir,[7] psychological thriller,[4] and surrealist.[b]
NEW: Admiral Sir Tony Radakin has written an explosive op-ed for The Sunday Times.
It is the first time the former chief of the defence staff has spoken since retiring last year.
He said:
💥 Andy Burnham must appoint a "wartime cabinet" that will properly fund the military. 💥 The "peace dividend" is over - and the role of the PM is now a "quasi-wartime" one. 💥 The UK is "looking like a laggard" in Nato and we are bottom of the Nato league table to meet our military commitments. 💥 Warned Burnham to avoid antagonising Donald Trump - or else the USA could withdraw its "unconditional support" for the UK. 💥 Says the next PM must "protect the nuclear deterrent."
Any other ex military chief wanting to make a name for themself? Get it off your chest now then go fu*k off and play your war games in quiet retirement. If the BBC are going to waste the next few days talking about this publicity seeking ex soldier I'll be more pissed off with them than I am at the moment
Just seen an ad for The Odyssey. Looks worryingly like the pile of poo that Troy was but will watch it having loved the story since a child.
From the trailer(s)
I dislike the dialogue
I adore the cinematography
I don't really know if I'm going to like it.
But I'm going to see it anyway (I've seen Tenet in the cinema twice now, so gluttony for punishment confirmed)
I'm expecting a Nolan film - superbly produced, well acted, shoddily written, and probably going to be overhyped because critics are suckers for good cinematography.
Which Nolan films are shoddily written?
2 of the 3 Batman films, Tenet, The Prestige, and Oppenheimer. Several of them are still good movies, but writing is not his strongest weapon (way better than James Cameron though).
I've not seen Memento and Following, and as I'm not generally a fan of non-linear narratives I probably wouldn't like them so would not be able to judge how well they were written.
Oppenheimer was too long. Needed editing
Classic successful auteur who can no longer be reined in trap.
Someone should have told Spielberg to toss out Disclosure Day after reading it's dull as dishwater dog's breakfast of a script. And tell Ridley Scott he needs to stop making movies entirely.
In fairness people did tell Francis Ford Coppola not to make Megalopolis. Closest I've ever been to walking out of a film, so much talent utterly wasted on that dreck.
Wifey and I SO WANTED to enjoy Disclosure Day. And the first two thirds bowl along.OK. But the final third is dreck. Agree, it needed pulling att he script srage. As I said on coming out the cinema "5/10 See Me. Can do much better"
Just seen an ad for The Odyssey. Looks worryingly like the pile of poo that Troy was but will watch it having loved the story since a child.
From the trailer(s)
I dislike the dialogue
I adore the cinematography
I don't really know if I'm going to like it.
But I'm going to see it anyway (I've seen Tenet in the cinema twice now, so gluttony for punishment confirmed)
I'm expecting a Nolan film - superbly produced, well acted, shoddily written, and probably going to be overhyped because critics are suckers for good cinematography.
Which Nolan films are shoddily written?
2 of the 3 Batman films, Tenet, The Prestige, and Oppenheimer. Several of them are still good movies, but writing is not his strongest weapon (way better than James Cameron though).
I've not seen Memento and Following, and as I'm not generally a fan of non-linear narratives I probably wouldn't like them so would not be able to judge how well they were written.
"Interstellar" is awful. I have no idea why it was so well liked. "Inception" was brilliant. I really like TDKR but nobody else does.
I really like TDKR. The entire trilogy was well done.
Just seen an ad for The Odyssey. Looks worryingly like the pile of poo that Troy was but will watch it having loved the story since a child.
From the trailer(s)
I dislike the dialogue
I adore the cinematography
I don't really know if I'm going to like it.
But I'm going to see it anyway (I've seen Tenet in the cinema twice now, so gluttony for punishment confirmed)
I'm expecting a Nolan film - superbly produced, well acted, shoddily written, and probably going to be overhyped because critics are suckers for good cinematography.
Which Nolan films are shoddily written?
2 of the 3 Batman films, Tenet, The Prestige, and Oppenheimer. Several of them are still good movies, but writing is not his strongest weapon (way better than James Cameron though).
I've not seen Memento and Following, and as I'm not generally a fan of non-linear narratives I probably wouldn't like them so would not be able to judge how well they were written.
Oppenheimer was too long. Needed editing
Classic successful auteur who can no longer be reined in trap.
Someone should have told Spielberg to toss out Disclosure Day after reading it's dull as dishwater dog's breakfast of a script. And tell Ridley Scott he needs to stop making movies entirely.
In fairness people did tell Francis Ford Coppola not to make Megalopolis. Closest I've ever been to walking out of a film, so much talent utterly wasted on that dreck.
Wifey and I SO WANTED to enjoy Disclosure Day. And the first two thirds bowl along.OK. But the final third is dreck. Agree, it needed pulling att he script srage. As I said on coming out the cinema "5/10 See Me. Can do much better"
I feel like top directors are forgetting the importance of a good script, as it seems to be where they skimp the most - Gladiator 2 appeared to have no understanding of what people liked about the first, and Avatar 2 in particular felt like it took 5 minutes to write despite taking 10 years to make, as on top of being generic etc there were several glaring plotholes that a five minute rewrite could have fixed, or at least mitigated.
To bring in a political analogy, maybe it's similar to how very few can write or deliver a speech of any note anymore, since it isn't a skill they need to use a lot of the time.
NEW: Admiral Sir Tony Radakin has written an explosive op-ed for The Sunday Times.
It is the first time the former chief of the defence staff has spoken since retiring last year.
He said:
💥 Andy Burnham must appoint a "wartime cabinet" that will properly fund the military. 💥 The "peace dividend" is over - and the role of the PM is now a "quasi-wartime" one. 💥 The UK is "looking like a laggard" in Nato and we are bottom of the Nato league table to meet our military commitments. 💥 Warned Burnham to avoid antagonising Donald Trump - or else the USA could withdraw its "unconditional support" for the UK. 💥 Says the next PM must "protect the nuclear deterrent."
How does one avoid 'antagonising' Trump, when sometimes that antagonism takes the form of objecting to him threatening to invade Greenland and other irrational actions?
I would have thought the biggest priority now is a fully independent nuclear deterrent, like the French. We only have a decade’s worth before support from the Americans becomes necessary.
Instead the military establishment are doubling down on their two biggest faults: servitude to the US and spamming money on shite like Ajax.
NEW: Admiral Sir Tony Radakin has written an explosive op-ed for The Sunday Times.
It is the first time the former chief of the defence staff has spoken since retiring last year.
He said:
💥 Andy Burnham must appoint a "wartime cabinet" that will properly fund the military. 💥 The "peace dividend" is over - and the role of the PM is now a "quasi-wartime" one. 💥 The UK is "looking like a laggard" in Nato and we are bottom of the Nato league table to meet our military commitments. 💥 Warned Burnham to avoid antagonising Donald Trump - or else the USA could withdraw its "unconditional support" for the UK. 💥 Says the next PM must "protect the nuclear deterrent."
How does one avoid 'antagonising' Trump, when sometimes that antagonism takes the form of objecting to him threatening to invade Greenland and other irrational actions?
I would have thought the biggest priority now is a fully independent nuclear deterrent, like the French. We only have a decade’s worth before support from the Americans becomes necessary.
Instead the military establishment are doubling down on their two biggest faults: servitude to the US and spamming money on shite like Ajax.
Yes, we need to be able to stand on our own, even if it is less expansive that we once aimed for.
The Green candidate for Manc Mayor has written a book about whether anything exists at all.
What was his conclusion? I have a mortgage to pay and I need to know if I'm real or not.
Reminds me of seeing a political sticker once with some kind of anarchic slogan on it like 'The rich are keeping you down' and someone had written underneath it 'Yeah! So what do we do about it?'
If I have written anything negative about Bellingham in the past I apologise. He is the only England player who seems capable of making something out of nothing.
And well done Tuchel for leaving out a right back who has won every trophy against the best players in the world and can drop the ball on a six pence and instead putting in centre backs as right backs. A Penny for Trent’s thoughts.
Just seen an ad for The Odyssey. Looks worryingly like the pile of poo that Troy was but will watch it having loved the story since a child.
From the trailer(s)
I dislike the dialogue
I adore the cinematography
I don't really know if I'm going to like it.
But I'm going to see it anyway (I've seen Tenet in the cinema twice now, so gluttony for punishment confirmed)
I'm expecting a Nolan film - superbly produced, well acted, shoddily written, and probably going to be overhyped because critics are suckers for good cinematography.
Which Nolan films are shoddily written?
2 of the 3 Batman films, Tenet, The Prestige, and Oppenheimer. Several of them are still good movies, but writing is not his strongest weapon (way better than James Cameron though).
I've not seen Memento and Following, and as I'm not generally a fan of non-linear narratives I probably wouldn't like them so would not be able to judge how well they were written.
"Interstellar" is awful. I have no idea why it was so well liked.
If I have written anything negative about Bellingham in the past I apologise. He is the only England player who seems capable of making something out of nothing.
And well done Tuchel for leaving out a right back who has won every trophy against the best players in the world and can drop the ball on a six pence and instead putting in centre backs as right backs. A Penny for Trent’s thoughts.
Ha I wrote that about Bellingham before he scored.
The Green candidate for Manc Mayor has written a book about whether anything exists at all.
What was his conclusion? I have a mortgage to pay and I need to know if I'm real or not.
Are you expecting the conclusion to exist?
It depends on the conclusion. Plus, if it and I are not real, does that mean I can't read it? Fictional characters read fictional conclusions all the time. Assuming they not-exist. I'll go to the shop and read the ending. Obviously I, the shop, the book, the ending and the concept of reading may not actually exist, but that's never stopped me before.
NEW: Admiral Sir Tony Radakin has written an explosive op-ed for The Sunday Times.
It is the first time the former chief of the defence staff has spoken since retiring last year.
He said:
💥 Andy Burnham must appoint a "wartime cabinet" that will properly fund the military. 💥 The "peace dividend" is over - and the role of the PM is now a "quasi-wartime" one. 💥 The UK is "looking like a laggard" in Nato and we are bottom of the Nato league table to meet our military commitments. 💥 Warned Burnham to avoid antagonising Donald Trump - or else the USA could withdraw its "unconditional support" for the UK. 💥 Says the next PM must "protect the nuclear deterrent."
How does one avoid 'antagonising' Trump, when sometimes that antagonism takes the form of objecting to him threatening to invade Greenland and other irrational actions?
I would have thought the biggest priority now is a fully independent nuclear deterrent, like the French. We only have a decade’s worth before support from the Americans becomes necessary.
Instead the military establishment are doubling down on their two biggest faults: servitude to the US and spamming money on shite like Ajax.
Yes, we need to be able to stand on our own, even if it is less expansive that we once aimed for.
I genuinely struggle to see the point of the armed forces beyond the nuclear deterrent. Any actual conflict with a proper adversary like Russia is immediately nuclear. Everything else is a waste of time (Afghanistan).
We are evidently unwilling to challenge them when they poison our cities or conduct arson attacks on our Prime Minister or fiddle with our subsea infrastructure. We have not engaged Russia conventionally in Ukraine or Belarus. The Royal Navy (or indeed US Navy) has not preserved freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.
Let’s confront that reality before we discuss increasing spending.
NEW: Admiral Sir Tony Radakin has written an explosive op-ed for The Sunday Times.
It is the first time the former chief of the defence staff has spoken since retiring last year.
He said:
💥 Andy Burnham must appoint a "wartime cabinet" that will properly fund the military. 💥 The "peace dividend" is over - and the role of the PM is now a "quasi-wartime" one. 💥 The UK is "looking like a laggard" in Nato and we are bottom of the Nato league table to meet our military commitments. 💥 Warned Burnham to avoid antagonising Donald Trump - or else the USA could withdraw its "unconditional support" for the UK. 💥 Says the next PM must "protect the nuclear deterrent."
How does one avoid 'antagonising' Trump, when sometimes that antagonism takes the form of objecting to him threatening to invade Greenland and other irrational actions?
I would have thought the biggest priority now is a fully independent nuclear deterrent, like the French. We only have a decade’s worth before support from the Americans becomes necessary.
Instead the military establishment are doubling down on their two biggest faults: servitude to the US and spamming money on shite like Ajax.
Yes, we need to be able to stand on our own, even if it is less expansive that we once aimed for.
Italy, Germany, Poland, Spain, Korea & Japan seem to be able to get by without one.
I have been open to European one with shared responsibility through NATO.
I’ve never been convinced of the logic the UK puts forward that is right and necessary for us to have one, but it would be dangerously proliferation if Germany decided to build one.
NEW: Admiral Sir Tony Radakin has written an explosive op-ed for The Sunday Times.
It is the first time the former chief of the defence staff has spoken since retiring last year.
He said:
💥 Andy Burnham must appoint a "wartime cabinet" that will properly fund the military. 💥 The "peace dividend" is over - and the role of the PM is now a "quasi-wartime" one. 💥 The UK is "looking like a laggard" in Nato and we are bottom of the Nato league table to meet our military commitments. 💥 Warned Burnham to avoid antagonising Donald Trump - or else the USA could withdraw its "unconditional support" for the UK. 💥 Says the next PM must "protect the nuclear deterrent."
How does one avoid 'antagonising' Trump, when sometimes that antagonism takes the form of objecting to him threatening to invade Greenland and other irrational actions?
I would have thought the biggest priority now is a fully independent nuclear deterrent, like the French. We only have a decade’s worth before support from the Americans becomes necessary.
Instead the military establishment are doubling down on their two biggest faults: servitude to the US and spamming money on shite like Ajax.
Yes, we need to be able to stand on our own, even if it is less expansive that we once aimed for.
I genuinely struggle to see the point of the armed forces beyond the nuclear deterrent. Any actual conflict with a proper adversary like Russia is immediately nuclear. Everything else is a waste of time (Afghanistan).
We are evidently unwilling to challenge them when they poison our cities or conduct arson attacks on our Prime Minister or fiddle with our subsea infrastructure. We have not engaged Russia conventionally in Ukraine or Belarus. The Royal Navy (or indeed US Navy) has not preserved freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.
Let’s confront that reality before we discuss increasing spending.
Of course you do. You are young, metropolitan living in a country that has been untouched by war or its threat in your lifetime. It’s all a bit unreal to you. A lot of posters here remember the Falklands, Sierra Leone. I know we here had pages of advice in the front of the phone book about what to do in a nuclear war.
My Grnadfathers and their brothers didn’t think there would be a war after the First World War their fathers fought in until it happened and two of them died, the others were all injured and went out day after day or night after night wondering if they would come back.
We don’t need an armed forces until we need an armed forces and the best way of not having you being called up is by ensuring that the guys who want to serve get the kit and support and training they need to deter anyone from really trying it on.
The Burnham has no mandate argument is utter horse manure.
He commands the House. Therefore he has a mandate. We do not elect a PM; we elect a House of Commons.
Up to a point. Burnham will inherit Labour's Ming Vase mandate from 2024. What Burnham cannot do reasonably is claim that his Makersfield victory, however impressive, gives him a shiny new mandate to do something else entirely, and the same is true of winning an internal party leadership election. The last PM who did make such a claim was Liz Truss.
If over 300 MPs nominate him to become party leader and Prime Minister then he can claim that as a mandate, whether you like it or not.
We elect MPs, not manifestos.
Yes, in practice, Burnham can do whatever he likes. What he cannot do, however, is state that either the Makersfield by-election or an internal leadership election constitutes a new mandate that is distinct from the mandate given to the Labour government by its 2024 election victory.
Why not?
Because in common parlance, governments get mandates from general elections.
Especially when Labour's manifesto was the word CHANGE in size 256 font.
And 300 times on the inside cover. Nothing about portraying a picture of Starmer as a dull grey figure next to the word change has come back to haunt them though.
A clear and undeniable mandate for the switch to Burnham.
NEW: Admiral Sir Tony Radakin has written an explosive op-ed for The Sunday Times.
It is the first time the former chief of the defence staff has spoken since retiring last year.
He said:
💥 Andy Burnham must appoint a "wartime cabinet" that will properly fund the military. 💥 The "peace dividend" is over - and the role of the PM is now a "quasi-wartime" one. 💥 The UK is "looking like a laggard" in Nato and we are bottom of the Nato league table to meet our military commitments. 💥 Warned Burnham to avoid antagonising Donald Trump - or else the USA could withdraw its "unconditional support" for the UK. 💥 Says the next PM must "protect the nuclear deterrent."
How does one avoid 'antagonising' Trump, when sometimes that antagonism takes the form of objecting to him threatening to invade Greenland and other irrational actions?
I would have thought the biggest priority now is a fully independent nuclear deterrent, like the French. We only have a decade’s worth before support from the Americans becomes necessary.
Instead the military establishment are doubling down on their two biggest faults: servitude to the US and spamming money on shite like Ajax.
Yes, we need to be able to stand on our own, even if it is less expansive that we once aimed for.
I genuinely struggle to see the point of the armed forces beyond the nuclear deterrent. Any actual conflict with a proper adversary like Russia is immediately nuclear. Everything else is a waste of time (Afghanistan).
We are evidently unwilling to challenge them when they poison our cities or conduct arson attacks on our Prime Minister or fiddle with our subsea infrastructure. We have not engaged Russia conventionally in Ukraine or Belarus. The Royal Navy (or indeed US Navy) has not preserved freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.
Let’s confront that reality before we discuss increasing spending.
Of course you do. You are young, metropolitan living in a country that has been untouched by war or its threat in your lifetime. It’s all a bit unreal to you. A lot of posters here remember the Falklands, Sierra Leone. I know we here had pages of advice in the front of the phone book about what to do in a nuclear war.
My Grnadfathers and their brothers didn’t think there would be a war after the First World War their fathers fought in until it happened and two of them died, the others were all injured and went out day after day or night after night wondering if they would come back.
We don’t need an armed forces until we need an armed forces and the best way of not having you being called up is by ensuring that the guys who want to serve get the kit and support and training they need to deter anyone from really trying it on.
Did you bother to read the rest of my post, or did you satisfy yourself with the first sentence?
We have been repeatedly attacked on our own territory and we’ve done fuck all about it. Our economy has been trashed twice by Putin and the IRGC and we haven’t engaged (directly) militarily.
We could have a whole fleet floating in the South Atlantic but it’s worthless if Radakin et al don’t have the balls to engage. I’m fed up with special pleading for funding for the military from those simultaneously advising against ever using it.
NEW: Admiral Sir Tony Radakin has written an explosive op-ed for The Sunday Times.
It is the first time the former chief of the defence staff has spoken since retiring last year.
He said:
💥 Andy Burnham must appoint a "wartime cabinet" that will properly fund the military. 💥 The "peace dividend" is over - and the role of the PM is now a "quasi-wartime" one. 💥 The UK is "looking like a laggard" in Nato and we are bottom of the Nato league table to meet our military commitments. 💥 Warned Burnham to avoid antagonising Donald Trump - or else the USA could withdraw its "unconditional support" for the UK. 💥 Says the next PM must "protect the nuclear deterrent."
How does one avoid 'antagonising' Trump, when sometimes that antagonism takes the form of objecting to him threatening to invade Greenland and other irrational actions?
I would have thought the biggest priority now is a fully independent nuclear deterrent, like the French. We only have a decade’s worth before support from the Americans becomes necessary.
Instead the military establishment are doubling down on their two biggest faults: servitude to the US and spamming money on shite like Ajax.
Yes, we need to be able to stand on our own, even if it is less expansive that we once aimed for.
I genuinely struggle to see the point of the armed forces beyond the nuclear deterrent. Any actual conflict with a proper adversary like Russia is immediately nuclear. Everything else is a waste of time (Afghanistan).
We are evidently unwilling to challenge them when they poison our cities or conduct arson attacks on our Prime Minister or fiddle with our subsea infrastructure. We have not engaged Russia conventionally in Ukraine or Belarus. The Royal Navy (or indeed US Navy) has not preserved freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.
Let’s confront that reality before we discuss increasing spending.
Bin Laden was kiiled and the Taliban removed from power in Afghanistan until troops were removed. We need to defend ourselves and our overseas territories as in the Falklands War and protect any nation invaded as in the Gulf War to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi invasion and take part in Nato operations, including protecting Nato nations in Eastern Europe from Russian invasion and UN peacekeeping operations
NEW: Admiral Sir Tony Radakin has written an explosive op-ed for The Sunday Times.
It is the first time the former chief of the defence staff has spoken since retiring last year.
He said:
💥 Andy Burnham must appoint a "wartime cabinet" that will properly fund the military. 💥 The "peace dividend" is over - and the role of the PM is now a "quasi-wartime" one. 💥 The UK is "looking like a laggard" in Nato and we are bottom of the Nato league table to meet our military commitments. 💥 Warned Burnham to avoid antagonising Donald Trump - or else the USA could withdraw its "unconditional support" for the UK. 💥 Says the next PM must "protect the nuclear deterrent."
How does one avoid 'antagonising' Trump, when sometimes that antagonism takes the form of objecting to him threatening to invade Greenland and other irrational actions?
I would have thought the biggest priority now is a fully independent nuclear deterrent, like the French. We only have a decade’s worth before support from the Americans becomes necessary.
Instead the military establishment are doubling down on their two biggest faults: servitude to the US and spamming money on shite like Ajax.
Yes, we need to be able to stand on our own, even if it is less expansive that we once aimed for.
Italy, Germany, Poland, Spain, Korea & Japan seem to be able to get by without one.
I have been open to European one with shared responsibility through NATO.
I’ve never been convinced of the logic the UK puts forward that is right and necessary for us to have one, but it would be dangerously proliferation if Germany decided to build one.
Peter.
All the countries you list are part of NATO or other USA-led defence pact.
NEW: Admiral Sir Tony Radakin has written an explosive op-ed for The Sunday Times.
It is the first time the former chief of the defence staff has spoken since retiring last year.
He said:
💥 Andy Burnham must appoint a "wartime cabinet" that will properly fund the military. 💥 The "peace dividend" is over - and the role of the PM is now a "quasi-wartime" one. 💥 The UK is "looking like a laggard" in Nato and we are bottom of the Nato league table to meet our military commitments. 💥 Warned Burnham to avoid antagonising Donald Trump - or else the USA could withdraw its "unconditional support" for the UK. 💥 Says the next PM must "protect the nuclear deterrent."
How does one avoid 'antagonising' Trump, when sometimes that antagonism takes the form of objecting to him threatening to invade Greenland and other irrational actions?
I would have thought the biggest priority now is a fully independent nuclear deterrent, like the French. We only have a decade’s worth before support from the Americans becomes necessary.
Instead the military establishment are doubling down on their two biggest faults: servitude to the US and spamming money on shite like Ajax.
Yes, we need to be able to stand on our own, even if it is less expansive that we once aimed for.
I genuinely struggle to see the point of the armed forces beyond the nuclear deterrent. Any actual conflict with a proper adversary like Russia is immediately nuclear. Everything else is a waste of time (Afghanistan).
We are evidently unwilling to challenge them when they poison our cities or conduct arson attacks on our Prime Minister or fiddle with our subsea infrastructure. We have not engaged Russia conventionally in Ukraine or Belarus. The Royal Navy (or indeed US Navy) has not preserved freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.
Let’s confront that reality before we discuss increasing spending.
Of course you do. You are young, metropolitan living in a country that has been untouched by war or its threat in your lifetime. It’s all a bit unreal to you. A lot of posters here remember the Falklands, Sierra Leone. I know we here had pages of advice in the front of the phone book about what to do in a nuclear war.
My Grnadfathers and their brothers didn’t think there would be a war after the First World War their fathers fought in until it happened and two of them died, the others were all injured and went out day after day or night after night wondering if they would come back.
We don’t need an armed forces until we need an armed forces and the best way of not having you being called up is by ensuring that the guys who want to serve get the kit and support and training they need to deter anyone from really trying it on.
Did you bother to read the rest of my post, or did you satisfy yourself with the first sentence?
We have been repeatedly attacked on our own territory and we’ve done fuck all about it. Our economy has been trashed twice by Putin and the IRGC and we haven’t engaged (directly) militarily.
We could have a whole fleet floating in the South Atlantic but it’s worthless if Radakin et al don’t have the balls to engage. I’m fed up with special pleading for funding for the military from those simultaneously advising against ever using it.
I did read the rest. Attacks in Britain are down to the security services not the military. What would you like us to do about this? Will you put your boots on and parachute into Red Square and give Putin a bash on the nose?
Do you think military men don’t want to engage? They do but only when absolutely necessary - it’s not their remit to start firing missiles at Moscow when someone gets poisoned in Salisbury because guess what, Russia starts firing missiles on your friends in Edinburgh or wherever.
You seem to simultaneously not want a military but for them to charge with bayonets when spies do spy things.
Our military needs massive reconfigurement to focus on proper threats. Our security services have to deal with foreign threats in a different way. Our government has to decide how much to spend and what to target and balance it against which operations are affordable, which benefits are essential, etc etc.
The fundamental problem Scotland have is that they aren't good at football. That's why they've been eliminated.
In nine group games across Euros 2020 & 2024 and this World Cup Scotland have scored just four goals, so they are averaging fewer than half a goal per match.
NEW: Admiral Sir Tony Radakin has written an explosive op-ed for The Sunday Times.
It is the first time the former chief of the defence staff has spoken since retiring last year.
He said:
💥 Andy Burnham must appoint a "wartime cabinet" that will properly fund the military. 💥 The "peace dividend" is over - and the role of the PM is now a "quasi-wartime" one. 💥 The UK is "looking like a laggard" in Nato and we are bottom of the Nato league table to meet our military commitments. 💥 Warned Burnham to avoid antagonising Donald Trump - or else the USA could withdraw its "unconditional support" for the UK. 💥 Says the next PM must "protect the nuclear deterrent."
How does one avoid 'antagonising' Trump, when sometimes that antagonism takes the form of objecting to him threatening to invade Greenland and other irrational actions?
I would have thought the biggest priority now is a fully independent nuclear deterrent, like the French. We only have a decade’s worth before support from the Americans becomes necessary.
Instead the military establishment are doubling down on their two biggest faults: servitude to the US and spamming money on shite like Ajax.
Yes, we need to be able to stand on our own, even if it is less expansive that we once aimed for.
I genuinely struggle to see the point of the armed forces beyond the nuclear deterrent. Any actual conflict with a proper adversary like Russia is immediately nuclear. Everything else is a waste of time (Afghanistan).
We are evidently unwilling to challenge them when they poison our cities or conduct arson attacks on our Prime Minister or fiddle with our subsea infrastructure. We have not engaged Russia conventionally in Ukraine or Belarus. The Royal Navy (or indeed US Navy) has not preserved freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.
Let’s confront that reality before we discuss increasing spending.
Bin Laden was kiiled and the Taliban removed from power in Afghanistan until troops were removed. We need to defend ourselves and our overseas territories as in the Falklands War and protect any nation invaded as in the Gulf War to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi invasion and take part in Nato operations, including protecting Nato nations in Eastern Europe from Russian invasion and UN peacekeeping operations
Afghanistan is the best example of this logic fail. What’s the point if we will just hand a country back to evil scum like the Taliban without a fight? And Bin Laden was killed in a different country 10 years after the invasion and billions in spending - not the smartest use of public cash from that perspective.
We haven’t protected NATO allies - their territory and airspace has been repeatedly crossed by Russia. We have not sent the army into Ukraine despite the fact they’ve been invaded like Kuwait was.
NEW: Admiral Sir Tony Radakin has written an explosive op-ed for The Sunday Times.
It is the first time the former chief of the defence staff has spoken since retiring last year.
He said:
💥 Andy Burnham must appoint a "wartime cabinet" that will properly fund the military. 💥 The "peace dividend" is over - and the role of the PM is now a "quasi-wartime" one. 💥 The UK is "looking like a laggard" in Nato and we are bottom of the Nato league table to meet our military commitments. 💥 Warned Burnham to avoid antagonising Donald Trump - or else the USA could withdraw its "unconditional support" for the UK. 💥 Says the next PM must "protect the nuclear deterrent."
How does one avoid 'antagonising' Trump, when sometimes that antagonism takes the form of objecting to him threatening to invade Greenland and other irrational actions?
I would have thought the biggest priority now is a fully independent nuclear deterrent, like the French. We only have a decade’s worth before support from the Americans becomes necessary.
Instead the military establishment are doubling down on their two biggest faults: servitude to the US and spamming money on shite like Ajax.
Yes, we need to be able to stand on our own, even if it is less expansive that we once aimed for.
I genuinely struggle to see the point of the armed forces beyond the nuclear deterrent. Any actual conflict with a proper adversary like Russia is immediately nuclear. Everything else is a waste of time (Afghanistan).
We are evidently unwilling to challenge them when they poison our cities or conduct arson attacks on our Prime Minister or fiddle with our subsea infrastructure. We have not engaged Russia conventionally in Ukraine or Belarus. The Royal Navy (or indeed US Navy) has not preserved freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.
Let’s confront that reality before we discuss increasing spending.
Bin Laden was kiiled and the Taliban removed from power in Afghanistan until troops were removed. We need to defend ourselves and our overseas territories as in the Falklands War and protect any nation invaded as in the Gulf War to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi invasion and take part in Nato operations, including protecting Nato nations in Eastern Europe from Russian invasion and UN peacekeeping operations
Afghanistan is the best example of this logic fail. What’s the point if we will just hand a country back to evil scum like the Taliban without a fight? And Bin Laden was killed in a different country 10 years after the invasion and billions in spending - not the smartest use of public cash from that perspective.
We haven’t protected NATO allies - their territory and airspace has been repeatedly crossed by Russia. We have not sent the army into Ukraine despite the fact they’ve been invaded like Kuwait was.
Russian planes fly into UK airspace regularly to test - would you like us to shoot them down? There are games that all sides play and responses are proportionate. In your world the military we don’t want goes balls deep on the enemy and then what.
NEW: Admiral Sir Tony Radakin has written an explosive op-ed for The Sunday Times.
It is the first time the former chief of the defence staff has spoken since retiring last year.
He said:
💥 Andy Burnham must appoint a "wartime cabinet" that will properly fund the military. 💥 The "peace dividend" is over - and the role of the PM is now a "quasi-wartime" one. 💥 The UK is "looking like a laggard" in Nato and we are bottom of the Nato league table to meet our military commitments. 💥 Warned Burnham to avoid antagonising Donald Trump - or else the USA could withdraw its "unconditional support" for the UK. 💥 Says the next PM must "protect the nuclear deterrent."
Wartime Cabinet - Why? Which War? Where? what's changed!? The role of any PM has never been any different! The UK was a laggard, a laggard on his watch - the hollowing out from 2010 to 2024 is being reversed, it can't be done in 2 or 3 years If we have to base any policy in keeping Trump happy then the problem is Trump not the POlicy. Tell him to fuck off! What nuclear deterrent , an aging system we pay an extortionate sum for that we cannot control. Its obsolete and can we trust anything Trump has control over.
Yeah, what would he know about the military situation.
The UK has the second biggest defence budget in Europe. If the UK's military is so crap whose fault is that?
Funnily enough it’s complicated. IMHO the nuclear deterrent should be stripped from the defence budget as it’s such a fundamental cost. It’s not however Radikin’s fault. It’s decades of Treasury, top brass, complacency, the gradual, understandable time shift which has resulted in few politicians and the public experiencing war and so it not seeming “real”.
I would still take Radikin’s opinion over say, Brixian’s or Starmer and Reeves.
Radakin is just making a few quid by telling Sunday Times readers what they want to hear. That's it.
The article not a masterclass in strategic threat analysis and defence procurement planning, it's a retirement hobby.
Russia is zero coventional threat to the UK so this panicky, and frankly cowardly, rush to increase defence spending to counter a threat that doesn' t exist is ludicrous.
If the asymmetric, grey threat is so grave then spend money on law enforcement and intelligence. I wouldn't agree with it, but that at least has an internal logic that is missing from the easily manipulated Russophobe arseholes playing toy soldiers.
NEW: Admiral Sir Tony Radakin has written an explosive op-ed for The Sunday Times.
It is the first time the former chief of the defence staff has spoken since retiring last year.
He said:
💥 Andy Burnham must appoint a "wartime cabinet" that will properly fund the military. 💥 The "peace dividend" is over - and the role of the PM is now a "quasi-wartime" one. 💥 The UK is "looking like a laggard" in Nato and we are bottom of the Nato league table to meet our military commitments. 💥 Warned Burnham to avoid antagonising Donald Trump - or else the USA could withdraw its "unconditional support" for the UK. 💥 Says the next PM must "protect the nuclear deterrent."
How does one avoid 'antagonising' Trump, when sometimes that antagonism takes the form of objecting to him threatening to invade Greenland and other irrational actions?
I would have thought the biggest priority now is a fully independent nuclear deterrent, like the French. We only have a decade’s worth before support from the Americans becomes necessary.
Instead the military establishment are doubling down on their two biggest faults: servitude to the US and spamming money on shite like Ajax.
Yes, we need to be able to stand on our own, even if it is less expansive that we once aimed for.
I genuinely struggle to see the point of the armed forces beyond the nuclear deterrent. Any actual conflict with a proper adversary like Russia is immediately nuclear. Everything else is a waste of time (Afghanistan).
We are evidently unwilling to challenge them when they poison our cities or conduct arson attacks on our Prime Minister or fiddle with our subsea infrastructure. We have not engaged Russia conventionally in Ukraine or Belarus. The Royal Navy (or indeed US Navy) has not preserved freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.
Let’s confront that reality before we discuss increasing spending.
Bin Laden was kiiled and the Taliban removed from power in Afghanistan until troops were removed. We need to defend ourselves and our overseas territories as in the Falklands War and protect any nation invaded as in the Gulf War to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi invasion and take part in Nato operations, including protecting Nato nations in Eastern Europe from Russian invasion and UN peacekeeping operations
Afghanistan is the best example of this logic fail. What’s the point if we will just hand a country back to evil scum like the Taliban without a fight? And Bin Laden was killed in a different country 10 years after the invasion and billions in spending - not the smartest use of public cash from that perspective.
We haven’t protected NATO allies - their territory and airspace has been repeatedly crossed by Russia. We have not sent the army into Ukraine despite the fact they’ve been invaded like Kuwait was.
Blame Biden for withdrawing troops and handing Kabul back to the Taliban. Bin Laden would not have been forced out of the Afghan mountains and into Pakistan where US special forces killed him without the invasion.
Have Poland, Estonia, Latvia etc been invaded by Russia like non Nato Ukraine has? No.
The UN Security Council voted to give a mandate for the Gulf War of 1990 to free Kuwait, there has been no UN mandate to free Ukraine with boots on the ground (not least as Putin unlike Saddam has nukes)
NEW: Admiral Sir Tony Radakin has written an explosive op-ed for The Sunday Times.
It is the first time the former chief of the defence staff has spoken since retiring last year.
He said:
💥 Andy Burnham must appoint a "wartime cabinet" that will properly fund the military. 💥 The "peace dividend" is over - and the role of the PM is now a "quasi-wartime" one. 💥 The UK is "looking like a laggard" in Nato and we are bottom of the Nato league table to meet our military commitments. 💥 Warned Burnham to avoid antagonising Donald Trump - or else the USA could withdraw its "unconditional support" for the UK. 💥 Says the next PM must "protect the nuclear deterrent."
How does one avoid 'antagonising' Trump, when sometimes that antagonism takes the form of objecting to him threatening to invade Greenland and other irrational actions?
I would have thought the biggest priority now is a fully independent nuclear deterrent, like the French. We only have a decade’s worth before support from the Americans becomes necessary.
Instead the military establishment are doubling down on their two biggest faults: servitude to the US and spamming money on shite like Ajax.
Yes, we need to be able to stand on our own, even if it is less expansive that we once aimed for.
Italy, Germany, Poland, Spain, Korea & Japan seem to be able to get by without one.
I have been open to European one with shared responsibility through NATO.
I’ve never been convinced of the logic the UK puts forward that is right and necessary for us to have one, but it would be dangerously proliferation if Germany decided to build one.
Peter.
All the countries you list are part of NATO or other USA-led defence pact.
Exactly so why exactly do we need our own deterrent ?
Kind of inevitable, wish him all the best for the future. Questions over the performances can wait for another day. I am assuming there has been a background mutual payout agreement.
Fantastic achievements to get to 2 Euros and back to the World Cup.
Serious questions need to be asked of the SFA, not just for the contract extension being announced right before the world cup, but the performance the governing body have put out throughout the domestic season and more recent years.
A pound shop outfit who make FIFA look like Nelson Mandela
Comments
It is a convenient time for me to get a cold beer though.
I would still take Radikin’s opinion over say, Brixian’s or Starmer and Reeves.
And proper refiyned decadent Olivier acksents, not some bloody Estuary accents. Honestly, Call Of Duty has a lot to answer for...
We are much more likely to see deaths from avian flu than we are to see foreign soldiers invade the British Isles. Radakin has a hammer and sees only nails.
Panama are playing well.
Several explosions reported in Sirik, Iran.
Huge Ukrainian drone and missile attack on Russia currently underway.
#explodey
And if a new PM comprehensively commands a majority of the Commons he can point to whatever he wants to. And if MPs are prepared to follow him, then that is that.
Especially when Labour's manifesto was the word CHANGE in size 256 font.
I've not seen Memento and Following, and as I'm not generally a fan of non-linear narratives I probably wouldn't like them so would not be able to judge how well they were written.
Agree on Tenet. The Prestige is magnificent. Oppenheimer was too long. Needed editing
Someone should have told Spielberg to toss out Disclosure Day after reading it's dull as dishwater dog's breakfast of a script. And tell Ridley Scott he needs to stop making movies entirely.
In fairness people did tell Francis Ford Coppola not to make Megalopolis. Closest I've ever been to walking out of a film, so much talent utterly wasted on that dreck.
Oliver Johnson
@BristOliver
·
1h
It's starting to feel a lot like isthmus
Edit: And I've said it before and will again, Marlon Brando was not good in The Godfather, it was a silly performance that wasn't the slightest bit intimidating.
Yeah, I can already tell that is not for me.
I reckon if England can scrape out a win against the mighty Panama, they can easily beat Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and Spain.
To bring in a political analogy, maybe it's similar to how very few can write or deliver a speech of any note anymore, since it isn't a skill they need to use a lot of the time.
Instead the military establishment are doubling down on their two biggest faults: servitude to the US and spamming money on shite like Ajax.
And well done Tuchel for leaving out a right back who has won every trophy against the best players in the world and can drop the ball on a six pence and instead putting in centre backs as right backs. A Penny for Trent’s thoughts.
We are evidently unwilling to challenge them when they poison our cities or conduct arson attacks on our Prime Minister or fiddle with our subsea infrastructure. We have not engaged Russia conventionally in Ukraine or Belarus. The Royal Navy (or indeed US Navy) has not preserved freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.
Let’s confront that reality before we discuss increasing spending.
I have been open to European one with shared responsibility through NATO.
I’ve never been convinced of the logic the UK puts forward that is right and necessary for us to have one, but it would be dangerously proliferation if Germany decided to build one.
Peter.
Looking at our remaining fixtures, I wish it could be isthmus every day
https://x.com/BristOliver/status/2070998860084711487
My Grnadfathers and their brothers didn’t think there would be a war after the First World War their fathers fought in until it happened and two of them died, the others were all injured and went out day after day or night after night wondering if they would come back.
We don’t need an armed forces until we need an armed forces and the best way of not having you being called up is by ensuring that the guys who want to serve get the kit and support and training they need to deter anyone from really trying it on.
We have been repeatedly attacked on our own territory and we’ve done fuck all about it. Our economy has been trashed twice by Putin and the IRGC and we haven’t engaged (directly) militarily.
We could have a whole fleet floating in the South Atlantic but it’s worthless if Radakin et al don’t have the balls to engage. I’m fed up with special pleading for funding for the military from those simultaneously advising against ever using it.
Most of it is taken up with a long interview with @Leon_VotedForStarmer
Sitting praying
God is saying
Nothing
Nothing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTp45IvVOkQ
Do you think military men don’t want to engage? They do but only when absolutely necessary - it’s not their remit to start firing missiles at Moscow when someone gets poisoned in Salisbury because guess what, Russia starts firing missiles on your friends in Edinburgh or wherever.
You seem to simultaneously not want a military but for them to charge with bayonets when spies do spy things.
Our military needs massive reconfigurement to focus on proper threats. Our security services have to deal with foreign threats in a different way. Our government has to decide how much to spend and what to target and balance it against which operations are affordable, which benefits are essential, etc etc.
Tuchel in no hurry for his post game pie and bovril
That's why they've been eliminated.
(And conceded sixteen.)
We haven’t protected NATO allies - their territory and airspace has been repeatedly crossed by Russia. We have not sent the army into Ukraine despite the fact they’ve been invaded like Kuwait was.
The article not a masterclass in strategic threat analysis and defence procurement planning, it's a retirement hobby.
Russia is zero coventional threat to the UK so this panicky, and frankly cowardly, rush to increase defence spending to counter a threat that doesn' t exist is ludicrous.
If the asymmetric, grey threat is so grave then spend money on law enforcement and intelligence. I wouldn't agree with it, but that at least has an internal logic that is missing from the easily manipulated Russophobe arseholes playing toy soldiers.
Have Poland, Estonia, Latvia etc been invaded by Russia like non Nato Ukraine has? No.
The UN Security Council voted to give a mandate for the Gulf War of 1990 to free Kuwait, there has been no UN mandate to free Ukraine with boots on the ground (not least as Putin unlike Saddam has nukes)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007gd85
?
Peter.
https://x.com/ScotlandNT/status/2071013206240493811
Fantastic achievements to get to 2 Euros and back to the World Cup.
Serious questions need to be asked of the SFA, not just for the contract extension being announced right before the world cup, but the performance the governing body have put out throughout the domestic season and more recent years.
A pound shop outfit who make FIFA look like Nelson Mandela