The Politics Thread

[Worthy4England]

Don't forget that a lot of pay your whack is simply buy more arms from American companies. Arbitrary percentages are bollocks. How about figure out capability requirements/desires, price it, put it in the budget and fund it. You can even break it down into essentials (definitely fund it), should have it (next priority in funding) and would like it (fund it when can afford it if still want it then).

The cunningly titled MoSCow analysis

[Harry Genshaw]

Though this to me misses the point. It’s quaint calling Truss an over promoted milk monitor. Though somewhat a steal I suspect from Spicer. But still.

However the folks that influenced truss - the real bad folks are still at large. Spreading their economic nonsense and bile. Unchecked. Frequently given media appearances. Frequently referred to as ‘experts’ often without any counter whatsoever. And it’s only a matter of time before these goons are able to attach their madcap project to a leader who isn’t as hapless as truss or is more dangerous because they manage to subvert democracy.

I don't know who, or what Spicer is but I'm not claiming the milk monitor line as a Genshaw original. As for some Machiavellian super group, I'd not be too worried pal. Anyone hitching their wagon to Liz Truss have, at best, appalling judgement and won't be going anywhere. She only has to say a few words and you just know she's winging it, without the brains or personality to cover the fact up.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Don't forget that a lot of pay your whack is simply buy more arms from American companies. Arbitrary percentages are bollocks. How about figure out capability requirements/desires, price it, put it in the budget and fund it. You can even break it down into essentials (definitely fund it), should have it (next priority in funding) and would like it (fund it when can afford it if still want it then).

The cunningly titled MoSCow analysis

Or the Bloody Obvious Analysis

[Hoboh]

First thing this country needs is an anti missile iron dome system, then build from there.

[BWFC_Insane]

Don't forget that a lot of pay your whack is simply buy more arms from American companies. Arbitrary percentages are bollocks. How about figure out capability requirements/desires, price it, put it in the budget and fund it. You can even break it down into essentials (definitely fund it), should have it (next priority in funding) and would like it (fund it when can afford it if still want it then).

Add on top sunk fallacy cost. Keep investing in our defence even if it’s never going to do the job we would need should the worst happen or even be particularly effective at avoiding it happening in the first place.

One of the few things the right are probably right about is that we aren’t able and likely won’t ever be able to go to war with Russia. So one has to decide if NATO doesn’t hold or is weakened what becomes sensible and what becomes vanity with defence spending. What size of defence makes Russia think ‘well that’s going to be a bit painful let’s not bother’ because that’s the best we’ll hope for. People still think as though it’s the 1930’s and a few crack pilots and dads army matters but the reality is that most of our defence would be defending our infrastructure from cyber attack, physical attacks and espionage and that’s expensive to protect - very expensive yet has little to no obvious or discernible pay off if an attack doesn’t happen. Unlike say giving some old dudes massive boners that choke their frigid old wives if we brought back national service.

[BWFC_Insane]

Though this to me misses the point. It’s quaint calling Truss an over promoted milk monitor. Though somewhat a steal I suspect from Spicer. But still.

However the folks that influenced truss - the real bad folks are still at large. Spreading their economic nonsense and bile. Unchecked. Frequently given media appearances. Frequently referred to as ‘experts’ often without any counter whatsoever. And it’s only a matter of time before these goons are able to attach their madcap project to a leader who isn’t as hapless as truss or is more dangerous because they manage to subvert democracy.

I don't know who, or what Spicer is but I'm not claiming the milk monitor line as a Genshaw original. As for some Machiavellian super group, I'd not be too worried pal. Anyone hitching their wagon to Liz Truss have, at best, appalling judgement and won't be going anywhere. She only has to say a few words and you just know she's winging it, without the brains or personality to cover the fact up.

Same could be said for Trumps lot but nobody seemed to be able to do much. The IEA aren’t some Machiavellian entity but their ideas seem to appeal to those who are. And they are allowed to exist - that’s my issue.

[Hoboh]

Don't forget that a lot of pay your whack is simply buy more arms from American companies. Arbitrary percentages are bollocks. How about figure out capability requirements/desires, price it, put it in the budget and fund it. You can even break it down into essentials (definitely fund it), should have it (next priority in funding) and would like it (fund it when can afford it if still want it then).

Add on top sunk fallacy cost. Keep investing in our defence even if it’s never going to do the job we would need should the worst happen or even be particularly effective at avoiding it happening in the first place.

One of the few things the right are probably right about is that we aren’t able and likely won’t ever be able to go to war with Russia. So one has to decide if NATO doesn’t hold or is weakened what becomes sensible and what becomes vanity with defence spending. What size of defence makes Russia think ‘well that’s going to be a bit painful let’s not bother’ because that’s the best we’ll hope for. People still think as though it’s the 1930’s and a few crack pilots and dads army matters but the reality is that most of our defence would be defending our infrastructure from cyber attack, physical attacks and espionage and that’s expensive to protect - very expensive yet has little to no obvious or discernible pay off if an attack doesn’t happen. Unlike say giving some old dudes massive boners that choke their frigid old wives if we brought back national service.

Unlike say giving some old dudes massive boners that choke their frigid old wives if we brought back national service.

Welcome to planet hoboh

[Hoboh]

Old dudes referred to disrespectfully?

Wow no wonder CV Robotic Reeves gets away with attacks on pensioners given the support of some.....

[Hoboh]

Don't forget that a lot of pay your whack is simply buy more arms from American companies. Arbitrary percentages are bollocks. How about figure out capability requirements/desires, price it, put it in the budget and fund it. You can even break it down into essentials (definitely fund it), should have it (next priority in funding) and would like it (fund it when can afford it if still want it then).

Add on top sunk fallacy cost. Keep investing in our defence even if it’s never going to do the job we would need should the worst happen or even be particularly effective at avoiding it happening in the first place.

One of the few things the right are probably right about is that we aren’t able and likely won’t ever be able to go to war with Russia. So one has to decide if NATO doesn’t hold or is weakened what becomes sensible and what becomes vanity with defence spending. What size of defence makes Russia think ‘well that’s going to be a bit painful let’s not bother’ because that’s the best we’ll hope for. People still think as though it’s the 1930’s and a few crack pilots and dads army matters but the reality is that most of our defence would be defending our infrastructure from cyber attack, physical attacks and espionage and that’s expensive to protect - very expensive yet has little to no obvious or discernible pay off if an attack doesn’t happen. Unlike say giving some old dudes massive boners that choke their frigid old wives if we brought back national service.

To be honest I'd much rather pump money into the UK defence system than give aid to overseas countries whose population is heading over here because they see, hey those guys have pots of money to waste on us, let's go.
So it's only 'the right' who care about defence then? Russia has no need to worry with the bunch of far left Trotsky's buried in this nation institutions, comrade Starmer cannot sell us out to Russia so he heads for the next best thing, the EU.
Missiles and drones that can be used accurately and the ability to take down incoming is the way forward, for far too long under all governments and the peace loving commie tuckers, we have relied on not much getting across Europe, but that's changing, the NATO, EU sycophants who spent the bare minimum they could on defence are as reliable as chocolate fire guards. To think, some tools want to be back in their club, wow!

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

The sycophants in our own government have been running down our military capability for decades. Being both in the EU and out have had no effect on that. Being in the EU has no effect on whether we use our military or not - see Falklands, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen for just a few examples.

We could spend 50% of GDP on defence and it still wouldn't stop the likes of China and Russia. Cooperation with Europe and America likely will. No matter what the MAGA lot think, they need cooperation with the likes of the UK, Europe and beyond just as much as we do. If they carry on as they are they might find out the hard way.

[BWFC_Insane]

Don't forget that a lot of pay your whack is simply buy more arms from American companies. Arbitrary percentages are bollocks. How about figure out capability requirements/desires, price it, put it in the budget and fund it. You can even break it down into essentials (definitely fund it), should have it (next priority in funding) and would like it (fund it when can afford it if still want it then).

Add on top sunk fallacy cost. Keep investing in our defence even if it’s never going to do the job we would need should the worst happen or even be particularly effective at avoiding it happening in the first place.

One of the few things the right are probably right about is that we aren’t able and likely won’t ever be able to go to war with Russia. So one has to decide if NATO doesn’t hold or is weakened what becomes sensible and what becomes vanity with defence spending. What size of defence makes Russia think ‘well that’s going to be a bit painful let’s not bother’ because that’s the best we’ll hope for. People still think as though it’s the 1930’s and a few crack pilots and dads army matters but the reality is that most of our defence would be defending our infrastructure from cyber attack, physical attacks and espionage and that’s expensive to protect - very expensive yet has little to no obvious or discernible pay off if an attack doesn’t happen. Unlike say giving some old dudes massive boners that choke their frigid old wives if we brought back national service.

To be honest I'd much rather pump money into the UK defence system than give aid to overseas countries whose population is heading over here because they see, hey those guys have pots of money to waste on us, let's go.
So it's only 'the right' who care about defence then? Russia has no need to worry with the bunch of far left Trotsky's buried in this nation institutions, comrade Starmer cannot sell us out to Russia so he heads for the next best thing, the EU.
Missiles and drones that can be used accurately and the ability to take down incoming is the way forward, for far too long under all governments and the peace loving commie tuckers, we have relied on not much getting across Europe, but that's changing, the NATO, EU sycophants who spent the bare minimum they could on defence are as reliable as chocolate fire guards. To think, some tools want to be back in their club, wow!

Honestly I don’t think even you know what you are twittering on about.

We were spending 2.5% of GDP under Labour last time. They are now restoring that level of defence spending. Who was in power for 14 years as defence spending was cut? Was it those delivering Brexit and who Farage described as ‘delivering the best budget since 1986?’

Also it’s pretty clear that Putin has bought and owned the right - Trump, Farage and their hangers on are simply Putin drones doing what he wants. Scared to disobey their overlord. I mean they are also the ones with a track record going back decades of sycophantic support for Putin and his regime. The left who might share such views are considered too reprehensible to be in a mainstream party. Something to think about.

[Hoboh]

Don't forget that a lot of pay your whack is simply buy more arms from American companies. Arbitrary percentages are bollocks. How about figure out capability requirements/desires, price it, put it in the budget and fund it. You can even break it down into essentials (definitely fund it), should have it (next priority in funding) and would like it (fund it when can afford it if still want it then).

Add on top sunk fallacy cost. Keep investing in our defence even if it’s never going to do the job we would need should the worst happen or even be particularly effective at avoiding it happening in the first place.

One of the few things the right are probably right about is that we aren’t able and likely won’t ever be able to go to war with Russia. So one has to decide if NATO doesn’t hold or is weakened what becomes sensible and what becomes vanity with defence spending. What size of defence makes Russia think ‘well that’s going to be a bit painful let’s not bother’ because that’s the best we’ll hope for. People still think as though it’s the 1930’s and a few crack pilots and dads army matters but the reality is that most of our defence would be defending our infrastructure from cyber attack, physical attacks and espionage and that’s expensive to protect - very expensive yet has little to no obvious or discernible pay off if an attack doesn’t happen. Unlike say giving some old dudes massive boners that choke their frigid old wives if we brought back national service.

To be honest I'd much rather pump money into the UK defence system than give aid to overseas countries whose population is heading over here because they see, hey those guys have pots of money to waste on us, let's go.
So it's only 'the right' who care about defence then? Russia has no need to worry with the bunch of far left Trotsky's buried in this nation institutions, comrade Starmer cannot sell us out to Russia so he heads for the next best thing, the EU.
Missiles and drones that can be used accurately and the ability to take down incoming is the way forward, for far too long under all governments and the peace loving commie tuckers, we have relied on not much getting across Europe, but that's changing, the NATO, EU sycophants who spent the bare minimum they could on defence are as reliable as chocolate fire guards. To think, some tools want to be back in their club, wow!

Honestly I don’t think even you know what you are twittering on about.

We were spending 2.5% of GDP under Labour last time. They are now restoring that level of defence spending. Who was in power for 14 years as defence spending was cut? Was it those delivering Brexit and who Farage described as ‘delivering the best budget since 1986?’

Also it’s pretty clear that Putin has bought and owned the right - Trump, Farage and their hangers on are simply Putin drones doing what he wants. Scared to disobey their overlord. I mean they are also the ones with a track record going back decades of sycophantic support for Putin and his regime. The left who might share such views are considered too reprehensible to be in a mainstream party. Something to think about.

Seems even the fool currently in no 10 knows what I'm twittering about mate.

Yes we were defence spending under the last labour government at 2.5%, we were also fighting two feckinvg wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, when spending should have been so much more. Remember families having to send kit and boots to the front lines? Yes it really did happen or the unarmoured land rovers and poorly equipped troop carriers falling victims to IED's?

Defence spending has been failed by ALL governments since they took the cold war bonus and even in peacetime should be a minimum of 3%.

What I found amusing was the faces of Raynor and the Robot sat either side of Starmer whilst he made the announcement, yes the did mumble hear hear, but the blank expression really showed what they were thinking. Oh, and it seem the left wing, the far left seem to be grooming a new leader replacement in the shape of another female Robot, Bridget Philipson.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Why the obsession with percentages? Our economy is stagnant at best and hardly going to improve in any meaningful way for the foreseeable. So by the time we hit 2027 your 3% will likely need to be nearer 4% just to stand still. Asking Estonia to spend 2% or 3% of GDP isn't going to be enough to defend against the Russian Boy Scouts, let alone last a week against the Russian Army. How about we suss out what we need and do that? Better than Admiral Eton Toff going, oooh, an extra £20 billion lets spend it on another aircraft carrier.

[BWFC_Insane]

Why the obsession with percentages? Our economy is stagnant at best and hardly going to improve in any meaningful way for the foreseeable. So by the time we hit 2027 your 3% will likely need to be nearer 4% just to stand still. Asking Estonia to spend 2% or 3% of GDP isn't going to be enough to defend against the Russian Boy Scouts, let alone last a week against the Russian Army. How about we suss out what we need and do that? Better than Admiral Eton Toff going, oooh, an extra £20 billion lets spend it on another aircraft carrier.

The economy broadly is growing just slowly.

I agree generally that % of GDP is somewhat pointless but defence and foreign aid spending has always been calculated as % of GDP or GNI.

[Worthy4England]

It's a pretty dumb metric in isolation. When GDP dips, you need to up the % just to stand still. The NATO 2% is often missed by many NATO members. We need to determine what we need and plan for that.

[BWFC_Insane]

It's a pretty dumb metric in isolation. When GDP dips, you need to up the % just to stand still. The NATO 2% is often missed by many NATO members. We need to determine what we need and plan for that.

I think the reason we nor anyone else does is what you need is highly subjective and probably a vast amount more than we would end up paying.

The deterrent argument is all we’ve got and even that isn’t that strong.

[Hoboh]

Why the obsession with percentages? Our economy is stagnant at best and hardly going to improve in any meaningful way for the foreseeable. So by the time we hit 2027 your 3% will likely need to be nearer 4% just to stand still. Asking Estonia to spend 2% or 3% of GDP isn't going to be enough to defend against the Russian Boy Scouts, let alone last a week against the Russian Army. How about we suss out what we need and do that? Better than Admiral Eton Toff going, oooh, an extra £20 billion lets spend it on another aircraft carrier.

What we actually purchase is the important bit we are failing on, UK defence is not about billion £ aircraft carriers sailing around the Pacific even the MOD saw the sense in not replacing long distance bombers, missiles are the option now. We need an Iron dome type system to protect our shores, that's defence.

[BWFC_Insane]

We will make mistakes. We won’t be perfect. For example one of the things we accidentally cancelled very briefly was Ebola protection.

Dear god. It’s beyond parody. I can’t think of any person in the world less suited to doing anything. Absolutely ridiculous on every level. I hope he gets Ebola.

[Worthy4England]

Why the obsession with percentages? Our economy is stagnant at best and hardly going to improve in any meaningful way for the foreseeable. So by the time we hit 2027 your 3% will likely need to be nearer 4% just to stand still. Asking Estonia to spend 2% or 3% of GDP isn't going to be enough to defend against the Russian Boy Scouts, let alone last a week against the Russian Army. How about we suss out what we need and do that? Better than Admiral Eton Toff going, oooh, an extra £20 billion lets spend it on another aircraft carrier.

What we actually purchase is the important bit we are failing on, UK defence is not about billion £ aircraft carriers sailing around the Pacific even the MOD saw the sense in not replacing long distance bombers, missiles are the option now. We need an Iron dome type system to protect our shores, that's defence.

Sorta like a modern wall? While since we had one of those convos! I agree the "what" is important.

I think it would be short sighted in the extreme to focus just on our shoreline and what's inside of it and one element of investment, missiles.

The other element is if you only defend against a bigger opponent then at some point you probably succumb.

Iron dome isn't infallible nor is it only one thing. It's currently 4/5 things, and whilst we certainly need missiles, them little fireworks don't come cheap, either.

The notion that the only thing we do is to don a set of metaphorical plate armour and watch them bounce off, in isolation of any other tactics won't save us. There is also the not insignificant threat that the more we move these platforms to the cyber domain, the more we need to invest to protect that as it's own potential attack vector.

A bit like the debate about wind energy vs fossil vs nuclear, the answer probably isn't backing one dog in the race. But there's only one wallet so it needs thought.

As for how good/bad NATO is, struggling to recall anyone attacking a NATO member. Would we all ramp up if Russia hit Estonia, dunno. But neither does Putin.

[Hoboh]

Defence has to start at your own borders primarily. One large explosion in a certain place could render large areas of the North of England and Scottish borders the most dangerous place on the planet without a nuclear weapon being fired. Missiles and anti Missile systems alongside drones are the way wars are fought, some air power Is necessary alongside the good old foot soldiers, but large target billion pound carriers with billions needed to protect them? I'm not sure, submarines, not the ballistic ones, carrying cruise Missiles and other things would be far more potent.

Alas there will always be a bill for this, no getting away from that, so it's either shrimp farms in Bangladesh, electric vehicles for the Albanian prison service or new Merc cars for some overseas dictators, some of these places have had billions and billions spent on them over decades with little or no change, I know where my choice would be.