Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Cutting the aid budget to bring defence spending up to 2.5% is what the Tories would do. Not because of that, though, it just feels, well, wrong.

The argument that increasing the defence budget is pretty unassailable, though. Cutting overseas aid will no doubt be well received by the gammons, but there is objectively no gain from that, electorally or otherwise. Those gammons are still going to vote Reform.

I wish Starmer had got the money from somewhere else.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2025 10:45 pm I wish Starmer had got the money from somewhere else.

We all have our tipping point, whether it is two-kids, winter fuel allowance, or crushing vital healthcare programmes in far-flung lands. This generally flat-footed response to every challenge is what causes me to quietly exhale and roll my eyes.

Fuck the Daily Mail and the right wing press marionettes, the UK has an S&P AA-Stable rating and all the domestic and international wherewithal to ditch the red lines that have been eclipsed by perilous events, dear boy, events.

This is no time for a faintheart.

Just a point if Starmer where to ditch the special relationship and call Trump a cunt as some would wish we would still have had to raise defence spending.

It's also worth noting that foreign aid is unpopular amongst all groups.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/tra ... eak=labour

Meanwhile.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg1p0zv541o

The government has announced the first 750 schools to provide free daily breakfast clubs as part of a pilot scheme ahead of a planned England-wide rollout.

Starting in April, 180,000 pupils in England will be offered "healthy, varied and nutritious breakfasts" in schools before class, Labour said - with over a third of schools in the pilot scheme in deprived areas.

I may seem trite, and the sort of thing a cunt might say, but keeping the peace in Europe is pretty fundamental aid to the rest of the world. Of course it goes against the grain, but we're not defending ourselves from the Wombles here - it's actual Fascists in power in both Washington and Moscow, and an absolute cards-to-its-chest long game player in Beijing.

Absolutely. NATO may survive or morph into an European defence group, but it's dead in its current form. And you're right - this is as much about watching west as watching east.

It used to be said that both the Soviets and the Americans had families and loved ones, and neither of them truly wanted them all to die in a nuclear holocaust. With fascists in power, that kind of rational thought no longer applies.

The cut in aid is a drop in the ocean compared to the increase in defence spending needed. It is performatively effective to gain consent from a public that hasn't a fucking Scooby about numbers.

Killer Whale wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 8:24 am I may seem trite, and the sort of thing a cunt might say, but keeping the peace in Europe is pretty fundamental aid to the rest of the world.

Hate to make a similar point that rearmament means more skilled manufacturing jobs.
Technocrats like Dominic Cummings want to know why the UK doesn't have tech behemoths like the US. Its because America has super power military spending these firms plug into to grow. Well now its likely Europe will in the coming decades.

kreuzberger wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2025 11:12 pm

Abernathy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2025 10:45 pm I wish Starmer had got the money from somewhere else.

We all have our tipping point, whether it is two-kids, winter fuel allowance, or crushing vital healthcare programmes in far-flung lands. This generally flat-footed response to every challenge is what causes me to quietly exhale and roll my eyes.

Fuck the Daily Mail and the right wing press marionettes, the UK has an S&P AA-Stable rating and all the domestic and international wherewithal to ditch the red lines that have been eclipsed by perilous events, dear boy, events.

This is no time for a faintheart.

Well, yes. I also wish I could have a mucky weekend with Hannah Waddingham, but I know that ain't going to happen.

Sorry, Abers. When we're done, I'll ask her if she can spare 5 minutes for you.

Youngian wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 10:28 am The cut in aid is a drop in the ocean compared to the increase in defence spending needed. It is performatively effective to gain consent from a public that hasn't a fucking Scooby about numbers.

Killer Whale wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 8:24 am I may seem trite, and the sort of thing a cunt might say, but keeping the peace in Europe is pretty fundamental aid to the rest of the world.

Hate to make a similar point that rearmament means more skilled manufacturing jobs.
Technocrats like Dominic Cummings want to know why the UK doesn't have tech behemoths like the US. Its because America has super power military spending these firms plug into to grow. Well now its likely Europe will in the coming decades.

There's an elephant sized reason why the UK doesn't have tech behemoths.
An uncomfortable one for tory aligned talking heads like Cummings to acknowledge.

The USA has always been extremely protective of its big businesses.
* Consider the degree of "corporate capture" of US politics, most of the politicians and almost all funding comes from businesses.
* They've never been shy about using "Lawfare" against foreign competition; allegations of financial fraud, obfuscated terms of service to block interoperability or backload additional cost onto franchisers, buying out the competition, or the software patent trolling that we saw in the 2000s.
* Our own politicians and businesses all too ready to cease competing and buy American for a short term gain. More examples then we can list here: Jet and supersonic aircraft technology, computers, pharmaceuticals. I remember ICL binning several world leading products, in favour of re-selling USA kit.
* The call for "interoperability" often degrades to single supplier arrangements, with the 300 pound gorilla that is American manufacturing dominating defence and tech deals. Again many examples of mergers, take-overs.. The UK seems particularly prone to US domination, maybe the special relationship, but more likely the common language and a bit of laziness. Consider the Westland affair.


Late stage capitalism tends toward no more than three suppliers in any market.
Back in the swinging sixties, that would mean three British suppliers in Britain, three French ones in France and three US ones in the USA.

In the present global age it often means just three suppliers worldwide.

And the USA has been voracious in gobbling up any competition.
Their tactics include:
* Legal restrictions.
* Acquisition/Takeover (Hostile or otherwise).
* Headhunting (Make the chief development team an offer they cant refuse).
* Internal sabotage (Nokia)
* Tarriffs.


The UK's neolib interpretation of free trade includes a hefty dose of "Sell the fucking lot to the highest bidder".
But that's another story.

The actual Trump Ukraine deal seems to bear no resemblance to the one in Trump's head and mouth. It's sane.

Seems like Starmer's not necessarily "deluded" after all.

They should get rid of it altogether, but this would certainly be an improvement. I only hope it's genuine.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... fit-cap-uk

Parents of under-fives may be exempted from UK’s two-child benefit limit
Exclusive: Ministers considering options to bring down child poverty without removing rule entirely

Doubt there'll be a political cost as the scrounging ponce with half a dozen kids hasn’t been a tabloid hate figure since Boris Johnson entered politics.

Bones McCoy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 12:49 pm

There's an elephant sized reason why the UK doesn't have tech behemoths.
An uncomfortable one for tory aligned talking heads like Cummings to acknowledge.

The USA has always been extremely protective of its big businesses.
* Consider the degree of "corporate capture" of US politics, most of the politicians and almost all funding comes from businesses.
* They've never been shy about using "Lawfare" against foreign competition; allegations of financial fraud, obfuscated terms of service to block interoperability or backload additional cost onto franchisers, buying out the competition, or the software patent trolling that we saw in the 2000s.
* Our own politicians and businesses all too ready to cease competing and buy American for a short term gain. More examples then we can list here: Jet and supersonic aircraft technology, computers, pharmaceuticals. I remember ICL binning several world leading products, in favour of re-selling USA kit.
* The call for "interoperability" often degrades to single supplier arrangements, with the 300 pound gorilla that is American manufacturing dominating defence and tech deals. Again many examples of mergers, take-overs.. The UK seems particularly prone to US domination, maybe the special relationship, but more likely the common language and a bit of laziness. Consider the Westland affair.


Late stage capitalism tends toward no more than three suppliers in any market.
Back in the swinging sixties, that would mean three British suppliers in Britain, three French ones in France and three US ones in the USA.

In the present global age it often means just three suppliers worldwide.

And the USA has been voracious in gobbling up any competition.
Their tactics include:
* Legal restrictions.
* Acquisition/Takeover (Hostile or otherwise).
* Headhunting (Make the chief development team an offer they cant refuse).
* Internal sabotage (Nokia)
* Tarriffs.


The UK's neolib interpretation of free trade includes a hefty dose of "Sell the fucking lot to the highest bidder".
But that's another story.

This is an analysis McMillan, Heath and a slightly Eurosceptic Wilson accepted in the 60s. The UK would not have the economy of scale to match the US and then Japan. Callaghan had a more delusional view of British power while Thatcher's neoliberal Atlanticism has now hit the buffers with a huge bang.

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 11:40 am Sorry, Abers. When we're done, I'll ask her if she can spare 5 minutes for you.

Can I have thirty seconds* as well, please?


* I have no illusions.

Dodds has resigned.

She's a Minister of State, but would have been a Cabinet Minister post until fairly recently. Fair enough really, it's a big cut and you'd expect there to be a reaction.

Not impossible that she could have been vulnerable to a Green challenge in Oxford East next time. Hope she isn't.

Interesting talk of prison reform.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/fe ... na-mahmood

Talk of abolishing/restricting automatic early release and having a regime where release is earned via credits for rehab work and training.

To make this meaningful would, I guess, cost a fair bit more. Most prisoners do (what's called) meaningful activity already. If you want to make that part of an assessment system, you're going to have to do a lot of extra work. Otherwise, you're going to be releasing basically everybody you're releasing now who refuse to do anything.

The Gauke Review (of sentencing) may be more promising.