Do you want to discuss boring politics? (27 Viewers)

SkyBlueCharlie9 · Feb 21, 2025

CovValleyBoy said:
I have only respect for our farmers.
Our countryside is a picture because of their input never mind the food production.

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.
The most beautiful landscapes in UK National Parks are heavily protected and restricted and are not allowed to be intensively farmed and AONB are protected heavily by dedicated organisations too. Aestically all our landscapes are a result of human activity as was all densely wooded at one time.

SkyBlueCharlie9 · Feb 21, 2025

CovValleyBoy said:
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.

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.

SkyBlueCharlie9 · Feb 21, 2025

Mcbean said:
It’s a disgrace that any school should have unisex - talk about safeguarding

Why because lads can't betrusted to behave and respect others? Quite normal in most civilised, chilled countries..... not the USA!

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Feb 21, 2025

Mucca Mad Boys said:
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.

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.

The social care system would collapse as it's already under enormous strain and understaffed despite a huge number of immigrant workers. And that's because the natives don't want to do it. Speeding up processing would help, but again the way to do that is employ people, but people don't want to take the jobs.

I doubt there's many people at all that don't want to see the borders and entry being enforced rigourously but fairly. Neither would there be much opposition to migrants/refugees/asylum seekers that break the law either severely or repeatedly being removed from the country.

But if it a huge, swift reduction in immigration were to happen it would be like Brexit II - after the fact everyone would slowly realise the massive side effects it would have and be "we didn't realise it meant that!"

rob9872 · Feb 21, 2025

SkyBlueCharlie9 said:
Why because lads can't betrusted to behave and respect others? Quite normal in most civilised, chilled countries..... not the USA!

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.

Grendel · Feb 21, 2025

SkyBlueCharlie9 said:
Why because lads can't betrusted to behave and respect others? Quite normal in most civilised, chilled countries..... not the USA!

Seriously?

fernandopartridge · Feb 21, 2025

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?

PVA · Feb 21, 2025

The 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.

Mucca Mad Boys · Feb 21, 2025

fernandopartridge said:
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?

The Ukrainian war has proven that conventional capabilities is still the most important means of defence.

A lot of defence reviews post-Cold War that the MoD undertakes emphasised the need to combat unconventional warfare. Things like cyber attacks, attacks on key energy infrastructure and fighting unconventional forces i.e. unorganised military.

A lot of European countries dumped their old kit in military aid to Ukraine who themselves had military tech from the Soviet-era.

fernandopartridge · Feb 21, 2025

PVA said:
The 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.

It's funny how easily you have been manipulated to jump to Trump's tune

Razzle Dazzle Dean Gordon · Feb 21, 2025

fernandopartridge said:
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?

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.

skybluetony176 · Feb 21, 2025

fernandopartridge said:
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.

PVA · Feb 22, 2025

fernandopartridge said:
It's funny how easily you have been manipulated to jump to Trump's tune

In what way am I jumping to Trump's tune (particularly after criticising his every word in the last week)?

Sick Boy · Feb 22, 2025

Great, just what’s needed - UK populists mix faith and politics with parroting of ‘Judeo-Christian values’

Sky Blue Pete · Feb 22, 2025

Sick Boy said:
Great, just what’s needed - UK populists mix faith and politics with parroting of ‘Judeo-Christian values’

This quote alone is almost enough for me to pop in on Sunday and tell my vicar and choir master I give up

He added: “The ultimate embodiment of Judeo-Christian values has been the United States of America!!

Wtaf - is that true globalist greed misogyny?? Ultimate embodiment? Ffs

CCFCSteve · Feb 22, 2025

Razzle Dazzle Dean Gordon said:
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.

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 !

CCFCSteve · Feb 22, 2025

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

Razzle Dazzle Dean Gordon · Feb 22, 2025

CCFCSteve said:
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 !

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.

skybluetony176 · Feb 22, 2025

CCFCSteve said:
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

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.

Grendel · Feb 22, 2025

PVA said:
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.

PVA · Feb 22, 2025

Grendel said:
It’s nothing to do with criticising him. It’s buying the narrative he is saying on defence.

I'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.

CCFCSteve · Feb 22, 2025

Razzle Dazzle Dean Gordon said:
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.

No way. Good to hear your views on MoD/defence spending

CCFCSteve · Feb 22, 2025

skybluetony176 said:
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.

Fair comment. I’d hope MoD would know the level it needs to be to remain a proper deterrent. As with all nuclear it goes back to if you have to use it, it’s probably the end of the world anyway

Sick Boy · Feb 22, 2025

CCFCSteve said:
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.

CCFCSteve · Feb 22, 2025

Sick Boy said:
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.

probably even more reason to have got themselves more self sufficient and less reliant when it comes to defence then

fernandopartridge · Feb 22, 2025

PVA said:
I'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.

Oh fair enough, you were already politically aligned with him

SBAndy · Feb 22, 2025

CCFCSteve said:
probably even more reason to have got themselves more self sufficient and less reliant when it comes to defence then

The whole situation really has been a case study on contingency planning. Probably WASTE though.

PVA · Feb 22, 2025

fernandopartridge said:
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.

Grendel · Feb 22, 2025

PVA said:
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.

PVA · Feb 22, 2025

Grendel said:
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.

Grendel · Feb 22, 2025

PVA said:
'Ohh please like me Fernando, please!'

I wasn't talking to you.

You aren’t actually talking to anyone on here

Are you ok?

PVA · Feb 22, 2025

Grendel said:
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.

Grendel · Feb 22, 2025

PVA said:
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.

The mask slips very quickly when challenged doesn’t it?

Razzle Dazzle Dean Gordon · Feb 22, 2025

CCFCSteve said:
No way. Good to hear your views on MoD/defence spending

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.

Probably more controllable is the fact that theyre often dealing with rapidly evolving and curting edge tech but the balance of knowledge and expertise is very much in the suppliers' favour. Public sector often doesn't offer the wages required in many areas. Then you also have a supply chain dominated by huge organisations that have gradually narrowed the competition in the market, we have lost alot of skills and bargaining leverage over the years.

Big note on all of the above, if i actually knew how to solve these issues id likely be sat in a well paid and senior role somewhere

fernandopartridge · Feb 22, 2025

Razzle Dazzle Dean Gordon said:
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.

Probably more controllable is the fact that theyre often dealing with rapidly evolving and curting edge tech but the balance of knowledge and expertise is very much in the suppliers' favour. Public sector often doesn't offer the wages required in many areas. Then you also have a supply chain dominated by huge organisations that have gradually narrowed the competition in the market, we have lost alot of skills and bargaining leverage over the years.

Big note on all of the above, if i actually knew how to solve these issues id likely be sat in a well paid and senior role somewhere

From the outside it does seem like mod procurement serves the market rather than the market serving it. British Aerospace was privatised by Thatcher, another triumph of ideology

Do you want to discuss boring politics? (27 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency