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.
How about easily manipulated Russophile arseholes?
OT those spoilsports at the National Lottery have changed the notification to you have won a small prize so now there's not even a couple of hours' fun thinking I could be a millionaire.
Lib Dems face call for inquiry into deselection of election candidate ... The party has admitted it unlawfully discriminated against former BBC journalist David Campanale on the basis of his religious beliefs when he was stopped from standing in the Sutton and Cheam constituency in 2024.
A civil court in London will this week begin the process of deciding what damages and costs Campanale is due.
OT those spoilsports at the National Lottery have changed the notification to you have won a small prize so now there's not even a couple of hours' fun thinking I could be a millionaire.
I won a whole pound, with a ticket that cost £2. The economics of the AI tech bubble.
England are not showing anything like the elan that France, Spain or Argentina have.
They'll be out in the quarters or the semis.
We've got 3 players who are genuinely world class. Kane , Bellingham , Saka.
We've more athletic defenders than in a long while but sadly they lack defensive "nous" and organisational skills. The midfield pair of Rice and Anderson graft well but lack a touch of class, and we have a number of inverted wingers, christ the world is full of inverted wingers, but few of them can actually go round a player.
Rashford is decent but the rest of the attacking options are barely EFL level!
Tuchel just doesn't do it for me at all, a sullen dispiriting figure who looks forlorn and doesn't seem to have the team nor the country with him.
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.
Never doubt Bellingham.
Those of us fortunate enough to have known from a very early age how special he will is know , it's been hard to persuade those who didn;t know how very special he really is.
In my humble opinion the best footballer this Country has produced since Duncan Edwards, and Duncan Edwards was head and shoulders above any player this Country ever produced apart from possibly Matthews and Bobby Charlton, and in Charltons case he was just iconic on and off the pitch.
OT those spoilsports at the National Lottery have changed the notification to you have won a small prize so now there's not even a couple of hours' fun thinking I could be a millionaire.
I won a whole pound, with a ticket that cost £2. The economics of the AI tech bubble.
Speaking of AI, here is a recent video comparing AI to past sacrifices-to-gods. You have to give offerings so that the Singularity will arise and spare you.
OT those spoilsports at the National Lottery have changed the notification to you have won a small prize so now there's not even a couple of hours' fun thinking I could be a millionaire.
I won a whole pound, with a ticket that cost £2. The economics of the AI tech bubble.
Speaking of AI, here is a recent video comparing AI to past sacrifices-to-gods. You have to give offerings so that the Singularity will arise and spare you.
Mr Burnham has just three and a half weeks to make defining choices about his programme, the set-up at Number 10 and what his cabinet will look like. “It is daunting,” acknowledges one of his allies. Many of the problems in his in-tray are familiar, but Mr Burnham will want to demonstrate that he represents a fresh start.
As every predecessor has done, he’s promising change. In practice, this means that significant reforms will have to be legislated for in the next 12 months or so if they are to have a meaningful impact before the country next chooses a government. The new boss will need to get his personnel appointments right first time. The preferences he has revealed so far are intriguing. He’s drawing on advice on the economy from Lord Jim O’Neill, and Andy Haldane. James Purnell…is being tapped as the next chief of staff at Number 10. That indicates a pragmatic preference for smart people with an interest in getting stuff done. It also suggests that Mr Burnham doesn’t altogether mind ruffling feathers on the left of his party, where there are already some squawks of complaint.
He’ll want some “quick wins” to sustain momentum. Dealing with the much-reviled water companies and doing something about energy bills are candidates. No one wants another alphabet soup of “missions” and “milestones”. It will be essential to organise his government around clearly articulated priorities, relentlessly pursued. He could fix on driving through reform of social care, a consistent pre-occupation since he was health secretary in the first decade of this century. He sounds at his most authentic when he argues for making the UK much less London-centric. Decentralisation and regional development will be key components of the speech on the economy he will make on Monday.
Unless his government is sharply focused on encouraging more economic growth, Labour will never have the money to do all the things that it wants to do. Some on Team Burnham liken their task to rebuilding an aircraft while it is in mid-flight. Air Andy is jetting to Downing Street with a tailwind from his party, but there will be much turbulence to master if he is not to plunge from the sky like every one of the half-dozen people who have preceded him at Number 10 over the past decade.
I'd the basic, higher and top rate all need to increase by 2p to properly fund the military, to 22%, 42% and 47%, together with welfare cuts on top.
That'd get us c.£30 billion a year extra on defence and get us up to 3.5% GDP on it. And that would still have our income tax rates below what they were in 1992 in the aftermath of "Options for Change" and before it had fully played out to significantly cut defence spending.
OT those spoilsports at the National Lottery have changed the notification to you have won a small prize so now there's not even a couple of hours' fun thinking I could be a millionaire.
I won a whole pound, with a ticket that cost £2. The economics of the AI tech bubble.
Against that I knew someone whose startup was hours away from running out of cash when he won $1m on the north Carolina education lottery.
15 years later he just sold the business for $700m (although he only owned about 30% by that point)
OT those spoilsports at the National Lottery have changed the notification to you have won a small prize so now there's not even a couple of hours' fun thinking I could be a millionaire.
I won a whole pound, with a ticket that cost £2. The economics of the AI tech bubble.
I think one of the defining moments of my childhood (aged about 8) was seeing a woman in front of me in a queue at the local post office play a £1 scratchcard, win £2, immediately buy two more scratchcards, and win nothing.
It demonstrated to me the utter futility of the whole business, except as a means to transfer money to the people selling scratchards, and from that day on I vowed I would never touch 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.
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.
Yes, ffs. A deterrent isn’t credible unless you actually have the conviction to use it. The Russians will continue to push it unless you stand up to them at some point - but your attitude means it’s always logical not to.
I am utterly appalled at the ad-hominem I've read on here this morning directed at Radakin from last night by several posters who should know better.
Utterly appalled.
I'm amazed that anyone knows enough about him to direct ad hominems at him. Seems a fairly pragmatic guy, and you can't really blame a serviceman for advocating in favour of defence spending.
His wishlist is unlikely to be fulfilled, though.
The reality is that if we are to deliver any useful capabilities at all, we're going to have to make some very tough choices. Our current forces are utterly threadbare as we've tried to pretend for the last couple of decade that we can deliver a 4% of GDP capability on spending rather closer to 2%.
That means either cutting some stuff completely, or paying a great deal more. Either option carries significant risks - not least of which is that any increases would be pissed away on useless stuff.
I am utterly appalled at the ad-hominem I've read on here this morning directed at Radakin from last night by several posters who should know better.
Utterly appalled.
I'm amazed that anyone knows enough about him to direct ad hominems at him. Seems a fairly pragmatic guy, and you can't really blame a serviceman for advocating in favour of defence spending.
His wishlist is unlikely to be fulfilled, though.
The reality is that if we are to deliver any useful capabilities at all, we're going to have to make some very tough choices. Our current forces are utterly threadbare as we've tried to pretend for the last couple of decade that we can deliver a 4% of GDP capability on spending rather closer to 2%.
That means either cutting some stuff completely, or paying a great deal more. Either option carries significant risks - not least of which is that any increases would be pissed away on useless stuff.
They are utterly threadbare.
I think this starts from people not wanting to pay any more, and working back from there.
But the world has changed, and us putting our fingers in our ears is not a choice.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/aGYe7YvgKTM
It's a sentry gun. To kill mosquitos. With lasers. Automatically. IT'S A REAL-LIFE BUG HUNT.
...
The party has admitted it unlawfully discriminated against former BBC journalist David Campanale on the basis of his religious beliefs when he was stopped from standing in the Sutton and Cheam constituency in 2024.
A civil court in London will this week begin the process of deciding what damages and costs Campanale is due.
A party group, the Liberal Democrat Christian Forum, has called for an inquiry into the deselection.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gypnyk788o
ETA the LibDems won Sutton & Cheam with its replacement candidate.
We've more athletic defenders than in a long while but sadly they lack defensive "nous" and organisational skills. The midfield pair of Rice and Anderson graft well but lack a touch of class, and we have a number of inverted wingers, christ the world is full of inverted wingers, but few of them can actually go round a player.
Rashford is decent but the rest of the attacking options are barely EFL level!
Tuchel just doesn't do it for me at all, a sullen dispiriting figure who looks forlorn and doesn't seem to have the team nor the country with him.
Crying out for a Klopp or Guardiola figure.
Those of us fortunate enough to have known from a very early age how special he will is know , it's been hard to persuade those who didn;t know how very special he really is.
In my humble opinion the best footballer this Country has produced since Duncan Edwards, and Duncan Edwards was head and shoulders above any player this Country ever produced apart from possibly Matthews and Bobby Charlton, and in Charltons case he was just iconic on and off the pitch.
F1: dramatic F1 qualifying. I'd be irked if I'd backed Leclerc for pole. But I didn't.
I think Russell will fail. His tyre management has been way weaker than Antonelli's this year and Austria chews them up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygxEPkufryI
I can see a number of SC and VSR.
The pace that the GOAT Max got in the 5th fastest Car bodes well for the race if they can get the set up right and I think he's the value bet here.
Mr Burnham has just three and a half weeks to make defining choices about his programme, the set-up at Number 10 and what his cabinet will look like. “It is daunting,” acknowledges one of his allies. Many of the problems in his in-tray are familiar, but Mr Burnham will want to demonstrate that he represents a fresh start.
As every predecessor has done, he’s promising change. In practice, this means that significant reforms will have to be legislated for in the next 12 months or so if they are to have a meaningful impact before the country next chooses a government. The new boss will need to get his personnel appointments right first time. The preferences he has revealed so far are intriguing. He’s drawing on advice on the economy from Lord Jim O’Neill, and Andy Haldane. James Purnell…is being tapped as the next chief of staff at Number 10. That indicates a pragmatic preference for smart people with an interest in getting stuff done. It also suggests that Mr Burnham doesn’t altogether mind ruffling feathers on the left of his party, where there are already some squawks of complaint.
He’ll want some “quick wins” to sustain momentum. Dealing with the much-reviled water companies and doing something about energy bills are candidates. No one wants another alphabet soup of “missions” and “milestones”. It will be essential to organise his government around clearly articulated priorities, relentlessly pursued. He could fix on driving through reform of social care, a consistent pre-occupation since he was health secretary in the first decade of this century. He sounds at his most authentic when he argues for making the UK much less London-centric. Decentralisation and regional development will be key components of the speech on the economy he will make on Monday.
Unless his government is sharply focused on encouraging more economic growth, Labour will never have the money to do all the things that it wants to do. Some on Team Burnham liken their task to rebuilding an aircraft while it is in mid-flight. Air Andy is jetting to Downing Street with a tailwind from his party, but there will be much turbulence to master if he is not to plunge from the sky like every one of the half-dozen people who have preceded him at Number 10 over the past decade.
Contrasting fates for Asia, with 7 of 8 gone, and Japan the only surivor. Next to play Brazil.
Czechia and Turkey join Scotland for the wooden spoon in Europe.
Uruguay the only South American going home.
That'd get us c.£30 billion a year extra on defence and get us up to 3.5% GDP on it. And that would still have our income tax rates below what they were in 1992 in the aftermath of "Options for Change" and before it had fully played out to significantly cut defence spending.
15 years later he just sold the business for $700m (although he only owned about 30% by that point)
Utterly appalled.
It demonstrated to me the utter futility of the whole business, except as a means to transfer money to the people selling scratchards, and from that day on I vowed I would never touch one.
Seems a fairly pragmatic guy, and you can't really blame a serviceman for advocating in favour of defence spending.
His wishlist is unlikely to be fulfilled, though.
The reality is that if we are to deliver any useful capabilities at all, we're going to have to make some very tough choices. Our current forces are utterly threadbare as we've tried to pretend for the last couple of decade that we can deliver a 4% of GDP capability on spending rather closer to 2%.
That means either cutting some stuff completely, or paying a great deal more. Either option carries significant risks - not least of which is that any increases would be pissed away on useless stuff.
I think this starts from people not wanting to pay any more, and working back from there.
But the world has changed, and us putting our fingers in our ears is not a choice.