On his upcoming visit to Washington DC on 19 September, Labour’s Shadow Defence Secretary, John Healey, is expected to underscore the necessity for the UK and US to jointly brace their democratic resilience in anticipation of pivotal elections next year.
His speech at the American Enterprise Institute, alongside Democratic Congressman Dean Phillips, will advocate for a bolstered transatlantic alliance in the realm of defence and security.
Healey will say, “For Labour, the US is the UK’s most essential ally, especially on defence and security. Our countries should be on high alert ahead of the UK General Election and US Presidential Election in 2024. This is the time to launch democratic resilience work together to better protect our democratic values and systems.”
Within the framework of a recent paper he penned with the Royal United Services Institute, Healey will propose the inception of a new Democratic Resilience Centre. Designed to shield democratic values, political institutions, and open societies, the Centre will aim to “not only collectively monitor threats and share best practices, but also advise on action and develop new strategies, including military operational responses, to counter them.”
Speaking on the prospective Centre, Healey will emphasise, “Democracy and freedom is hardwired into NATO’s founding treaties, alongside collective defence. Our deep conviction in democracy means we must also act to defend our democracies when under attack. This proposed Democratic Resilience Centre would protect our democratic values, political institutions, elections, and open societies, not only by monitoring threats, but also by advising on action and military operational responses to counter them.”
Drawing attention to the global geopolitical scenario, particularly in relation to Ukraine, Healey will commend the US leadership’s role during the Ukraine conflict, stating that “there may be a change to Labour next year, but there will be no change to Britain’s resolve to stand with Ukraine, confront Russian aggression and pursue Putin for his war crimes.”
In the midst of these high-level dialogues, Healey will be accompanied by Labour’s Foreign Secretary, David Lammy. Their itinerary includes interactions with members of the US Congress and engagements with officials from the White House, the US Department of Defence, and the US Department of State.
Did a bunch of Labour Party Staffers, frustrated at what they should advise Healey to speak about during his forthcoming speech to the AEI, leave the office in frustration, retire to a local pub, get snockered, and around 0100 come up with the idea of a “Democratic Resilience Centre; and much to their bewilderment convinced Healy to agree to it the next morning? And to add icing on the cake present the idea alongside Democrat US Rep Dean Phillips, a notorious Trump hater, who just released his own Presidential trial balloon only to have it shot down before it even got airborne. Phillips called for a primary opponent for Biden. Not a great way to endear himself to the party bosses.
“…Within the framework of a recent paper he penned with the Royal United Services Institute, Healey…”
Calm down dear.
Try not to get so aerated, you don’t have a candidate Labour MP who is happy to write with sophistry; now, there’s a dilemma for a Labour person.
Tho, is a problem solved because I’ll be voting in a different constituency.
So you made this all up on your own , creative writing really is your thing.
Love the notorious Trump hater part, when every one knows that Trump is the Jimmy Carter of the republicans
Phillips who Ive never heard of before is actually a wealthy business man from Minnesota who flipped a republican leaning district and is a ‘moderate’ by US standards
as for Biden , this was his own words
Ignorance is bliss, they say. My but you must be blissful. Try following the US news before bloviating.
Will Dean Phillips survive his presidential trial balloon? – Roll Call
Starmer and Healey are making all the right noises on defence. These are some of their recent comments
Starmer has criticised the prime minister for “breaking a promise” not to cut British Army troops. During Prime Minister’s Questions, the Labour leader quoted Boris Johnson from the 2019 election campaign, where he pledged to maintain the Army’s size. Starmer said this week’s defence review would now see numbers fall by 10,000 as part of government plans.” BBC 23 March 2021
“Labour’s support for nuclear deterrence is non-negotiable”
“Ukraine-Russia: Sir Keir Starmer calls for Parliament to ‘look again’ at defence spending and defence strategy” 21 May 2022 Guardian
“Labour leader urges the UK Government to reconsider its approach amid planned Army cuts, and claimed his view was shared by many Tory MPs.” 23 May 2022 Scotsman
“Asked if he supports increasing defence spending, Sir Keir Starmer said: “Yeah, I do think the Government’s going to have to come back to Parliament and look again at defence spending, and I know many Conservative MPs think that as well”
Healey on ammo stocks to RUSI Feb 2023 “Labour will seek to shift defence procurement to an urgent operational footing to help buy fresh arms for Ukraine and replenish stockpiles depleted by previous gifts of military aid if it wins the next election.”
👍
Except David, the minor problem that every Labour government since the war has cut defence spending dramatically. Please also bear in mind that a very short time ago Starmer and Rayner and Healey were supporters of Jeremy Corbyn. He wasn’t even in favour of NATO.
Not true, I’m afraid, at least of the last Labour administration.
Blair inherited a defence spend of 2.5% of GDP. Eleven years later, under Brown, it was still 2.5% of GDP.
And that was a real figure, not the pretendy one that the Conservative Governments bandy about, which includes all the dodgy bits that Osborne crammed in from other departments, like pensions and the core nuclear programme.
I was really talking about actual cuts and delays in defence programmes but if you want to bring in percentages I think you’ll find that the figures are almost identical.
‘I think you’ll find that the figures are almost identical.’
Sorry Geoff, don’t quite follow this bit, identical to what?
Labour always gets a bashing from the Conservatives on defence but I don’t think fairly. The Blair government chopped Jaguars and
Harriers and so on, but that has to be placed in the context that, while the defence budget had been near-on halved by the eager Conservatives, the nanning levels and equipments had not. The poisoned chalice of cuts was intentionally left for Labour to sort out.
They did so, stabilised defence spending, retained an army of 105,000 (Phase 2 trained figure, unlike today’s claimed numbers), green-lighted the carrier programme and so on.
Compared to John Knott, Michael Fallon etc, they did a competent job on defence and didn’t slash, burn, sell off and privatise, as has been the leitmotif for the last 13 Tory years.
Corbyn is yesterday’s news, despite the Tory tabloids’ best efforts to use him as a bogeyman. The reality for Labour is that defence manufacture and jobs are primarily in Labour urban areas, from which a large part of service recruits come. They have a natural affinity with defence which Conservatives in leafy southern shires rarely do.
Anyway, they can hardly do worse on defence than the current shower in office.
“didn’t slash, burn, sell off and privatise, “
As an example, DERA sold off would counter that comment.
And when the escort force went from 35 to 23, SSN from 12 to 7, and Fast Jet Sqns from over 20 ) I lose count ,at least 23 ) to just 12, then I must disagree with you on slashing and burning.
But yes, manpower was kept, and that is important. With operations in Helmand and Iraq that is the only reason as far as I’m concerned.
They are all as bad in my book until shown to be otherwise.
In my area we have the joy of an up-coming bi-election. On the door step labour are quite open about a future Britain with a small defence force and without nuclear weapons. There was not much talk of Kier. The activists seem more Corbyn than a new Labour (and electable) Blair. Next year people are going to need to decide between the conservatives with all their faults and left wing Labour as in 2019 regardless of what is in the manifesto.
I can only suggest that you do what I’ve done my friend. Go back in the books or online and check what went under Blair/ Brown and what happened under Cameron’s coalition with the Liberals.
Cripes wrote:
“”Not true, I’m afraid, at least of the last Labour administration. Blair inherited a defence spend of 2.5% of GDP. Eleven years later, under Brown, it was still 2.5% of GDP.””
Whilst on paper we can claim the above, when looked under the microscope we find a much different story. In 1997 the defence budget was 2.56% of GDP, that saw a gradual fall followed by slight rises after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and only went above the 1997 figure in 2009 (2.64%) and 2010 (2.57%)
1998:2.50%
1999:2.42%
2000:2.37%
2001:2.41%
2002:2.49%
2003:2.55%
2004:2.50%
2005:2.43%
2006:2.36%
2007:2.36%
2008:2.48%
Whilst the GDP spend never fell below the NATO requisite of 2% The Uk at the time was embroiled in 2 conflicts which was funded from the MOD budget, currently across Europe the conflict between the Ukraine and Russia has seen defence budgets increased on mass, yet none of those countries are actually at war. Yet between 2001 and 2008, the UK budget remained below the 1997 peace time figures whilst at war which costs. Also, and a big also the Labour government saddled the Military with long time costs such as leasing four C17s instead of buying them, the airtanker PFI, all look good on paper, until its time to pay up. The Tories when they came to power in 2010 were skint, I as an instructor at the time had to curtail lots of training (unless training for deployments) including doing APWTs with 25 rounds. Osborne didn’t help either when he took the nuclear deterrent out of the treasury budget (where it had been since the UK got the bomb) and passed it onto the MOD to fund, since that day, the MOD has never been able to balance the books. Yes we can claim the Tories have cut funding, but if we take a step back, we find the roots of such a stance with the Labour governments fiscal policies
Fair points Farouk.
I have never been clear about the funding for the sand wars. HMG did r,ather grudgingly, shell out for UORs on about 2,000 protected patrol vehicles, but the army was short-changed by the Treasury and had to carry a lot of the extra costs without additional funding.
The figures though do stand up, Blair inherited around 2.5% of GDP and Brown left it at around 2.5% of GDP. This despite the global crash of 2007-9,(?), when all departments had to do some rapid belt-tightening. And they retained an army establishment of 105,000, which has subsequently been slashed to 73,000.
That was markedly different from Osborne’s austerity approach, which really hurt defence longterm.
Labour got a lot of things wrong. I would personally include buying the carriers, which we simply could not afford on 2.5% of GDP without tearing a big hole in the procurement budget. Among the inevitable consequences, instead of a regular drumbeat of building one new escort a year, we have not commissioned one escort since the last T45 n 2013. That is ten years now of no new escorts and it is likely to be 13 at best until we finally get one new one. No wonder the T23s are struggling. And don’t get me started on the AFV programme, which has been starved of money for two decades.
I didn’t at all like the decision to do a PFI on the A330, but the reality was that the VC10s were clapped out and the Tristars not much better and there was no money to fund a major replacement programme. It is still painful to see how much cash has gone to Airtanker for this ‘quick fix.’
For the record, I am not a Labour supporter and have never voted Labour, I am just trying to look objectively at Labour’s past record on defence to see what pointers there might be for an incoming Labour administration.
There are still a lot of anti-defence, left wing Labour activists and they fight to control their constituency parties. But they have largely been expunged from the Parliamentary party and their influence on defence policy is about zero.
Every Conservative government since Cameron’s appalling 2010 SDSR has inflicted defence cuts. May and Johnson were no different. Osborne lumbered the defence budget with the costs of the nuclear deterrent when it used to be funded by the Treasury. May included MoD and military pensions in the 2%. Non-contributory, index linked, final salary pensions at that.
Sunak is desperate to fund a 2% income tax cut as a sweetener before he will have to call the next election in Jan 2025. Watch him force Shapps to claw back a big chunk of the £24 billion Wallace got for defence to pay for it
There are no conservatives in UK. What did they conserve?
They are slow progressives, Labour are fast progressives.
In the end most of you all will get what you will deserve.
A country where merit do not matter, but race,sex whatever neo marxist class is created , where words have no meaning except for those that have the power say their meaning at certain times and place and by whom. Children will denounce their parents and every human relation is a political relation.
Welcome to 1984 this is what you will get.
Correct
And I would like a pint of whatever you’ve been drinking please.
Don’t you mean China and Russia and their mates Iran and North Korea.
You been boozin Alex 😄
Starmer does not have an enemy in the world and none of his friends like him.
The entire Labour Party nationally wants the return of Corbyn. Guess what Corbyn’s opinion of the U.S. is and, also, what sort of defence policy he would bring forward.
I should weigh the sum of the parts not piecemeal through fanaticism
I really seriously wonder about our politicians sometimes….no make that all the time..they have the intellect of a potato and the attention span of a goldfish. How could we have gone from titans like Thatcher to morons like this fellow Healey in the span of 33 years? Just reading the news these days feels like it is dumbed down for the masses as well. The cult of celebrity and sound bites rules supreme and considered debate is a long forgotten concept to our elites.
Thatcher and her successor Major managed to destroy the industrial base of the UK so thoroughly that we have never had a balance of payments surplus since. The national debt in 1985 was roughly 40% of GDP, today it has risen to 104%, about £2.2 TRILLION. With interest rates at 5.25% and about to rise again this month to 5.50%, the interest payments on our debt are £85 billion a year – we only spend about £50 billion a year on defence.
Since 2010 conservative policies of tax, borrow and spend have ruined our economy; Sunak printed more money than any Chancellor in history. That’s why the electorate appears to feel that its time for a change. We had better get used to the idea of Labour being in power for a very long time
The industrial base of this country was destroyed by incompetent management and militant left wing unions. Unless you were in your twenties in the 1970’s David you know very little of what went on before Thatcher took over. Inflation at 28 per cent; interest rates at fifteen per cent ; Unemployment in the millions; rats in the streets because councils were on strike; human bodies stored in refrigerated vans because the morgues were out on the picket lines. Left wing Labour managed that all by themselves. No Covid, no Ukrainian war, no embargoes on oil supplies, no WORLDWIDE inflation, all of which we have had in the last five years.ng This government may have a lot of faults but am I looking forward to another left wing, momentum and union dominated Labour government/ I am most certainly not.
Hi Geoff. I like much of what you post here and I hope you won’t mind if I differ on the economic performance of Thatcher’s government, particularly her Chancellor Dominic Lawson
Lawson was arguably the Tory Chancellor who, responding to Thatcher’s monetarist dogma, set the financial conditions for the near total destruction of the Britsh industrial base, the end of balance of payments surpluses and the selling off to foreigners of highly profitable state industries employing millions of skilled workers.
Lawson’s decision to “shadow” the deutschmark ensured interest rates were cut in the spring of 1988 – at a time when the economy was overheating – to 7.5%. By the time Lawson resigned in October 1989 they had doubled to 15% and a deep recession was baked in – resulting in over 3 million unemployed for the first time since the 1930’s. Thousands of good manufacturing firms exporting British products to the world went to the wall and hundreds of thousands of families had their homes repossessed. Thatcher said “there is no alternative”
Famously, Lawson refused to set up a British sovereign wealth fund with our N Sea oil revenues, prefering to spend the money on tax cuts for the rich and breadline benefits for the 3 million unemployed that were the direct result of his economic policies.
I guess it depends on which modern history books you read. With inflation at 25+%, the unions were inevitably going to strike. They wanted their members to be able to afford a loaf of bread and a tin of Spam for the table, and to send their kids to school wearing a pair of shoes.
The reality is the rot set in far earlier than this.
Opportunities to modernise industrial practices weren’t taken in the late 1950’s and the Westminster political football had just been passed between the Tories and Labour ever since….
So far so bad…
Mrs Thatcher had to get to grips with creaking ineffectiveness in our heavy industries, it had to be done and in reality, both the Heath and Callahan administrations also knew this and had both made ‘some moves’ in this direction.
The failure of Thatcherism is the promised trickle down economic model only partially worked, with large previously industrial areas left to wither on the vine….
Unfortunately, Blair upset the applecart by making Labour the Neo Conservatives, since then, we have effectively had various adaptations of the same thing, i.e big invasive government and very high tax….
Sunak and Starmer are two sides of the same coin, there’s really no difference between them.
I am voting Reform Party because are current two part system is self serving and totally broken.
Trickle down economics has never worked. Research papers have studied across the globe and it’s never worked as intended.
It never has unfortunately…..
Since Thatcher & Reagan it’s been more like hoovering up wealth fo the rich & squirrelling it away offshore. Austerity was a tool & excuse to hammer employment rights & drive down wages while the rich laughed all the way to the bank. This is unsustainable, dishonest, cruel & evil.
The decent & principled seem to be diven out of politics for sociopathic freaks.
I voted for Brexit, mainly because I was swayed by the sovereignty issue. I did not vote for the “hard Brexit” lobbied for by Richard Tice, Nigel Farage and negotiated by Johnson, Govey and his Lordship, which has seriously damaged foreign inward investment and caused the loss of most of our exports to the EU.
In marginal seats the Reform party may take enough votes from the Conservatives to let the Labour or Liberal Democrat candidates in, particularly if their constituencies vote tactically
Quite possibly, Reform might also take a good few of the old Red wall seats too David.
I don’t think it will do the Tories any harm to be benched for 5 years and properly pivot back to traditional center right values of low tax and small state.
I think a Labour government will unfortunately end in more Strikes, as the Unions make demands that Labour can’t pay out on….
Starmer has a team that’s actually weaker than Sunaks and that’s saying something….
It’s a centrist, high spending invasive middle of the road government under Sunak, or more the same with Starmer…
Lots of nonsense regarding 16 year olds voting, all the usual lefty guff, all of it will be binned when (if) they are in number 10.
Its sad to say but Labour are ahead because the tories are so apaulling. Thats really sad situation for the UK public.
I’m sorry David but I have to disagree with you on a couple of fundamental issues. Lawson didn’t destroy anything. The bulk of British industry in the sixties and seventies were basket cases that had already been run into the ground. Lawson did not sell them off to foreigners. Of the shares available 96 per cent of their own employees invested in buying shares. Neither did he or Thatcher favour the rich. When they came to power the basic rate of tax was 33% and the higher rate 83%. This was reduced to a basic rate of 25% and then 23% under John Major, the top rate coming down to 60 % and much later to 40 % in 1989.The inflation rate you use was caused by the previous Labour government so again nothing to do with T and L. You are right about the unions striking though, trying to intimidate Thatcher and co. but again you have to look at the standard of living compared to the previous two decades. In the 1980’s it rocketed.
I would have described the industrial unrest of the 60s and 70s as a cultural clash between a union movement that wanted to be involved in long term planning and an anglo-american business culture that wanted them to stick to a very limited reactive role.
The Labour governments of the 60s and 70s tried to negotiate some compromises, that were shot down by both sides. Heath tried to crush the unions before North Sea oil came in and with the Oil crisis of the early 70s crashed the economy. Then Thatcher settled it by using North Sea oil revenue to fund destroying the economy of the North to cripple the unions power base with horrendous suffering for all up there.
On this site we often moan about the decline of British weapons manufacturing, but an arms industry cannot exist in isolation with other manufacturing disappearing around it. The countries where unions are involved in long term planning such as Germany and the Scandinavian nations, and from a different cultural background Japan and Korea, have all withstood deindustrialisation far better than those that embraced the Regan/Thatcher counter revolution.
I’m assuming this is some kind of early April Fools Day? I was a teenager in the middle sixties and in my twenties through the seventies. I’m sorry but either you’re too young or have a very bad memory. The unions didn’t seek compromise on anything. They just wanted power. Bear in mind that most of this occurred during Labour being in power most of the time. The oil crisis had nothing to do with Heath. It was down to OPEC. The people who took advantage of it were the thugs in the NUM. As for industry the problem was shared between incompetent management and militant unions.
If the defence industry situation in this country is so bad why do we have the second largest defence contractor and the second largest engine contractor plus at least three others in the top twenty worldwide.
For once. I agree with you Geoff. 👍
Let’s go for the double.😉
😄 👍
No. Firstly UK is 8th in the world in manufacturing and we produce more by value per head than China. We just don’t make things like garden forks any more (thankfully). Secondly, British people decided that UK manufactured goods weren’t as good a foreign goods. In the late 70s you could choose an Austin Allegro or a VW Golf, fairly obvious which way that would go. Choice and a free market took its toll on British manufacturing. Nothing to do with politics, British people would have bought the VW even with Labour in power.
Agree Sunak printed more than any other chancellor, but Starmer completely supported it, in fact Starmer said the Tories didn’t support (spend) enough and wanted longer lockdowns = more money printing. Any economist will tell you inflation is caused by 1) too much money 2) lack of supply. Both Tories and Labour supported printing money whilst completely restricting supply. The notion we would be any better of if Starmer was running the show is completely flawed.
Its clear that both the Tories and Labour are both incompetent and not fit for office.
Why pick on Healey… did you not notice the Defence Secretary and his …. Im looking for his obvious qualities for the job
Admit it hes a party apparatchik of the worst kind
He was very good at selling photocopiers and setting up pyramid selling organisations…I’m sure they are useful.
Perhaps he can copy some more equipment. I’m surprised he hasn’t got some inflatable decoys to put on display as kit bought.
The Argentine airforce was completely destroyed as a credible force between 2000 and 2020, when British exporters were strong-armed into holding back vital aircraft components whenever the Argentines wanted to buy new jets… turns out our components are in alot of things. Thus Argentina is still using Skyhawks.
When we want to pursue a national policy over 40 years to advance British power, sometimes we are VERY good at doing so
Also the lack of funds and a government actually wanting to fund defence played a part. It’s all good as it’s kept the islands safe.
The U.K. does still make lots of stuff and are these things that have stopped aircraft being sold.
If Argentina stopped claiming the islands the relationship could improve.
Argentina could be up for one of the biggest ever political and economic experiments ever if Milei wins.
Actually it’s important to look at how our democracy can be protected in the 21century..when your enemies have the ability to spread misinformation at a national level you really need to understand what that means for democracy..not thinking about it will lead to our democracy being subverted by the likes of china..who have no issue with buying anyone or using any and means to take forward their goals….including smearing any politician they don’t like in this county or supporting a more friendly politician.
Like many contentious issues it’s a debate that needs to be had.
No it is not a debate that needs to be had, since Liberty allows Communist Manifesto for example.
Your veiled discussion intent is that you want support for censorship and limitation of civil rights for people you disagree with.
Tell me spread of misinformation included the Communist Manifesto?
Hate speech includes the hate against bourgeoise, rich? Or the polluters? “negationists”?
No not at all, as I have not come down on one side or other around, I’ve said we need to have the discussion and debate.
personally I think it’s destructive to sensor…but my issue is with:
1) funding of political parties and politically active groups by foreign powers ( the USSR funded CND in the 1970s and 1980s).
2) the use of the Ecco chamber and the way AI in social media sculpts what information people get.
We do need to agree how these are managed…my view is you don’t allow external funding of pressure groups and political groups and you remove and combat the Ecco chambers created by social media…curating what a person sees using AI is the most insidious attack on the freedom of speech ever seen…
There is also a very big different between opinion and debate that should be open and damaging lies that are spread on purpose to sow discord and incite violence or hatred…and agreeing how we manage that is important.
Freedom of speech is actual a tool to support democracy and social freedom…but what happens when it’s used as a way to attack that and how do you react to that ?
The irony is Alex that your response to this is that we should not be challenging and having the discussion..because it’s a threat to the freedom of speech..do you see the irony in that.
It is well know that Free Speech implies that people that are against Free Speech have a voice. Likewise that Democratic countries have parties against Democracy, hence Communist parties have been allowed all over Western World.
Indeed, but only to a degree…but we alway place limits…and those limited are generally based around how threatened a nation feels…
1) in the UK a good example is the terrorism act 2000…the prescribed list of terrorist organisations is classic and more and more used…it started off with just over 20..there are now 78 proscribed groups in the UK its illegal to support or promote any material from them etc etc.
2j I’m old enough to remember when Sinn Fein and 10 other republican and loyalist groups were band from speaking between 1988 and 1994…there were many other examples during the troubles of both republicans and loyalists views being removed from documentaries or documentary programmes being band/withdraw or delayed……
3) or the US…great examples of suppression of free speech in the US when it feels threatened…..1954 communist control act that made it illegal to be a communist in the U.S, not just a member of the communist party…but any and all activities that could be seen as communist were illegal.With the U.S.now going through what can only be described as a really worrying return to “McCarthyism” but this time on both sides of the political divid as the leadership of different states bring in restrictive laws attacking the other side…the Idaho state law 2021, no public funds for for aborton act has seen art and books that mention abortion removed from state libraries and schools…on the other side you see the setting up of bias hotlines…
4) if you just look at the Australian legal system you will see a lot of restrictions on freedom of speech:section 80 basically says you have no freedom to: Treason ( assisting an enemy), urging violence against the constitution, urging violence against groups, urging violence against members of groups or advocating for terrorism. Then there are loads more around different groups that are prescribing….
All states even the liberal west only take freedom of speech so far…generally it’s when an external threat is identified as using freedom of speech as a way to attack the nation…sometimes even in the west it’s used to suppress political opponents ( the U.S. especially of the western powers has suffered with this).
it’s just one of those areas the west has really struggled with and will rightly continue to do so…as they say we stop talking about…the reasonable balance of free speech will be the being of a slippery slope to losing it.
It was really ‘New Labour’ that first successfully ran with the idea of ‘spin is all, substance is irrelevant- smile for the cameras’ as an election-winning strategy. Before that our politicians were expected to be freakish creatures with limited social skills who were judged on their actual technical ability (albeit that was always variable).
You did get the bit where she said she would not campaign off the Falklands victory and promptly allowed Flags of the Union to be waved in party politicals
Underline is English, underscore is American English.
David Lammy….shadow foreign secretary now there is a man with a titanic intellect (tongue firmly in cheek)…god help us…then you look at the comservative benches…PM Sunak….a technocrat managing decline…again the intellect of a gnat….really god help the UK…
Lammy does have a masters in law from Harvard university and came from a poor, single mother London inner-city family. So I would say intellect wise he is well above average…you may not agree with his politics and beliefs, but that is different. Sunak was from a middle class family and had a private education…so all the advantages… but they don’t give away MBAs from Stanford university for being an average intellect….I don’t agree with his political views, but I’m dam well sure he’s more able to understand the economy and how it’s working that you or me.. ( unless you’ve got a doctorate in economics hidden away).
I worked with David Lammy for several years before he went into full time politics. He was a bright, hard working and very likeable young lawyer – and, unlike many in politics, totally honest.
We all know on ukdj no matter who’s in government next won’t make any difference to our defence budget there’s just no will for it .IF anything it could get worse 😕
That’s something we can all unfortunately agree with Andrew….
Having to rely on a decision making process that is completely out of reach is « strange ». USA made an independance war in order to be able to make theire own decisions. UK is placed in a trap. It don’t control US votes, decision and frustrations. It don’t have a say over what will be decided. In order to make sense, UK should be the 52nd state to have a say in this election. Otherways, I don’t understand the usefulness of being spectator of what is happening.
Interesting concept. It gives Healey an agenda to justify his trip I suppose. But he’s right…it did all go pear shaped with the printing press 🙂
Haha,
Hilarious the parties that are at forefront of censorship , social cancelation , low level political violence, separating persons by classes, even the main leader said that you don’t belong to a race if you don’t vote for him are talking about “democracy” and the owner of this blog posts that…!?
At least no one talked about Liberty.
‘Democratic resllience’? Remind me, what was Labour’s position when voter ID was introduced? Maybe democratic resilience only matters when they think they’ll be the ones to gain.
“will advocate for a bolstered transatlantic alliance in the realm of defence and security”
Is this like when Trump won and the Labour party blanked him. Not that I support Trump but he was an elected leader.
So should this read ‘will advocate for a bolstered transatlantic alliance in the realm of defence and security as long as some one we like is elected’
Starmer and his team are just showboating; positioning themselves as leaders in waiting. He is playing the same ‘defence and security’ card with the agenda in Paris with Macron.
Macron is an irrelevance- he is the most hated French President in a long long time with approval ratings of <35%- there is no way he is getting voted back in as President again in 2024.
Elections both sides of the Channel in 2024. I see King Charles is with Macron in France this week.A new entente cordiale? Maybe post Brexit we will see Churchill’s ambition of France and the UK as one nation becoming a reality 🙂
Isn’t it a crime to suggest that election integrity is less than perfect when Republicans do it?
Oh my god, how self-absorbed is the UK? Do you think anyone in the US gives a rat’s ass about what the shadow? Whatever the hell that means person thinks.? Absolutely no one in North America cares….
Your comments have been going directly to the bin for months, Esteban, no one is reading them.