Have just toasted “the immortal memory”, whilst being “depressed” about the current state of the RN!
andy97 retweeted
I've been beating up on UK's lack of an effective Navy recently and have duly received the usual rage-posts from indignant UK subjects with no particular expertise.
Let me lay it out:
- UK is an island nation, meaning she cannot survive unless she has unimpeded access to ocean-based trade routes. Food, Fuel, you name it, must arrive from sea. And as UK learned in two world wars, these sea lines of communication are exceedingly vulnerable.
- UK has 14 overseas territories located worldwide, in virtually every ocean and region, from the South Atlantic, to the Carribean, to the Indian Ocean. And as the UK learned in the Falklands, these territories must be protected. Even as I write this, Another dispute is blooming over the Falklands. And if this ended up in another war, the outcome might not be advantageous to the UK. And unlike the 1st Falkland War, I doubt the USA would be as helpful.
- So now we discuss what the UK has available to protect their sea lines of communication and all these territories... You have "on-paper," 11 combatants: 2 carriers + 6 Type 45 destroyers + 5 Type 23 frigates. In addition you have 4 SSBNs (not useful unless there's a nuclear war), and 6 Astute Class SSNs. And of these "paper-tiger," less than 1/2 of your surface vessels are operational, and perhaps only 1 SSN could manage to get underway.
That's it. An otherwise great nation with worldwide vital interests, possessing a fictional Navy pitted against world powers who don't particularly like you, meanwhile the only useful ally the UK had (The USA), has been thoroughly pissed off by your Labor government's lack of courage when we needed them in Iran.
Consider this an intervention, kind of like talking a drunk out of his car keys. Look - I Iove the UK, but please do better.
Mrs97 was in court today (Magistrate); one case involved a 22 year old who was convicted of dangerous driving, driving without a licence (only a prov) & resisting arrest. He lives at home, unemployed but has a PIP due to anxiety. Why?
Whilst those of us who are “defence stakeholders” have been hanging on for the DiP for 12 months or so, has anyone else wondered why we don’t have “an NHS investment plan” or a “infrastructure investment plan” etc etc?
I reckon the worst thing to happen to politics in this country is 24 hour news.
They have to have stories to report, so they amplify every issue, examine every last social media post or interview & manufacture dissent/ crises to create stories. The media created the current mess.
andy97 retweeted
In previous Labour leadership elections, Burnham came fourth in 2010 and a very poor second in 2015. His campaigns did not hold up to scrutiny.
Now the conniving little weasel has found a way to avoid accountability and Labour MPs are endorsing his shameful behaviour.
andy97 retweeted
The assumption that Andy Burnham would simply walk into the Labour leadership is a very dangerous one.
Labour's own Rule Book requires a candidate to secure the support of 20% of Labour MPs before proceeding to a leadership contest. With the current Parliamentary Labour Party, that means securing the backing of 81 MPs. The rules do not provide for an automatic succession, nor do they suggest that Labour members should be denied a choice.
In fact, the idea that Burnham would be the only credible candidate is difficult to sustain. Take Darren Jones, for example. He has served at the heart of Government, worked closely with Number 10, demonstrated a detailed understanding of economic policy, and emerged as one of Labour's most articulate communicators. Whether one agrees with him or not, he has shown leadership qualities and has become a prominent figure within the party.
The point is not that Darren Jones should become leader. The point is that there are credible alternatives. If Keir Starmer were to resign, there would undoubtedly be MPs capable of securing the required nominations and presenting Labour members with a genuine choice.
That is why the assumption of a Burnham coronation is so misguided. It ignores the reality that Labour contains talented individuals from across the centre left who may command significant support within both the Parliamentary Labour Party and the wider membership.
A leadership election is supposed to be a contest of ideas, vision and competence. It is not supposed to be a prearranged procession towards a predetermined outcome.
The irony is that many of those arguing most strongly for democracy within the Labour Party now appear to be advocating a process that would deny members any meaningful say at all.
If Andy Burnham believes he is the right person to lead Labour, then he should be prepared to make that case in an open contest. Equally, candidates such as Darren Jones, or others who may emerge, should be given the same opportunity.
Ultimately, the decision should belong to Labour members. A coronation would settle nothing. It would merely deepen the divisions that are already becoming visible across the party.
andy97 retweeted
This G7 economy with nuclear weapons is about to crown someone PM who hasn't been in Parliament for years and has zero foreign or defence policy creds, all because he has a nice smile, nothern accent, wears a T-shirt with a jacket and did something to bus fares in one city. Wow.
andy97 retweeted
Just keeping this one warm for the week ahead. One expects full blown hypocrisy from Labour if Burnham is just tossed the keys to No10 as if it were a rental car….
So, u have just been appointed Minister for Def - what r u going to cut to balance books? & u have to. @TomSharpe134 @MtarfaL @strategyforward @gregbagwell @edwardstrngr65 @pinstripedline @Gabriel64869839?
Me:
Ajax, Chally 3, Brunei, Rangers out of NATO, Public duties, Apache.
B1 River Class (TBRB B2s withdrawn from Indo-Pacific & Med/WAfrica), Dartmouth. 1 x N base
Red Arrows, Cranwell, NMH
No idea what that saves but its a start. Lots of sacred cows. Lots of howls. Necessity.
It’s time the Govt did serious studies into Y the U.K. gets such poor VfM for its spending. It’s not just defence that’s crap, but health, education, transport etc. Look at HS2, Crossrail, Hinckley Pt etc as eg’s. Do other countries do it better - France, S Korea, USA, etc?
The last Gen Election & today’s Local election results show that people want change & r impatient BUT, as long as it doesn’t adversely affect them. We can’t cut welfare, or services, & can’t raise taxes or borrowing; there’s no growth so what is a Govt supposed to do?
What benefit does the USA get from NATO:
1. Collective defence - NATO helped when Art 5 declared post 9/11.
2. Massive regional military & geo-political influence
3. Intel sharing. Yes, the USA provides, but it also takes, often in key areas it doesn’t cover.
4. Arms sales 1/n
I’d argue that the USA gets as much benefit back from being part of NATO as it does get handicapped. NATO provides structure and stability, and yes it needs reform and for more European investment but the USA loses the benefits outlined above at its peril. 3/n