politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Confessions of a door to door fireplace salesman

SystemSystem Posts: 11,016
edited June 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Confessions of a door to door fireplace salesman

MAIL On Sunday: “Give Me £20bn Or I’ll Bring You Down” #bbcpapers #tomorrowspaperstoday pic.twitter.com/s8dmSEroe8

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I’m delighted to see Theresa May taking my advice:

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/01/17/alastair-meeks-recommends-his-approach-to-baldness-as-britains-best-post-brexit-strategy/
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,305
    Williamson is absolutely right.

    £2 billion extra a year to maintain the health of the armed forces, in an environment where the NHS is getting an extra £23 billion, is entirely reasonable.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,612
    Casino_Royale said:

    Williamson is absolutely right.

    £2 billion extra a year to maintain the health of the armed forces, in an environment where the NHS is getting an extra £23 billion, is entirely reasonable.

    His argument may be sound, the reporting of it does him no favours...
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,936
    The 'Peace Dividend' was always a stupid idea. It should have been obvious to anyone with a brain that the end of the Cold War and the disruption of the East/West balance was going to result in more, not less, conflict around the world.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,870
    Is this Formula 1 or the local demolition derby?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,518
    Shut up and go away.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,518
    edited June 2018
    Sandpit said:

    Is this Formula 1 or the local demolition derby?

    Sainz in third ?

    And Raikonnen the only one (outside of the crasher/crashees) to lose a place....
  • Options
    Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    AlastairMeeks said:

    I’m delighted to see Theresa May taking my advice:

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/01/17/alastair-meeks-recommends-his-approach-to-baldness-as-britains-best-post-brexit-strategy/

    My own journey with hair is remarkably similar to yours.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    I’m delighted to see Theresa May taking my advice:

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/01/17/alastair-meeks-recommends-his-approach-to-baldness-as-britains-best-post-brexit-strategy/

    My own journey with hair is remarkably similar to yours.
    From High Barnet to Oval?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,870
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Is this Formula 1 or the local demolition derby?

    Sainz in third ?

    And Raikonnen the only one (outside of the crasher/crashees) to lose a place....
    It’s pretty much certain that Kimi will not finish lap 1 further forward than he started. Something like 30 races now.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,065
    One aspect of the England team's improvement is the ending of the obsession about 'world class' players, who it should be remembered rarely achieved anything on the world stage.

    Football is for teams not individuals.

    World class individuals rarely win tournaments but well organised and skillful teams do.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,518
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Is this Formula 1 or the local demolition derby?

    Sainz in third ?

    And Raikonnen the only one (outside of the crasher/crashees) to lose a place....
    It’s pretty much certain that Kimi will not finish lap 1 further forward than he started. Something like 30 races now.
    Yes, he’s not completely lost his skills, but no longer has the edge as a top flight driver.
    It-is-I-Leclerc should replace him sooner rather than later.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,870
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Is this Formula 1 or the local demolition derby?

    Sainz in third ?

    And Raikonnen the only one (outside of the crasher/crashees) to lose a place....
    It’s pretty much certain that Kimi will not finish lap 1 further forward than he started. Something like 30 races now.
    Yes, he’s not completely lost his skills, but no longer has the edge as a top flight driver.
    It-is-I-Leclerc should replace him sooner rather than later.
    Yup. Its not usually Ferrari’s thing to take a young driver, but Leclerc is the next Hamilton and there’s a few really good F2 drivers coming through in the next couple of years.

    My couple of quid on Bottas looking very much gone now...
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Is this Formula 1 or the local demolition derby?

    Sainz in third ?

    And Raikonnen the only one (outside of the crasher/crashees) to lose a place....
    It’s pretty much certain that Kimi will not finish lap 1 further forward than he started. Something like 30 races now.
    The Radio 5 theory is that he does better in the later races.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,052
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    I’m delighted to see Theresa May taking my advice:

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/01/17/alastair-meeks-recommends-his-approach-to-baldness-as-britains-best-post-brexit-strategy/

    My own journey with hair is remarkably similar to yours.
    From High Barnet to Oval?
    If you're travelling from High Barnet to Oval, it's best not to take a detour on the Circle line.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,218
    There are 2 issues here. The answer to the first, namely whether Gavin Williamson was over promoted as a fire place salesman, let alone having any role in HMG, is pretty obvious. In a weak government seriously lacking in talent his appointment could only be explained by the Great British love of eccentricity. He should be removed forthwith.

    The second issue, namely what we need to spend on defence, is much more complicated. What do we want to do with our armed forces? Do we want to have the capability to intervene in the world’s hot spots, even with others, or not ?

    We are fortunate enough to live in an increasingly quiet and unimportant backwater. The days when what Europe thought mattered a damn in the world have long passed. There is the Russian threat but it is something of a joke outside cyber space. There is terrorism but our defences against that are intelligence and policing, not main battle tanks or destroyers.

    I think the true answer is we don’t face any material threats at the present time or in the foreseeable future. The question therefore remains do we want to be a player in world affairs and are we willing to spend the blood and treasure needed for a seat at the table? It’s a tough call.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,518
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Is this Formula 1 or the local demolition derby?

    Sainz in third ?

    And Raikonnen the only one (outside of the crasher/crashees) to lose a place....
    It’s pretty much certain that Kimi will not finish lap 1 further forward than he started. Something like 30 races now.
    Yes, he’s not completely lost his skills, but no longer has the edge as a top flight driver.
    It-is-I-Leclerc should replace him sooner rather than later.
    Yup. Its not usually Ferrari’s thing to take a young driver, but Leclerc is the next Hamilton and there’s a few really good F2 drivers coming through in the next couple of years.

    My couple of quid on Bottas looking very much gone now...
    Possible rain...
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,149
    Somebody did a good job leaking this. He either does nothing, which makes him look a tit and makes an example of him, or he actually triggers a leadership contest, which May would probably win, once MPs were faced with the awfulness of alternatives like this. If she did she'd then be safe in the leadership for a year and she'd have a lot more freedom to manoeuvre.
  • Options
    The_Mule_The_Mule_ Posts: 30
    In an alternate universe..

    England 1 (Rooney, pen, 78’)
    Panama 0

    Sam Allardyce Delighted To Bounce Back With Three Points After Tunisia Horror Show!

    “We just wanted to be alive going into the Belgium game and thanks to that man-of-the-match performance from JT we are”
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,870
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Is this Formula 1 or the local demolition derby?

    Sainz in third ?

    And Raikonnen the only one (outside of the crasher/crashees) to lose a place....
    It’s pretty much certain that Kimi will not finish lap 1 further forward than he started. Something like 30 races now.
    Yes, he’s not completely lost his skills, but no longer has the edge as a top flight driver.
    It-is-I-Leclerc should replace him sooner rather than later.
    Yup. Its not usually Ferrari’s thing to take a young driver, but Leclerc is the next Hamilton and there’s a few really good F2 drivers coming through in the next couple of years.

    My couple of quid on Bottas looking very much gone now...
    Possible rain...
    And the tyre deg isn’t what we thought it would be either. Lewis could stop for the Ultras if it doesn’t rain.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,052
    edited June 2018
    DavidL said:

    We are fortunate enough to live in an increasingly quiet and unimportant backwater. The days when what Europe thought mattered a damn in the world have long passed. There is the Russian threat but it is something of a joke outside cyber space. There is terrorism but our defences against that are intelligence and policing, not main battle tanks or destroyers.

    I think the true answer is we don’t face any material threats at the present time or in the foreseeable future. The question therefore remains do we want to be a player in world affairs and are we willing to spend the blood and treasure needed for a seat at the table? It’s a tough call.

    Geopolitically I think Europe is moving into a phase of increasing centrality after a relatively quiet couple of decades.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,923
    Williamson, Grayling, Fox, Johnson, Davis ... a cabinet of all the talents.

    What an absolute shower.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    williamglenn said:

    DavidL said:

    We are fortunate enough to live in an increasingly quiet and unimportant backwater. The days when what Europe thought mattered a damn in the world have long passed. There is the Russian threat but it is something of a joke outside cyber space. There is terrorism but our defences against that are intelligence and policing, not main battle tanks or destroyers.

    I think the true answer is we don’t face any material threats at the present time or in the foreseeable future. The question therefore remains do we want to be a player in world affairs and are we willing to spend the blood and treasure needed for a seat at the table? It’s a tough call.

    Geopolitically I think Europe is moving into a phase of increasing centrality after a relatively quiet couple of decades.
    You are Jean-Claude Juncker, and I claim my 5p! :p
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,218
    williamglenn said:

    DavidL said:

    We are fortunate enough to live in an increasingly quiet and unimportant backwater. The days when what Europe thought mattered a damn in the world have long passed. There is the Russian threat but it is something of a joke outside cyber space. There is terrorism but our defences against that are intelligence and policing, not main battle tanks or destroyers.

    I think the true answer is we don’t face any material threats at the present time or in the foreseeable future. The question therefore remains do we want to be a player in world affairs and are we willing to spend the blood and treasure needed for a seat at the table? It’s a tough call.

    Geopolitically I think Europe is moving into a phase of increasing centrality after a relatively quiet couple of decades.
    On what basis? All of the action in at least the first half of this century is likely to be in Asia, mainly in the Pacific, as China throws its new weight around , Japan decides to tool up in response and the US diverts it’s power from Europe to the Pacific.

    This is good news, not bad. Europe had enough of being the killing field of the world in the last century to keep us going for another 100 years at least. No one in Europe other than ourselves and the French have any capacity, let alone desire, to project power elsewhere. The Chinese curse is may you live in interesting times. We don’t.
  • Options
    David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    RobD said:

    williamglenn said:

    DavidL said:

    We are fortunate enough to live in an increasingly quiet and unimportant backwater. The days when what Europe thought mattered a damn in the world have long passed. There is the Russian threat but it is something of a joke outside cyber space. There is terrorism but our defences against that are intelligence and policing, not main battle tanks or destroyers.

    I think the true answer is we don’t face any material threats at the present time or in the foreseeable future. The question therefore remains do we want to be a player in world affairs and are we willing to spend the blood and treasure needed for a seat at the table? It’s a tough call.

    Geopolitically I think Europe is moving into a phase of increasing centrality after a relatively quiet couple of decades.
    You are Jean-Claude Juncker, and I claim my 5p! :p
    I think you mean five euro.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,218
    SouthamObserver said:

    Williamson, Grayling, Fox, Johnson, Davis ... a cabinet of all the talents.

    What an absolute shower.

    Undeniable. But the alternative is much worse.
  • Options
    David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    DavidL said:

    There are 2 issues here. The answer to the first, namely whether Gavin Williamson was over promoted as a fire place salesman, let alone having any role in HMG, is pretty obvious. In a weak government seriously lacking in talent his appointment could only be explained by the Great British love of eccentricity. He should be removed forthwith.

    The second issue, namely what we need to spend on defence, is much more complicated. What do we want to do with our armed forces? Do we want to have the capability to intervene in the world’s hot spots, even with others, or not ?

    We are fortunate enough to live in an increasingly quiet and unimportant backwater. The days when what Europe thought mattered a damn in the world have long passed. There is the Russian threat but it is something of a joke outside cyber space. There is terrorism but our defences against that are intelligence and policing, not main battle tanks or destroyers.

    I think the true answer is we don’t face any material threats at the present time or in the foreseeable future. The question therefore remains do we want to be a player in world affairs and are we willing to spend the blood and treasure needed for a seat at the table? It’s a tough call.


    Bring back Fallon. He's done his time after a yellow card.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,282
    DavidL said:

    There are 2 issues here. The answer to the first, namely whether Gavin Williamson was over promoted as a fire place salesman, let alone having any role in HMG, is pretty obvious. In a weak government seriously lacking in talent his appointment could only be explained by the Great British love of eccentricity. He should be removed forthwith.

    The second issue, namely what we need to spend on defence, is much more complicated. What do we want to do with our armed forces? Do we want to have the capability to intervene in the world’s hot spots, even with others, or not ?

    We are fortunate enough to live in an increasingly quiet and unimportant backwater. The days when what Europe thought mattered a damn in the world have long passed. There is the Russian threat but it is something of a joke outside cyber space. There is terrorism but our defences against that are intelligence and policing, not main battle tanks or destroyers.

    I think the true answer is we don’t face any material threats at the present time or in the foreseeable future. The question therefore remains do we want to be a player in world affairs and are we willing to spend the blood and treasure needed for a seat at the table? It’s a tough call.

    Don't forget Frank Kitson's wise words that the next conflict we are engaged in will be unforeseen. Likewise in Op Telic the cry was: please no more special forces, Para Reg, RM Commandos, etc...we need MBTs.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,218
    David_Evershed said:

    DavidL said:

    There are 2 issues here. The answer to the first, namely whether Gavin Williamson was over promoted as a fire place salesman, let alone having any role in HMG, is pretty obvious. In a weak government seriously lacking in talent his appointment could only be explained by the Great British love of eccentricity. He should be removed forthwith.

    The second issue, namely what we need to spend on defence, is much more complicated. What do we want to do with our armed forces? Do we want to have the capability to intervene in the world’s hot spots, even with others, or not ?

    We are fortunate enough to live in an increasingly quiet and unimportant backwater. The days when what Europe thought mattered a damn in the world have long passed. There is the Russian threat but it is something of a joke outside cyber space. There is terrorism but our defences against that are intelligence and policing, not main battle tanks or destroyers.

    I think the true answer is we don’t face any material threats at the present time or in the foreseeable future. The question therefore remains do we want to be a player in world affairs and are we willing to spend the blood and treasure needed for a seat at the table? It’s a tough call.


    Bring back Fallon. He's done his time after a yellow card.
    I would prefer to promote some of the talent on the back benches who would give better choices going forward but either way, get rid.
  • Options
    David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    I’m delighted to see Theresa May taking my advice:

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/01/17/alastair-meeks-recommends-his-approach-to-baldness-as-britains-best-post-brexit-strategy/

    My own journey with hair is remarkably similar to yours.
    From High Barnet to Oval?
    Very good.

    As regards hair I might use that in the future.
  • Options
    David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    There are 2 issues here. The answer to the first, namely whether Gavin Williamson was over promoted as a fire place salesman, let alone having any role in HMG, is pretty obvious. In a weak government seriously lacking in talent his appointment could only be explained by the Great British love of eccentricity. He should be removed forthwith.

    The second issue, namely what we need to spend on defence, is much more complicated. What do we want to do with our armed forces? Do we want to have the capability to intervene in the world’s hot spots, even with others, or not ?

    We are fortunate enough to live in an increasingly quiet and unimportant backwater. The days when what Europe thought mattered a damn in the world have long passed. There is the Russian threat but it is something of a joke outside cyber space. There is terrorism but our defences against that are intelligence and policing, not main battle tanks or destroyers.

    I think the true answer is we don’t face any material threats at the present time or in the foreseeable future. The question therefore remains do we want to be a player in world affairs and are we willing to spend the blood and treasure needed for a seat at the table? It’s a tough call.

    Don't forget Frank Kitson's wise words that the next conflict we are engaged in will be unforeseen. Likewise in Op Telic the cry was: please no more special forces, Para Reg, RM Commandos, etc...we need MBTs.

    MBTs or MTBs ?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,218
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    There are 2 issues here. The answer to the first, namely whether Gavin Williamson was over promoted as a fire place salesman, let alone having any role in HMG, is pretty obvious. In a weak government seriously lacking in talent his appointment could only be explained by the Great British love of eccentricity. He should be removed forthwith.

    The second issue, namely what we need to spend on defence, is much more complicated. What do we want to do with our armed forces? Do we want to have the capability to intervene in the world’s hot spots, even with others, or not ?

    We are fortunate enough to live in an increasingly quiet and unimportant backwater. The days when what Europe thought mattered a damn in the world have long passed. There is the Russian threat but it is something of a joke outside cyber space. There is terrorism but our defences against that are intelligence and policing, not main battle tanks or destroyers.

    I think the true answer is we don’t face any material threats at the present time or in the foreseeable future. The question therefore remains do we want to be a player in world affairs and are we willing to spend the blood and treasure needed for a seat at the table? It’s a tough call.

    Don't forget Frank Kitson's wise words that the next conflict we are engaged in will be unforeseen. Likewise in Op Telic the cry was: please no more special forces, Para Reg, RM Commandos, etc...we need MBTs.
    Not sure that is that wise. We need to prepare for what we can see. Do we want assets in the Pacific confrontations to come? I genuinely don’t know what the answer is.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,218
    David_Evershed said:

    RobD said:

    williamglenn said:

    DavidL said:

    We are fortunate enough to live in an increasingly quiet and unimportant backwater. The days when what Europe thought mattered a damn in the world have long passed. There is the Russian threat but it is something of a joke outside cyber space. There is terrorism but our defences against that are intelligence and policing, not main battle tanks or destroyers.

    I think the true answer is we don’t face any material threats at the present time or in the foreseeable future. The question therefore remains do we want to be a player in world affairs and are we willing to spend the blood and treasure needed for a seat at the table? It’s a tough call.

    Geopolitically I think Europe is moving into a phase of increasing centrality after a relatively quiet couple of decades.
    You are Jean-Claude Juncker, and I claim my 5p! :p
    I think you mean five euro.
    Surely at least one bottle of brandy?
  • Options
    David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    SouthamObserver said:

    Williamson, Grayling, Fox, Johnson, Davis ... a cabinet of all the talents.

    What an absolute shower.


    You are Terry Thomas and I claim my 5d.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,282
    David_Evershed said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    There are 2 issues here. The answer to the first, namely whether Gavin Williamson was over promoted as a fire place salesman, let alone having any role in HMG, is pretty obvious. In a weak government seriously lacking in talent his appointment could only be explained by the Great British love of eccentricity. He should be removed forthwith.

    The second issue, namely what we need to spend on defence, is much more complicated. What do we want to do with our armed forces? Do we want to have the capability to intervene in the world’s hot spots, even with others, or not ?

    We are fortunate enough to live in an increasingly quiet and unimportant backwater. The days when what Europe thought mattered a damn in the world have long passed. There is the Russian threat but it is something of a joke outside cyber space. There is terrorism but our defences against that are intelligence and policing, not main battle tanks or destroyers.

    I think the true answer is we don’t face any material threats at the present time or in the foreseeable future. The question therefore remains do we want to be a player in world affairs and are we willing to spend the blood and treasure needed for a seat at the table? It’s a tough call.

    Don't forget Frank Kitson's wise words that the next conflict we are engaged in will be unforeseen. Likewise in Op Telic the cry was: please no more special forces, Para Reg, RM Commandos, etc...we need MBTs.

    MBTs or MTBs ?
    MBTs!
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,218
    Christ is no one going to help Buttler?
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,282
    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    There are 2 issues here. The answer to the first, namely whether Gavin Williamson was over promoted as a fire place salesman, let alone having any role in HMG, is pretty obvious. In a weak government seriously lacking in talent his appointment could only be explained by the Great British love of eccentricity. He should be removed forthwith.

    The second issue, namely what we need to spend on defence, is much more complicated. What do we want to do with our armed forces? Do we want to have the capability to intervene in the world’s hot spots, even with others, or not ?

    We are fortunate enough to live in an increasingly quiet and unimportant backwater. The days when what Europe thought mattered a damn in the world have long passed. There is the Russian threat but it is something of a joke outside cyber space. There is terrorism but our defences against that are intelligence and policing, not main battle tanks or destroyers.

    I think the true answer is we don’t face any material threats at the present time or in the foreseeable future. The question therefore remains do we want to be a player in world affairs and are we willing to spend the blood and treasure needed for a seat at the table? It’s a tough call.

    Don't forget Frank Kitson's wise words that the next conflict we are engaged in will be unforeseen. Likewise in Op Telic the cry was: please no more special forces, Para Reg, RM Commandos, etc...we need MBTs.
    Not sure that is that wise. We need to prepare for what we can see. Do we want assets in the Pacific confrontations to come? I genuinely don’t know what the answer is.
    We might or might not want assets in the Pacific but what is dangerous is saying: well we'll never need assets in the Pacific.

    The British Army in particular is always accused of fighting the last war. Preparing for what we can see today risks making the same mistake.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,218
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    There are 2 issues here. The answer to the first, namely whether Gavin Williamson was over promoted as a fire place salesman, let alone having any role in HMG, is pretty obvious. In a weak government seriously lacking in talent his appointment could only be explained by the Great British love of eccentricity. He should be removed forthwith.

    The second issue, namely what we need to spend on defence, is much more complicated. What do we want to do with our armed forces? Do we want to have the capability to intervene in the world’s hot spots, even with others, or not ?

    We are fortunate enough to live in an increasingly quiet and unimportant backwater. The days when what Europe thought mattered a damn in the world have long passed. There is the Russian threat but it is something of a joke outside cyber space. There is terrorism but our defences against that are intelligence and policing, not main battle tanks or destroyers.

    I think the true answer is we don’t face any material threats at the present time or in the foreseeable future. The question therefore remains do we want to be a player in world affairs and are we willing to spend the blood and treasure needed for a seat at the table? It’s a tough call.

    Don't forget Frank Kitson's wise words that the next conflict we are engaged in will be unforeseen. Likewise in Op Telic the cry was: please no more special forces, Para Reg, RM Commandos, etc...we need MBTs.
    Not sure that is that wise. We need to prepare for what we can see. Do we want assets in the Pacific confrontations to come? I genuinely don’t know what the answer is.
    We might or might not want assets in the Pacific but what is dangerous is saying: well we'll never need assets in the Pacific.

    The British Army in particular is always accused of fighting the last war. Preparing for what we can see today risks making the same mistake.
    Preparing for every eventuality is a job for a super power. We are about 100 years past that. If we try we simply spread our resources so thin that they are useless.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,282
    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    There are 2 issues here. The answer to the first, namely whether Gavin Williamson was over promoted as a fire place salesman, let alone having any role in HMG, is pretty obvious. In a weak government seriously lacking in talent his appointment could only be explained by the Great British love of eccentricity. He should be removed forthwith.

    The second issue, namely what we need to spend on defence, is much more complicated. What do we want to do with our armed forces? Do we want to have the capability to intervene in the world’s hot spots, even with others, or not ?

    We are fortunate enough to live in an increasingly quiet and unimportant backwater. The days when what Europe thought mattered a damn in the world have long passed. There is the Russian threat but it is something of a joke outside cyber space. There is terrorism but our defences against that are intelligence and policing, not main battle tanks or destroyers.

    I think the true answer is we don’t face any material threats at the present time or in the foreseeable future. The question therefore remains do we want to be a player in world affairs and are we willing to spend the blood and treasure needed for a seat at the table? It’s a tough call.

    Don't forget Frank Kitson's wise words that the next conflict we are engaged in will be unforeseen. Likewise in Op Telic the cry was: please no more special forces, Para Reg, RM Commandos, etc...we need MBTs.
    Not sure that is that wise. We need to prepare for what we can see. Do we want assets in the Pacific confrontations to come? I genuinely don’t know what the answer is.
    We might or might not want assets in the Pacific but what is dangerous is saying: well we'll never need assets in the Pacific.

    The British Army in particular is always accused of fighting the last war. Preparing for what we can see today risks making the same mistake.
    Preparing for every eventuality is a job for a super power. We are about 100 years past that. If we try we simply spread our resources so thin that they are useless.
    There is a difference between preparing for every eventuality and maintaining a flexible multi-role force.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,870
    Damn, I thought about backing Kimi for a podium and didn’t do it.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,052
    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    There are 2 issues here. The answer to the first, namely whether Gavin Williamson was over promoted as a fire place salesman, let alone having any role in HMG, is pretty obvious. In a weak government seriously lacking in talent his appointment could only be explained by the Great British love of eccentricity. He should be removed forthwith.

    The second issue, namely what we need to spend on defence, is much more complicated. What do we want to do with our armed forces? Do we want to have the capability to intervene in the world’s hot spots, even with others, or not ?

    We are fortunate enough to live in an increasingly quiet and unimportant backwater. The days when what Europe thought mattered a damn in the world have long passed. There is the Russian threat but it is something of a joke outside cyber space. There is terrorism but our defences against that are intelligence and policing, not main battle tanks or destroyers.

    I think the true answer is we don’t face any material threats at the present time or in the foreseeable future. The question therefore remains do we want to be a player in world affairs and are we willing to spend the blood and treasure needed for a seat at the table? It’s a tough call.

    Don't forget Frank Kitson's wise words that the next conflict we are engaged in will be unforeseen. Likewise in Op Telic the cry was: please no more special forces, Para Reg, RM Commandos, etc...we need MBTs.
    Not sure that is that wise. We need to prepare for what we can see. Do we want assets in the Pacific confrontations to come? I genuinely don’t know what the answer is.
    We might or might not want assets in the Pacific but what is dangerous is saying: well we'll never need assets in the Pacific.

    The British Army in particular is always accused of fighting the last war. Preparing for what we can see today risks making the same mistake.
    Preparing for every eventuality is a job for a super power. We are about 100 years past that. If we try we simply spread our resources so thin that they are useless.
    What about the eventuality that the US diverts its power from Europe, as you are predicting? What do you think is the extent of Russia's ambition to overturn the existing order in Europe?
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,597
    williamglenn said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    I’m delighted to see Theresa May taking my advice:

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/01/17/alastair-meeks-recommends-his-approach-to-baldness-as-britains-best-post-brexit-strategy/

    My own journey with hair is remarkably similar to yours.
    From High Barnet to Oval?
    If you're travelling from High Barnet to Oval, it's best not to take a detour on the Circle line.
    Or via Charlton

    (Bobby)
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,218
    williamglenn said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    There are 2 issues here. The answer to the first, namely whether Gavin Williamson was over promoted as a fire place salesman, let alone having any role in HMG, is pretty obvious. In a weak government seriously lacking in talent his appointment could only be explained by the Great British love of eccentricity. He should be removed forthwith.

    The second issue, namely what we need to spend on defence, is much more complicated. What do we want to do with our armed forces? Do we want to have the capability to intervene in the world’s hot spots, even with others, or not ?

    We are fortunate enough to live in an increasingly quiet and unimportant backwater. The days when what Europe thought mattered a damn in the world have long passed. There is the Russian threat but it is something of a joke outside cyber space. There is terrorism but our defences against that are intelligence and policing, not main battle tanks or destroyers.

    I think the true answer is we don’t face any material threats at the present time or in the foreseeable future. The question therefore remains do we want to be a player in world affairs and are we willing to spend the blood and treasure needed for a seat at the table? It’s a tough call.

    Don't forget Frank Kitson's wise words that the next conflict we are engaged in will be unforeseen. Likewise in Op Telic the cry was: please no more special forces, Para Reg, RM Commandos, etc...we need MBTs.
    Not sure that is that wise. We need to prepare for what we can see. Do we want assets in the Pacific confrontations to come? I genuinely don’t know what the answer is.
    We might or might not want assets in the Pacific but what is dangerous is saying: well we'll never need assets in the Pacific.

    The British Army in particular is always accused of fighting the last war. Preparing for what we can see today risks making the same mistake.
    Preparing for every eventuality is a job for a super power. We are about 100 years past that. If we try we simply spread our resources so thin that they are useless.
    What about the eventuality that the US diverts its power from Europe, as you are predicting? What do you think is the extent of Russia's ambition to overturn the existing order in Europe?
    Russia are a joke. Their country collapsing and causing a refugee crisis is a bigger risk.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,218
    If Buttler brings this home (highly unlikely ) his status as the best ODI batsman in the world will be confirmed.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,052
    DavidL said:

    williamglenn said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    There are 2 issues here. The answer to the first, namely whether Gavin Williamson was over promoted as a fire place salesman, let alone having any role in HMG, is pretty obvious. In a weak government seriously lacking in talent his appointment could only be explained by the Great British love of eccentricity. He should be removed forthwith.

    The second issue, namely what we need to spend on defence, is much more complicated. What do we want to do with our armed forces? Do we want to have the capability to intervene in the world’s hot spots, even with others, or not ?

    We are fortunate enough to live in an increasingly quiet and unimportant backwater. The days when what Europe thought mattered a damn in the world have long passed. There is the Russian threat but it is something of a joke outside cyber space. There is terrorism but our defences against that are intelligence and policing, not main battle tanks or destroyers.

    I think the true answer is we don’t face any material threats at the present time or in the foreseeable future. The question therefore remains do we want to be a player in world affairs and are we willing to spend the blood and treasure needed for a seat at the table? It’s a tough call.

    Don't forget Frank Kitson's wise words that the next conflict we are engaged in will be unforeseen. Likewise in Op Telic the cry was: please no more special forces, Para Reg, RM Commandos, etc...we need MBTs.
    Not sure that is that wise. We need to prepare for what we can see. Do we want assets in the Pacific confrontations to come? I genuinely don’t know what the answer is.
    We might or might not want assets in the Pacific but what is dangerous is saying: well we'll never need assets in the Pacific.

    The British Army in particular is always accused of fighting the last war. Preparing for what we can see today risks making the same mistake.
    Preparing for every eventuality is a job for a super power. We are about 100 years past that. If we try we simply spread our resources so thin that they are useless.
    What about the eventuality that the US diverts its power from Europe, as you are predicting? What do you think is the extent of Russia's ambition to overturn the existing order in Europe?
    Russia are a joke. Their country collapsing and causing a refugee crisis is a bigger risk.
    So there's a risk they could become desperate and act recklessly?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,218
    williamglenn said:

    DavidL said:

    williamglenn said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    There are 2 issues here. The answer to the first, namely whether Gavin Williamson was over promoted as a fire place salesman, let alone having any role in HMG, is pretty obvious. In a weak government seriously lacking in talent his appointment could only be explained by the Great British love of eccentricity. He should be removed forthwith.

    The second issue, namely what we need to spend on defence, is much more complicated. What do we want to do with our armed forces? Do we want to have the capability to intervene in the world’s hot spots, even with others, or not ?

    We are fortunate enough to live in an increasingly quiet and unimportant backwater. The days when what Europe thought mattered a damn in the world have long passed. There is the Russian threat but it is something of a joke outside cyber space. There is terrorism but our defences against that are intelligence and policing, not main battle tanks or destroyers.

    I think the true answer is we don’t face any material threats at the present time or in the foreseeable future. The question therefore remains do we want to be a player in world affairs and are we willing to spend the blood and treasure needed for a seat at the table? It’s a tough call.

    Don't forget Frank Kitson's wise words that the next conflict we are engaged in will be unforeseen. Likewise in Op Telic the cry was: please no more special forces, Para Reg, RM Commandos, etc...we need MBTs.
    Not sure that is that wise. We need to prepare for what we can see. Do we want assets in the Pacific confrontations to come? I genuinely don’t know what the answer is.
    We might or might not want assets in the Pacific but what is dangerous is saying: well we'll never need assets in the Pacific.

    The British Army in particular is always accused of fighting the last war. Preparing for what we can see today risks making the same mistake.
    Preparing for every eventuality is a job for a super power. We are about 100 years past that. If we try we simply spread our resources so thin that they are useless.
    What about the eventuality that the US diverts its power from Europe, as you are predicting? What do you think is the extent of Russia's ambition to overturn the existing order in Europe?
    Russia are a joke. Their country collapsing and causing a refugee crisis is a bigger risk.
    So there's a risk they could become desperate and act recklessly?
    Could? What do you think Putin has been doing for the last 5 years?
  • Options
    initforthemoneyinitforthemoney Posts: 736
    'Indeed a decent opposition could supplant the Tories as the party of defence, but Jeremy Corbyn, with his rich backstory, won’t be able to do that.'

    So if I've understood the thrust of the OP correctly, having useless politicians in both major parties is preventing us from blowing money on retaining a large enough military to portray ourselves as geopolitically significant. Could be much worse.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,052
    edited June 2018
    DavidL said:

    williamglenn said:

    DavidL said:

    Russia are a joke. Their country collapsing and causing a refugee crisis is a bigger risk.

    So there's a risk they could become desperate and act recklessly?
    Could? What do you think Putin has been doing for the last 5 years?
    Pursuing an aggressive strategy in a controlled way within his capacities and being very mindful of blowback.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,721
    The former fireplace salesman becomes another Tory making plans to oust Mrs May

    They should form an orderly queue.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,718
    I like Gavin Williamson quite a lot: he fights for the right things and pisses off the right people. Perhaps some background is required.

    Periodically the UK reviews what is needed for defence. Here is a list.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:UK_Defence_Review

    It was going quite well in Cameron II. But following Brexit there was the National Security Capability Review (NSCR)

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-security-capability-review-nscr

    Some of its recommendations were not well liked, and Gavin forced the defence elements to be considered separately in a Modernising Defence Programme (MDP)

    https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2018-01-25a.422.6
    https://rusi.org/commentary/uk-defence-modernisation-programme-risk-and-opportunity

    The MDP is due to report soon. Gavin, as is right and proper, is kicking arse as much as possible to get the forces the funding they need. I hope he succeeds, as should you.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,721
    Casino_Royale said:

    Williamson is absolutely right.

    £2 billion extra a year to maintain the health of the armed forces, in an environment where the NHS is getting an extra £23 billion, is entirely reasonable.

    And which other tax rises will we get to pay for it? And does anything else get any money?

    I'm not opposed to more spending on either (though I'd hope, like everyone, for smarter spending) but we'll be taking a Brexit hit for some while yet, and even abandoning austerity only gets us so far.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983
    Actually Williamson was made by May not the other way around, if he gets too big for his boots she can remove him too.

    In terms of the UK's defence position in Europe at most we may be overtaken by France, Germany for understandable reasons has always been reluctant since WW2 to be seen to build too big a military
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,721
    DavidL said:

    David_Evershed said:

    DavidL said:

    There are 2 issues here. The answer to the first, namely whether Gavin Williamson was over promoted as a fire place salesman, let alone having any role in HMG, is pretty obvious. In a weak government seriously lacking in talent his appointment could only be explained by the Great British love of eccentricity. He should be removed forthwith.

    The second issue, namely what we need to spend on defence, is much more complicated. What do we want to do with our armed forces? Do we want to have the capability to intervene in the world’s hot spots, even with others, or not ?

    We are fortunate enough to live in an increasingly quiet and unimportant backwater. The days when what Europe thought mattered a damn in the world have long passed. There is the Russian threat but it is something of a joke outside cyber space. There is terrorism but our defences against that are intelligence and policing, not main battle tanks or destroyers.

    I think the true answer is we don’t face any material threats at the present time or in the foreseeable future. The question therefore remains do we want to be a player in world affairs and are we willing to spend the blood and treasure needed for a seat at the table? It’s a tough call.


    Bring back Fallon. He's done his time after a yellow card.
    I would prefer to promote some of the talent on the back benches who would give better choices going forward but either way, get rid.
    How many Cabinet resignations/firings can one PM handle?
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1010915214861139968
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,976
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Man who has banned or taken over every media outlet in the country shocks everyone by being ahead in early vote count:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44596072
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,870
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Man who has banned or taken over every media outlet in the country shocks everyone by being ahead in early vote count:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44596072

    I thought you were talking about the idiotic public vote that gave the driver of the day award to the twat who started the first corner pileup.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,940
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1010915214861139968

    Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,709
    Casino_Royale said:

    Williamson is absolutely right.

    £2 billion extra a year to maintain the health of the armed forces, in an environment where the NHS is getting an extra £23 billion, is entirely reasonable.

    Just give the Magic Money Tree another shake.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,721
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1010915214861139968

    Genuine question, even if they see no benefits to Scotland, why would they vote against? What is it to them so long as it doesn't harm Scotland (and since the tweet doesn't suggest that is part of their reasoning, I assume there is none).
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,870
    edited June 2018
    JosiasJessop said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1010915214861139968

    Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.
    Recall Boris and march him through the lobby!

    To be honest it’s pretty much SOP for the SNats to renague at the last minute, not particularly unexpected.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,976
    Mr. Sandpit, don't pay much attention to driver of the day polls.

    Mr. Jessop, the SNP's there to stoke up division. Am curious as to why Heathrow doesn't count as an English decision, though.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,721
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Man who has banned or taken over every media outlet in the country shocks everyone by being ahead in early vote count:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44596072

    Shame - despite everything it would have been interesting to see him taken to a second round.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1010915214861139968

    Clearly after concessions. Reading the tweet thread, it seems the government have the numbers without them. Would be an utter farce if it didn't go through after, what, 20 years?
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Man who has banned or taken over every media outlet in the country shocks everyone by being ahead in early vote count:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44596072

    At least surby will be happy.
  • Options
    David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    TOPPING said:

    David_Evershed said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    There are 2 issues here. The answer to the first, namely whether Gavin Williamson was over promoted as a fire place salesman, let alone having any role in HMG, is pretty obvious. In a weak government seriously lacking in talent his appointment could only be explained by the Great British love of eccentricity. He should be removed forthwith.

    The second issue, namely what we need to spend on defence, is much more complicated. What do we want to do with our armed forces? Do we want to have the capability to intervene in the world’s hot spots, even with others, or not ?

    We are fortunate enough to live in an increasingly quiet and unimportant backwater. The days when what Europe thought mattered a damn in the world have long passed. There is the Russian threat but it is something of a joke outside cyber space. There is terrorism but our defences against that are intelligence and policing, not main battle tanks or destroyers.

    I think the true answer is we don’t face any material threats at the present time or in the foreseeable future. The question therefore remains do we want to be a player in world affairs and are we willing to spend the blood and treasure needed for a seat at the table? It’s a tough call.

    Don't forget Frank Kitson's wise words that the next conflict we are engaged in will be unforeseen. Likewise in Op Telic the cry was: please no more special forces, Para Reg, RM Commandos, etc...we need MBTs.

    MBTs or MTBs ?
    MBTs!
    I prefer motor torpedo boats to mechanical biological treatment plants in my armed forces.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,976
    Mr. Evershed, surely MBTs are Mecha-Borg Thatchers?
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,940
    Sandpit said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1010915214861139968

    Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.
    Recall Boris and march him through the lobby!

    To be honest it’s pretty much SOP for the SNats to renague at the last minute, not particularly unexpected.
    To make it clear: I don't particularly like the current proposals. I still think a Boris Island-style approach is the way to go, would be very future-proofed and enable a heck of a lot of associated development. However that battle has been lost, and it is obvious that we need to expand capacity at Heathrow. The current proposals might not be the best, but they are needed.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    kle4 said:

    The former fireplace salesman becomes another Tory making plans to oust Mrs May

    They should form an orderly queue.

    Poor tactics. They should all attack together, if they are to attack at all.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,721
    david_herdson said:

    kle4 said:

    The former fireplace salesman becomes another Tory making plans to oust Mrs May

    They should form an orderly queue.

    Poor tactics. They should all attack together, if they are to attack at all.
    But none of them want to help any of the others of course, which is why they've been too gutless to do more than leak and whinge (although in this case the leak was clearly not from Williamson himself).
  • Options
    David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    England need 10 runs from 5 overs with one wicket left. Buttler on 98 not out.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,870
    edited June 2018
    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1010915214861139968

    Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.
    Recall Boris and march him through the lobby!

    To be honest it’s pretty much SOP for the SNats to renague at the last minute, not particularly unexpected.
    To make it clear: I don't particularly like the current proposals. I still think a Boris Island-style approach is the way to go, would be very future-proofed and enable a heck of a lot of associated development. However that battle has been lost, and it is obvious that we need to expand capacity at Heathrow. The current proposals might not be the best, but they are needed.
    What I really don’t like about the current proposals is that there’s no 4th runway being voted on. Given it’s taken half our lifetimes to get a vote on the third one, we should be planning for the builders to start on 4 as soon as they finish 3.

    The concept of starting again is good, but BI was in completely the wrong location.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,870
    David_Evershed said:

    England need 10 runs from 5 overs with one wicket left. Buttler on 98 not out.

    Anyone who was watching that and betting could have made a good profit!
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,988
    JosiasJessop said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1010915214861139968

    Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.
    Great news. Last week I emailed each SNP MP personally with the reasons why they should not back Heathrow expansion and got responses from over half of them including a nice response from Ian Blackford.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    englander englander englander, we are going to win the World Cup....or is that just an afternoon in the pub talking ;-)
  • Options
    MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    Barnesian said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1010915214861139968

    Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.
    Great news. Last week I emailed each SNP MP personally with the reasons why they should not back Heathrow expansion and got responses from over half of them including a nice response from Ian Blackford.

    Reasons to vote against.

    #1 Tories Tories frickin' Tories

    #2 er....

  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,940
    Sandpit said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1010915214861139968

    Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.
    Recall Boris and march him through the lobby!

    To be honest it’s pretty much SOP for the SNats to renague at the last minute, not particularly unexpected.
    To make it clear: I don't particularly like the current proposals. I still think a Boris Island-style approach is the way to go, would be very future-proofed and enable a heck of a lot of associated development. However that battle has been lost, and it is obvious that we need to expand capacity at Heathrow. The current proposals might not be the best, but they are needed.
    What I really don’t like about the current proposals is that there’s no 4th runway being voted on. Given it’s taken half our lifetimes to get a vote on the third one, we should be planning for the builders to start on 4 as soon as they finish 3.

    The concept of starting again is good, but BI was in completely the wrong location.
    In the short term, yes. But BI would be a development for the next 100 years, and many of the locational issues would be 'solved' by associated developments it would enable. Heathrow R3 is only a sticking plaster for ten or twenty years - as you say, it'll soon need to be R4. And that will be massively costly.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,940
    Barnesian said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1010915214861139968

    Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.
    Great news. Last week I emailed each SNP MP personally with the reasons why they should not back Heathrow expansion and got responses from over half of them including a nice response from Ian Blackford.
    May I ask why you do not back Heathrow expansion?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,870
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    englander englander englander, we are going to win the World Cup....or is that just an afternoon in the pub talking ;-)

    Time to lay England now. Current lay price is 12.
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/football/event/27232418/market?marketId=1.114597310
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    That is a very good headline.

    But I don't think it measures up to Alistair Meeks' intro on Turkish conscripts.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    Sandpit said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    englander englander englander, we are going to win the World Cup....or is that just an afternoon in the pub talking ;-)

    Time to lay England now. Current lay price is 12.
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/football/event/27232418/market?marketId=1.114597310
    In all seriousness, defence is still as dodgy as they come. A good team are going to stick 2-3 past us.
  • Options
    MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1010915214861139968

    Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.
    Recall Boris and march him through the lobby!

    To be honest it’s pretty much SOP for the SNats to renague at the last minute, not particularly unexpected.
    To make it clear: I don't particularly like the current proposals. I still think a Boris Island-style approach is the way to go, would be very future-proofed and enable a heck of a lot of associated development. However that battle has been lost, and it is obvious that we need to expand capacity at Heathrow. The current proposals might not be the best, but they are needed.
    What I really don’t like about the current proposals is that there’s no 4th runway being voted on. Given it’s taken half our lifetimes to get a vote on the third one, we should be planning for the builders to start on 4 as soon as they finish 3.

    The concept of starting again is good, but BI was in completely the wrong location.
    In the short term, yes. But BI would be a development for the next 100 years, and many of the locational issues would be 'solved' by associated developments it would enable. Heathrow R3 is only a sticking plaster for ten or twenty years - as you say, it'll soon need to be R4. And that will be massively costly.

    They could go ahead with R3 and start looking at BI as a future replacement as well.

    Will give plenty of time for planning all the changes needed.

  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,988
    JosiasJessop said:

    Barnesian said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1010915214861139968

    Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.
    Great news. Last week I emailed each SNP MP personally with the reasons why they should not back Heathrow expansion and got responses from over half of them including a nice response from Ian Blackford.
    May I ask why you do not back Heathrow expansion?
    In short: faulty modelling, very suspicious process, takes too long (possibly will never happen).

    Gatwick immediately shovel ready with similar economic benefits at half the cost and a quarter of the disruption.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,870
    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1010915214861139968

    Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.
    Recall Boris and march him through the lobby!

    To be honest it’s pretty much SOP for the SNats to renague at the last minute, not particularly unexpected.
    To make it clear: I don't particularly like the current proposals. I still think a Boris Island-style approach is the way to go, would be very future-proofed and enable a heck of a lot of associated development. However that battle has been lost, and it is obvious that we need to expand capacity at Heathrow. The current proposals might not be the best, but they are needed.
    What I really don’t like about the current proposals is that there’s no 4th runway being voted on. Given it’s taken half our lifetimes to get a vote on the third one, we should be planning for the builders to start on 4 as soon as they finish 3.

    The concept of starting again is good, but BI was in completely the wrong location.
    In the short term, yes. But BI would be a development for the next 100 years, and many of the locational issues would be 'solved' by associated developments it would enable. Heathrow R3 is only a sticking plaster for ten or twenty years - as you say, it'll soon need to be R4. And that will be massively costly.
    There’s an awful lot of businesses West of LHR, down the M3, M4 and increasingly M40 corridors who will disagree with you.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,870
    Barnesian said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Barnesian said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1010915214861139968

    Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.
    Great news. Last week I emailed each SNP MP personally with the reasons why they should not back Heathrow expansion and got responses from over half of them including a nice response from Ian Blackford.
    May I ask why you do not back Heathrow expansion?
    In short: faulty modelling, very suspicious process, takes too long (possibly will never happen).

    Gatwick immediately shovel ready with similar economic benefits at half the cost and a quarter of the disruption.
    We need two new runways at LHR ***AND*** one new runway at LGW.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,936
    England win the cricket. Whitewash secured
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    englander englander englander, we are going to win the World Cup....or is that just an afternoon in the pub talking ;-)

    https://youtu.be/g8huXkSaL7o
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,721
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    England win the cricket. Whitewash secured

    And even the Rugby team managed to win yesterday as well. Happy days.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    England win the cricket. Whitewash secured

    A fabulous career in the judiciary awaits Eoin Morgan in retirement. Nobody whitewashes like he does!

    (I'm assuming Irish citizens can be British judges.)
  • Options
    David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    England win with one wicket left.

    Buttler 110 not out.

    England whitewash Australia 5-0 in the series.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,940
    Barnesian said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Barnesian said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1010915214861139968

    Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.
    Great news. Last week I emailed each SNP MP personally with the reasons why they should not back Heathrow expansion and got responses from over half of them including a nice response from Ian Blackford.
    May I ask why you do not back Heathrow expansion?
    In short: faulty modelling, very suspicious process, takes too long (possibly will never happen).

    Gatwick immediately shovel ready with similar economic benefits at half the cost and a quarter of the disruption.
    LOL. No. Gatwick isn't really a practical option - at least not if we want a hub airport.

    You say HR3 will 'possibly never happen' : I'll guarantee you one thing: if HR3 does not go ahead after all the time spent on it and political woe it has caused, Gatwick expansion will not happen either. No politician will want to touch it.

    As I say below, I think BI is the best long-term alternative. But once the decision was made I did not want to press it, as something is needed. If LH3 is stopped, don't expect to get your wish either. Perhaps you should have done the same ...
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,052
    Sandpit said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1010915214861139968

    Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.
    Recall Boris and march him through the lobby!

    To be honest it’s pretty much SOP for the SNats to renague at the last minute, not particularly unexpected.
    To make it clear: I don't particularly like the current proposals. I still think a Boris Island-style approach is the way to go, would be very future-proofed and enable a heck of a lot of associated development. However that battle has been lost, and it is obvious that we need to expand capacity at Heathrow. The current proposals might not be the best, but they are needed.
    What I really don’t like about the current proposals is that there’s no 4th runway being voted on. Given it’s taken half our lifetimes to get a vote on the third one, we should be planning for the builders to start on 4 as soon as they finish 3.

    The concept of starting again is good, but BI was in completely the wrong location.
    In the short term, yes. But BI would be a development for the next 100 years, and many of the locational issues would be 'solved' by associated developments it would enable. Heathrow R3 is only a sticking plaster for ten or twenty years - as you say, it'll soon need to be R4. And that will be massively costly.
    There’s an awful lot of businesses West of LHR, down the M3, M4 and increasingly M40 corridors who will disagree with you.
    BI would make expansion of airports like Birmingham and Bristol more feasible rather than having a cluster of airports that were vaguely ‘London’.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,721
    ydoethur said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    England win the cricket. Whitewash secured

    A fabulous career in the judiciary awaits Eoin Morgan in retirement. Nobody whitewashes like he does!

    (I'm assuming Irish citizens can be British judges.)
    Judicial appointments are open only to citizens (including those holding dual nationality) of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland or a Commonwealth country.

    https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/judges-career-paths/becoming-a-judge/
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    England win the cricket. Whitewash secured

    A fabulous career in the judiciary awaits Eoin Morgan in retirement. Nobody whitewashes like he does!

    (I'm assuming Irish citizens can be British judges.)
    Judicial appointments are open only to citizens (including those holding dual nationality) of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland or a Commonwealth country.

    https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/judges-career-paths/becoming-a-judge/
    Sorted!

    Think of all those privacy cases he could judge...
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,936
    kle4 said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    England win the cricket. Whitewash secured

    And even the Rugby team managed to win yesterday as well. Happy days.
    Quite an amazing weekend for the British Isles sports-wise. Cricket, Football, Rugby (England, Scotland and Ireland) and F1.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,940
    Sandpit said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1010915214861139968

    Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.
    Recall Boris and march him through the lobby!

    To be honest it’s pretty much SOP for the SNats to renague at the last minute, not particularly unexpected.
    To make it clear: I don't particularly like the current proposals. I still think a Boris Island-style approach is the way to go, would be very future-proofed and enable a heck of a lot of associated development. However that battle has been lost, and it is obvious that we need to expand capacity at Heathrow. The current proposals might not be the best, but they are needed.
    What I really don’t like about the current proposals is that there’s no 4th runway being voted on. Given it’s taken half our lifetimes to get a vote on the third one, we should be planning for the builders to start on 4 as soon as they finish 3.

    The concept of starting again is good, but BI was in completely the wrong location.
    In the short term, yes. But BI would be a development for the next 100 years, and many of the locational issues would be 'solved' by associated developments it would enable. Heathrow R3 is only a sticking plaster for ten or twenty years - as you say, it'll soon need to be R4. And that will be massively costly.
    There’s an awful lot of businesses West of LHR, down the M3, M4 and increasingly M40 corridors who will disagree with you.
    Well yes, they may. But we are talking about infrastructure that will last a century or more, and those businesses will cope. Basically: a BI-style project offers us a heck of a lot of opportunities for the future - and far more than the crowded corridors you mention.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,936
    williamglenn said:

    Sandpit said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1010915214861139968

    Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.
    Recall Boris and march him through the lobby!

    To be honest it’s pretty much SOP for the SNats to renague at the last minute, not particularly unexpected.
    To make it clear: I don't particularly like the current proposals. I still think a Boris Island-style approach is the way to go, would be very future-proofed and enable a heck of a lot of associated development. However that battle has been lost, and it is obvious that we need to expand capacity at Heathrow. The current proposals might not be the best, but they are needed.
    What I really don’t like about the current proposals is that there’s no 4th runway being voted on. Given it’s taken half our lifetimes to get a vote on the third one, we should be planning for the builders to start on 4 as soon as they finish 3.

    The concept of starting again is good, but BI was in completely the wrong location.
    In the short term, yes. But BI would be a development for the next 100 years, and many of the locational issues would be 'solved' by associated developments it would enable. Heathrow R3 is only a sticking plaster for ten or twenty years - as you say, it'll soon need to be R4. And that will be massively costly.
    There’s an awful lot of businesses West of LHR, down the M3, M4 and increasingly M40 corridors who will disagree with you.
    BI would make expansion of airports like Birmingham and Bristol more feasible rather than having a cluster of airports that were vaguely ‘London’.
    One of the great failings of successive governments - highlighted by this one - is the failure to disperse the growth in air traffic across the UK. We need much more long haul investment in other airports around the country.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,936
    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1010915214861139968

    Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.
    Recall Boris and march him through the lobby!

    To be honest it’s pretty much SOP for the SNats to renague at the last minute, not particularly unexpected.
    To make it clear: I don't particularly like the current proposals. I still think a Boris Island-style approach is the way to go, would be very future-proofed and enable a heck of a lot of associated development. However that battle has been lost, and it is obvious that we need to expand capacity at Heathrow. The current proposals might not be the best, but they are needed.
    What I really don’t like about the current proposals is that there’s no 4th runway being voted on. Given it’s taken half our lifetimes to get a vote on the third one, we should be planning for the builders to start on 4 as soon as they finish 3.

    The concept of starting again is good, but BI was in completely the wrong location.
    In the short term, yes. But BI would be a development for the next 100 years, and many of the locational issues would be 'solved' by associated developments it would enable. Heathrow R3 is only a sticking plaster for ten or twenty years - as you say, it'll soon need to be R4. And that will be massively costly.
    There’s an awful lot of businesses West of LHR, down the M3, M4 and increasingly M40 corridors who will disagree with you.
    Well yes, they may. But we are talking about infrastructure that will last a century or more, and those businesses will cope. Basically: a BI-style project offers us a heck of a lot of opportunities for the future - and far more than the crowded corridors you mention.
    +1
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,988
    edited June 2018
    JosiasJessop said:

    Barnesian said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Barnesian said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1010915214861139968

    Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.
    Great news. Last week I emailed each SNP MP personally with the reasons why they should not back Heathrow expansion and got responses from over half of them including a nice response from Ian Blackford.
    May I ask why you do not back Heathrow expansion?
    In short: faulty modelling, very suspicious process, takes too long (possibly will never happen).

    Gatwick immediately shovel ready with similar economic benefits at half the cost and a quarter of the disruption.
    LOL. No. Gatwick isn't really a practical option - at least not if we want a hub airport.

    You say HR3 will 'possibly never happen' : I'll guarantee you one thing: if HR3 does not go ahead after all the time spent on it and political woe it has caused, Gatwick expansion will not happen either. No politician will want to touch it.

    As I say below, I think BI is the best long-term alternative. But once the decision was made I did not want to press it, as something is needed. If LH3 is stopped, don't expect to get your wish either. Perhaps you should have done the same ...
    The Davies Airports Commission thought Gatwick was a practical option (and BI not practical) though Gatwick was not its preferred option.

    EDIT: I'm going to concentrate my efforts on lobbying MPs rather than PBers. :)
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,940
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1010915214861139968

    Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.
    Recall Boris and march him through the lobby!

    To be honest it’s pretty much SOP for the SNats to renague at the last minute, not particularly unexpected.
    To make it clear: I don't particularly like the current proposals. I still think a Boris Island-style approach is the way to go, would be very future-proofed and enable a heck of a lot of associated development. However that battle has been lost, and it is obvious that we need to expand capacity at Heathrow. The current proposals might not be the best, but they are needed.
    What I really don’t like about the current proposals is that there’s no 4th runway being voted on. Given it’s taken half our lifetimes to get a vote on the third one, we should be planning for the builders to start on 4 as soon as they finish 3.

    The concept of starting again is good, but BI was in completely the wrong location.
    In the short term, yes. But BI would be a development for the next 100 years, and many of the locational issues would be 'solved' by associated developments it would enable. Heathrow R3 is only a sticking plaster for ten or twenty years - as you say, it'll soon need to be R4. And that will be massively costly.
    There’s an awful lot of businesses West of LHR, down the M3, M4 and increasingly M40 corridors who will disagree with you.
    Well yes, they may. But we are talking about infrastructure that will last a century or more, and those businesses will cope. Basically: a BI-style project offers us a heck of a lot of opportunities for the future - and far more than the crowded corridors you mention.
    +1
    Mr Tyndall: we appear to be agreeing a little too much recently. May I ask when normal service will be resumed? ;)
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edmundintokyo said:

    Somebody did a good job leaking this. He either does nothing, which makes him look a tit and makes an example of him, or he actually triggers a leadership contest, which May would probably win, once MPs were faced with the awfulness of alternatives like this. If she did she'd then be safe in the leadership for a year and she'd have a lot more freedom to manoeuvre.

    May be that’s why May promoted him originally?
This discussion has been closed.