The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[aintforever]

57 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I think the PM is right to ensure we keep a healthy, but supportive, distance from direct hostilities. 2003 was a fucking disgrace and amazing how Blair, Campbell and anyone else involved with the confected situation are allowed to swan about as they are.

What the current situation again highlights (for the next 5 mins) how dire our Armed Forces have become (particularly the RN). This is not the the fault of the current PM, but his lot are not entirely blameless.

Whilst all the focus is on HMS Dragon and not being able to properly protect Cyprus, why on earth do the RAF not have basic air defence systems for RAF bases that have been there for decades.

The Armed Forces as we knew it are gone, promising more money sometime in the next decade will mean the shrinking will continue at pace.

As said on the Russia thread, we would be all but done over about a long weekend in a peer-2-peer conflict.

Fact is it will probably take more if a direct threat from Russia before the public are happy with handing over their tax to pay for it. 
 

Russia has shown themselves up to be a complete paper tiger in Ukraine, throwing men into the meat grinder is not going to get them anywhere near Berlin yet alone threaten the UK.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Where?

A horse is a horse of course, of course

Unless there isn't a horse, of course

If the horse is on another thread

How can we tell it's Mr Ed?

[Guided Missile]

3 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

The UK is a member of NATO and doesn't give a fuck what Turkey thinks!

Whilst there remains a Sovereign UK base in Cyprus, the land that it is on IS a member of NATO.

Not sure why this is such a struggle to grasp!

Calm down, dear:

Why Cyprus is not in NATO

There are a few historical and political reasons:

Division of the island (since 1974)
After the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974, the island was divided between:

• the internationally recognised Republic of Cyprus (south)
• the Northern Cyprus (recognized only by Turkey)

Because Turkey is already a NATO member, the dispute complicates Cyprus joining the alliance.

• Neutral / non-aligned tradition
• After independence from the United Kingdom in 1960, Cyprus was associated with the Non-Aligned Movement, avoiding military blocs during the Cold War.

Turkey could veto membership

• NATO requires unanimous approval from all members.
• Turkey would almost certainly veto Cypriot membership because of the unresolved territorial dispute.

Current Western alignment

Although not in NATO:

• Cyprus is a member of the European Union (since 2004).
• It cooperates with European security frameworks and partners with NATO countries informally.

✅ Summary:
Cyprus is politically aligned with Europe but cannot realistically join NATO while the Cyprus–Turkey dispute remains unresolved.

[Guided Missile]

So, Article 5 of the NATO treaty, does not apply to Cyprus, primarily because Cyprus is not a member of NATO. It may apply to the UK bases on Cyprus, but you have Article 4 and 6 coming into play and Starmer would get a rent boy hard-on just thinking about the legal arguments against helping Trump and upsetting his muslim voters.

[AlexLaw76]

41 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Fact is it will probably take more if a direct threat from Russia before the public are happy with handing over their tax to pay for it. 
 

Russia has shown themselves up to be a complete paper tiger in Ukraine, throwing men into the meat grinder is not going to get them anywhere near Berlin yet alone threaten the UK.

it is not just about a direct threat from Russia. It is about basic defence, and we are unable to do it conventionally. This at the same time as distancing ourselves with the one nation that does provide our security.

In the mean time, we may see an increase in Defence spending in 5 years, whilst the forces/Navy will get scarily smaller.

Edited yesterday at 11:55 by AlexLaw76

[egg]

Just now, Guided Missile said:

So, Article 5 of the NATO treaty, does not apply to Cyprus, primarily because Cyprus is not a member of NATO. It may apply to the UK bases on Cyprus, but you have Article 4 and 6 coming into play and Starmer would get a rent boy hard-on just thinking about the legal arguments against helping Trump and upsetting his muslim voters.

That's a right mixture of sense and stupid. 

Agreed re article 5. I'm not sure of your point re 4, 6 and Trump because you went off at a stupid tangent and didn't explain. 

6, arguably, means the bases are outside of scope as when NATO became a thing, Cyprus was geographically not in Europe but Turkey coming into NATO probably makes that a moot point. Article 4 may help there though. 

Re your Trump/Starmer point (rent boy hard on FFS, you're not 12). I think the issue on the back of Trump's latest dig at Starmer isn't about us not helping others, it's about Trump storing up another resentment and having an excuse not to give us the benefit of any doubt. 

[aintforever]

13 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

it is not just about a direct threat from Russia. It is about basic defence, and we are unable to do it conventionally. This at the same time as distancing ourselves with the one nation that does provide our security.

In the mean time, we may see an increase in Defence spending in 5 years, whilst the forces/Navy will get scarily small in the mea time.

I would increase spending, what has happened Ukraine has completely transformed how wars are fought, you have drones that cost a few grand taking out multi-million pound tanks or air defence systems. The role of infantry and artillery has completely changed and we need to adapt like everyone else.

It’s not me that needs convincing though, it’s mainly the Daily Mail types who cry like babies when asked to pay a bit more tax that will need winning around.

Edited yesterday at 12:01 by aintforever

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, aintforever said:

I would increase spending, what has happened Ukraine has completely transformed how wars are fought, you have drones that cost a few grand taking out multi-million pound tanks or air defence systems. The role of infantry and artillery has completely changed and we need to adapt like everyone else.

It’s not me that needs convincing though, it’s mainly the Daily Mail types who cry like babies when asked to pay a bit more tax that need convincing.

Everything is a political choice. We have chosen, as a nation, to decimate the armed forces for decades, mascaraed by clever accounting. 

Increasing the Armed Forces does not win votes. Benefits does.

[badgerx16]

15 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

..... and Starmer would get a rent boy hard-on just thinking about the legal arguments against helping Trump and upsetting his muslim voters.

To borrow from Squeeze;

"He unscrews the top of a new whiskey bottle.

Shuffles about in his candlelit hovel.

Like some kind of bitch,

with blue fingers in mittens.

He smells like the cat,

and the neighbours he's sickened."

[Guided Missile]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

That's a right mixture of sense and stupid. 

Agreed re article 5. I'm not sure of your point re 4, 6 and Trump because you went off at a stupid tangent and didn't explain. 

6, arguably, means the bases are outside of scope as when NATO became a thing, Cyprus was geographically not in Europe but Turkey coming into NATO probably makes that a moot point. Article 4 may help there though. 

Re your Trump/Starmer point (rent boy hard on FFS, you're not 12). I think the issue on the back of Trump's latest dig at Starmer isn't about us not helping others, it's about Trump storing up another resentment and having an excuse not to give us the benefit of any doubt. 

This is a stupid tangent:

Quote

He was bang on about not using our runways for the initial strikes though. They were illegal and unjustified, and would have been akin to lending someone your car to go and do a drive by shooting. 

Oh and you'll understand the rent boy comment one day, as soon as the super injunction is lifted.

 

[egg]

1 minute ago, Guided Missile said:

This is a stupid tangent:

Oh and you'll understand the rent boy comment one day, as soon as the super injunction is lifted.

 

It was an analogy that people with a Trump esque moral compass wouldn't understand. 

[Gloucester Saint]

22 minutes ago, egg said:

Re your Trump/Starmer point (rent boy hard on FFS, you're not 12). I think the issue on the back of Trump's latest dig at Starmer isn't about us not helping others, it's about Trump storing up another resentment and having an excuse not to give us the benefit of any doubt. 

John can only dream of anyone getting a hard on. After decades of heavy drinking, John finds his attempts to pleasure himself over footage over Hegseth’s press conference are like playing snooker with a rope.

[Guided Missile]

4 hours ago, egg said:

It was an analogy that people with a Trump esque moral compass wouldn't understand. 

So, what you are saying is that what Israel are doing to a terrorist dictatorship that wants their country to be wiped off the map "from the river to the sea" is akin to a "drive by shooting".

Mate, have a word with yourself.

[egg]

6 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

So, what you are saying is that what Israel are doing to a terrorist dictatorship that wants their country to be wiped off the map "from the river to the sea" is akin to a "drive by shooting".

Mate, have a word with yourself.

Stop being so literal. 

The point is that allowing someone to use your runway to commit an illegal act makes you culpable, but you know that. 

And you've got to be pretty daft to believe that Netanyahu is the saviour of the middle East, that Donny is the saviour of the world, and that Iran are so anti Israel that they'd be willing to see their entire nation and people wiped out. 

[tdmickey3]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

Stop being so literal. 

The point is that allowing someone to use your runway to commit an illegal act makes you culpable, but you know that. 

And you've got to be pretty daft to believe that Netanyahu is the saviour of the middle East, that Donny is the saviour of the world, and that Iran are so anti Israel that they'd be willing to see their entire nation and people wiped out. 

We all know his views are all caused by excessive alcohol

[Gloucester Saint]

12 minutes ago, egg said:

Stop being so literal. 

The point is that allowing someone to use your runway to commit an illegal act makes you culpable, but you know that. 

And you've got to be pretty daft to believe that Netanyahu is the saviour of the middle East, that Donny is the saviour of the world, and that Iran are so anti Israel that they'd be willing to see their entire nation and people wiped out. 

John has some front as well, the man who posted on here last week that Trump was right to claim women’s genitals should be grabbed. But then that’s what bottle of spirits #4 of the day does to someone who was already incredibly obnoxious I suppose.

[Guided Missile]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Stop being so literal. 

The point is that allowing someone to use your runway to commit an illegal act makes you culpable, but you know that. 

If ‘letting someone use your runway’ makes you responsible for everything they do, airports are going to need very good lawyers.

[AlexLaw76]

Good news for the govt

 

[Farmer Saint]

54 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Good news for the govt

 

Sorry, what's this saying? I'm not on X because it's a mouthpiece for cunts, run by a cunt and read by cunts.

[AlexLaw76]

7 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Sorry, what's this saying? I'm not on X because it's a mouthpiece for cunts, run by a cunt and read by cunts.

That's nice

[Farmer Saint]

43 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

That's nice

So why is it good news for the Government?

[badgerx16]

13 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

So why is it good news for the Government?

The suthor of the article quoted on X is a strongly Eurosceptic 'Leaver', I think this article is what is being referenced https://www.spiked-online.com/2026/02/17/the-lie-at-the-heart-of-starmers-brexit-reset/.

However, there are also many articles claiming that the misgivings of the OBR are being borne out, such as this https://ukandeu.ac.uk/brexits-impact-on-the-uk-economy/.

Once again, you pay your money and make your choice - probably ending up with strong confirmation bias towards your personal prejudice on the subject.