| Ta ra Kier 06:37 - Feb 27 with 4413 views | thebooks |
And good riddance.
Nice of Labour to split the far-right vote and let the Greens in.
If you want Reform out, vote Green. |  | | |  |
| Ta ra Kier on 15:07 - Feb 27 with 600 views | Churchman |
| Ta ra Kier on 14:19 - Feb 27 by Swansea_Blue |
I fully support doing the bit quoted from the Greens. The trouble is, your added paragraph perfectly demonstrates why we probably can’t afford to.
I was hoping humanity was moving away from the spectre of nuclear annihilation after the warming of the Cold War, but it seems we’re slipping in the wrong direction. |
The only mechanism to keep madmen like Putin off you is the ultimate deterrent and to make them believe you will use it if forced. It’s as simple as that as far as I’m concerned.
Nuclear capability is crucial as is defence in general in an uncertain world. Sadly there’s a lot dependence the US as the attached explains in respect of nuclear weapons.
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2
The problem is that Labour was never interested in defence, even in the run up to WW2 and I don’t think it is now. Saying that you are, making empty promises will get you only so far. Not just at home, but abroad too. [Post edited 27 Feb 15:12]
|  | | |
| Ta ra Kier on 15:15 - Feb 27 with 572 views | leitrimblue |
| Ta ra Kier on 14:58 - Feb 27 by BornDeleuze |
Good way to concede an argument. Good luck thinking through things in the future. Changing ones mind is difficult. I used to feel similar about Israel-Palestine when I was younger and then I did a lot of reading and listening and realised one can only come to understand a situation through learning the history. |
Obviously I can't compete with your superior Historical Knowledge. Are you interested in giving lessons? Perhaps you could do the Neolithic-Mesolithic transition next?  |  | | |
| Ta ra Kier on 15:45 - Feb 27 with 511 views | carlo88 |
I'm just immensely glad there's at least three years until there's even a chance of a right wing / racist government. We should all be grateful to Keir Starmer for that at least. |  | | |
| Ta ra Kier on 15:57 - Feb 27 with 498 views | reusersfreekicks |
| Ta ra Kier on 15:07 - Feb 27 by Churchman |
The only mechanism to keep madmen like Putin off you is the ultimate deterrent and to make them believe you will use it if forced. It’s as simple as that as far as I’m concerned.
Nuclear capability is crucial as is defence in general in an uncertain world. Sadly there’s a lot dependence the US as the attached explains in respect of nuclear weapons.
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2
The problem is that Labour was never interested in defence, even in the run up to WW2 and I don’t think it is now. Saying that you are, making empty promises will get you only so far. Not just at home, but abroad too. [Post edited 27 Feb 15:12]
|
Were the Tories interested in defence in the run up to WW2? |  | | |
| Ta ra Kier on 18:59 - Feb 27 with 423 views | Churchman |
| Ta ra Kier on 15:57 - Feb 27 by reusersfreekicks |
Were the Tories interested in defence in the run up to WW2? |
In general, not until Hitler annexed Austria. People like Churchill were lone voices in the dark. There were plenty of heads in the sand including arch appeaser Chamberlain who was so desperate to avoid the bloodbath of WW1 he couldn’t see the nose in front of his face.
However, after the disgrace of the Munich agreement in 1938 and swallowing the rest of the country some months later, the government of the day woke up. Nearly too late. Given appeasement cost millions of lives it was actually was too late for many. Yet when its defence spending was put before parliament in 1939, Labour voted against it.
Back to today, attached is an article on defence. Don’t know the source but it’s interesting
https://unherd.com/2025/09/wil
From Labour’s perspective, it’s interesting that the Unions are not interested in defence (welfare not warfare) and maybe that had some impact on Reeves’ benefits budget last year.
Lastly, the article points to how interested and animated the U.K. population is over Palestine and disinterested in what is happening in Ukraine and the threat Russia poses. Poisonings in Salisbury, cyber attacks, Russia probing air and sea - U.K. people’s interest appears low. [Post edited 27 Feb 19:10]
| | | |
| Ta ra Kier on 20:27 - Feb 27 with 349 views | Dubtractor |
This mp response is spot on. And I say that as someone who has voted Labour in most elections.
Labour MP Ian Byrne: "The lines from the PM and Cabinet today essentially labelling the Green Party as extremist is appalling, desperate and frankly embarrassing.
"It also makes very clear that the leadership has zero understanding of where it has been going wrong." — Adam Bienkov (@adambienkov.bsky.social) 2026-02-27T17:26:56.492Z
|  |
| |
| Ta ra Kier on 20:33 - Feb 27 with 342 views | reusersfreekicks |
| Ta ra Kier on 18:59 - Feb 27 by Churchman |
In general, not until Hitler annexed Austria. People like Churchill were lone voices in the dark. There were plenty of heads in the sand including arch appeaser Chamberlain who was so desperate to avoid the bloodbath of WW1 he couldn’t see the nose in front of his face.
However, after the disgrace of the Munich agreement in 1938 and swallowing the rest of the country some months later, the government of the day woke up. Nearly too late. Given appeasement cost millions of lives it was actually was too late for many. Yet when its defence spending was put before parliament in 1939, Labour voted against it.
Back to today, attached is an article on defence. Don’t know the source but it’s interesting
https://unherd.com/2025/09/wil
From Labour’s perspective, it’s interesting that the Unions are not interested in defence (welfare not warfare) and maybe that had some impact on Reeves’ benefits budget last year.
Lastly, the article points to how interested and animated the U.K. population is over Palestine and disinterested in what is happening in Ukraine and the threat Russia poses. Poisonings in Salisbury, cyber attacks, Russia probing air and sea - U.K. people’s interest appears low. [Post edited 27 Feb 19:10]
|
Thank you for the info | | | |
| Ta ra Kier on 21:02 - Feb 27 with 303 views | Churchman |
The caveat is that I don’t know the source and it’s only one so while the information is correct t9 the best of my own knowledge, the conclusions and opinions can be challenged. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Ta ra Kier on 21:18 - Feb 27 with 289 views | DJR |
| Ta ra Kier on 18:59 - Feb 27 by Churchman |
In general, not until Hitler annexed Austria. People like Churchill were lone voices in the dark. There were plenty of heads in the sand including arch appeaser Chamberlain who was so desperate to avoid the bloodbath of WW1 he couldn’t see the nose in front of his face.
However, after the disgrace of the Munich agreement in 1938 and swallowing the rest of the country some months later, the government of the day woke up. Nearly too late. Given appeasement cost millions of lives it was actually was too late for many. Yet when its defence spending was put before parliament in 1939, Labour voted against it.
Back to today, attached is an article on defence. Don’t know the source but it’s interesting
https://unherd.com/2025/09/wil
From Labour’s perspective, it’s interesting that the Unions are not interested in defence (welfare not warfare) and maybe that had some impact on Reeves’ benefits budget last year.
Lastly, the article points to how interested and animated the U.K. population is over Palestine and disinterested in what is happening in Ukraine and the threat Russia poses. Poisonings in Salisbury, cyber attacks, Russia probing air and sea - U.K. people’s interest appears low. [Post edited 27 Feb 19:10]
|
What you say is normally all very sound but it is worth picking you up on your comment about the unions who have always been keen on defence spending because of the jobs it retains or brings.
Here's a salvo from a couple of days ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/po
As it is, I can't access the whole of the article you linked, so maybe there is something I am missing here. [Post edited 27 Feb 21:23]
|  | | |
| Ta ra Kier on 08:26 - Feb 28 with 171 views | Churchman |
| Ta ra Kier on 21:18 - Feb 27 by DJR |
What you say is normally all very sound but it is worth picking you up on your comment about the unions who have always been keen on defence spending because of the jobs it retains or brings.
Here's a salvo from a couple of days ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/po
As it is, I can't access the whole of the article you linked, so maybe there is something I am missing here. [Post edited 27 Feb 21:23]
|
From the 29 Sept article:
‘In the meantime, selling rearmament to the electorate has barely begun. Keir Starmer was warmly received when he told the London Defence Conference that security and defence were no longer “one priority amongst many others” but “the central organising principle of government; the first thought in the morning — the last at night.” But that is not yet a priority shared by the electorate, nor even most MPs. When the first thought in the morning for millions of people is how are they going to meet their food and energy bills, rearmament is a hard sell.
Labour got a taste of just how hard last month when, by a narrow margin, the TUC Congress voted to stop supporting increased defence spending. Despite pleas from the two big Labour-affiliated manufacturing unions — GMB and Unite — white-collar workers from the teachers, lecturers and health unions voted for “welfare not warfare”.
So those of us who want to make the case for defence spending need to do so in a much more convincing way. “Welfare not warfare” is a compelling slogan only if you believe warfare can be avoided through disarmament and multilateralism. Ukraine found out the hard way that, when dealing with an insane ethnonationalism, these don’t work.’
So in September, those unions involved with what’s left of the defence industry supported defence spending, others did not. Article I linked was caveated in that I don’t know the sources and certainly the interpretation and conclusions can be questioned. A lot more reading to be done.
What is clear to me from what I have read, including the Guardian article, is that it’s all a bit of a mess and confusion. There are those that see no threat and those that do. The ‘peace dividend’ from the collapse of the Soviet Union appears to me to be alive and well and that translates to drastic defence cuts that continue to this day in favour of other priorities.
Would the opposition be doing anything differently? I’d say probably not. They bear a huge responsibility for the sorry mess that is defence after 14 years of austerity and complete disinterest. Their failure to recognise the rising threat of the authoritarianism after Crimea, Salisbury, Trump’s first term, you name it is quite staggering. Maybe they were too busy working in the interests of themselves and their own party rather than the people. I’ve saw them far too close for comfort to think otherwise.
My hope is the current lot don’t continue to make the same mistakes, once hey get over navel gazing following the by election slap in the mouth. | | | |
| Ta ra Kier on 09:09 - Feb 28 with 140 views | DJR |
| Ta ra Kier on 08:26 - Feb 28 by Churchman |
From the 29 Sept article:
‘In the meantime, selling rearmament to the electorate has barely begun. Keir Starmer was warmly received when he told the London Defence Conference that security and defence were no longer “one priority amongst many others” but “the central organising principle of government; the first thought in the morning — the last at night.” But that is not yet a priority shared by the electorate, nor even most MPs. When the first thought in the morning for millions of people is how are they going to meet their food and energy bills, rearmament is a hard sell.
Labour got a taste of just how hard last month when, by a narrow margin, the TUC Congress voted to stop supporting increased defence spending. Despite pleas from the two big Labour-affiliated manufacturing unions — GMB and Unite — white-collar workers from the teachers, lecturers and health unions voted for “welfare not warfare”.
So those of us who want to make the case for defence spending need to do so in a much more convincing way. “Welfare not warfare” is a compelling slogan only if you believe warfare can be avoided through disarmament and multilateralism. Ukraine found out the hard way that, when dealing with an insane ethnonationalism, these don’t work.’
So in September, those unions involved with what’s left of the defence industry supported defence spending, others did not. Article I linked was caveated in that I don’t know the sources and certainly the interpretation and conclusions can be questioned. A lot more reading to be done.
What is clear to me from what I have read, including the Guardian article, is that it’s all a bit of a mess and confusion. There are those that see no threat and those that do. The ‘peace dividend’ from the collapse of the Soviet Union appears to me to be alive and well and that translates to drastic defence cuts that continue to this day in favour of other priorities.
Would the opposition be doing anything differently? I’d say probably not. They bear a huge responsibility for the sorry mess that is defence after 14 years of austerity and complete disinterest. Their failure to recognise the rising threat of the authoritarianism after Crimea, Salisbury, Trump’s first term, you name it is quite staggering. Maybe they were too busy working in the interests of themselves and their own party rather than the people. I’ve saw them far too close for comfort to think otherwise.
My hope is the current lot don’t continue to make the same mistakes, once hey get over navel gazing following the by election slap in the mouth. |
Many thanks for the link. Perhaps I should have said unions with members in the arms industry.
My view is that Paul Mason is making more out of a largely irrelevant TUC Congress vote than it warrants, given that what really matters is the views of the two largest unions.
At the end of the day, I think the fault (if that is what it is given the strain on public finances and overspends within the MOD) lies with the government for this because whilst its mind is willing its body isn't yet. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
