It isn't really a story at all. This only refers to "new" money.
I'm saying there is clearly a growing level of discontent with Johnson's leadership among senior tories, who worry his main attraction of being a vote winner is losing its veneer, and if they wanted to push for change, they'd need to do it within the next 12 months maximum. I'm not saying Sunak will launch anything, just he would have manoeuvred himself into the right position should the opportunity arise. As I said, i don't think it's easy to call. Johnson probably likely to survive but upcoming by elections will be interesting if there's a shock or serious vote slippage.
Well, the lack of "new" cash, or even "old" cash, certainly seemed to diminish ambition when it came to the rail announcements last week. So I guess we'll just have to wait for the details. It's not even the likes of me who need convincing, it's that quite vocal and sizeable group of tory mps who are concerned there is more coming.
diminish ambition?
Having very very fast rail in twenty years, or very fast rail in ten? I know which one I would prefer.
there is no additional cash, because a big chunk has already been allocated and a budget set. it is not far short of a clickbait story.
Spending announcements tend to be recycled money anyway ie money comitted for a project previously then wrapped up in another announcement to make it feel like new money
Well, that's the Daily Telegraph for you, i guess!
Seriously, you can convince me easily enough, but the honourables Huw Merriman (Wealden), "selling perpetual sunlight"; Robbie Moore (Keighley) "left completely short changed"; Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk), "price will be paid for generations"; Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) "heard these promises again and again"; Philip Davies (Shipley) "massive missed opportunity"...and on and on and on. I can assure you, these tory mps are a lot more angry about it than I am. They're the ones who need convincing, not me.
In case you missed it, the Tories are planning to create a 'Union Divison' of the British Army for soldiers in Scotland and Wales (maybe NI as well). They actually think this is the way forward for the 'union'
It took me a while but I just realized now what the name means. Brilliantly stupid name.
Also what would a Union Division do that is not currently being covered in the army ?
the British army is divided up onto divisions, for pretty much administrative reasons. The regiments will still keep their names, so it is unlikely that anyone will mention the division name.
These already include the 1st (United Kingdom) Division, 3rd (United Kingdom Division) and the 6th (United Kingdom) Division.
Each division is made up of Brigades and each Brigade made up of Regiments.
The way those divisions are structured and where they are based is what will make the difference, rather than what name they give it.
So it's a just another stupid non story then. Like the fanfare about Northern Powerhouse Rail or a bridge to Antrim
So another shadow cabinet reshuffle happening today, barely 6 months on from the last one. Not sure who's for the shepherds crook this time, but a bit embarrassing for Angela Rayner to have her major speech in relation to government corruption met mostly by questions about a reshuffle she clearly hadn't been informed about.
the restructuring of the British Army isn't a non story, it is something that is happening and is pretty radical.
The SNP decided to make an issue out of the name of one of the divisions, that is all.
So what were you on about earlier?
You say it's a big deal but tell me I'm wrong for saying it's a non story but also say it's wrong for the SNP to make it a big story
you wanted to know what a Union division would do that isn't already covered in the British Army, so I pointed out why the army has divisions. Under the review, these are being streamlined into four divisions, the Queen's Division, The Union Division, the Light Division and the Guards & Parachute Division.
The restructuring itself is a big story, because it is a massive change to the way the British Army will operate in the future. The names of each division, less of a story. Unless you're the SNP.
I know army's had divisions I was just wondering what was so special about this Union one which it turns out is nothing really. So ya the name is a non story
British army is shrinking and they've employed a very expensive contractor with a dismal record on recruiting #
Peak number of personnel in NI during the troubles was about 27,000## a third of current strength of 81,816* itself down from 104,252 in 2012. Blame Tory cuts or blame Tory contracts or a peace dividend but it means the British Army has far fewer squadies to help out should the need arise like when they could only provide 100 drivers during the recent fuel emergency.
# Capita's 2017 decision to implement bespoke IT systems on a £1.3bn British Army recruiting contract led to nearly 25,000 fewer applications to join the military in the following year, new figures have revealed. Assume anything Capita touch will be way over-budget and late or undelivered, like all the other big contractors involved with the UK govt and things like Max-Fax , new customs systems , test and trace - at this stage UK and other countries should add a multiplier to tender submissions based on a companies previous record /RANT
## At the height of the Troubles in 1972, there were 27,000 military personnel in Northern Ireland, based in more than a hundred locations. That is a thousand more than the number of British soldiers deployed for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
*July 2021 excluding reservists and 3,983 Gurkhas see Table 2b
The British Army had nearly one million horses in the first world war and now only has around 500, for pretty much the same reason.
Each brigade is made of battalions that come from a regiment. The regiments aren't nested within the division structure. So you might get quite a variety of different battalions in a brigade, each with its own regimental culture.
Two below standard posts removed.
I think soldiers might resent the comparison!
This is where some involved in British politics have led their followers - how anyone of sound mind can think it is ok to delay a lifeboat is beyond me. Obviously they do not see the refugees as human...
Police confirmed a “disturbance” took place following claims the lifeboat was blocked from going out to sea by people on Hastings beach. People shouted “horrible” abuse at the RNLI volunteer crew, according to a caller to James O’Brien’s LBC radio show on Thursday (November 25). Zoe, from Hastings, told the presenter she witnessed the group blocking the RNLI lifeboat and shouting, “don’t bring any more of those home, we’re full up, that’s why we stopped our donations, and that kind of really horrible stuff.”
There are those that would plead polemics as harmless words; convenient for them to dismiss the pearl-clutching of "the libs" rather than consider that the likes of Nigel Farage and his GB News paymasters are indirectly responsible for stoking this exact kind of dangerous fearmongering and xenophobia. As you say, these types simply don't consider these migrants as human, or worth saving (if only so that they're put on a plane and sent back, if that's your view). We don't know how many people were blocking these boats, so one would hope at least the crowd was small.
One of the graphics I saw during the referendum was pretty much: Why spend £xxx on an asylum case when you can spend £5 on a hangman noose. Complete with pictures.
This disgusting act was really a new low for me in all this. I cannot fathom this mentality which in my opinion is quite simply evil, they want these poor people to die in the water, also their short sightedness of stopping donations may lead to other completely unrelated deaths.
Two sides to every story as usual.
I have a lot of sympathy for the RNLI, especially out of places like Hastings, where they are having a lot of pressure put on them by this migrant thing. Because they do their job so well, these gangs only need to get a boat out of French waters and bingo, they are safe and well in the UK.
Boris' open letter wasn't exactly helpful, but the message really needs to be that if you are picked up in the channel, then you will returned to France so don't waste your time trying, because otherwise at the moment the current system doesn't seem to be dissuading people from attempting this crossing in the slightest.
whether or not this is what will actually happen, I do think this should be the message.
Why should France take them back when they are in British waters? UK wanted control over their borders; they left the EU and they are a third party country that comes with all the rules and regulations accordingly including handling refugees in their waters. All Boris open letter did was to show how desperate and poor UK has become in handling diplomacy and the amount of political support they have already burned world wide. As things are going currently I'll be surprised if the juxtaposed controls will still be there in France by the end of this decade.
My understanding is that via Brexit, Britain as left the Dublin Agreement:
The Dublin III Regulation enabled the UK to return some asylum seekers to EU Member States without considering their asylum claims. It also provided a legal route for reuniting separated asylum-seeking family members in the UK. The Regulation will no longer apply in the UK from the end of this year.
source: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9031/
So no, Britain cannot return migrants to the EU.
Given they are currently passing a bill through parliament that, among other things, offers immunity from prosecution to border control officers, i think the message that is being conveyed is not that we will return you if you reach our shores, it's that we will use all our might to push your boat back if you dare try and leave you to fend for yourselves.
Neither of you read my post
But shouldn't that be the message?
Don't bother trying, it is too dangerous, too hard and if you get caught (which you probably will) you will be sent back to the wrong side of the channel?
Or should the current situation, with criminal gangs putting too many people in flimsy boats and leaving them to the mercy of the English channel carry on?
This isn't a sustainable situation and the current methods of policing it aren't working.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/284f2526e18ff7e4c08066f9ed850ed0.svg)
