My sense of foreboding is not lifting.
First, the totally unnecessary interest rates that will presage and then compound the recession the world is going to face have begun:
And then Keir Starmer's government is falling apart, very fast:
The first is heralding a disaster. Those who think they know are seeking to crash out economies. I said they would.
The second is no loss to anyone. Healey is a lame war-monger of little brain who no one will miss, except his defence industry paymasters. Not once did he ever hear him say what he thought he was defending.
Can we imagine a nice job is lined up? Give it time.... of course, but post ministerial careers in defence are not surprising
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Given what we have seen over the past few years regarding a country’s ability to resist invasion and foreign aggression, or the past few decades for that matter, is it time we accepted that force projection is over? We need armies to defend ourselves, that’s it. Maybe ships to protect shipping routes and maintain international law. We don’t need aircraft carriers that can be taken out by one lucky shot. And like you have said time and again, what are we defending? Given that the rich own most of the assets in this country, perhaps they should pay for its defence? They are the only ones really benefiting from sabre-rattling anyway.
Much to agree with
Thinking about the old guns v butter argument or welfare v defence. Surely, if our defence managers know what we need in terms of equipment and men and those resources are available, then money shouldn’t constrain paying for the resources. Investment in defence will contribute to growth while increasing the nation’s ability to defend itself against Russia, presumably.
If such a war was to break out, heaven forbid, unlimited funds will be readily available to fight such a war by producing weapons, transport, ships and strengthening our armed forces. Nobody would challenge that or ask how we might pay for it.
This whole defence v welfare thing is merely part of a political dance. If we can do it, we can afford it.
We cant do it though.
Very limited Merchant Ship Building capacity and few seafarers for starters.
Look at the issues the RFA is having with manning
Agreed
“if our defence managers know what we need in terms of equipment and men and those resources are available”
that is 2 very big IF’s, and no evidence whatsoever that either is true. Indeed we know we do NOT have the men and resources (in terms of people and ability to manufacture.
If that is indeed the case, there is no point in the gov investing in defence. The money would be spent on imported arms, vehicles, ships etc., which would not help our economy. As for manpower, we could recruit from the ranks of the unemployed by offering careers and training to recruits.That used to be the case when I was younger. That would also be a good investment by our gov on behalf of citizens and wouldn’t affect welfare spending except perhaps getting people off unemployment benefits into work. I am definitely not suggesting national service; it has to be voluntary.
I think it’s a sound and cautious decision by the ECB. The EZ inflation rate is running at 3.2%, above the target that they didn’t set, so the committee are tasked with reducing the money supply to put the restraints on.
There are policies that EX countries could follow to reduce inflation by other means, but the ECB does not have the power to implement them, so I wouldn’t be blaming the central bankers for being soldiers in a war that they didn’t start with a clear set of orders and levers.
Now it would certainly be interesting if the Bank of England were given more levers. I like the idea expressed once over at Van Patten’s place that the Bank of England should be tasked with ensuring that house price inflation is 1% less than wage inflation with the intention that over the long term housing will then become more affordable across the board. The Bank would need levers to deliver that though so they’d have to be in charge of issuing planning permissions, controlling building regulations and the allowable payment sweeteners to local governments.
But as I said, the committee don’t get the levers.
Tell me something then. How can increasing the price of money tackle inflation when there is already a shortage of demand in the economy and increased interest costs can only make that worse.
There is not an iota of macroeconomics sense to what you are saying, or they ECB is doing.
It is said my a number of people in positions of knowledge that there is diminishing hope for avoiding war with Russia which the EU is intent on with Britain eager to be part of and already providing drones for attacks as far I to Russia as Moscow and St Petersberg. All in Zelensky’s name but it is the West.
How convenient for these warmongers that there is raising youth unemployment – I think some bright spark will very soon promote National Service.
We are not in control of our own country, so why we are surprised by these obscenities I don’t know.
If they cut social security there will be nothing left of this country anyway!
I’d also say – we – the general public – have no real idea of what weapons are at the disposal of the British forces. Am sure there are all sorts of exotic weaponary they have which we can’t imagine – And don’t want us to know about.
It is indeed a dance… With the devil.
I found the total consensus amongst over half a dozen Grauniad headlines this morning, quite scary. Every single writer accepted the premise of Healey’s resignation. Not one saying, “hang on a minute…”.
I find that depressing – that the defence industry lobbyists Dwight Eisenhower warned us about all those years ago, have such a grip on power and the press.
Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran/Iraq, France/Algeria, Gulf 1, Gulf 2, Yemen/Saudi, Sudan civil war, Nigeria/Biafra, Lebanon/Syria, Syria civil war, Lebanon civil war, Russia/Ukraine, Balkan genocide, US/Iran, Israel/against too many to list… how many of these wars were/are worth the carnage, the destabilisation, the mess that resulted? And war now, after a brief ineffectual 20th century attempt at international regulation and law, has become a free for all, where war crimes are the norm, atrocities are government policy and adopted as deliberate military tactics, and those who object are labelled terrorists and treated as such (we are quietly sentencing one such group today in the UK).
How many of those wars would never have been fought if more had been spent on development and diplomacy than on “defence” (aggression)?
No one is asking why we need more defence. It is said as dogma.
There could be a seat for him on Trump’s Board of Peace or is it ‘Bored ‘ of Peace ?