sadoldgit

They have clearly thrown in the towel and it’s all about damage limitation now. Still odd that the advisers think that this is the right way to go. A guy I spoke to this morning thinks that Rishi doesn’t listen to his advisers as he thinks that he knows best. Perhaps that is true, in which case, he doesn’t.

I don’t blame Starmer for using his background as a selling point. He has worked his way up and hasn’t lost touch with ordinary people. I think he has probably used it enough now though. You have to wonder what goes on in Rishi’s head though. Didn’t he ask a homeless man if he worked in finance? If you came from a different planet Rishi, best not try and parented otherwise.

Hopefully something positive will come of this. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/6/12/israels-war-on-gaza-live-mediators-reviewing-hamas-ceasefire-response

Fond memories of her from the film Grand Prix back in the 60’s. RIP Francoise.

The proles who moan about the cost of living and high prices are told to give up Netflix, smart phones and nail bars. Maybe these people should be told to give up on private schools if they are struggling to find the money?

Running out onto the pitch with Tools on the front of your shirt is never a good look.

It is baffling that people will still vote for Sunak and his dreadful party in their millions. I can understand how the dyed in the wool Conservatives might find it hard to vote for another Party, but wouldn’t it be brilliant if they stayed at home or spoiled their ballot papers, wiping the Tories out and sending a massive message to them and future governments that this level of failure and incompetence is not acceptable.

The Green’s are being honest about their tax plans. They can afford to be as they are not going to be challenging for no 10 but it is refreshing to see a party willing to be so up front about their plans.

The agent could always call the club, say he was interested in player X and ask to speak to someone who could help? Maybe the CoT?

It just goes to show how removed this guy is from normal life if this is what he considers to be a level of deprivation. He just keeps digging that hole. Perhaps he needs to watch Monty Python’s four Yorkshiremen’s sketch?

This policy is a no brainer. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/11/general-election-latest-news-rishi-sunak-keir-starmer/

Broja is an Everton signing all day long.

It is just a shame that they haven’t bothered to do the right thing for the last 14 years.

Is this from the Delldays Party manifesto?

I’m no economic expert, but if you cut stamp duty for first time buyers, won’t that led to a housing price hike? Also his promise of multiple tax cuts, isn’t that all a bit Liz Truss? More cuts to public services to pay for them?

My point was that if potential allies of the people you attack have nuclear weapons it would be sensible for the aggressor to factor that in, yes? If they still go ahead, the deterrent hasn’t worked very well. We shouldn’t have nuked anyone, that is the point. We are spending billions of pounds on weapons we will never use and are still vulnerable to terrorist and cyber attacks when we should be providing more money for the underfunded armed forces and make better provision for defence for both the UK and NATO. Actually the SaintsWeb might just have found the answer to guaranteed world peace. Provide every country on the planet with nuclear weapons and everyone will be deterred from attacking anyone else ever again 😉

From doing what he has done and is continuing to do in invading sovereign territories. He hasn’t invaded a NATO country yet but is is looking to expand his empire and must have factored in that whilst the West might complain and offer military assistance, he wasn’t going to face the threat of a nuclear strike in support. Nations with nukes are being attack. It doesn’t prevent terrorism. It doesn’t stop war. Unless the other person believes that you will fire first, it really doesn’t act as a deterrent. We are never going to fire first. Listening to Sunak, is he talking about the same country? And why if all of these ideas are so brilliant, where have they been over the last 14 years? Still banging on about £2000!

In which case NATO is buggered anyway. For the benefit of Whelk, this argument about nuclear weapons as a deterrent has been written by an intelligent person. https://www.nonproliferation.org/wp-content/uploads/npr/153_wilson.pdf

Russia has zero interest in invading the UK. We are more of a threat/target for Putin with nukes or US nukes on our soil. As for votes, the younger generations don’t have the same attachment to nuclear weapons and nuclear disarmament will become a bigger vote winner over time. We have seen what the Iron Dome can do with conventional missiles. Put the money towards a decent defence system so that we no longer become a target because we pose a nuclear threat. The NATO deterrent lies mostly with the US who have the numbers and the capability to worry Russia/China/North Korea. Does anyone really think that our contribution, that we struggle to fund and maintain, will be missed by NATO that much? If there is an escalation in the ground war in Europe we will need to provide conventional forces, not nukes.

And other Middle Eastern countries?

Me and many other very intelligent people it seems.

There is a huge difference to disarming and spending vast quantities of money on a weapons system that we will never us. We don’t have enough of what we need for conventional/modern warfare so why bother with nukes when we are always going to be a bit part player anyway? Despite huge piles of the things, it hasn’t stopped Putin as he knows damned well that we will never us them. It didn’t stop Argentina from invading the Falklands because they knew we would never use them. The whole deterrent argument is spurious and plays into Putin’s hands. He pretends that he is mad enough to use them so the West backs off. He knows we won’t use them first so he gradually and incrementally gets the land he wants. Not much of a deterrent if they don’t deter aggression in the first place. War is being waged in many different ways now and that is where we need to be spending our defence budget. We have nukes which won’t be fired but not enough tanks, soldiers, warships, planes, drones, cyber capabilities etc. Things that are needed and would be used. The notion that we are safer with nukes is risible. If there is to be a WW3 the first thing Putin would do is take out our nuclear capacity. This island would be ash before we laid a glove on Russia.

It doesn’t seem to deter people from attacking Israel. Russia and the US have enough warheads to destroy the planet several times over. We are small fry. As said, we can’t even feed our kids, fix our roads, run our hospitals, run our criminal justice system, build hi tech railways etc. but at least we can find billions of pounds to spend on nukes that we will never, ever use. Why does Putin give a shiny shit about us if he doesn’t about other NATO countries away from his borders? Because we have nukes. Without them we are of no interest to him.

So are the other NATO countries apart from France and the US.

We don’t know that though do we. Perhaps they would have used nukes first to wipe out Ukraines capability? Germany, Italy, Spain don’t feel the need to have nukes, why should we? I wouldn’t disarm right now but I would certainly run our capability down and not replace with new weapons.