Bit of balance needed.... do you like the poly tunnels, housing, solar farms, hedgerow and habitat removal, pesticides, mahoosive agricutural store buildings. All land owned or sold by farmers. Don't blame them as economics but take your rose tinted glasses off and stop pretending all farmers give a sh!t about the landscape.I have only respect for our farmers.
Our countryside is a picture because of their input never mind the food production.
Bet you would have been the NIMBY types who moaned about 'green' windmills, watermills, cottonmills, tannerys, barns, cattle sheds, oasthouses, country estates/homes, steamtrains, vineyards, farmhouses and farm/rail workers cottages when they were first introduced. Love the consistency of the right - bang on about reduce controls and bureaucracy to allow growth and land owning mates ... just not where its near their 'view' or little piece of England. As rife today as ever.Good point Malc.
Houses or Chinese manufactured solar panels on "England's green & pleasant Land".
Dispersed with wind turbines.
Ugly days ahead whilst UK energy bills remain the highest on the planet.
& vast remaining natural resources will remain untapped.
Why because lads can't betrusted to behave and respect others? Quite normal in most civilised, chilled countries..... not the USA!It’s a disgrace that any school should have unisex - talk about safeguarding
Maybe most of the country does back reducing immigration sharply. I would also say most of the country doesn't understand the intricate web around it and how much would be affected if it were, not to mention the legal issues. I almost certainly don't. And maybe that's why the political will isn't there despite it being such an obvious vote winner.What is the primary issue driving housing shortages? It’s not planning reform, it’s not corporate greed. The primary and most fundamental issue is that as a country, our population is growing too rapidly to keep up with the necessary infrastructure demands.
Most of the country backs reducing immigration sharply probably in around 100k that Cameron promised. There just hasn’t been the political will to actually make the difficult choices and electorate no longer believed the Tories could be trusted on the issue.
I hope Labour gets a handle on things because if they fail, how long would it take for us to have our own ‘National Front’ movement. That’s something I’m desperate to avoid.
I'm guessing you don't have daughters? One incident will be one too many and if you think there wont be any, even in 'banter' then I'm afraid you've a much nicer view of the world than the reality. A sad indictment it may be, but we can't ignore it and hope.Why because lads can't betrusted to behave and respect others? Quite normal in most civilised, chilled countries..... not the USA!
Why because lads can't betrusted to behave and respect others? Quite normal in most civilised, chilled countries..... not the USA!
Consent manufacturing starts in earnest for defence spending
If the British Army now perceives that it doesn't have sufficient tanks and artillery to defend itself, what on earth did it give them to Ukraine for?
It's funny how easily you have been manipulated to jump to Trump's tuneThe UK doesn't really need many tanks (and didn't give 'huge numbers' to Ukraine like he says).
The rest of what he says is fair though, it's been massively cut and underfunded for years and is in a pretty sorry state by all accounts.
Ukraine was seen as the front line and the place that sort of hardware would be most needed and useful. For decades now the armed forces have been pared back and there's been a steady move away from being able to field the kind of force that would be able to fight a large-scale 'conventional' war. Looks to me like we have to either increase spending to rebuild that sort of capability or we hope that another way is found to keep Europe secure.Consent manufacturing starts in earnest for defence spending
If the British Army now perceives that it doesn't have sufficient tanks and artillery to defend itself, what on earth did it give them to Ukraine for?
We gave them 14, we have about 150 left and in part thanks to the 14 we gave to Ukraine A) we know our tanks are way way superior to Russian tanks even before the upgrade program is completed (we gave them challenger 2, we’re upgrading our entire fleet to challenger 3 spec) and B) The UK to Russian tank ratio has swung massively as Russia has lost over half their tank fleet. Donating those 14 tanks was the equivalent of doubling our tank fleet.Consent manufacturing starts in earnest for defence spending
If the British Army now perceives that it doesn't have sufficient tanks and artillery to defend itself, what on earth did it give them to Ukraine for?
It's funny how easily you have been manipulated to jump to Trump's tune
This quote alone is almost enough for me to pop in on Sunday and tell my vicar and choir master I give upGreat, just what’s needed - UK populists mix faith and politics with parroting of ‘Judeo-Christian values’
Ukraine was seen as the front line and the place that sort of hardware would be most needed and useful. For decades now the armed forces have been pared back and there's been a steady move away from being able to field the kind of force that would be able to fight a large-scale 'conventional' war. Looks to me like we have to either increase spending to rebuild that sort of capability or we hope that another way is found to keep Europe secure.
I don't doubt there's been money wasted, it goes back decades to be honest, but the description of DE&S is accurate. Its failings have been reviewed and studied repeatedly without ever being truly addressed. Just for full disclosure, i've worked for them, so i'm likely biased.Not only has it been paired back, the MoD, like the rest of government over the years, has wasted billions of what has been allocated
And then you read stuff like this
‘Contents. Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) is a specialist procurement arm of the Ministry of Defence (MOD). DE&S employs around 12,500 people, operating at sites throughout the UK and around the world.’
I mean, WTAF !
We need a reality check on our nuclear arsenal. It’s too big. I read an article years back on it that suggested that we could cut it by more than half simply by the fact that we do have allies with an arsenal too. It’s dick waving vanity to maintain its current size. One of the most startling aspects of the article that’s stuck with me is that it’s estimated that if we deployed half our arsenal on the other side of the world the winter fall out would be so bad it would essentially end life on the whole planet, certainly life as we know it. It would take the planet centuries to recover. Surely anything beyond that is pointless as a deterrent. £3B a year we spend maintaining our nuclear arsenal. Even if we cut that spend by a third that’s a lot that could be spent in other areas of defence such as growing our naval fleet which has been decimated by cut backs over decades.France and ourselves maintain the nuclear deterrent in Europe which means we probably don’t have as much available for conventional/standard military equipment as other European nations. If only the others had done their bit we probably wouldn’t have to worry so much. But they haven’t and it’s about time countries were called out for it
In what way am I jumping to Trump's tune (particularly after criticising his every word in the last week)?
It’s nothing to do with criticising him. It’s buying the narrative he is saying on defence.
I don't doubt there's been money wasted, it goes back decades to be honest, but the description of DE&S is accurate. Its failings have been reviewed and studied repeatedly without ever being truly addressed. Just for full disclosure, i've worked for them, so i'm likely biased.
We need a reality check on our nuclear arsenal. It’s too big. I read an article years back on it that suggested that we could cut it by more than half simply by the fact that we do have allies with an arsenal too. It’s dick waving vanity to maintain its current size. One of the most startling aspects of the article that’s stuck with me is that it’s estimated that if we deployed half our arsenal on the other side of the world the winter fall out would be so bad it would essentially end life on the whole planet, certainly life as we know it. It would take the planet centuries to recover. Surely anything beyond that is pointless as a deterrent. £3B a year we spend maintaining our nuclear arsenal. Even if we cut that spend by a third that’s a lot that could be spent in other areas of defence such as growing our naval fleet which has been decimated by cut backs over decades.
It's probably following WW2 but not all European countries are as US-centric as the UK and interested in bowing to whatever they say.France and ourselves maintain the nuclear deterrent in Europe which means we probably don’t have as much available for conventional/standard military equipment as other European nations. If only the others had done their bit we probably wouldn’t have to worry so much. But they haven’t and it’s about time countries were called out for it
It's probably following WW2 but not all European countries are as US-centric as the UK and interested in bowing to whatever they say.
Oh fair enough, you were already politically aligned with himI'm not 'jumping to his tune' or buying his narrative - I've been saying it for a long time, way before he came to office. So it's a stupid point.
probably even more reason to have got themselves more self sufficient and less reliant when it comes to defence then
Oh fair enough, you were already politically aligned with him
The fuck are you on about.
He's giving you exactly what you've been crying out for for three years by giving half of Ukraine to Putin. And trying to defend it seems to have broken your brain.
It’s pretty obvious what he’s on about if you actually have a brain.
'Ohh please like me Fernando, please!'
I wasn't talking to you.
You aren’t actually talking to anyone on here
Are you ok?
I literally just replied to someone you thick c**t, that you butted in on.
Bore off you tedious prick, your obsession with me is fucking weird.
Alot of the problems are inherent in my view, lots of very lengthy euipmwnt programmes that are difficult (and/or) expensive to adapt over time. This wouldnt be such an issue if there werent frequent changes in strategic direction and/or threat to try and react to. That's just a feature of the defence procurement environment to a large extent though.No way. Good to hear your views on MoD/defence spending
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?