Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.
.................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard
No-one normal gives a flying fuck about Gaza mate.
Thats actually saying nobody gives a fuck about International Law.
Under the Conservatives, defence spending rose from a low of 2.1% to 2.3% of GDP between 2022 and 2024 without that increase being funded at all given the much larger black hole (£22bn or has it turned out to be more?) inherited by Starmer/Reeves. So a mere £5bn hole within a plan to get it up much further to 2.7% seems light grey by comparison.
SKS has actually done Burnham a favour since Burnham can blame the inevitable tax rises that follow onto Starmer. And if anyone is thinking that you can increase the share of the economy going towards defence by nearly 30% (i.e. 2.1% to 2.7%) without impacting on disposible incomes through tax rises then they need their head examined.
I would question going further than 2.7% since Russia's military is now degraded and palpably on its knees in Ukraine which was not the case when the 3% target was set. The defence establishment is entitled to make its case but not to dictate to the rest of the country.
Parts of England Motorway pain/provision from best to worst. Top:
NW - Tonnes of motorways, absolutely flying to where you're going. East Mids - Both M1 and A1(Sometimes M) run through. I live here, and it's not too bad tbh. Yorks and Humber - Mostly fine, M1 & A1 do the job. Thank God the Darrington works have finished. East - Not too many motorways but like the SW does it really need them. Nothing like the bottleneck of Bristol either. West Mids - Lots of Motorways but somehow not quite enough. Forever roadworks, M42 ... ugh. HS2 has caused eternal roadworks here SW - M5 bottleneck. High chance of getting stuck nr Avonmouth to access most of the SW. Not sure about M4. SE/London - Plenty of Motorway but the obviously high pop density around London made this feel fucking awful last time I was down on the M25 (Something I don't wish to repeat too often). How many people are driving round London on a bloody Sunday night ?!? Doesn't happen elsewhere tbh. Great provision (Neccessarily) but there's a reason everyone gets the train here lol. NE - Forgotten child A1 needs dualling, enough said.
Just watched the highlights of France Sweden. Bloody hell. That will take some beating.
But thankfully the best team doesn't always win the WC.
Just make peace with the fact that England will not win the world cup. It might be tonight, it might be in the Azteca, but the defeat is coming, probably on penalties.
Radio 2 News leading with the death of Victor ‘Bob’ Willis former lead singer of the band The Village People, who had three hits in the late seventies.
Talented guy. Also took 8-43 against Australia at Headingley in 1981.
All the more impressive as he was dressed as a motor cycle cop when doing it
The biker guy in the Village People looked like Merv Hughes.
A division is the smallest self-sustaining formation capable of conducting large-scale combined-arms operations independently, bringing together infantry, armour, artillery, engineers and logistical support under a single headquarters. It's not new. It's broadly restoring the capability and deployment the Army maintained until the post-Cold War reductions of the 1990s.
Even the US have given up on deploying divisions, hence the Brigade Combat Team.
The British Army tried to move to deployable brigades in 2010 but the tories fucked it with the SDSR. Baldy Ben made the brigade officially the smallest autonomous unit in the 2012 "Future Soldier" bollocks. The whole Army is now structured around single battalion regiments in deployable brigades. Apart from the Ranger Regiment which looks like a structure in search of a mission.
There is no universe where the British Army goes back to deployable divisions, no matter how much money is pissed away in pursuit of it.
Also to Casino's point, the DiP announced yesterday provides no funding for Challenger 3. It's quite likely that scrapping Challenger is part of the "efficiency savings" which pay for most of the 'increase' in funding.
The UK has none of the modern auxiliary equipment to support MBT deployment (transport; recovery; bridging; supporting armoured combat vehicles). Fully equipping a single regiment would likely be around £2 to £3bn, and might cost £3 -500m a year to sustain overseas. I've said before that it's unlikely the UK will ever again field an MBT regiment overseas. If they're not in place to blunt an invasion, then they are pretty useless anyway. And the future value of MBTs is in any event pretty uncertain.
If we want to contribute to European defence, far more cost effective (not least as it would also contribute directly to the defence of the UK, and give other options for overseas deployment - eg Cyprus of the Falklands) would be to increase the capabilities of the RAF, IMO.
I am arguing for a two division structure without relying on the Army Reserve, which isn't realistic. For a real serious defence strategist, read Nicholas Drummond below. I was arguing for 85-90k+ army, to account for training and wastage, and he thinks it might be possible with 83k and agreed with me.
Note that to get back to the Army of the noughties with a third division and a corps HQ, that would require an army of 112k, which we almost certainly wouldn't be willing to pay for right now, despite me personally being willing to back that too:
▶️I have modelled in some detail how the British Army ought to grow. Basically, to deliver a two division structure and make it deployable without relying on the Army Reserve, the Regular Army needs 83,000 personnel.
▶️If we want to raise a third division, it would need an additional 20,000 soldiers plus extra Corps unit headcount of 9,000 for a total size of 112,000. This was the approximate size of the Regular Army in 2010.
▶️ To make a three division structure credible, the Army would need to purchase to around £30 billion of additional equipment. This sounds huge, and it is, but, over ten years it's affordable and achievable.
▶️The problem is if we wait. We risk having to grow the Army very quickly over a 2 to 3 year period and needing to buy all the extra kit it needs as soon as possible. Which means buying what's available not what we want.
▶️This is what we did in 1937, but by that time it was too late. We had fallen too far behind. The process of re-arming proved to be very difficult and costly. We only finished paying off the debt in 2006.
▶️In the short-term, rather than growing the Army to 100,000, I would prefer to see the RN and RAF expanded. Instead, I believe the UK should reconstitute an Army of 83,000 and properly equip it.
▶️This requires an extra £3 to £4 billion per annum and around £10 billion in additional equipment spent between now and 2030.
A lot of what people feel is wrong in Western countries since, well, 2008, is a combination of 2 things:
- the loss of the "path to the skyscrapers" (I like that phrase, was it just invented or is it a thing?) Ie the sense that the next decade or generation will be better than the last - what we call "enshittification", which is present almost everywhere in developed countries
The first is a feature of stagnating income growth and affordability; the second is consumer experience (both of the private sector goods and services, and the public domain). But the two are related. Enshittification makes it harder to imagine a better future.
These are two things that are generally absent in growing middle income countries. I mentioned I've just been in Turkey seeing what this means for infrastructure, but now I'm in Georgia where the opposite of enshittification is very visible. Enbeautification? De-enshittification. That is, the consumer experience is getting better almost daily. There's more to do, more interesting things to buy, the public realm is being prettified, plants and landscaping everywhere.
If there's one thing Burnham can take from Manchester it's surely this. De-enshittification. Manchester was enshittified decades before most places, and it's visibly come out the other side. A nicer, more liveable, more vital and visitable city. Part of that is infrastructure and transport, part is green space. Not unaffordable to do. Clear up litter. Plant trees and shrubs. Join up public transport. Get rid of barriers that stop wheelchairs etc.
Too much politics is about the producer Vs the owner. Labour Vs capital. The consumer is forgotten. One thing the EU has done well is paying attention to the consumer, but it and us could do more. Make places nice, make the consumer experience pleasant, and people will spend more, government will earn more tax as a result, which it can then plough back into the public realm, and we're in a virtuous circle.
Just watched the highlights of France Sweden. Bloody hell. That will take some beating.
But thankfully the best team doesn't always win the WC.
Always intrigues watching France and thinking of the sliding door in 2010 with Didier Deschamps, when he was interviewed (and impressed) for the Liverpool job (along with Pellegrini and Rijkaard) but they lost out to Roy Hodgson. Deschamps would have succeeded anywhere.
Its like some crap tribute act to the Gordon Brown era.
Will Ed Balls be offered a job as well ?
Is the Labour party admitting its not elected anyone talented from 2010 onwards ?
And is this new Manchester economy anything more than the ultimate expression of the Gordon Brown economy - people renting foreign owned flats with massive debts all round.
You've not been to Manchester this century have you?
R4 More or Less Stats up to 2023 (latest info apparently). Productivity growth 2019-2023 supposedly 14% but a lot of it is down to errors or reporting changes in the ONS stats gathering over that period, real wages rose by 1% in same period. Changes from stats to "feel" after that, conclusion is that there "Manchesterism" is real but not as successful as claimed and that the root causes predate Burnham.
So big, shiny buildings, more inequality and its football club changed from being perennial losers by Arab money.
Anything else ?
Construction of dense residential /commercial neighbourhoods is a much more reliable indicator of economic growth than plastering motorways everywhere. Indeed there is a strong negative correlation with the latter.
You can’t really avoid the fact it’s dense, compact cities like London, Edinburgh etc that generate most of the economic output in the UK, and the most potential lies with other cities like Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool which fall far behind their German/Dutch/French equivalents.
Lots of motorways in Greater Manchester.
Anyway who's calling for more motorways ?
But we keep coming back to people renting flats in big, shiny buildings, often foreign owned, with the poor decanted to banlieues on the outskirts.
House price growth uber alles whereas in South Korea and Taiwan their big shiny buildings are for hi tech manufacturing.
The decanting of people to the outskirts was done well before the recent growth in population in central Manchester.
In 1990 500 people lived within a mile of Piccadilly Gardens, now its 85,000 - the first figure is a census figure so 100% accurate.
Its been three stages.
Originally inner urban working class poor renting.
Then empty of inhabitants.
Now middle classes renters in big, shiny buildings.
That's great for middle class types who want to rent a flat in a big, shiny building in a city centre.
Not so good for the descendants of the former inner urban working class now living in places like Gorton and Denton.
And pretty irrelevant to those who want to own an average house in an average suburb / town and have an average life.
'Not so good for the descendants of the former inner urban working class" - but that isn't Manchesterism's - embodied by Andy Burnham - fault. They're there because of the push-the-poor-people-to-the-outskirts (which was the outcome, if not the intent) of the post-war period. It is still a big problem to solve, and it was the focus of the term that Andy Burnham had just been elected for - 'showing the path to the skyscrapers' - letting young people from Little Hulton or Hattersley share in and benefit from the growth that the city centre was going through. It's a long term project. But you need the growth first.
Unless it is Manchesterism's (aka Burnham's) fault for allowing tower blocks to be built without any obligation for affordable housing. One tongue-in-cheek criticism of Ken Livingstone was that he made London safe for property developers. Burnham made Manchester safe for one particular property developer, Renaker, fuelled by money from that nice Mr Osborne.
Transforming Manchester's Skyline Established in 2006, Renaker is now firmly recognised as Manchester’s leading developer with a proven track record of delivering sustainable, high-quality developments at pace. We have successfully delivered over 8,500 new homes to date. https://renaker.com/
Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.
.................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard
No-one normal gives a flying fuck about Gaza mate.
Thats actually saying nobody gives a fuck about International Law.
Until it impacts on them
Gaza is glorious and enthusiastic group masturbation for activist Lefties.
They love it because it's where all their prejudices meet on class, colour, colonialism and capitalism and it's utterly irresistible to them.
Knock yourself out, but no-one normal cares. It's entirely irrelevant to British politics and our actions are entirely irrelevant as well.
Its like some crap tribute act to the Gordon Brown era.
Will Ed Balls be offered a job as well ?
Is the Labour party admitting its not elected anyone talented from 2010 onwards ?
And is this new Manchester economy anything more than the ultimate expression of the Gordon Brown economy - people renting foreign owned flats with massive debts all round.
You've not been to Manchester this century have you?
R4 More or Less Stats up to 2023 (latest info apparently). Productivity growth 2019-2023 supposedly 14% but a lot of it is down to errors or reporting changes in the ONS stats gathering over that period, real wages rose by 1% in same period. Changes from stats to "feel" after that, conclusion is that there "Manchesterism" is real but not as successful as claimed and that the root causes predate Burnham.
So big, shiny buildings, more inequality and its football club changed from being perennial losers by Arab money.
Anything else ?
Construction of dense residential /commercial neighbourhoods is a much more reliable indicator of economic growth than plastering motorways everywhere. Indeed there is a strong negative correlation with the latter.
You can’t really avoid the fact it’s dense, compact cities like London, Edinburgh etc that generate most of the economic output in the UK, and the most potential lies with other cities like Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool which fall far behind their German/Dutch/French equivalents.
Lots of motorways in Greater Manchester.
Anyway who's calling for more motorways ?
But we keep coming back to people renting flats in big, shiny buildings, often foreign owned, with the poor decanted to banlieues on the outskirts.
House price growth uber alles whereas in South Korea and Taiwan their big shiny buildings are for hi tech manufacturing.
The decanting of people to the outskirts was done well before the recent growth in population in central Manchester.
In 1990 500 people lived within a mile of Piccadilly Gardens, now its 85,000 - the first figure is a census figure so 100% accurate.
Its been three stages.
Originally inner urban working class poor renting.
Then empty of inhabitants.
Now middle classes renters in big, shiny buildings.
That's great for middle class types who want to rent a flat in a big, shiny building in a city centre.
Not so good for the descendants of the former inner urban working class now living in places like Gorton and Denton.
And pretty irrelevant to those who want to own an average house in an average suburb / town and have an average life.
Those people left over 35 years ago more likely 40-50 years ago - apart from in your nostalgic mind it's they are utterly irrelevant to to story and render your entire argument utterly stupid...
So the people of Gorton and Denton are utterly irrelevant to the story ? They're a part of Manchester as much as the people in the city centre are.
We keep coming back to people renting flats (often foreign owned) in the centre of Manchester.
And a football team made successful with Arab money.
And what else ?
Why does the asking of questions receive anger as a response instead of answers ?
Under the Conservatives, defence spending rose from a low of 2.1% to 2.3% of GDP between 2022 and 2024 without that increase being funded at all given the much larger black hole (£22bn or has it turned out to be more?) inherited by Starmer/Reeves. So a mere £5bn hole within a plan to get it up much further to 2.7% seems light grey by comparison.
SKS has actually done Burnham a favour since Burnham can blame the inevitable tax rises that follow onto Starmer. And if anyone is thinking that you can increase the share of the economy going towards defence by nearly 30% (i.e. 2.1% to 2.7%) without impacting on disposible incomes through tax rises then they need their head examined.
I would question going further than 2.7% since Russia's military is now degraded and palpably on its knees in Ukraine which was not the case when the 3% target was set. The defence establishment is entitled to make its case but not to dictate to the rest of the country.
The one subject that seems utterly taboo to labour is cutting the enormous welfare bill !!!!!!!!
Apparently, it has to be either increasing taxes or borrowing
I would say that on something as important as this 1p or 2p on tax would be justified, but for balance reducing welfare has to be a part of it as well
Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.
.................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard
No-one normal gives a flying fuck about Gaza mate.
We shall mark down Pope Francis, Pope Leo, the Anglican communion and a few others, including me, as abnormal.
Yes. You are abnormal and you jumped the shark over 2 years ago, for reasons entirely unfathomable to anyone else and are now desperately trying to convince yourself Lefties are really one-nation Tories.
Andy Burnham has told female Labour MPs there will be a woman in every meeting in an effort to change the “boys’ club” culture at No 10.
Well someone needs to keep the minutes, right?
One suggestion I have seen (which is probably a valid critique of the SKS government) is that "representation of women" is one thing, and women engaged in leadership and policymaking formulating political strategy within which the "representatives" then work are two very different things.
We have yet to see what happens with the people around Burnham who define the agenda that to which they all work.
A division is the smallest self-sustaining formation capable of conducting large-scale combined-arms operations independently, bringing together infantry, armour, artillery, engineers and logistical support under a single headquarters. It's not new. It's broadly restoring the capability and deployment the Army maintained until the post-Cold War reductions of the 1990s.
Even the US have given up on deploying divisions, hence the Brigade Combat Team.
The British Army tried to move to deployable brigades in 2010 but the tories fucked it with the SDSR. Baldy Ben made the brigade officially the smallest autonomous unit in the 2012 "Future Soldier" bollocks. The whole Army is now structured around single battalion regiments in deployable brigades. Apart from the Ranger Regiment which looks like a structure in search of a mission.
There is no universe where the British Army goes back to deployable divisions, no matter how much money is pissed away in pursuit of it.
Also to Casino's point, the DiP announced yesterday provides no funding for Challenger 3. It's quite likely that scrapping Challenger is part of the "efficiency savings" which pay for most of the 'increase' in funding.
The UK has none of the modern auxiliary equipment to support MBT deployment (transport; recovery; bridging; supporting armoured combat vehicles). Fully equipping a single regiment would likely be around £2 to £3bn, and might cost £3 -500m a year to sustain overseas. I've said before that it's unlikely the UK will ever again field an MBT regiment overseas. If they're not in place to blunt an invasion, then they are pretty useless anyway. And the future value of MBTs is in any event pretty uncertain.
If we want to contribute to European defence, far more cost effective (not least as it would also contribute directly to the defence of the UK, and give other options for overseas deployment - eg Cyprus of the Falklands) would be to increase the capabilities of the RAF, IMO.
I am arguing for a two division structure without relying on the Army Reserve, which isn't realistic. For a real serious defence strategist, read Nicholas Drummond below. I was arguing for 85-90k+ army, to account for training and wastage, and he thinks it might be possible with 83k and agreed with me.
Note that to get back to the Army of the noughties with a third division and a corps HQ, that would require an army of 112k, which we almost certainly wouldn't be willing to pay for right now, despite me personally being willing to back that too:
▶️I have modelled in some detail how the British Army ought to grow. Basically, to deliver a two division structure and make it deployable without relying on the Army Reserve, the Regular Army needs 83,000 personnel.
▶️If we want to raise a third division, it would need an additional 20,000 soldiers plus extra Corps unit headcount of 9,000 for a total size of 112,000. This was the approximate size of the Regular Army in 2010.
▶️ To make a three division structure credible, the Army would need to purchase to around £30 billion of additional equipment. This sounds huge, and it is, but, over ten years it's affordable and achievable.
▶️The problem is if we wait. We risk having to grow the Army very quickly over a 2 to 3 year period and needing to buy all the extra kit it needs as soon as possible. Which means buying what's available not what we want.
▶️This is what we did in 1937, but by that time it was too late. We had fallen too far behind. The process of re-arming proved to be very difficult and costly. We only finished paying off the debt in 2006.
▶️In the short-term, rather than growing the Army to 100,000, I would prefer to see the RN and RAF expanded. Instead, I believe the UK should reconstitute an Army of 83,000 and properly equip it.
▶️This requires an extra £3 to £4 billion per annum and around £10 billion in additional equipment spent between now and 2030.
I was thinking (in its loosest terms) about how things can be done cheaply which whilst not being directly about expensive extra kit and signing people up to the military and was considering how Germany, hamstrung by post WW1 limits on the size of the military including numbers of planes and Luftwaffe crews used clever workarounds.
The Germans made a big push to get people to take up gliding. It wasn’t prohibited by Versailles and so they stealthily trained up many men who understood the basics of flight and controlling a machine in the air etc. They also encouraged a lot of target shooting clubs and so on.
Even though we aren’t limited by rules we are currently limited by money and also the will for people to join up so thought of two potential ways to relatively cheaply build up skill sets that would be useful if the shit hit the fan.
The first is to institute a big national quarterly drone competition. We ask the Ukrainians to put together a programme based on real life drone warfare with a series of tasks, timed matters and skills test and carry out regional heats and the winners end up in a quarterly final with a prize of £500,000. If you win you aren’t allowed to enter the next two events.
The financial incentive is big and worth amateur drone enthusiasts getting really good and encouraging others to take up drone flying. By allowing people to re enter after a gap you encourage them to keep their skills up, don’t put off other potential competitors if there is someone who always smashes it. The cost is a rounding error in the defence budget and ultimately you end up with potentially thousands of people who can fly drones to a standard that would be useful in a war situation so removing an urgency on catch up as there is a latent skill set in the country.
Secondly repeat the programme with target shooting, open up military ranges to amateur shots each weekend building to regional heats and a big quarterly prize. Perhaps have divisions like in sport so as you improve you move up for a greater prize purse to avoid it being dominated by existing shooters.
Again if you can win, say 50k for spending weekends target shooting practice it might encourage people who were curious or lapsed to get into it and then helpfully build up a base of the population whose shooting skills are honed.
Perhaps create a form of military skills triathlon where the competition is a long run, assault course and then target shoot. I loved doing them in the CCF and I’m sure there would be a lot of people who might get into it as a form of exercise that’s more interesting than a park run.
All relatively cheap but provide a foundation for a quick emergency boost.
Just watched the highlights of France Sweden. Bloody hell. That will take some beating.
But thankfully the best team doesn't always win the WC.
Just make peace with the fact that England will not win the world cup. It might be tonight, it might be in the Azteca, but the defeat is coming, probably on penalties.
Sensible approach. But that is not how I roll. Until we're out we're winning it.
If, last year, you had told people that Badenoch would get significantly more popular, while Reform slipped back, they would reasonably have assumed the Tories would be doing better. But they aren’t. Understanding why is critical to thinking through how British politics will play out over the next few years.
This is the same strategic problem the Tories have had since Reform emerged as a serious threat. It is extremely difficult to win those voters back, as they have soured on the Conservative brand and like Farage. Badenoch has done nothing to structurally improve the Tory position. There is no policy agenda beyond pledges to undo Labour taxes rises by cutting welfare. Reform could see a further deterioration in its position. But so far those who have switched away from the party seem either to be going further rightwards, by supporting Restore, or telling pollsters they won’t vote. Which is why the Tories have not seen any improvement in their numbers.
Yet as Burnham tacks leftwards that opens the way for the Tories to win back centrist swing voters who voted Conservative since Blair but voted for Starmer in 2024.
Hence MoreinCommon has the Tories up to 23% against Burnham Labour, the same voteshare as they got under Rishi in 2024 despite further leaks to Reform since then and even as Burnham squeezes the Greens, LDs and Reform
Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.
.................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard
No-one normal gives a flying fuck about Gaza mate.
Thats actually saying nobody gives a fuck about International Law.
Until it impacts on them
Gaza is glorious and enthusiastic group masturbation for activist Lefties.
They love it because it's where all their prejudices meet on class, colour, colonialism and capitalism and it's utterly irresistible to them.
Knock yourself out, but no-one normal cares. It's entirely irrelevant to British politics and our actions are entirely irrelevant as well.
Yes it is.
We used to get Gaza loons on one of the bridges in Durham getting signatures and flying flags. Beardy weirdy wankers or pink hair pronoun wankers. we don’t get them anymore.
A division is the smallest self-sustaining formation capable of conducting large-scale combined-arms operations independently, bringing together infantry, armour, artillery, engineers and logistical support under a single headquarters. It's not new. It's broadly restoring the capability and deployment the Army maintained until the post-Cold War reductions of the 1990s.
Even the US have given up on deploying divisions, hence the Brigade Combat Team.
The British Army tried to move to deployable brigades in 2010 but the tories fucked it with the SDSR. Baldy Ben made the brigade officially the smallest autonomous unit in the 2012 "Future Soldier" bollocks. The whole Army is now structured around single battalion regiments in deployable brigades. Apart from the Ranger Regiment which looks like a structure in search of a mission.
There is no universe where the British Army goes back to deployable divisions, no matter how much money is pissed away in pursuit of it.
Also to Casino's point, the DiP announced yesterday provides no funding for Challenger 3. It's quite likely that scrapping Challenger is part of the "efficiency savings" which pay for most of the 'increase' in funding.
The UK has none of the modern auxiliary equipment to support MBT deployment (transport; recovery; bridging; supporting armoured combat vehicles). Fully equipping a single regiment would likely be around £2 to £3bn, and might cost £3 -500m a year to sustain overseas. I've said before that it's unlikely the UK will ever again field an MBT regiment overseas. If they're not in place to blunt an invasion, then they are pretty useless anyway. And the future value of MBTs is in any event pretty uncertain.
If we want to contribute to European defence, far more cost effective (not least as it would also contribute directly to the defence of the UK, and give other options for overseas deployment - eg Cyprus of the Falklands) would be to increase the capabilities of the RAF, IMO.
I am arguing for a two division structure without relying on the Army Reserve, which isn't realistic. For a real serious defence strategist, read Nicholas Drummond below. I was arguing for 85-90k+ army, to account for training and wastage, and he thinks it might be possible with 83k and agreed with me.
Note that to get back to the Army of the noughties with a third division and a corps HQ, that would require an army of 112k, which we almost certainly wouldn't be willing to pay for right now, despite me personally being willing to back that too:
▶️I have modelled in some detail how the British Army ought to grow. Basically, to deliver a two division structure and make it deployable without relying on the Army Reserve, the Regular Army needs 83,000 personnel.
▶️If we want to raise a third division, it would need an additional 20,000 soldiers plus extra Corps unit headcount of 9,000 for a total size of 112,000. This was the approximate size of the Regular Army in 2010.
▶️ To make a three division structure credible, the Army would need to purchase to around £30 billion of additional equipment. This sounds huge, and it is, but, over ten years it's affordable and achievable.
▶️The problem is if we wait. We risk having to grow the Army very quickly over a 2 to 3 year period and needing to buy all the extra kit it needs as soon as possible. Which means buying what's available not what we want.
▶️This is what we did in 1937, but by that time it was too late. We had fallen too far behind. The process of re-arming proved to be very difficult and costly. We only finished paying off the debt in 2006.
▶️In the short-term, rather than growing the Army to 100,000, I would prefer to see the RN and RAF expanded. Instead, I believe the UK should reconstitute an Army of 83,000 and properly equip it.
▶️This requires an extra £3 to £4 billion per annum and around £10 billion in additional equipment spent between now and 2030.
I was thinking (in its loosest terms) about how things can be done cheaply which whilst not being directly about expensive extra kit and signing people up to the military and was considering how Germany, hamstrung by post WW1 limits on the size of the military including numbers of planes and Luftwaffe crews used clever workarounds.
The Germans made a big push to get people to take up gliding. It wasn’t prohibited by Versailles and so they stealthily trained up many men who understood the basics of flight and controlling a machine in the air etc. They also encouraged a lot of target shooting clubs and so on.
Even though we aren’t limited by rules we are currently limited by money and also the will for people to join up so thought of two potential ways to relatively cheaply build up skill sets that would be useful if the shit hit the fan.
The first is to institute a big national quarterly drone competition. We ask the Ukrainians to put together a programme based on real life drone warfare with a series of tasks, timed matters and skills test and carry out regional heats and the winners end up in a quarterly final with a prize of £500,000. If you win you aren’t allowed to enter the next two events.
The financial incentive is big and worth amateur drone enthusiasts getting really good and encouraging others to take up drone flying. By allowing people to re enter after a gap you encourage them to keep their skills up, don’t put off other potential competitors if there is someone who always smashes it. The cost is a rounding error in the defence budget and ultimately you end up with potentially thousands of people who can fly drones to a standard that would be useful in a war situation so removing an urgency on catch up as there is a latent skill set in the country.
Secondly repeat the programme with target shooting, open up military ranges to amateur shots each weekend building to regional heats and a big quarterly prize. Perhaps have divisions like in sport so as you improve you move up for a greater prize purse to avoid it being dominated by existing shooters.
Again if you can win, say 50k for spending weekends target shooting practice it might encourage people who were curious or lapsed to get into it and then helpfully build up a base of the population whose shooting skills are honed.
Perhaps create a form of military skills triathlon where the competition is a long run, assault course and then target shoot. I loved doing them in the CCF and I’m sure there would be a lot of people who might get into it as a form of exercise that’s more interesting than a park run.
All relatively cheap but provide a foundation for a quick emergency boost.
Some interesting ideas.
One of my close professional friends is an ex-brigadier in the Army and he said that, perversely, one of the things that drives recruitment is active kinetic operations, whereas I thought the opposite would be true.
'With a reported £5bn black hole in the PM's new defence plans, 56% of Britons say military spending should be increased - but what are this group willing to support in order to do so?
Raise Additional tax rate: +43 net support Reduce welfare for out-of-work: +36 Raise Higher tax rate: +20 Reduce renewable energy spending: +15 Reduce welfare for those in low-paid work: -11 Increase government borrowing: -14 Increase Basic tax rate: -28 Remove triple lock: -32 Reduce welfare for disabilities: -33 Freeze state pension: -48 Reduce schools spending: -59 Reduce NHS spending: -66'
Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.
.................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard
No-one normal gives a flying fuck about Gaza mate.
There are certainly a lot of folk loudly proclaiming that no one gives a flying fuck about Gaza which I wouldn’t describe as standard not giving a flying fuck behaviour. Not sure how normal they are mind.
In any case Gaza played a big part in the collapse of the Labour Party vote which I imagine should affect bettors’ thinking about a possible Labour renaissance under Burnham.
Unless I hang out with a bunch of weirdos, which I don't believe I do, Gaza is an issue which engages plenty of normal type people. Although I'd say (as with most things) the level of interest fluctuates according to how much it's in the news.
Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.
.................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard
Gaza barely registers as an issue, and Burnham's entire speech in Manchester this week was entirely on domestic issues and he did not once mention Gaza
Gaza is a tragedy, but Burnham success or failure will not be about Gaza
To be accurate, what you should have said is that Gaza barely registers as a vote-determining issue with anyone like you, that is anyone who would not have given serious consideration to voting Labour before the events around Gaza kicked off in 2023. And that means that Burnham's success or failure will not be about whether people like you can be persuaded to vote for him.
Many had been giving such consideration to voting Labour, and despite what were otherwise the most favourable political circumstances Labour ended up with the support of only 34% of the electorate while support of the Greens and various left Independents more than doubled to about 8%. Gaza was instrumental in that. Since then the action or rather inaction of Starmer's government on Gaza has been one of the main reasons why Green support has risen into the teens and until recently was even polling higher than Labour on the odd occasion.
Under the Conservatives, defence spending rose from a low of 2.1% to 2.3% of GDP between 2022 and 2024 without that increase being funded at all given the much larger black hole (£22bn or has it turned out to be more?) inherited by Starmer/Reeves. So a mere £5bn hole within a plan to get it up much further to 2.7% seems light grey by comparison.
SKS has actually done Burnham a favour since Burnham can blame the inevitable tax rises that follow onto Starmer. And if anyone is thinking that you can increase the share of the economy going towards defence by nearly 30% (i.e. 2.1% to 2.7%) without impacting on disposible incomes through tax rises then they need their head examined.
I would question going further than 2.7% since Russia's military is now degraded and palpably on its knees in Ukraine which was not the case when the 3% target was set. The defence establishment is entitled to make its case but not to dictate to the rest of the country.
The one subject that seems utterly taboo to labour is cutting the enormous welfare bill !!!!!!!!
Apparently, it has to be either increasing taxes or borrowing
I would say that on something as important as this 1p or 2p on tax would be justified, but for balance reducing welfare has to be a part of it as well
They think that welfare is why they exist.
They are called the Labour party because they were formed to represent the working man.
A division is the smallest self-sustaining formation capable of conducting large-scale combined-arms operations independently, bringing together infantry, armour, artillery, engineers and logistical support under a single headquarters. It's not new. It's broadly restoring the capability and deployment the Army maintained until the post-Cold War reductions of the 1990s.
Even the US have given up on deploying divisions, hence the Brigade Combat Team.
The British Army tried to move to deployable brigades in 2010 but the tories fucked it with the SDSR. Baldy Ben made the brigade officially the smallest autonomous unit in the 2012 "Future Soldier" bollocks. The whole Army is now structured around single battalion regiments in deployable brigades. Apart from the Ranger Regiment which looks like a structure in search of a mission.
There is no universe where the British Army goes back to deployable divisions, no matter how much money is pissed away in pursuit of it.
Also to Casino's point, the DiP announced yesterday provides no funding for Challenger 3. It's quite likely that scrapping Challenger is part of the "efficiency savings" which pay for most of the 'increase' in funding.
The UK has none of the modern auxiliary equipment to support MBT deployment (transport; recovery; bridging; supporting armoured combat vehicles). Fully equipping a single regiment would likely be around £2 to £3bn, and might cost £3 -500m a year to sustain overseas. I've said before that it's unlikely the UK will ever again field an MBT regiment overseas. If they're not in place to blunt an invasion, then they are pretty useless anyway. And the future value of MBTs is in any event pretty uncertain.
If we want to contribute to European defence, far more cost effective (not least as it would also contribute directly to the defence of the UK, and give other options for overseas deployment - eg Cyprus of the Falklands) would be to increase the capabilities of the RAF, IMO.
I am arguing for a two division structure without relying on the Army Reserve, which isn't realistic. For a real serious defence strategist, read Nicholas Drummond below. I was arguing for 85-90k+ army, to account for training and wastage, and he thinks it might be possible with 83k and agreed with me.
Note that to get back to the Army of the noughties with a third division and a corps HQ, that would require an army of 112k, which we almost certainly wouldn't be willing to pay for right now, despite me personally being willing to back that too:
▶️I have modelled in some detail how the British Army ought to grow. Basically, to deliver a two division structure and make it deployable without relying on the Army Reserve, the Regular Army needs 83,000 personnel.
▶️If we want to raise a third division, it would need an additional 20,000 soldiers plus extra Corps unit headcount of 9,000 for a total size of 112,000. This was the approximate size of the Regular Army in 2010.
▶️ To make a three division structure credible, the Army would need to purchase to around £30 billion of additional equipment. This sounds huge, and it is, but, over ten years it's affordable and achievable.
▶️The problem is if we wait. We risk having to grow the Army very quickly over a 2 to 3 year period and needing to buy all the extra kit it needs as soon as possible. Which means buying what's available not what we want.
▶️This is what we did in 1937, but by that time it was too late. We had fallen too far behind. The process of re-arming proved to be very difficult and costly. We only finished paying off the debt in 2006.
▶️In the short-term, rather than growing the Army to 100,000, I would prefer to see the RN and RAF expanded. Instead, I believe the UK should reconstitute an Army of 83,000 and properly equip it.
▶️This requires an extra £3 to £4 billion per annum and around £10 billion in additional equipment spent between now and 2030.
I was thinking (in its loosest terms) about how things can be done cheaply which whilst not being directly about expensive extra kit and signing people up to the military and was considering how Germany, hamstrung by post WW1 limits on the size of the military including numbers of planes and Luftwaffe crews used clever workarounds.
The Germans made a big push to get people to take up gliding. It wasn’t prohibited by Versailles and so they stealthily trained up many men who understood the basics of flight and controlling a machine in the air etc. They also encouraged a lot of target shooting clubs and so on.
Even though we aren’t limited by rules we are currently limited by money and also the will for people to join up so thought of two potential ways to relatively cheaply build up skill sets that would be useful if the shit hit the fan.
The first is to institute a big national quarterly drone competition. We ask the Ukrainians to put together a programme based on real life drone warfare with a series of tasks, timed matters and skills test and carry out regional heats and the winners end up in a quarterly final with a prize of £500,000. If you win you aren’t allowed to enter the next two events.
The financial incentive is big and worth amateur drone enthusiasts getting really good and encouraging others to take up drone flying. By allowing people to re enter after a gap you encourage them to keep their skills up, don’t put off other potential competitors if there is someone who always smashes it. The cost is a rounding error in the defence budget and ultimately you end up with potentially thousands of people who can fly drones to a standard that would be useful in a war situation so removing an urgency on catch up as there is a latent skill set in the country.
Secondly repeat the programme with target shooting, open up military ranges to amateur shots each weekend building to regional heats and a big quarterly prize. Perhaps have divisions like in sport so as you improve you move up for a greater prize purse to avoid it being dominated by existing shooters.
Again if you can win, say 50k for spending weekends target shooting practice it might encourage people who were curious or lapsed to get into it and then helpfully build up a base of the population whose shooting skills are honed.
Perhaps create a form of military skills triathlon where the competition is a long run, assault course and then target shoot. I loved doing them in the CCF and I’m sure there would be a lot of people who might get into it as a form of exercise that’s more interesting than a park run.
All relatively cheap but provide a foundation for a quick emergency boost.
If you're going to encourage drones then look at the building side as well - small drones are the ultimate dispersal construction project that can be done at the dining table after tea. Perhaps encourage it via offering it as a GCSE/A Level DT specialism.
Reform now lead with white votes, Labour with black British voters, the Tories with British Indian voters and the Greens with Pakistan/Bangladeshi Brits
Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.
.................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard
Gaza barely registers as an issue, and Burnham's entire speech in Manchester this week was entirely on domestic issues and he did not once mention Gaza
Gaza is a tragedy, but Burnham success or failure will not be about Gaza
To be accurate, what you should have said is that Gaza barely registers as a vote-determining issue with anyone like you, that is anyone who would not have given serious consideration to voting Labour before the events around Gaza kicked off in 2023. And that means that Burnham's success or failure will not be about whether people like you can be persuaded to vote for him.
Many had been giving such consideration to voting Labour, and despite what were otherwise the most favourable political circumstances Labour ended up with the support of only 34% of the electorate while support of the Greens and various left Independents more than doubled to about 8%. Gaza was instrumental in that. Since then the action or rather inaction of Starmer's government on Gaza has been one of the main reasons why Green support has risen into the teens and until recently was even polling higher than Labour on the odd occasion.
But, you've got to be real wanker to let Gaza determine your vote in a British election, which is about this country and its citizens and interests.
It's like me deciding who to vote for as PM based on the really bad traffic policy in Ulaanbaatar.
Reform now lead with white votes, Labour with black British voters, the Tories with British Indian voters and the Greens with Pakistan/Bangladeshi Brits
'With a reported £5bn black hole in the PM's new defence plans, 56% of Britons say military spending should be increased - but what are this group willing to support in order to do so?
Raise Additional tax rate: +43 net support Reduce welfare for out-of-work: +36 Raise Higher tax rate: +20 Reduce renewable energy spending: +15 Reduce welfare for those in low-paid work: -11 Increase government borrowing: -14 Increase Basic tax rate: -28 Remove triple lock: -32 Reduce welfare for disabilities: -33 Freeze state pension: -48 Reduce schools spending: -59 Reduce NHS spending: -66'
So in the eyes of the electorate cutting welfare spending that goes to pensioners, those with disabilities and those in low paid work is pretty well a no no. That must be in the ball park of 90%+ of the welfare budget that Badenoch seems to imagine is such an easy hit.
A division is the smallest self-sustaining formation capable of conducting large-scale combined-arms operations independently, bringing together infantry, armour, artillery, engineers and logistical support under a single headquarters. It's not new. It's broadly restoring the capability and deployment the Army maintained until the post-Cold War reductions of the 1990s.
Even the US have given up on deploying divisions, hence the Brigade Combat Team.
The British Army tried to move to deployable brigades in 2010 but the tories fucked it with the SDSR. Baldy Ben made the brigade officially the smallest autonomous unit in the 2012 "Future Soldier" bollocks. The whole Army is now structured around single battalion regiments in deployable brigades. Apart from the Ranger Regiment which looks like a structure in search of a mission.
There is no universe where the British Army goes back to deployable divisions, no matter how much money is pissed away in pursuit of it.
Also to Casino's point, the DiP announced yesterday provides no funding for Challenger 3. It's quite likely that scrapping Challenger is part of the "efficiency savings" which pay for most of the 'increase' in funding.
The UK has none of the modern auxiliary equipment to support MBT deployment (transport; recovery; bridging; supporting armoured combat vehicles). Fully equipping a single regiment would likely be around £2 to £3bn, and might cost £3 -500m a year to sustain overseas. I've said before that it's unlikely the UK will ever again field an MBT regiment overseas. If they're not in place to blunt an invasion, then they are pretty useless anyway. And the future value of MBTs is in any event pretty uncertain.
If we want to contribute to European defence, far more cost effective (not least as it would also contribute directly to the defence of the UK, and give other options for overseas deployment - eg Cyprus of the Falklands) would be to increase the capabilities of the RAF, IMO.
I am arguing for a two division structure without relying on the Army Reserve, which isn't realistic. For a real serious defence strategist, read Nicholas Drummond below. I was arguing for 85-90k+ army, to account for training and wastage, and he thinks it might be possible with 83k and agreed with me.
Note that to get back to the Army of the noughties with a third division and a corps HQ, that would require an army of 112k, which we almost certainly wouldn't be willing to pay for right now, despite me personally being willing to back that too:
▶️I have modelled in some detail how the British Army ought to grow. Basically, to deliver a two division structure and make it deployable without relying on the Army Reserve, the Regular Army needs 83,000 personnel.
▶️If we want to raise a third division, it would need an additional 20,000 soldiers plus extra Corps unit headcount of 9,000 for a total size of 112,000. This was the approximate size of the Regular Army in 2010.
▶️ To make a three division structure credible, the Army would need to purchase to around £30 billion of additional equipment. This sounds huge, and it is, but, over ten years it's affordable and achievable.
▶️The problem is if we wait. We risk having to grow the Army very quickly over a 2 to 3 year period and needing to buy all the extra kit it needs as soon as possible. Which means buying what's available not what we want.
▶️This is what we did in 1937, but by that time it was too late. We had fallen too far behind. The process of re-arming proved to be very difficult and costly. We only finished paying off the debt in 2006.
▶️In the short-term, rather than growing the Army to 100,000, I would prefer to see the RN and RAF expanded. Instead, I believe the UK should reconstitute an Army of 83,000 and properly equip it.
▶️This requires an extra £3 to £4 billion per annum and around £10 billion in additional equipment spent between now and 2030.
I was thinking (in its loosest terms) about how things can be done cheaply which whilst not being directly about expensive extra kit and signing people up to the military and was considering how Germany, hamstrung by post WW1 limits on the size of the military including numbers of planes and Luftwaffe crews used clever workarounds.
The Germans made a big push to get people to take up gliding. It wasn’t prohibited by Versailles and so they stealthily trained up many men who understood the basics of flight and controlling a machine in the air etc. They also encouraged a lot of target shooting clubs and so on.
Even though we aren’t limited by rules we are currently limited by money and also the will for people to join up so thought of two potential ways to relatively cheaply build up skill sets that would be useful if the shit hit the fan.
The first is to institute a big national quarterly drone competition. We ask the Ukrainians to put together a programme based on real life drone warfare with a series of tasks, timed matters and skills test and carry out regional heats and the winners end up in a quarterly final with a prize of £500,000. If you win you aren’t allowed to enter the next two events.
The financial incentive is big and worth amateur drone enthusiasts getting really good and encouraging others to take up drone flying. By allowing people to re enter after a gap you encourage them to keep their skills up, don’t put off other potential competitors if there is someone who always smashes it. The cost is a rounding error in the defence budget and ultimately you end up with potentially thousands of people who can fly drones to a standard that would be useful in a war situation so removing an urgency on catch up as there is a latent skill set in the country.
Secondly repeat the programme with target shooting, open up military ranges to amateur shots each weekend building to regional heats and a big quarterly prize. Perhaps have divisions like in sport so as you improve you move up for a greater prize purse to avoid it being dominated by existing shooters.
Again if you can win, say 50k for spending weekends target shooting practice it might encourage people who were curious or lapsed to get into it and then helpfully build up a base of the population whose shooting skills are honed.
Perhaps create a form of military skills triathlon where the competition is a long run, assault course and then target shoot. I loved doing them in the CCF and I’m sure there would be a lot of people who might get into it as a form of exercise that’s more interesting than a park run.
All relatively cheap but provide a foundation for a quick emergency boost.
If you're going to encourage drones then look at the building side as well - small drones are the ultimate dispersal construction project that can be done at the dining table after tea. Perhaps encourage it via offering it as a GCSE/A Level DT specialism.
Richard Haldane has entered the chat…
Encouraging firearm ownership and usage won’t sit well with many Labour MPs, members and probably voters.
Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.
.................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard
Gaza barely registers as an issue, and Burnham's entire speech in Manchester this week was entirely on domestic issues and he did not once mention Gaza
Gaza is a tragedy, but Burnham success or failure will not be about Gaza
To be accurate, what you should have said is that Gaza barely registers as a vote-determining issue with anyone like you, that is anyone who would not have given serious consideration to voting Labour before the events around Gaza kicked off in 2023. And that means that Burnham's success or failure will not be about whether people like you can be persuaded to vote for him.
Many had been giving such consideration to voting Labour, and despite what were otherwise the most favourable political circumstances Labour ended up with the support of only 34% of the electorate while support of the Greens and various left Independents more than doubled to about 8%. Gaza was instrumental in that. Since then the action or rather inaction of Starmer's government on Gaza has been one of the main reasons why Green support has risen into the teens and until recently was even polling higher than Labour on the odd occasion.
But, you've got to be real wanker to let Gaza determine your vote in a British election, which is about this country and its citizens and interests.
It's like me deciding who to vote for as PM based on the really bad traffic policy in Ulaanbaatar.
Oh right, you think that those that disagree with you are wankers? Maybe you should look in a mirror.
Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.
.................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard
Gaza barely registers as an issue, and Burnham's entire speech in Manchester this week was entirely on domestic issues and he did not once mention Gaza
Gaza is a tragedy, but Burnham success or failure will not be about Gaza
To be accurate, what you should have said is that Gaza barely registers as a vote-determining issue with anyone like you, that is anyone who would not have given serious consideration to voting Labour before the events around Gaza kicked off in 2023. And that means that Burnham's success or failure will not be about whether people like you can be persuaded to vote for him.
Many had been giving such consideration to voting Labour, and despite what were otherwise the most favourable political circumstances Labour ended up with the support of only 34% of the electorate while support of the Greens and various left Independents more than doubled to about 8%. Gaza was instrumental in that. Since then the action or rather inaction of Starmer's government on Gaza has been one of the main reasons why Green support has risen into the teens and until recently was even polling higher than Labour on the odd occasion.
But, you've got to be real wanker to let Gaza determine your vote in a British election, which is about this country and its citizens and interests.
It's like me deciding who to vote for as PM based on the really bad traffic policy in Ulaanbaatar.
Oh right, you think that those that disagree with you are wankers? Maybe you should look in a mirror.
'With a reported £5bn black hole in the PM's new defence plans, 56% of Britons say military spending should be increased - but what are this group willing to support in order to do so?
Raise Additional tax rate: +43 net support Reduce welfare for out-of-work: +36 Raise Higher tax rate: +20 Reduce renewable energy spending: +15 Reduce welfare for those in low-paid work: -11 Increase government borrowing: -14 Increase Basic tax rate: -28 Remove triple lock: -32 Reduce welfare for disabilities: -33 Freeze state pension: -48 Reduce schools spending: -59 Reduce NHS spending: -66'
Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.
.................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard
Gaza barely registers as an issue, and Burnham's entire speech in Manchester this week was entirely on domestic issues and he did not once mention Gaza
Gaza is a tragedy, but Burnham success or failure will not be about Gaza
To be accurate, what you should have said is that Gaza barely registers as a vote-determining issue with anyone like you, that is anyone who would not have given serious consideration to voting Labour before the events around Gaza kicked off in 2023. And that means that Burnham's success or failure will not be about whether people like you can be persuaded to vote for him.
Many had been giving such consideration to voting Labour, and despite what were otherwise the most favourable political circumstances Labour ended up with the support of only 34% of the electorate while support of the Greens and various left Independents more than doubled to about 8%. Gaza was instrumental in that. Since then the action or rather inaction of Starmer's government on Gaza has been one of the main reasons why Green support has risen into the teens and until recently was even polling higher than Labour on the odd occasion.
But, you've got to be real wanker to let Gaza determine your vote in a British election, which is about this country and its citizens and interests.
It's like me deciding who to vote for as PM based on the really bad traffic policy in Ulaanbaatar.
Oh right, you think that those that disagree with you are wankers? Maybe you should look in a mirror.
You attacked me here for voting Labour when Corbyn was in charge.
Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.
.................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard
No-one normal gives a flying fuck about Gaza mate.
There are certainly a lot of folk loudly proclaiming that no one gives a flying fuck about Gaza which I wouldn’t describe as standard not giving a flying fuck behaviour. Not sure how normal they are mind.
In any case Gaza played a big part in the collapse of the Labour Party vote which I imagine should affect bettors’ thinking about a possible Labour renaissance under Burnham.
Unless I hang out with a bunch of weirdos, which I don't believe I do, Gaza is an issue which engages plenty of normal type people. Although I'd say (as with most things) the level of interest fluctuates according to how much it's in the news.
Well judging from their posts here, Casino and Taz must think you're a wanker too. Wear it as a badge of honour.
Its like some crap tribute act to the Gordon Brown era.
Will Ed Balls be offered a job as well ?
Is the Labour party admitting its not elected anyone talented from 2010 onwards ?
And is this new Manchester economy anything more than the ultimate expression of the Gordon Brown economy - people renting foreign owned flats with massive debts all round.
You've not been to Manchester this century have you?
R4 More or Less Stats up to 2023 (latest info apparently). Productivity growth 2019-2023 supposedly 14% but a lot of it is down to errors or reporting changes in the ONS stats gathering over that period, real wages rose by 1% in same period. Changes from stats to "feel" after that, conclusion is that there "Manchesterism" is real but not as successful as claimed and that the root causes predate Burnham.
So big, shiny buildings, more inequality and its football club changed from being perennial losers by Arab money.
Anything else ?
Construction of dense residential /commercial neighbourhoods is a much more reliable indicator of economic growth than plastering motorways everywhere. Indeed there is a strong negative correlation with the latter.
You can’t really avoid the fact it’s dense, compact cities like London, Edinburgh etc that generate most of the economic output in the UK, and the most potential lies with other cities like Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool which fall far behind their German/Dutch/French equivalents.
'With a reported £5bn black hole in the PM's new defence plans, 56% of Britons say military spending should be increased - but what are this group willing to support in order to do so?
Raise Additional tax rate: +43 net support Reduce welfare for out-of-work: +36 Raise Higher tax rate: +20 Reduce renewable energy spending: +15 Reduce welfare for those in low-paid work: -11 Increase government borrowing: -14 Increase Basic tax rate: -28 Remove triple lock: -32 Reduce welfare for disabilities: -33 Freeze state pension: -48 Reduce schools spending: -59 Reduce NHS spending: -66'
So in the eyes of the electorate cutting welfare spending that goes to pensioners, those with disabilities and those in low paid work is pretty well a no no. That must be in the ball park of 90%+ of the welfare budget that Badenoch seems to imagine is such an easy hit.
It's an easy hit if you have backbenchers willing to vote for it.
It'd plug the black hole in the Defence budget straight away.
Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.
.................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard
No-one normal gives a flying fuck about Gaza mate.
There are certainly a lot of folk loudly proclaiming that no one gives a flying fuck about Gaza which I wouldn’t describe as standard not giving a flying fuck behaviour. Not sure how normal they are mind.
In any case Gaza played a big part in the collapse of the Labour Party vote which I imagine should affect bettors’ thinking about a possible Labour renaissance under Burnham.
Unless I hang out with a bunch of weirdos, which I don't believe I do, Gaza is an issue which engages plenty of normal type people. Although I'd say (as with most things) the level of interest fluctuates according to how much it's in the news.
A division is the smallest self-sustaining formation capable of conducting large-scale combined-arms operations independently, bringing together infantry, armour, artillery, engineers and logistical support under a single headquarters. It's not new. It's broadly restoring the capability and deployment the Army maintained until the post-Cold War reductions of the 1990s.
Even the US have given up on deploying divisions, hence the Brigade Combat Team.
The British Army tried to move to deployable brigades in 2010 but the tories fucked it with the SDSR. Baldy Ben made the brigade officially the smallest autonomous unit in the 2012 "Future Soldier" bollocks. The whole Army is now structured around single battalion regiments in deployable brigades. Apart from the Ranger Regiment which looks like a structure in search of a mission.
There is no universe where the British Army goes back to deployable divisions, no matter how much money is pissed away in pursuit of it.
Also to Casino's point, the DiP announced yesterday provides no funding for Challenger 3. It's quite likely that scrapping Challenger is part of the "efficiency savings" which pay for most of the 'increase' in funding.
The UK has none of the modern auxiliary equipment to support MBT deployment (transport; recovery; bridging; supporting armoured combat vehicles). Fully equipping a single regiment would likely be around £2 to £3bn, and might cost £3 -500m a year to sustain overseas. I've said before that it's unlikely the UK will ever again field an MBT regiment overseas. If they're not in place to blunt an invasion, then they are pretty useless anyway. And the future value of MBTs is in any event pretty uncertain.
If we want to contribute to European defence, far more cost effective (not least as it would also contribute directly to the defence of the UK, and give other options for overseas deployment - eg Cyprus of the Falklands) would be to increase the capabilities of the RAF, IMO.
I am arguing for a two division structure without relying on the Army Reserve, which isn't realistic. For a real serious defence strategist, read Nicholas Drummond below. I was arguing for 85-90k+ army, to account for training and wastage, and he thinks it might be possible with 83k and agreed with me.
Note that to get back to the Army of the noughties with a third division and a corps HQ, that would require an army of 112k, which we almost certainly wouldn't be willing to pay for right now, despite me personally being willing to back that too:
▶️I have modelled in some detail how the British Army ought to grow. Basically, to deliver a two division structure and make it deployable without relying on the Army Reserve, the Regular Army needs 83,000 personnel.
▶️If we want to raise a third division, it would need an additional 20,000 soldiers plus extra Corps unit headcount of 9,000 for a total size of 112,000. This was the approximate size of the Regular Army in 2010.
▶️ To make a three division structure credible, the Army would need to purchase to around £30 billion of additional equipment. This sounds huge, and it is, but, over ten years it's affordable and achievable.
▶️The problem is if we wait. We risk having to grow the Army very quickly over a 2 to 3 year period and needing to buy all the extra kit it needs as soon as possible. Which means buying what's available not what we want.
▶️This is what we did in 1937, but by that time it was too late. We had fallen too far behind. The process of re-arming proved to be very difficult and costly. We only finished paying off the debt in 2006.
▶️In the short-term, rather than growing the Army to 100,000, I would prefer to see the RN and RAF expanded. Instead, I believe the UK should reconstitute an Army of 83,000 and properly equip it.
▶️This requires an extra £3 to £4 billion per annum and around £10 billion in additional equipment spent between now and 2030.
Yes, that's a fantasy, which isn't going to happen. What in any event would be the purpose of this army ?
The purpose is very clear: defending ourselves and Europe. I shouldn't even need to make the point and you shouldn't even need to ask the question.
This was entirely uncontroversial point up until 2010, when threats were far fewer than today.
It is now controversial, since the utility of an MBT on today's battlefield is severely constrained - at the same time as the systems themselves have become much more expensive. Worse, existing designs (and particularly reheated old designs, like Challenger 3) are quite likely sub-optimal for likely future conflicts, as this RUSI article argues.
Principles of Modern Tank Design https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03071847.2026.2638134#d1e332 ..This article only attempts to establish a few base principles of future tank design. Tanks designed without reference to the realities of current warfare are doomed to be more wasteful and less effective than their contemporaries. The sketches of breakthrough and medium tanks presented above are not meant to be prescriptive. Rather, they are examples of the application of a principled design process. Space prevents discussion of many other relevant concerns – ranging from issues of logistics and sustainment to the relative merits of uninhabited turrets, articulated chassis, four-man crews, electric drives and electrochemical guns..
If you're a NATO frontline state, then buying Leopards (or S Korean K2s) makes sense as an insurance policy, but even then, fielding tank regiments means many billions not spent elsewhere on military capacity.
For the UK to do so, at the costs of not spending on either navy or airforce, both of which are of far more relevance to our own defence, as well as providing significant capability for that of Europe, is just a waste of resources, IMO. And we've already shown, with the problems in both Ajax and Challenger 3 procurement, that we've no real idea of what we're doing anyway.
Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.
.................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard
No-one normal gives a flying fuck about Gaza mate.
There are certainly a lot of folk loudly proclaiming that no one gives a flying fuck about Gaza which I wouldn’t describe as standard not giving a flying fuck behaviour. Not sure how normal they are mind.
In any case Gaza played a big part in the collapse of the Labour Party vote which I imagine should affect bettors’ thinking about a possible Labour renaissance under Burnham.
Unless I hang out with a bunch of weirdos, which I don't believe I do, Gaza is an issue which engages plenty of normal type people. Although I'd say (as with most things) the level of interest fluctuates according to how much it's in the news.
Well judging from their posts here, Casino and Taz must think you're a wanker too. Wear it as a badge of honour.
GFY assuming my views.
I’m rather fond of Kinabalu. IDGAF about Gaza, but if Kinabalu does fine.
'With a reported £5bn black hole in the PM's new defence plans, 56% of Britons say military spending should be increased - but what are this group willing to support in order to do so?
Raise Additional tax rate: +43 net support Reduce welfare for out-of-work: +36 Raise Higher tax rate: +20 Reduce renewable energy spending: +15 Reduce welfare for those in low-paid work: -11 Increase government borrowing: -14 Increase Basic tax rate: -28 Remove triple lock: -32 Reduce welfare for disabilities: -33 Freeze state pension: -48 Reduce schools spending: -59 Reduce NHS spending: -66'
So in the eyes of the electorate cutting welfare spending that goes to pensioners, those with disabilities and those in low paid work is pretty well a no no. That must be in the ball park of 90%+ of the welfare budget that Badenoch seems to imagine is such an easy hit.
Did they have a column for 'stop pissing defence money up the wall'?
Its like some crap tribute act to the Gordon Brown era.
Will Ed Balls be offered a job as well ?
Is the Labour party admitting its not elected anyone talented from 2010 onwards ?
And is this new Manchester economy anything more than the ultimate expression of the Gordon Brown economy - people renting foreign owned flats with massive debts all round.
You've not been to Manchester this century have you?
R4 More or Less Stats up to 2023 (latest info apparently). Productivity growth 2019-2023 supposedly 14% but a lot of it is down to errors or reporting changes in the ONS stats gathering over that period, real wages rose by 1% in same period. Changes from stats to "feel" after that, conclusion is that there "Manchesterism" is real but not as successful as claimed and that the root causes predate Burnham.
So big, shiny buildings, more inequality and its football club changed from being perennial losers by Arab money.
Anything else ?
Construction of dense residential /commercial neighbourhoods is a much more reliable indicator of economic growth than plastering motorways everywhere. Indeed there is a strong negative correlation with the latter.
You can’t really avoid the fact it’s dense, compact cities like London, Edinburgh etc that generate most of the economic output in the UK, and the most potential lies with other cities like Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool which fall far behind their German/Dutch/French equivalents.
Lots of motorways in Greater Manchester.
Anyway who's calling for more motorways ?
But we keep coming back to people renting flats in big, shiny buildings, often foreign owned, with the poor decanted to banlieues on the outskirts.
House price growth uber alles whereas in South Korea and Taiwan their big shiny buildings are for hi tech manufacturing.
"who's calling for more motorways?"
Me, across the western side of the West Midlands conurbation. Or not even a motorway, just a single lane fast A road to by pass the bottlenecks linking to the M5. We seem to be the forgotten part of the UK in terms of major road construction.
It's a ridiculous situation where a 150 mile journey from Wolverhampton to Exeter takes about 3 hours 30 minutes but with the first 15 miles down the gridlocked A4123 to the M5 J2 taking 40 minutes even on a moderately good day. The absence of by-passes around Kidderminster and Wall Heath (Dudley) make the A449 alternative to J6 no quicker even using rat runs down suburban streets and single lane rural roads.
35 or so years ago the problem was recognised but a proposal for a Western Orbital Route was knocked on the head. But since then there have been no relevant changes to the road network here even on a much reduced scale while the traffic volumes have increased massively.
PS. Meanwhile going east or north from here instead of south we're the only part of the UK where you have to pay tolls to use a motorway.
A real one Glasgow to Edinburgh would be nice and dual carriageway on A9 please.
Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.
.................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard
No-one normal gives a flying fuck about Gaza mate.
There are certainly a lot of folk loudly proclaiming that no one gives a flying fuck about Gaza which I wouldn’t describe as standard not giving a flying fuck behaviour. Not sure how normal they are mind.
In any case Gaza played a big part in the collapse of the Labour Party vote which I imagine should affect bettors’ thinking about a possible Labour renaissance under Burnham.
Unless I hang out with a bunch of weirdos, which I don't believe I do, Gaza is an issue which engages plenty of normal type people. Although I'd say (as with most things) the level of interest fluctuates according to how much it's in the news.
Well judging from their posts here, Casino and Taz must think you're a wanker too. Wear it as a badge of honour.
A division is the smallest self-sustaining formation capable of conducting large-scale combined-arms operations independently, bringing together infantry, armour, artillery, engineers and logistical support under a single headquarters. It's not new. It's broadly restoring the capability and deployment the Army maintained until the post-Cold War reductions of the 1990s.
Even the US have given up on deploying divisions, hence the Brigade Combat Team.
The British Army tried to move to deployable brigades in 2010 but the tories fucked it with the SDSR. Baldy Ben made the brigade officially the smallest autonomous unit in the 2012 "Future Soldier" bollocks. The whole Army is now structured around single battalion regiments in deployable brigades. Apart from the Ranger Regiment which looks like a structure in search of a mission.
There is no universe where the British Army goes back to deployable divisions, no matter how much money is pissed away in pursuit of it.
Also to Casino's point, the DiP announced yesterday provides no funding for Challenger 3. It's quite likely that scrapping Challenger is part of the "efficiency savings" which pay for most of the 'increase' in funding.
The UK has none of the modern auxiliary equipment to support MBT deployment (transport; recovery; bridging; supporting armoured combat vehicles). Fully equipping a single regiment would likely be around £2 to £3bn, and might cost £3 -500m a year to sustain overseas. I've said before that it's unlikely the UK will ever again field an MBT regiment overseas. If they're not in place to blunt an invasion, then they are pretty useless anyway. And the future value of MBTs is in any event pretty uncertain.
If we want to contribute to European defence, far more cost effective (not least as it would also contribute directly to the defence of the UK, and give other options for overseas deployment - eg Cyprus of the Falklands) would be to increase the capabilities of the RAF, IMO.
I am arguing for a two division structure without relying on the Army Reserve, which isn't realistic. For a real serious defence strategist, read Nicholas Drummond below. I was arguing for 85-90k+ army, to account for training and wastage, and he thinks it might be possible with 83k and agreed with me.
Note that to get back to the Army of the noughties with a third division and a corps HQ, that would require an army of 112k, which we almost certainly wouldn't be willing to pay for right now, despite me personally being willing to back that too:
▶️I have modelled in some detail how the British Army ought to grow. Basically, to deliver a two division structure and make it deployable without relying on the Army Reserve, the Regular Army needs 83,000 personnel.
▶️If we want to raise a third division, it would need an additional 20,000 soldiers plus extra Corps unit headcount of 9,000 for a total size of 112,000. This was the approximate size of the Regular Army in 2010.
▶️ To make a three division structure credible, the Army would need to purchase to around £30 billion of additional equipment. This sounds huge, and it is, but, over ten years it's affordable and achievable.
▶️The problem is if we wait. We risk having to grow the Army very quickly over a 2 to 3 year period and needing to buy all the extra kit it needs as soon as possible. Which means buying what's available not what we want.
▶️This is what we did in 1937, but by that time it was too late. We had fallen too far behind. The process of re-arming proved to be very difficult and costly. We only finished paying off the debt in 2006.
▶️In the short-term, rather than growing the Army to 100,000, I would prefer to see the RN and RAF expanded. Instead, I believe the UK should reconstitute an Army of 83,000 and properly equip it.
▶️This requires an extra £3 to £4 billion per annum and around £10 billion in additional equipment spent between now and 2030.
I was thinking (in its loosest terms) about how things can be done cheaply which whilst not being directly about expensive extra kit and signing people up to the military and was considering how Germany, hamstrung by post WW1 limits on the size of the military including numbers of planes and Luftwaffe crews used clever workarounds.
The Germans made a big push to get people to take up gliding. It wasn’t prohibited by Versailles and so they stealthily trained up many men who understood the basics of flight and controlling a machine in the air etc. They also encouraged a lot of target shooting clubs and so on.
Even though we aren’t limited by rules we are currently limited by money and also the will for people to join up so thought of two potential ways to relatively cheaply build up skill sets that would be useful if the shit hit the fan.
The first is to institute a big national quarterly drone competition. We ask the Ukrainians to put together a programme based on real life drone warfare with a series of tasks, timed matters and skills test and carry out regional heats and the winners end up in a quarterly final with a prize of £500,000. If you win you aren’t allowed to enter the next two events.
The financial incentive is big and worth amateur drone enthusiasts getting really good and encouraging others to take up drone flying. By allowing people to re enter after a gap you encourage them to keep their skills up, don’t put off other potential competitors if there is someone who always smashes it. The cost is a rounding error in the defence budget and ultimately you end up with potentially thousands of people who can fly drones to a standard that would be useful in a war situation so removing an urgency on catch up as there is a latent skill set in the country.
Secondly repeat the programme with target shooting, open up military ranges to amateur shots each weekend building to regional heats and a big quarterly prize. Perhaps have divisions like in sport so as you improve you move up for a greater prize purse to avoid it being dominated by existing shooters.
Again if you can win, say 50k for spending weekends target shooting practice it might encourage people who were curious or lapsed to get into it and then helpfully build up a base of the population whose shooting skills are honed.
Perhaps create a form of military skills triathlon where the competition is a long run, assault course and then target shoot. I loved doing them in the CCF and I’m sure there would be a lot of people who might get into it as a form of exercise that’s more interesting than a park run.
All relatively cheap but provide a foundation for a quick emergency boost.
If you're going to encourage drones then look at the building side as well - small drones are the ultimate dispersal construction project that can be done at the dining table after tea. Perhaps encourage it via offering it as a GCSE/A Level DT specialism.
Richard Haldane has entered the chat…
Encouraging firearm ownership and usage won’t sit well with many Labour MPs, members and probably voters.
Its like some crap tribute act to the Gordon Brown era.
Will Ed Balls be offered a job as well ?
Is the Labour party admitting its not elected anyone talented from 2010 onwards ?
And is this new Manchester economy anything more than the ultimate expression of the Gordon Brown economy - people renting foreign owned flats with massive debts all round.
You've not been to Manchester this century have you?
R4 More or Less Stats up to 2023 (latest info apparently). Productivity growth 2019-2023 supposedly 14% but a lot of it is down to errors or reporting changes in the ONS stats gathering over that period, real wages rose by 1% in same period. Changes from stats to "feel" after that, conclusion is that there "Manchesterism" is real but not as successful as claimed and that the root causes predate Burnham.
So big, shiny buildings, more inequality and its football club changed from being perennial losers by Arab money.
Anything else ?
Construction of dense residential /commercial neighbourhoods is a much more reliable indicator of economic growth than plastering motorways everywhere. Indeed there is a strong negative correlation with the latter.
You can’t really avoid the fact it’s dense, compact cities like London, Edinburgh etc that generate most of the economic output in the UK, and the most potential lies with other cities like Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool which fall far behind their German/Dutch/French equivalents.
Lots of motorways in Greater Manchester.
Anyway who's calling for more motorways ?
But we keep coming back to people renting flats in big, shiny buildings, often foreign owned, with the poor decanted to banlieues on the outskirts.
House price growth uber alles whereas in South Korea and Taiwan their big shiny buildings are for hi tech manufacturing.
"who's calling for more motorways?"
Me, across the western side of the West Midlands conurbation. Or not even a motorway, just a single lane fast A road to by pass the bottlenecks linking to the M5. We seem to be the forgotten part of the UK in terms of major road construction.
It's a ridiculous situation where a 150 mile journey from Wolverhampton to Exeter takes about 3 hours 30 minutes but with the first 15 miles down the gridlocked A4123 to the M5 J2 taking 40 minutes even on a moderately good day. The absence of by-passes around Kidderminster and Wall Heath (Dudley) make the A449 alternative to J6 no quicker even using rat runs down suburban streets and single lane rural roads.
35 or so years ago the problem was recognised but a proposal for a Western Orbital Route was knocked on the head. But since then there have been no relevant changes to the road network here even on a much reduced scale while the traffic volumes have increased massively.
PS. Meanwhile going east or north from here instead of south we're the only part of the UK where you have to pay tolls to use a motorway.
A real one Glasgow to Edinburgh would be nice and dual carriageway on A9 please.
Dual the A303 by Stonehenge. I hate Starmer and Reeves for cancelling this after all the money that had been spent.
Parts of England Motorway pain/provision from best to worst. Top:
NW - Tonnes of motorways, absolutely flying to where you're going. East Mids - Both M1 and A1(Sometimes M) run through. I live here, and it's not too bad tbh. Yorks and Humber - Mostly fine, M1 & A1 do the job. Thank God the Darrington works have finished. East - Not too many motorways but like the SW does it really need them. Nothing like the bottleneck of Bristol either. West Mids - Lots of Motorways but somehow not quite enough. Forever roadworks, M42 ... ugh. HS2 has caused eternal roadworks here SW - M5 bottleneck. High chance of getting stuck nr Avonmouth to access most of the SW. Not sure about M4. SE/London - Plenty of Motorway but the obviously high pop density around London made this feel fucking awful last time I was down on the M25 (Something I don't wish to repeat too often). How many people are driving round London on a bloody Sunday night ?!? Doesn't happen elsewhere tbh. Great provision (Neccessarily) but there's a reason everyone gets the train here lol. NE - Forgotten child A1 needs dualling, enough said.
Reform now lead with white votes, Labour with black British voters, the Tories with British Indian voters and the Greens with Pakistan/Bangladeshi Brits
Labour's position in the polls is being flattered by the Tories and Lib Dems underperforming among voters with higher incomes.
HYUFD has left out educational attainment which Yougov also had positively correlating with voting Labour at the GE* *Not sure how accurate these correlations are...
Its like some crap tribute act to the Gordon Brown era.
Will Ed Balls be offered a job as well ?
Is the Labour party admitting its not elected anyone talented from 2010 onwards ?
And is this new Manchester economy anything more than the ultimate expression of the Gordon Brown economy - people renting foreign owned flats with massive debts all round.
You've not been to Manchester this century have you?
R4 More or Less Stats up to 2023 (latest info apparently). Productivity growth 2019-2023 supposedly 14% but a lot of it is down to errors or reporting changes in the ONS stats gathering over that period, real wages rose by 1% in same period. Changes from stats to "feel" after that, conclusion is that there "Manchesterism" is real but not as successful as claimed and that the root causes predate Burnham.
So big, shiny buildings, more inequality and its football club changed from being perennial losers by Arab money.
Anything else ?
Construction of dense residential /commercial neighbourhoods is a much more reliable indicator of economic growth than plastering motorways everywhere. Indeed there is a strong negative correlation with the latter.
You can’t really avoid the fact it’s dense, compact cities like London, Edinburgh etc that generate most of the economic output in the UK, and the most potential lies with other cities like Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool which fall far behind their German/Dutch/French equivalents.
Lots of motorways in Greater Manchester.
Anyway who's calling for more motorways ?
But we keep coming back to people renting flats in big, shiny buildings, often foreign owned, with the poor decanted to banlieues on the outskirts.
House price growth uber alles whereas in South Korea and Taiwan their big shiny buildings are for hi tech manufacturing.
"who's calling for more motorways?"
Me, across the western side of the West Midlands conurbation. Or not even a motorway, just a single lane fast A road to by pass the bottlenecks linking to the M5. We seem to be the forgotten part of the UK in terms of major road construction.
It's a ridiculous situation where a 150 mile journey from Wolverhampton to Exeter takes about 3 hours 30 minutes but with the first 15 miles down the gridlocked A4123 to the M5 J2 taking 40 minutes even on a moderately good day. The absence of by-passes around Kidderminster and Wall Heath (Dudley) make the A449 alternative to J6 no quicker even using rat runs down suburban streets and single lane rural roads.
35 or so years ago the problem was recognised but a proposal for a Western Orbital Route was knocked on the head. But since then there have been no relevant changes to the road network here even on a much reduced scale while the traffic volumes have increased massively.
PS. Meanwhile going east or north from here instead of south we're the only part of the UK where you have to pay tolls to use a motorway.
A real one Glasgow to Edinburgh would be nice and dual carriageway on A9 please.
Dual the A303 by Stonehenge. I hate Starmer and Reeves for cancelling this after all the money that had been spent.
I never understood why they couldn't just build a tunnel at ground level and then gently cover it. Like a reverse ha-ha.
Under the Conservatives, defence spending rose from a low of 2.1% to 2.3% of GDP between 2022 and 2024 without that increase being funded at all given the much larger black hole (£22bn or has it turned out to be more?) inherited by Starmer/Reeves. So a mere £5bn hole within a plan to get it up much further to 2.7% seems light grey by comparison.
SKS has actually done Burnham a favour since Burnham can blame the inevitable tax rises that follow onto Starmer. And if anyone is thinking that you can increase the share of the economy going towards defence by nearly 30% (i.e. 2.1% to 2.7%) without impacting on disposible incomes through tax rises then they need their head examined.
I would question going further than 2.7% since Russia's military is now degraded and palpably on its knees in Ukraine which was not the case when the 3% target was set. The defence establishment is entitled to make its case but not to dictate to the rest of the country.
The one subject that seems utterly taboo to labour is cutting the enormous welfare bill !!!!!!!!
Apparently, it has to be either increasing taxes or borrowing
I would say that on something as important as this 1p or 2p on tax would be justified, but for balance reducing welfare has to be a part of it as well
They think that welfare is why they exist.
They are called the Labour party because they were formed to represent the working man.
Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.
.................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard
No-one normal gives a flying fuck about Gaza mate.
There are certainly a lot of folk loudly proclaiming that no one gives a flying fuck about Gaza which I wouldn’t describe as standard not giving a flying fuck behaviour. Not sure how normal they are mind.
In any case Gaza played a big part in the collapse of the Labour Party vote which I imagine should affect bettors’ thinking about a possible Labour renaissance under Burnham.
Unless I hang out with a bunch of weirdos, which I don't believe I do, Gaza is an issue which engages plenty of normal type people. Although I'd say (as with most things) the level of interest fluctuates according to how much it's in the news.
To adapt Eliot’s phrase, humankind cannot bear too much reality and loses interest quickly when it’s someone else’s reality. At a basic level I imagine most folk would prefer their governments not to be complicit with the wrong side of those realities. Too much reality currently includes Sudan, Ukraine, Iran and Venezuela. Pretty sure the ‘no one gives a flying fuck’ lads don’t care much about any of them, except for Ukraine and in a moving little flags on pins about a map sense.
Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.
.................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard
Gaza barely registers as an issue, and Burnham's entire speech in Manchester this week was entirely on domestic issues and he did not once mention Gaza
Gaza is a tragedy, but Burnham success or failure will not be about Gaza
To be accurate, what you should have said is that Gaza barely registers as a vote-determining issue with anyone like you, that is anyone who would not have given serious consideration to voting Labour before the events around Gaza kicked off in 2023. And that means that Burnham's success or failure will not be about whether people like you can be persuaded to vote for him.
Many had been giving such consideration to voting Labour, and despite what were otherwise the most favourable political circumstances Labour ended up with the support of only 34% of the electorate while support of the Greens and various left Independents more than doubled to about 8%. Gaza was instrumental in that. Since then the action or rather inaction of Starmer's government on Gaza has been one of the main reasons why Green support has risen into the teens and until recently was even polling higher than Labour on the odd occasion.
But, you've got to be real wanker to let Gaza determine your vote in a British election, which is about this country and its citizens and interests.
It's like me deciding who to vote for as PM based on the really bad traffic policy in Ulaanbaatar.
Oh right, you think that those that disagree with you are wankers? Maybe you should look in a mirror.
You attacked me here for voting Labour when Corbyn was in charge.
Physician , heal thyself.
Surely not since I voted the same way despite misgivings.
Don't bother trying to engage in substantive discussion with me so long as you choose to describe those who hold opinions other than yours as "wankers".
Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.
.................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard
No-one normal gives a flying fuck about Gaza mate.
There are certainly a lot of folk loudly proclaiming that no one gives a flying fuck about Gaza which I wouldn’t describe as standard not giving a flying fuck behaviour. Not sure how normal they are mind.
In any case Gaza played a big part in the collapse of the Labour Party vote which I imagine should affect bettors’ thinking about a possible Labour renaissance under Burnham.
Unless I hang out with a bunch of weirdos, which I don't believe I do, Gaza is an issue which engages plenty of normal type people. Although I'd say (as with most things) the level of interest fluctuates according to how much it's in the news.
Well judging from their posts here, Casino and Taz must think you're a wanker too. Wear it as a badge of honour.
Its like some crap tribute act to the Gordon Brown era.
Will Ed Balls be offered a job as well ?
Is the Labour party admitting its not elected anyone talented from 2010 onwards ?
And is this new Manchester economy anything more than the ultimate expression of the Gordon Brown economy - people renting foreign owned flats with massive debts all round.
You've not been to Manchester this century have you?
R4 More or Less Stats up to 2023 (latest info apparently). Productivity growth 2019-2023 supposedly 14% but a lot of it is down to errors or reporting changes in the ONS stats gathering over that period, real wages rose by 1% in same period. Changes from stats to "feel" after that, conclusion is that there "Manchesterism" is real but not as successful as claimed and that the root causes predate Burnham.
So big, shiny buildings, more inequality and its football club changed from being perennial losers by Arab money.
Anything else ?
Construction of dense residential /commercial neighbourhoods is a much more reliable indicator of economic growth than plastering motorways everywhere. Indeed there is a strong negative correlation with the latter.
You can’t really avoid the fact it’s dense, compact cities like London, Edinburgh etc that generate most of the economic output in the UK, and the most potential lies with other cities like Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool which fall far behind their German/Dutch/French equivalents.
Lots of motorways in Greater Manchester.
Anyway who's calling for more motorways ?
But we keep coming back to people renting flats in big, shiny buildings, often foreign owned, with the poor decanted to banlieues on the outskirts.
House price growth uber alles whereas in South Korea and Taiwan their big shiny buildings are for hi tech manufacturing.
"who's calling for more motorways?"
Me, across the western side of the West Midlands conurbation. Or not even a motorway, just a single lane fast A road to by pass the bottlenecks linking to the M5. We seem to be the forgotten part of the UK in terms of major road construction.
It's a ridiculous situation where a 150 mile journey from Wolverhampton to Exeter takes about 3 hours 30 minutes but with the first 15 miles down the gridlocked A4123 to the M5 J2 taking 40 minutes even on a moderately good day. The absence of by-passes around Kidderminster and Wall Heath (Dudley) make the A449 alternative to J6 no quicker even using rat runs down suburban streets and single lane rural roads.
35 or so years ago the problem was recognised but a proposal for a Western Orbital Route was knocked on the head. But since then there have been no relevant changes to the road network here even on a much reduced scale while the traffic volumes have increased massively.
PS. Meanwhile going east or north from here instead of south we're the only part of the UK where you have to pay tolls to use a motorway.
A real one Glasgow to Edinburgh would be nice and dual carriageway on A9 please.
Dual the A303 by Stonehenge. I hate Starmer and Reeves for cancelling this after all the money that had been spent.
I never understood why they couldn't just build a tunnel at ground level and then gently cover it. Like a reverse ha-ha.
Because too many absolute wankers obsess about the 'historic' landscape. Yes its riddled with tumuli, but most have been investigated already. There is nothing there that could not be surveyed in advance. Its just a lot of vested interests (English Heritage for one).
They closed the road passed one side years ago in order to build a new visitor centre a mile away and stop people parking on the road for a quick view. They then wanted a massive tunnel to stop people seeing the stones at all. There is no reason at all that the road could not be dualed as it is. There would need to be a bypass round Winterbourne Stoke, but I saw plans for that in the 1990's when worked at the pub there.
Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.
.................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard
Gaza barely registers as an issue, and Burnham's entire speech in Manchester this week was entirely on domestic issues and he did not once mention Gaza
Gaza is a tragedy, but Burnham success or failure will not be about Gaza
To be accurate, what you should have said is that Gaza barely registers as a vote-determining issue with anyone like you, that is anyone who would not have given serious consideration to voting Labour before the events around Gaza kicked off in 2023. And that means that Burnham's success or failure will not be about whether people like you can be persuaded to vote for him.
Many had been giving such consideration to voting Labour, and despite what were otherwise the most favourable political circumstances Labour ended up with the support of only 34% of the electorate while support of the Greens and various left Independents more than doubled to about 8%. Gaza was instrumental in that. Since then the action or rather inaction of Starmer's government on Gaza has been one of the main reasons why Green support has risen into the teens and until recently was even polling higher than Labour on the odd occasion.
But, you've got to be real wanker to let Gaza determine your vote in a British election, which is about this country and its citizens and interests.
It's like me deciding who to vote for as PM based on the really bad traffic policy in Ulaanbaatar.
Oh right, you think that those that disagree with you are wankers? Maybe you should look in a mirror.
You attacked me here for voting Labour when Corbyn was in charge.
Physician , heal thyself.
Surely not since I voted the same way despite misgivings.
Don't bother trying to engage in substantive discussion with me so long as you choose to describe those who hold opinions other than yours as "wankers".
Wulfrun , get in among the rough and tumble, no wimping allowed.
A division is the smallest self-sustaining formation capable of conducting large-scale combined-arms operations independently, bringing together infantry, armour, artillery, engineers and logistical support under a single headquarters. It's not new. It's broadly restoring the capability and deployment the Army maintained until the post-Cold War reductions of the 1990s.
Even the US have given up on deploying divisions, hence the Brigade Combat Team.
The British Army tried to move to deployable brigades in 2010 but the tories fucked it with the SDSR. Baldy Ben made the brigade officially the smallest autonomous unit in the 2012 "Future Soldier" bollocks. The whole Army is now structured around single battalion regiments in deployable brigades. Apart from the Ranger Regiment which looks like a structure in search of a mission.
There is no universe where the British Army goes back to deployable divisions, no matter how much money is pissed away in pursuit of it.
Also to Casino's point, the DiP announced yesterday provides no funding for Challenger 3. It's quite likely that scrapping Challenger is part of the "efficiency savings" which pay for most of the 'increase' in funding.
The UK has none of the modern auxiliary equipment to support MBT deployment (transport; recovery; bridging; supporting armoured combat vehicles). Fully equipping a single regiment would likely be around £2 to £3bn, and might cost £3 -500m a year to sustain overseas. I've said before that it's unlikely the UK will ever again field an MBT regiment overseas. If they're not in place to blunt an invasion, then they are pretty useless anyway. And the future value of MBTs is in any event pretty uncertain.
If we want to contribute to European defence, far more cost effective (not least as it would also contribute directly to the defence of the UK, and give other options for overseas deployment - eg Cyprus of the Falklands) would be to increase the capabilities of the RAF, IMO.
I am arguing for a two division structure without relying on the Army Reserve, which isn't realistic. For a real serious defence strategist, read Nicholas Drummond below. I was arguing for 85-90k+ army, to account for training and wastage, and he thinks it might be possible with 83k and agreed with me.
Note that to get back to the Army of the noughties with a third division and a corps HQ, that would require an army of 112k, which we almost certainly wouldn't be willing to pay for right now, despite me personally being willing to back that too:
▶️I have modelled in some detail how the British Army ought to grow. Basically, to deliver a two division structure and make it deployable without relying on the Army Reserve, the Regular Army needs 83,000 personnel.
▶️If we want to raise a third division, it would need an additional 20,000 soldiers plus extra Corps unit headcount of 9,000 for a total size of 112,000. This was the approximate size of the Regular Army in 2010.
▶️ To make a three division structure credible, the Army would need to purchase to around £30 billion of additional equipment. This sounds huge, and it is, but, over ten years it's affordable and achievable.
▶️The problem is if we wait. We risk having to grow the Army very quickly over a 2 to 3 year period and needing to buy all the extra kit it needs as soon as possible. Which means buying what's available not what we want.
▶️This is what we did in 1937, but by that time it was too late. We had fallen too far behind. The process of re-arming proved to be very difficult and costly. We only finished paying off the debt in 2006.
▶️In the short-term, rather than growing the Army to 100,000, I would prefer to see the RN and RAF expanded. Instead, I believe the UK should reconstitute an Army of 83,000 and properly equip it.
▶️This requires an extra £3 to £4 billion per annum and around £10 billion in additional equipment spent between now and 2030.
I was thinking (in its loosest terms) about how things can be done cheaply which whilst not being directly about expensive extra kit and signing people up to the military and was considering how Germany, hamstrung by post WW1 limits on the size of the military including numbers of planes and Luftwaffe crews used clever workarounds.
The Germans made a big push to get people to take up gliding. It wasn’t prohibited by Versailles and so they stealthily trained up many men who understood the basics of flight and controlling a machine in the air etc. They also encouraged a lot of target shooting clubs and so on.
Even though we aren’t limited by rules we are currently limited by money and also the will for people to join up so thought of two potential ways to relatively cheaply build up skill sets that would be useful if the shit hit the fan.
The first is to institute a big national quarterly drone competition. We ask the Ukrainians to put together a programme based on real life drone warfare with a series of tasks, timed matters and skills test and carry out regional heats and the winners end up in a quarterly final with a prize of £500,000. If you win you aren’t allowed to enter the next two events.
The financial incentive is big and worth amateur drone enthusiasts getting really good and encouraging others to take up drone flying. By allowing people to re enter after a gap you encourage them to keep their skills up, don’t put off other potential competitors if there is someone who always smashes it. The cost is a rounding error in the defence budget and ultimately you end up with potentially thousands of people who can fly drones to a standard that would be useful in a war situation so removing an urgency on catch up as there is a latent skill set in the country.
Secondly repeat the programme with target shooting, open up military ranges to amateur shots each weekend building to regional heats and a big quarterly prize. Perhaps have divisions like in sport so as you improve you move up for a greater prize purse to avoid it being dominated by existing shooters.
Again if you can win, say 50k for spending weekends target shooting practice it might encourage people who were curious or lapsed to get into it and then helpfully build up a base of the population whose shooting skills are honed.
Perhaps create a form of military skills triathlon where the competition is a long run, assault course and then target shoot. I loved doing them in the CCF and I’m sure there would be a lot of people who might get into it as a form of exercise that’s more interesting than a park run.
All relatively cheap but provide a foundation for a quick emergency boost.
If you're going to encourage drones then look at the building side as well - small drones are the ultimate dispersal construction project that can be done at the dining table after tea. Perhaps encourage it via offering it as a GCSE/A Level DT specialism.
Richard Haldane has entered the chat…
Encouraging firearm ownership and usage won’t sit well with many Labour MPs, members and probably voters.
I read that as Richard Hadlee.
The reason the country has quite a few rifle ranges (still) is through his 1908 Territorial Army reforms.
On Gaza, it is a real concern to some people in this country. I get that. But I can also understand those that cannot understand why these people obsess about it rather than say Health, Housing, Pensions, Jobs, Roads, Council services etc
The DIP seems to confirm that the UK will purchase Lockheed Martin's PrSM tactical ballistic missile. This was hugely effective when used against Iranian military targets. Unfortunately, the USA exhausted its entire stock, which conveniently means we will have to wait before taking delivery and paying. The UK is developing its a tactical ballistic missile for Ukraine (nightfall) and may also acquire the MBDA Joint Fire Support Missile, a cruise missile with a range of 500 km. If anything can deliver a tenfold increase in British Army lethality, it is these systems. https://x.com/nicholadrummond/status/2072257635395465328
Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.
.................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard
No-one normal gives a flying fuck about Gaza mate.
There are certainly a lot of folk loudly proclaiming that no one gives a flying fuck about Gaza which I wouldn’t describe as standard not giving a flying fuck behaviour. Not sure how normal they are mind.
In any case Gaza played a big part in the collapse of the Labour Party vote which I imagine should affect bettors’ thinking about a possible Labour renaissance under Burnham.
Unless I hang out with a bunch of weirdos, which I don't believe I do, Gaza is an issue which engages plenty of normal type people. Although I'd say (as with most things) the level of interest fluctuates according to how much it's in the news.
Well judging from their posts here, Casino and Taz must think you're a wanker too. Wear it as a badge of honour.
Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.
.................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard
Gaza barely registers as an issue, and Burnham's entire speech in Manchester this week was entirely on domestic issues and he did not once mention Gaza
Gaza is a tragedy, but Burnham success or failure will not be about Gaza
To be accurate, what you should have said is that Gaza barely registers as a vote-determining issue with anyone like you, that is anyone who would not have given serious consideration to voting Labour before the events around Gaza kicked off in 2023. And that means that Burnham's success or failure will not be about whether people like you can be persuaded to vote for him.
Many had been giving such consideration to voting Labour, and despite what were otherwise the most favourable political circumstances Labour ended up with the support of only 34% of the electorate while support of the Greens and various left Independents more than doubled to about 8%. Gaza was instrumental in that. Since then the action or rather inaction of Starmer's government on Gaza has been one of the main reasons why Green support has risen into the teens and until recently was even polling higher than Labour on the odd occasion.
But, you've got to be real wanker to let Gaza determine your vote in a British election, which is about this country and its citizens and interests.
It's like me deciding who to vote for as PM based on the really bad traffic policy in Ulaanbaatar.
Oh right, you think that those that disagree with you are wankers? Maybe you should look in a mirror.
You attacked me here for voting Labour when Corbyn was in charge.
Physician , heal thyself.
Surely not since I voted the same way despite misgivings.
Don't bother trying to engage in substantive discussion with me so long as you choose to describe those who hold opinions other than yours as "wankers".
Yup, although technically I actually voted for Kevan Jones.
I regularly get attacked here for my views. It happens. I don’t care. Cut and thrust and all that.
I’m open to others views though and may change my mind on not voting Labour again due to liking Luke Akehurst and giving Burnham a chance. Starmer was a prick.
'With a reported £5bn black hole in the PM's new defence plans, 56% of Britons say military spending should be increased - but what are this group willing to support in order to do so?
Raise Additional tax rate: +43 net support Reduce welfare for out-of-work: +36 Raise Higher tax rate: +20 Reduce renewable energy spending: +15 Reduce welfare for those in low-paid work: -11 Increase government borrowing: -14 Increase Basic tax rate: -28 Remove triple lock: -32 Reduce welfare for disabilities: -33 Freeze state pension: -48 Reduce schools spending: -59 Reduce NHS spending: -66'
So in the eyes of the electorate cutting welfare spending that goes to pensioners, those with disabilities and those in low paid work is pretty well a no no. That must be in the ball park of 90%+ of the welfare budget that Badenoch seems to imagine is such an easy hit.
It's an easy hit if you have backbenchers willing to vote for it.
It'd plug the black hole in the Defence budget straight away.
Describing it as a black hole is the most accurate thing you've said on the subject, it will suck in any amount of funding and none of it will escape.
An example of the utter BS being spouted to support extra defence funding below, trying to claim that there is a higher probability of a Russian invasion of the UK than Liverpool winning the premier league. For context "General Intelligence & Government: Typically defines a remote chance as 0% to 5%".
In reality probability of a Russian invasion is ~0% to 1-2 dps and if we spend the £bns the MOD want it'll still be ~0%.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chief-of-the-defence-staff-speech-15-december-2025 "While simple, bold statements and timelines can act as a rallying cry, the reality is that it is more complicated than that. Last year Tony explained that our analysts argue that “there is only a remote chance of a significant direct attack or invasion by Russia on the UK”. “Remote” in this context, still means an up to 5 per cent risk, and that only refers to the UK. The world’s largest crowd-sourced forecasting site, Metaculus, suggests there is a 16% probability Russia and any NATO member state are in direct conflict before 2027.
To put this in context, over the weekend the bookies were saying that there is a 4% chance of Liverpool winning the Premier league. So even saying the chances are remote does not mean the chances are zero."
Its like some crap tribute act to the Gordon Brown era.
Will Ed Balls be offered a job as well ?
Is the Labour party admitting its not elected anyone talented from 2010 onwards ?
And is this new Manchester economy anything more than the ultimate expression of the Gordon Brown economy - people renting foreign owned flats with massive debts all round.
You've not been to Manchester this century have you?
R4 More or Less Stats up to 2023 (latest info apparently). Productivity growth 2019-2023 supposedly 14% but a lot of it is down to errors or reporting changes in the ONS stats gathering over that period, real wages rose by 1% in same period. Changes from stats to "feel" after that, conclusion is that there "Manchesterism" is real but not as successful as claimed and that the root causes predate Burnham.
So big, shiny buildings, more inequality and its football club changed from being perennial losers by Arab money.
Anything else ?
Construction of dense residential /commercial neighbourhoods is a much more reliable indicator of economic growth than plastering motorways everywhere. Indeed there is a strong negative correlation with the latter.
You can’t really avoid the fact it’s dense, compact cities like London, Edinburgh etc that generate most of the economic output in the UK, and the most potential lies with other cities like Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool which fall far behind their German/Dutch/French equivalents.
Lots of motorways in Greater Manchester.
Anyway who's calling for more motorways ?
But we keep coming back to people renting flats in big, shiny buildings, often foreign owned, with the poor decanted to banlieues on the outskirts.
House price growth uber alles whereas in South Korea and Taiwan their big shiny buildings are for hi tech manufacturing.
"who's calling for more motorways?"
Me, across the western side of the West Midlands conurbation. Or not even a motorway, just a single lane fast A road to by pass the bottlenecks linking to the M5. We seem to be the forgotten part of the UK in terms of major road construction.
It's a ridiculous situation where a 150 mile journey from Wolverhampton to Exeter takes about 3 hours 30 minutes but with the first 15 miles down the gridlocked A4123 to the M5 J2 taking 40 minutes even on a moderately good day. The absence of by-passes around Kidderminster and Wall Heath (Dudley) make the A449 alternative to J6 no quicker even using rat runs down suburban streets and single lane rural roads.
35 or so years ago the problem was recognised but a proposal for a Western Orbital Route was knocked on the head. But since then there have been no relevant changes to the road network here even on a much reduced scale while the traffic volumes have increased massively.
PS. Meanwhile going east or north from here instead of south we're the only part of the UK where you have to pay tolls to use a motorway.
A real one Glasgow to Edinburgh would be nice and dual carriageway on A9 please.
Dual the A303 by Stonehenge. I hate Starmer and Reeves for cancelling this after all the money that had been spent.
I never understood why they couldn't just build a tunnel at ground level and then gently cover it. Like a reverse ha-ha.
Because too many absolute wankers obsess about the 'historic' landscape. Yes its riddled with tumuli, but most have been investigated already. There is nothing there that could not be surveyed in advance. Its just a lot of vested interests (English Heritage for one).
They closed the road passed one side years ago in order to build a new visitor centre a mile away and stop people parking on the road for a quick view. They then wanted a massive tunnel to stop people seeing the stones at all. There is no reason at all that the road could not be dualed as it is. There would need to be a bypass round Winterbourne Stoke, but I saw plans for that in the 1990's when worked at the pub there.
I recall one farmer, who put up a replica of part of Stonehenge for fun (a long way from the real one), getting a bunch of people attacking his “destruction of the landscape”.
There was also a chap who wanted to build a modern long barrow, to offer burials, getting stick, IIRC.
Come to think of it, the builders of Stonehenge didn’t file any planning docs, health and safety case is missing, environmental… There is also no evidence that they performed an archeological survey of the site, despite building on an existing site of cultural significance.
Why do we celebrate shoddy building by such scumbags?
Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.
.................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard
No-one normal gives a flying fuck about Gaza mate.
There are certainly a lot of folk loudly proclaiming that no one gives a flying fuck about Gaza which I wouldn’t describe as standard not giving a flying fuck behaviour. Not sure how normal they are mind.
In any case Gaza played a big part in the collapse of the Labour Party vote which I imagine should affect bettors’ thinking about a possible Labour renaissance under Burnham.
Unless I hang out with a bunch of weirdos, which I don't believe I do, Gaza is an issue which engages plenty of normal type people. Although I'd say (as with most things) the level of interest fluctuates according to how much it's in the news.
Well judging from their posts here, Casino and Taz must think you're a wanker too. Wear it as a badge of honour.
Does me good like it bloody well should.
Mate
I don’t have a negative opinion on you, in spite of what this shit stirring yam yam prick says !
No million pound houses in the toilet of the U.K. that is Wolverhampton
On Gaza, it is a real concern to some people in this country. I get that. But I can also understand those that cannot understand why these people obsess about it rather than say Health, Housing, Pensions, Jobs, Roads, Council services etc
Each wing needs its ideological signifiers that mean little but say "I'm on your side, and against that lot". The right have anti-wokeism and the signage in national trust properties; the left have Palestine.
Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.
.................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard
No-one normal gives a flying fuck about Gaza mate.
There are certainly a lot of folk loudly proclaiming that no one gives a flying fuck about Gaza which I wouldn’t describe as standard not giving a flying fuck behaviour. Not sure how normal they are mind.
In any case Gaza played a big part in the collapse of the Labour Party vote which I imagine should affect bettors’ thinking about a possible Labour renaissance under Burnham.
Unless I hang out with a bunch of weirdos, which I don't believe I do, Gaza is an issue which engages plenty of normal type people. Although I'd say (as with most things) the level of interest fluctuates according to how much it's in the news.
To adapt Eliot’s phrase, humankind cannot bear too much reality and loses interest quickly when it’s someone else’s reality. At a basic level I imagine most folk would prefer their governments not to be complicit with the wrong side of those realities. Too much reality currently includes Sudan, Ukraine, Iran and Venezuela. Pretty sure the ‘no one gives a flying fuck’ lads don’t care much about any of them, except for Ukraine and in a moving little flags on pins about a map sense.
Ukraine has the very obvious difference that there a) two separate states involved, b) these divide neatly into good guys and bad guys, and c) the bad guys are also our enemies while the good guys are slightly more 'western'. None of these are true for the others that you mention in a way that is obviously graspable to the mildly interested. That's why that one gets more traction.
Its like some crap tribute act to the Gordon Brown era.
Will Ed Balls be offered a job as well ?
Is the Labour party admitting its not elected anyone talented from 2010 onwards ?
And is this new Manchester economy anything more than the ultimate expression of the Gordon Brown economy - people renting foreign owned flats with massive debts all round.
You've not been to Manchester this century have you?
R4 More or Less Stats up to 2023 (latest info apparently). Productivity growth 2019-2023 supposedly 14% but a lot of it is down to errors or reporting changes in the ONS stats gathering over that period, real wages rose by 1% in same period. Changes from stats to "feel" after that, conclusion is that there "Manchesterism" is real but not as successful as claimed and that the root causes predate Burnham.
So big, shiny buildings, more inequality and its football club changed from being perennial losers by Arab money.
Anything else ?
Construction of dense residential /commercial neighbourhoods is a much more reliable indicator of economic growth than plastering motorways everywhere. Indeed there is a strong negative correlation with the latter.
You can’t really avoid the fact it’s dense, compact cities like London, Edinburgh etc that generate most of the economic output in the UK, and the most potential lies with other cities like Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool which fall far behind their German/Dutch/French equivalents.
Lots of motorways in Greater Manchester.
Anyway who's calling for more motorways ?
But we keep coming back to people renting flats in big, shiny buildings, often foreign owned, with the poor decanted to banlieues on the outskirts.
House price growth uber alles whereas in South Korea and Taiwan their big shiny buildings are for hi tech manufacturing.
"who's calling for more motorways?"
Me, across the western side of the West Midlands conurbation. Or not even a motorway, just a single lane fast A road to by pass the bottlenecks linking to the M5. We seem to be the forgotten part of the UK in terms of major road construction.
It's a ridiculous situation where a 150 mile journey from Wolverhampton to Exeter takes about 3 hours 30 minutes but with the first 15 miles down the gridlocked A4123 to the M5 J2 taking 40 minutes even on a moderately good day. The absence of by-passes around Kidderminster and Wall Heath (Dudley) make the A449 alternative to J6 no quicker even using rat runs down suburban streets and single lane rural roads.
35 or so years ago the problem was recognised but a proposal for a Western Orbital Route was knocked on the head. But since then there have been no relevant changes to the road network here even on a much reduced scale while the traffic volumes have increased massively.
PS. Meanwhile going east or north from here instead of south we're the only part of the UK where you have to pay tolls to use a motorway.
A real one Glasgow to Edinburgh would be nice and dual carriageway on A9 please.
Dual the A303 by Stonehenge. I hate Starmer and Reeves for cancelling this after all the money that had been spent.
I never understood why they couldn't just build a tunnel at ground level and then gently cover it. Like a reverse ha-ha.
Because too many absolute wankers obsess about the 'historic' landscape. Yes its riddled with tumuli, but most have been investigated already. There is nothing there that could not be surveyed in advance. Its just a lot of vested interests (English Heritage for one).
They closed the road passed one side years ago in order to build a new visitor centre a mile away and stop people parking on the road for a quick view. They then wanted a massive tunnel to stop people seeing the stones at all. There is no reason at all that the road could not be dualed as it is. There would need to be a bypass round Winterbourne Stoke, but I saw plans for that in the 1990's when worked at the pub there.
I recall one farmer, who put up a replica of part of Stonehenge for fun (a long way from the real one), getting a bunch of people attacking his “destruction of the landscape”.
There was also a chap who wanted to build a modern long barrow, to offer burials, getting stick, IIRC.
Come to think of it, the builders of Stonehenge didn’t file any planning docs, health and safety case is missing, environmental… There is also no evidence that they performed an archeological survey of the site, despite building on an existing site of cultural significance.
Why do we celebrate shoddy building by such scumbags?
There was a story a couple of weeks back based on two (2) holes in the ground extrapolated out into something far bigger.
We have no real idea what Stonehenge was built for. We can guess, but we cannot know. There may well have been a road passing the stones back then too.
Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.
.................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard
No-one normal gives a flying fuck about Gaza mate.
There are certainly a lot of folk loudly proclaiming that no one gives a flying fuck about Gaza which I wouldn’t describe as standard not giving a flying fuck behaviour. Not sure how normal they are mind.
In any case Gaza played a big part in the collapse of the Labour Party vote which I imagine should affect bettors’ thinking about a possible Labour renaissance under Burnham.
Unless I hang out with a bunch of weirdos, which I don't believe I do, Gaza is an issue which engages plenty of normal type people. Although I'd say (as with most things) the level of interest fluctuates according to how much it's in the news.
Well judging from their posts here, Casino and Taz must think you're a wanker too. Wear it as a badge of honour.
GFY assuming my views.
I’m rather fond of Kinabalu. IDGAF about Gaza, but if Kinabalu does fine.
'With a reported £5bn black hole in the PM's new defence plans, 56% of Britons say military spending should be increased - but what are this group willing to support in order to do so?
Raise Additional tax rate: +43 net support Reduce welfare for out-of-work: +36 Raise Higher tax rate: +20 Reduce renewable energy spending: +15 Reduce welfare for those in low-paid work: -11 Increase government borrowing: -14 Increase Basic tax rate: -28 Remove triple lock: -32 Reduce welfare for disabilities: -33 Freeze state pension: -48 Reduce schools spending: -59 Reduce NHS spending: -66'
So in the eyes of the electorate cutting welfare spending that goes to pensioners, those with disabilities and those in low paid work is pretty well a no no. That must be in the ball park of 90%+ of the welfare budget that Badenoch seems to imagine is such an easy hit.
Did they have a column for 'stop pissing defence money up the wall'?
It was the top row +100% (2dp) there were a few soon to retire military chaps in favour
Its like some crap tribute act to the Gordon Brown era.
Will Ed Balls be offered a job as well ?
Is the Labour party admitting its not elected anyone talented from 2010 onwards ?
And is this new Manchester economy anything more than the ultimate expression of the Gordon Brown economy - people renting foreign owned flats with massive debts all round.
You've not been to Manchester this century have you?
R4 More or Less Stats up to 2023 (latest info apparently). Productivity growth 2019-2023 supposedly 14% but a lot of it is down to errors or reporting changes in the ONS stats gathering over that period, real wages rose by 1% in same period. Changes from stats to "feel" after that, conclusion is that there "Manchesterism" is real but not as successful as claimed and that the root causes predate Burnham.
So big, shiny buildings, more inequality and its football club changed from being perennial losers by Arab money.
Anything else ?
Construction of dense residential /commercial neighbourhoods is a much more reliable indicator of economic growth than plastering motorways everywhere. Indeed there is a strong negative correlation with the latter.
You can’t really avoid the fact it’s dense, compact cities like London, Edinburgh etc that generate most of the economic output in the UK, and the most potential lies with other cities like Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool which fall far behind their German/Dutch/French equivalents.
Lots of motorways in Greater Manchester.
Anyway who's calling for more motorways ?
But we keep coming back to people renting flats in big, shiny buildings, often foreign owned, with the poor decanted to banlieues on the outskirts.
House price growth uber alles whereas in South Korea and Taiwan their big shiny buildings are for hi tech manufacturing.
"who's calling for more motorways?"
Me, across the western side of the West Midlands conurbation. Or not even a motorway, just a single lane fast A road to by pass the bottlenecks linking to the M5. We seem to be the forgotten part of the UK in terms of major road construction.
It's a ridiculous situation where a 150 mile journey from Wolverhampton to Exeter takes about 3 hours 30 minutes but with the first 15 miles down the gridlocked A4123 to the M5 J2 taking 40 minutes even on a moderately good day. The absence of by-passes around Kidderminster and Wall Heath (Dudley) make the A449 alternative to J6 no quicker even using rat runs down suburban streets and single lane rural roads.
35 or so years ago the problem was recognised but a proposal for a Western Orbital Route was knocked on the head. But since then there have been no relevant changes to the road network here even on a much reduced scale while the traffic volumes have increased massively.
PS. Meanwhile going east or north from here instead of south we're the only part of the UK where you have to pay tolls to use a motorway.
A real one Glasgow to Edinburgh would be nice and dual carriageway on A9 please.
Dual the A303 by Stonehenge. I hate Starmer and Reeves for cancelling this after all the money that had been spent.
I never understood why they couldn't just build a tunnel at ground level and then gently cover it. Like a reverse ha-ha.
Because too many absolute wankers obsess about the 'historic' landscape. Yes its riddled with tumuli, but most have been investigated already. There is nothing there that could not be surveyed in advance. Its just a lot of vested interests (English Heritage for one).
They closed the road passed one side years ago in order to build a new visitor centre a mile away and stop people parking on the road for a quick view. They then wanted a massive tunnel to stop people seeing the stones at all. There is no reason at all that the road could not be dualed as it is. There would need to be a bypass round Winterbourne Stoke, but I saw plans for that in the 1990's when worked at the pub there.
I recall one farmer, who put up a replica of part of Stonehenge for fun (a long way from the real one), getting a bunch of people attacking his “destruction of the landscape”.
There was also a chap who wanted to build a modern long barrow, to offer burials, getting stick, IIRC.
Come to think of it, the builders of Stonehenge didn’t file any planning docs, health and safety case is missing, environmental… There is also no evidence that they performed an archeological survey of the site, despite building on an existing site of cultural significance.
Why do we celebrate shoddy building by such scumbags?
There was a story a couple of weeks back based on two (2) holes in the ground extrapolated out into something far bigger.
We have no real idea what Stonehenge was built for. We can guess, but we cannot know. There may well have been a road passing the stones back then too.
Stonehenge was just an early roundabout on the A303...
He will have done. He'll have learned that their profession to christian values is a complete nonsense.
JD is surely the most arrogant politician on this earth. He has plenty of competition: his boss of course, then there's Putin, Erdogan, the Jupiterian Macron, our own Richard Tice. But JD takes it into another, ludicrous league. If you could distil pure 100° proof arrogance into a single vessel, triple filter it and serve at -5C with a tin of Beluga caviar, that would be JD Vance.
Its like some crap tribute act to the Gordon Brown era.
Will Ed Balls be offered a job as well ?
Is the Labour party admitting its not elected anyone talented from 2010 onwards ?
And is this new Manchester economy anything more than the ultimate expression of the Gordon Brown economy - people renting foreign owned flats with massive debts all round.
You've not been to Manchester this century have you?
R4 More or Less Stats up to 2023 (latest info apparently). Productivity growth 2019-2023 supposedly 14% but a lot of it is down to errors or reporting changes in the ONS stats gathering over that period, real wages rose by 1% in same period. Changes from stats to "feel" after that, conclusion is that there "Manchesterism" is real but not as successful as claimed and that the root causes predate Burnham.
So big, shiny buildings, more inequality and its football club changed from being perennial losers by Arab money.
Anything else ?
Construction of dense residential /commercial neighbourhoods is a much more reliable indicator of economic growth than plastering motorways everywhere. Indeed there is a strong negative correlation with the latter.
You can’t really avoid the fact it’s dense, compact cities like London, Edinburgh etc that generate most of the economic output in the UK, and the most potential lies with other cities like Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool which fall far behind their German/Dutch/French equivalents.
Lots of motorways in Greater Manchester.
Anyway who's calling for more motorways ?
But we keep coming back to people renting flats in big, shiny buildings, often foreign owned, with the poor decanted to banlieues on the outskirts.
House price growth uber alles whereas in South Korea and Taiwan their big shiny buildings are for hi tech manufacturing.
"who's calling for more motorways?"
Me, across the western side of the West Midlands conurbation. Or not even a motorway, just a single lane fast A road to by pass the bottlenecks linking to the M5. We seem to be the forgotten part of the UK in terms of major road construction.
It's a ridiculous situation where a 150 mile journey from Wolverhampton to Exeter takes about 3 hours 30 minutes but with the first 15 miles down the gridlocked A4123 to the M5 J2 taking 40 minutes even on a moderately good day. The absence of by-passes around Kidderminster and Wall Heath (Dudley) make the A449 alternative to J6 no quicker even using rat runs down suburban streets and single lane rural roads.
35 or so years ago the problem was recognised but a proposal for a Western Orbital Route was knocked on the head. But since then there have been no relevant changes to the road network here even on a much reduced scale while the traffic volumes have increased massively.
PS. Meanwhile going east or north from here instead of south we're the only part of the UK where you have to pay tolls to use a motorway.
A real one Glasgow to Edinburgh would be nice and dual carriageway on A9 please.
Dual the A303 by Stonehenge. I hate Starmer and Reeves for cancelling this after all the money that had been spent.
I never understood why they couldn't just build a tunnel at ground level and then gently cover it. Like a reverse ha-ha.
Because too many absolute wankers obsess about the 'historic' landscape. Yes its riddled with tumuli, but most have been investigated already. There is nothing there that could not be surveyed in advance. Its just a lot of vested interests (English Heritage for one).
They closed the road passed one side years ago in order to build a new visitor centre a mile away and stop people parking on the road for a quick view. They then wanted a massive tunnel to stop people seeing the stones at all. There is no reason at all that the road could not be dualed as it is. There would need to be a bypass round Winterbourne Stoke, but I saw plans for that in the 1990's when worked at the pub there.
I recall one farmer, who put up a replica of part of Stonehenge for fun (a long way from the real one), getting a bunch of people attacking his “destruction of the landscape”.
There was also a chap who wanted to build a modern long barrow, to offer burials, getting stick, IIRC.
Come to think of it, the builders of Stonehenge didn’t file any planning docs, health and safety case is missing, environmental… There is also no evidence that they performed an archeological survey of the site, despite building on an existing site of cultural significance.
Why do we celebrate shoddy building by such scumbags?
TBH, I quite like the idea of a modern long barrow as an alternative burial site option.
Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.
.................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard
No-one normal gives a flying fuck about Gaza mate.
There are certainly a lot of folk loudly proclaiming that no one gives a flying fuck about Gaza which I wouldn’t describe as standard not giving a flying fuck behaviour. Not sure how normal they are mind.
In any case Gaza played a big part in the collapse of the Labour Party vote which I imagine should affect bettors’ thinking about a possible Labour renaissance under Burnham.
Unless I hang out with a bunch of weirdos, which I don't believe I do, Gaza is an issue which engages plenty of normal type people. Although I'd say (as with most things) the level of interest fluctuates according to how much it's in the news.
To adapt Eliot’s phrase, humankind cannot bear too much reality and loses interest quickly when it’s someone else’s reality. At a basic level I imagine most folk would prefer their governments not to be complicit with the wrong side of those realities. Too much reality currently includes Sudan, Ukraine, Iran and Venezuela. Pretty sure the ‘no one gives a flying fuck’ lads don’t care much about any of them, except for Ukraine and in a moving little flags on pins about a map sense.
Ukraine has the very obvious difference that there a) two separate states involved, b) these divide neatly into good guys and bad guys, and c) the bad guys are also our enemies while the good guys are slightly more 'western'. None of these are true for the others that you mention in a way that is obviously graspable to the mildly interested. That's why that one gets more traction.
Added to which, the outcome of the war in Ukraine will have a large, direct and lasting effect on our own security. Either positive or negative.
Lloyds Banking Group announces Halifax to rebrand to Lloyds
Lloyds Banking Group has today confirmed that the Halifax brand will change to Lloyds.
Existing Halifax customers will start to use the Lloyds app in the coming months and will see their accounts rebranded to Lloyds over time. As part of this change, the Halifax brand will stop opening new accounts .
Halifax branches will be rebranded to Lloyds – meaning that Lloyds will continue to offer one of the largest branch networks in the UK today.
There is no change to Bank of Scotland, which will continue to offer the same market leading experience and propositions, exclusively to customers in Scotland.
He will have done. He'll have learned that their profession to christian values is a complete nonsense.
The US isn’t a theocracy. They left all of that behind 250 years ago.
I mean I think the Pope is full of shit, but then again I am not a catholic. Vance is apparently a catholic and should probably follow the Pope’s teachings you would think
Lloyds Banking Group announces Halifax to rebrand to Lloyds
Lloyds Banking Group has today confirmed that the Halifax brand will change to Lloyds.
Existing Halifax customers will start to use the Lloyds app in the coming months and will see their accounts rebranded to Lloyds over time. As part of this change, the Halifax brand will stop opening new accounts .
Halifax branches will be rebranded to Lloyds – meaning that Lloyds will continue to offer one of the largest branch networks in the UK today.
There is no change to Bank of Scotland, which will continue to offer the same market leading experience and propositions, exclusively to customers in Scotland.
Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.
.................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard
No-one normal gives a flying fuck about Gaza mate.
There are certainly a lot of folk loudly proclaiming that no one gives a flying fuck about Gaza which I wouldn’t describe as standard not giving a flying fuck behaviour. Not sure how normal they are mind.
In any case Gaza played a big part in the collapse of the Labour Party vote which I imagine should affect bettors’ thinking about a possible Labour renaissance under Burnham.
Unless I hang out with a bunch of weirdos, which I don't believe I do, Gaza is an issue which engages plenty of normal type people. Although I'd say (as with most things) the level of interest fluctuates according to how much it's in the news.
To adapt Eliot’s phrase, humankind cannot bear too much reality and loses interest quickly when it’s someone else’s reality. At a basic level I imagine most folk would prefer their governments not to be complicit with the wrong side of those realities. Too much reality currently includes Sudan, Ukraine, Iran and Venezuela. Pretty sure the ‘no one gives a flying fuck’ lads don’t care much about any of them, except for Ukraine and in a moving little flags on pins about a map sense.
Ukraine has the very obvious difference that there a) two separate states involved, b) these divide neatly into good guys and bad guys, and c) the bad guys are also our enemies while the good guys are slightly more 'western'. None of these are true for the others that you mention in a way that is obviously graspable to the mildly interested. That's why that one gets more traction.
Exactly. The bad guys are actively threatening us. This is more the Kaiser attacking Belgium than the Bolsheviks attacking the White Russians.
Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.
.................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard
No-one normal gives a flying fuck about Gaza mate.
There are certainly a lot of folk loudly proclaiming that no one gives a flying fuck about Gaza which I wouldn’t describe as standard not giving a flying fuck behaviour. Not sure how normal they are mind.
In any case Gaza played a big part in the collapse of the Labour Party vote which I imagine should affect bettors’ thinking about a possible Labour renaissance under Burnham.
Unless I hang out with a bunch of weirdos, which I don't believe I do, Gaza is an issue which engages plenty of normal type people. Although I'd say (as with most things) the level of interest fluctuates according to how much it's in the news.
To adapt Eliot’s phrase, humankind cannot bear too much reality and loses interest quickly when it’s someone else’s reality. At a basic level I imagine most folk would prefer their governments not to be complicit with the wrong side of those realities. Too much reality currently includes Sudan, Ukraine, Iran and Venezuela. Pretty sure the ‘no one gives a flying fuck’ lads don’t care much about any of them, except for Ukraine and in a moving little flags on pins about a map sense.
He was right and yes that 2nd point is a key distinguisher - Israel despite its barbaric behaviour being viewed (and supported in tangible ways) as a friend and ally.
Dreadful figures for Starmer. That's what happens when you forget you are a LABOUR PM and issues like a genocide in Gaza where 86,000 people were slaughtered matter.
.................And arresting elderly vicars for writing 'Palestine Action' is taken as tacit approval for that genocide. Don't be fooled by Farage's facists. They are not the only voices that should have been heard
Gaza barely registers as an issue, and Burnham's entire speech in Manchester this week was entirely on domestic issues and he did not once mention Gaza
Gaza is a tragedy, but Burnham success or failure will not be about Gaza
It's not necessarily the main reason for voting labour but when it comes to liking or or loathing a leader it can be crucial. I may not be typical but I know quite a few who voted Labour who now would be reluctant to vote for a Starmer led Labour. Even on here I can think of four. BJO Me Nick P and Wulfrun....Add a few who will be glad that they don't now have to face that choice and the numbers add up.
Tories like Taz and Scampi and Sandpit are just Tories who have never given a shit about anyone other than themselves. Ever. So no change
He will have done. He'll have learned that their profession to christian values is a complete nonsense.
The US isn’t a theocracy. They left all of that behind 250 years ago.
I mean I think the Pope is full of shit, but then again I am not a catholic. Vance is apparently a catholic and should probably follow the Pope’s teachings you would think
@TSE accused me of anti-Catholic bigotry for suggesting that Joe Biden might be influenced by the Pope’s teachings.
Lloyds Banking Group announces Halifax to rebrand to Lloyds
Lloyds Banking Group has today confirmed that the Halifax brand will change to Lloyds.
Existing Halifax customers will start to use the Lloyds app in the coming months and will see their accounts rebranded to Lloyds over time. As part of this change, the Halifax brand will stop opening new accounts .
Halifax branches will be rebranded to Lloyds – meaning that Lloyds will continue to offer one of the largest branch networks in the UK today.
There is no change to Bank of Scotland, which will continue to offer the same market leading experience and propositions, exclusively to customers in Scotland.
Lloyds Banking Group announces Halifax to rebrand to Lloyds
Lloyds Banking Group has today confirmed that the Halifax brand will change to Lloyds.
Existing Halifax customers will start to use the Lloyds app in the coming months and will see their accounts rebranded to Lloyds over time. As part of this change, the Halifax brand will stop opening new accounts .
Halifax branches will be rebranded to Lloyds – meaning that Lloyds will continue to offer one of the largest branch networks in the UK today.
There is no change to Bank of Scotland, which will continue to offer the same market leading experience and propositions, exclusively to customers in Scotland.
Lloyds Banking Group announces Halifax to rebrand to Lloyds
Lloyds Banking Group has today confirmed that the Halifax brand will change to Lloyds.
Existing Halifax customers will start to use the Lloyds app in the coming months and will see their accounts rebranded to Lloyds over time. As part of this change, the Halifax brand will stop opening new accounts .
Halifax branches will be rebranded to Lloyds – meaning that Lloyds will continue to offer one of the largest branch networks in the UK today.
There is no change to Bank of Scotland, which will continue to offer the same market leading experience and propositions, exclusively to customers in Scotland.
Comments
Until it impacts on them
Under the Conservatives, defence spending rose from a low of 2.1% to 2.3% of GDP between 2022 and 2024 without that increase being funded at all given the much larger black hole (£22bn or has it turned out to be more?) inherited by Starmer/Reeves. So a mere £5bn hole within a plan to get it up much further to 2.7% seems light grey by comparison.
SKS has actually done Burnham a favour since Burnham can blame the inevitable tax rises that follow onto Starmer. And if anyone is thinking that you can increase the share of the economy going towards defence by nearly 30% (i.e. 2.1% to 2.7%) without impacting on disposible incomes through tax rises then they need their head examined.
I would question going further than 2.7% since Russia's military is now degraded and palpably on its knees in Ukraine which was not the case when the 3% target was set. The defence establishment is entitled to make its case but not to dictate to the rest of the country.
Top:
NW - Tonnes of motorways, absolutely flying to where you're going.
East Mids - Both M1 and A1(Sometimes M) run through. I live here, and it's not too bad tbh.
Yorks and Humber - Mostly fine, M1 & A1 do the job. Thank God the Darrington works have finished.
East - Not too many motorways but like the SW does it really need them. Nothing like the bottleneck of Bristol either.
West Mids - Lots of Motorways but somehow not quite enough. Forever roadworks, M42 ... ugh. HS2 has caused eternal roadworks here
SW - M5 bottleneck. High chance of getting stuck nr Avonmouth to access most of the SW. Not sure about M4.
SE/London - Plenty of Motorway but the obviously high pop density around London made this feel fucking awful last time I was down on the M25 (Something I don't wish to repeat too often). How many people are driving round London on a bloody Sunday night ?!? Doesn't happen elsewhere tbh. Great provision (Neccessarily) but there's a reason everyone gets the train here lol.
NE - Forgotten child A1 needs dualling, enough said.
The biker guy in the Village People looked like Merv Hughes.
This was entirely uncontroversial point up until 2010, when threats were far fewer than today.
- the loss of the "path to the skyscrapers" (I like that phrase, was it just invented or is it a thing?) Ie the sense that the next decade or generation will be better than the last
- what we call "enshittification", which is present almost everywhere in developed countries
The first is a feature of stagnating income growth and affordability; the second is consumer experience (both of the private sector goods and services, and the public domain). But the two are related. Enshittification makes it harder to imagine a better future.
These are two things that are generally absent in growing middle income countries. I mentioned I've just been in Turkey seeing what this means for infrastructure, but now I'm in Georgia where the opposite of enshittification is very visible. Enbeautification? De-enshittification. That is, the consumer experience is getting better almost daily. There's more to do, more interesting things to buy, the public realm is being prettified, plants and landscaping everywhere.
If there's one thing Burnham can take from Manchester it's surely this. De-enshittification. Manchester was enshittified decades before most places, and it's visibly come out the other side. A nicer, more liveable, more vital and visitable city. Part of that is infrastructure and transport, part is green space. Not unaffordable to do. Clear up litter. Plant trees and shrubs. Join up public transport. Get rid of barriers that stop wheelchairs etc.
Too much politics is about the producer Vs the owner. Labour Vs capital. The consumer is forgotten. One thing the EU has done well is paying attention to the consumer, but it and us could do more. Make places nice, make the consumer experience pleasant, and people will spend more, government will earn more tax as a result, which it can then plough back into the public realm, and we're in a virtuous circle.
Transforming Manchester's Skyline
Established in 2006, Renaker is now firmly recognised as Manchester’s leading developer with a proven track record of delivering sustainable, high-quality developments at pace. We have successfully delivered over 8,500 new homes to date.
https://renaker.com/
They love it because it's where all their prejudices meet on class, colour, colonialism and capitalism and it's utterly irresistible to them.
Knock yourself out, but no-one normal cares. It's entirely irrelevant to British politics and our actions are entirely irrelevant as well.
Disappointment for Nigel Farage yesterday at Wimbledon when he found on what the all whites policy actually meant.
We keep coming back to people renting flats (often foreign owned) in the centre of Manchester.
And a football team made successful with Arab money.
And what else ?
Why does the asking of questions receive anger as a response instead of answers ?
Apparently, it has to be either increasing taxes or borrowing
I would say that on something as important as this 1p or 2p on tax would be justified, but for balance reducing welfare has to be a part of it as well
https://x.com/ideanoc17/status/2072025349911617955
I can't help you. Only you can do that.
Cmon Pat. I need the £££ to cushion against losses from laying the SKS 2026 exit.
We have yet to see what happens with the people around Burnham who define the agenda that to which they all work.
The Germans made a big push to get people to take up gliding. It wasn’t prohibited by Versailles and so they stealthily trained up many men who understood the basics of flight and controlling a machine in the air etc. They also encouraged a lot of target shooting clubs and so on.
Even though we aren’t limited by rules we are currently limited by money and also the will for people to join up so thought of two potential ways to relatively cheaply build up skill sets that would be useful if the shit hit the fan.
The first is to institute a big national quarterly drone competition. We ask the Ukrainians to put together a programme based on real life drone warfare with a series of tasks, timed matters and skills test and carry out regional heats and the winners end up in a quarterly final with a prize of £500,000. If you win you aren’t allowed to enter the next two events.
The financial incentive is big and worth amateur drone enthusiasts getting really good and encouraging others to take up drone flying. By allowing people to re enter after a gap you encourage them to keep their skills up, don’t put off other potential competitors if there is someone who always smashes it. The cost is a rounding error in the defence budget and ultimately you end up with potentially thousands of people who can fly drones to a standard that would be useful in a war situation so removing an urgency on catch up as there is a latent skill set in the country.
Secondly repeat the programme with target shooting, open up military ranges to amateur shots each weekend building to regional heats and a big quarterly prize. Perhaps have divisions like in sport so as you improve you move up for a greater prize purse to avoid it being dominated by existing shooters.
Again if you can win, say 50k for spending weekends target shooting practice it might encourage people who were curious or lapsed to get into it and then helpfully build up a base of the population whose shooting skills are honed.
Perhaps create a form of military skills triathlon where the competition is a long run, assault course and then target shoot. I loved doing them in the CCF and I’m sure there would be a lot of people who might get into it as a form of exercise that’s more interesting than a park run.
All relatively cheap but provide a foundation for a quick emergency boost.
Hence MoreinCommon has the Tories up to 23% against Burnham Labour, the same voteshare as they got under Rishi in 2024 despite further leaks to Reform since then and even as Burnham squeezes the Greens, LDs and Reform
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/2069778743808110859?s=20
We used to get Gaza loons on one of the bridges in Durham getting signatures and flying flags. Beardy weirdy wankers or pink hair pronoun wankers. we don’t get them anymore.
One of my close professional friends is an ex-brigadier in the Army and he said that, perversely, one of the things that drives recruitment is active kinetic operations, whereas I thought the opposite would be true.
Raise Additional tax rate: +43 net support
Reduce welfare for out-of-work: +36
Raise Higher tax rate: +20
Reduce renewable energy spending: +15
Reduce welfare for those in low-paid work: -11
Increase government borrowing: -14
Increase Basic tax rate: -28
Remove triple lock: -32
Reduce welfare for disabilities: -33
Freeze state pension: -48
Reduce schools spending: -59
Reduce NHS spending: -66'
https://x.com/YouGov/status/2072244605454528605?s=20
Many had been giving such consideration to voting Labour, and despite what were otherwise the most favourable political circumstances Labour ended up with the support of only 34% of the electorate while support of the Greens and various left Independents more than doubled to about 8%. Gaza was instrumental in that. Since then the action or rather inaction of Starmer's government on Gaza has been one of the main reasons why Green support has risen into the teens and until recently was even polling higher than Labour on the odd occasion.
They are called the Labour party because they were formed to represent the working man.
Support for Labour now *rises* with household income, while Reform UK's is strongest among poorer households
Household income: £70k or above
Lab: 22%
Con: 20%
Ref: 18%
LD: 17%
Grn: 17%
Rst: 2%
Household income: Below £20k
Ref: 30%
Grn: 17%
Con: 15%
Lab: 15%
LD: 11%
Rst: 5%
https://x.com/YouGov/status/2072268794605486473?s=20
Reform now lead with white votes, Labour with black British voters, the Tories with British Indian voters and the Greens with Pakistan/Bangladeshi Brits
https://x.com/YouGov/status/2072268765912240474?s=20
It's like me deciding who to vote for as PM based on the really bad traffic policy in Ulaanbaatar.
Encouraging firearm ownership and usage won’t sit well with many Labour MPs, members and probably voters.
Physician , heal thyself.
It'd plug the black hole in the Defence budget straight away.
Worse, existing designs (and particularly reheated old designs, like Challenger 3) are quite likely sub-optimal for likely future conflicts, as this RUSI article argues.
Principles of Modern Tank Design
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03071847.2026.2638134#d1e332
..This article only attempts to establish a few base principles of future tank design. Tanks designed without reference to the realities of current warfare are doomed to be more wasteful and less effective than their contemporaries. The sketches of breakthrough and medium tanks presented above are not meant to be prescriptive. Rather, they are examples of the application of a principled design process. Space prevents discussion of many other relevant concerns – ranging from issues of logistics and sustainment to the relative merits of uninhabited turrets, articulated chassis, four-man crews, electric drives and electrochemical guns..
If you're a NATO frontline state, then buying Leopards (or S Korean K2s) makes sense as an insurance policy, but even then, fielding tank regiments means many billions not spent elsewhere on military capacity.
For the UK to do so, at the costs of not spending on either navy or airforce, both of which are of far more relevance to our own defence, as well as providing significant capability for that of Europe, is just a waste of resources, IMO.
And we've already shown, with the problems in both Ajax and Challenger 3 procurement, that we've no real idea of what we're doing anyway.
I’m rather fond of Kinabalu. IDGAF about Gaza, but if Kinabalu does fine.
Newark Bypass considered for cancellation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy9rgg9ddw2o
(And various junction something-something-somethings on the A38 in Derby.)
*Not sure how accurate these correlations are...
Too much reality currently includes Sudan, Ukraine, Iran and Venezuela. Pretty sure the ‘no one gives a flying fuck’ lads don’t care much about any of them, except for Ukraine and in a moving little flags on pins about a map sense.
https://x.com/atrupar/status/2072103771342074203
Don't bother trying to engage in substantive discussion with me so long as you choose to describe those who hold opinions other than yours as "wankers".
They closed the road passed one side years ago in order to build a new visitor centre a mile away and stop people parking on the road for a quick view. They then wanted a massive tunnel to stop people seeing the stones at all. There is no reason at all that the road could not be dualed as it is. There would need to be a bypass round Winterbourne Stoke, but I saw plans for that in the 1990's when worked at the pub there.
https://x.com/nicholadrummond/status/2072257635395465328
I regularly get attacked here for my views. It happens. I don’t care. Cut and thrust and all that.
I’m open to others views though and may change my mind on not voting Labour again due to liking Luke Akehurst and giving Burnham a chance. Starmer was a prick.
An example of the utter BS being spouted to support extra defence funding below, trying to claim that there is a higher probability of a Russian invasion of the UK than Liverpool winning the premier league.
For context "General Intelligence & Government: Typically defines a remote chance as 0% to 5%".
In reality probability of a Russian invasion is ~0% to 1-2 dps and if we spend the £bns the MOD want it'll still be ~0%.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chief-of-the-defence-staff-speech-15-december-2025
"While simple, bold statements and timelines can act as a rallying cry, the reality is that it is more complicated than that. Last year Tony explained that our analysts argue that “there is only a remote chance of a significant direct attack or invasion by Russia on the UK”. “Remote” in this context, still means an up to 5 per cent risk, and that only refers to the UK. The world’s largest crowd-sourced forecasting site, Metaculus, suggests there is a 16% probability Russia and any NATO member state are in direct conflict before 2027.
To put this in context, over the weekend the bookies were saying that there is a 4% chance of Liverpool winning the Premier league. So even saying the chances are remote does not mean the chances are zero."
one), getting a bunch of people attacking his “destruction of the landscape”.
There was also a chap who wanted to build a modern long barrow, to offer burials, getting stick, IIRC.
Come to think of it, the builders of Stonehenge didn’t file any planning docs, health and safety case is missing, environmental… There is also no evidence that they performed an archeological survey of the site, despite building on an existing site of cultural significance.
Why do we celebrate shoddy building by such scumbags?
I don’t have a negative opinion on you, in spite of what this shit stirring yam yam prick says !
No million pound houses in the toilet of the U.K. that is Wolverhampton
We have no real idea what Stonehenge was built for. We can guess, but we cannot know. There may well have been a road passing the stones back then too.
Humberside Police's former head of communications and his teacher partner have been jailed after admitting a number of child sex offences.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20y58vr61lo
Either positive or negative.
Lloyds Banking Group has today confirmed that the Halifax brand will change to Lloyds.
Existing Halifax customers will start to use the Lloyds app in the coming months and will see their accounts rebranded to Lloyds over time. As part of this change, the Halifax brand will stop opening new accounts .
Halifax branches will be rebranded to Lloyds – meaning that Lloyds will continue to offer one of the largest branch networks in the UK today.
There is no change to Bank of Scotland, which will continue to offer the same market leading experience and propositions, exclusively to customers in Scotland.
https://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/media/press-releases/2026/lloyds-banking-group/halifax-rebrand-to-lloyds.html
Tories like Taz and Scampi and Sandpit are just Tories who have never given a shit about anyone other than themselves. Ever. So no change
https://x.com/conservatives/status/2072263303200440548