The UK Politics & Brexit Thread

[190]

Maggie tried to revise the system back in the 90's and look where it got her.

She did and and made the mistake of trying to revise it to a fair basis i.e. everyone paid the same for the council services they received based on the number of people in the house irrespective of the house value.
The riots had nothing to do with rationality.

The current council tax is a misnomer in that it's not a tax to pay for council services received, it's a property tax based on property value. Even if it's an outdated value, council tax is still a very progressive tax with band H paying 3 times more than band A. labour want to make it even more progressive.

Overall, tax is getting more progressive all the time even under the conservatives. In recent years we have had huge reductions in the pensions life time allowance and dividend tax allowance both of which are a tax on savings that hit the relatively well off not just the super rich.

 

[C240Sport97]

Am I the only enjoying French displeasure, petulance, pettiness and its juvenile and pathetic response to AUKUS announcement?

Macron acts as like an angry and jilted teenager

 

[grober]

What ramifications could there possibly be????

Hinkley Point C nuclear power station - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and check out who currently runs Britains nuclear power stations????

Nuclear power in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Still it will be a comfort to know Australia will be safe when the lights go out

Not against AUKUS, but needlessly pissing off another European nuclear member of NATO is not a good idea to my mind.

 

[markjay]

I wouldn't want to be anywhere near Macron's pram right now - you could get hit in the eye by a flying toy.

 

[190]

Not against AUKUS, but needlessly pissing off another European nuclear member of NATO is not a good idea to my mind.

Someone should tell that to France. They pissed us off with Brexit and what was it they refused to send to Australia - vaccines for the C word.

Macron is simply reaping what he sows, what else can he expect.

Here is a view of a German:
If you treat the UK as a strategic adversary, don't be surprised when the UK does the same

Aukus is a disaster for the EU | The Spectator

 

[Big Janner]

The Australian populace are, for the most part, enjoying watching the Eurooeans pointing their fingers and crying; "it's their fault".
Since when did France worry about anything other than France?
Every Frenchman I've ever spoken to has said "France first"

Maybe we should try a small dose of "UK first"

 

[C240Sport97]

What ramifications could there possibly be????

Hinkley Point C nuclear power station - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and check out who currently runs Britains nuclear power stations????

Nuclear power in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Still it will be a comfort to know Australia will be safe when the lights go out

Not against AUKUS, but needlessly pissing off another European nuclear member of NATO is not a good idea to my mind.

But these nuclear power stations are subject to UK law, rules and procedures. Macron can't do didly squat. Plus the hole he is in is already big enough - yet he keeps digging

 

[Dryce]

Not against AUKUS, but needlessly pissing off another European nuclear member of NATO is not a good idea to my mind.

The bottom lines here are that (a) the Australian want/need SSNs and not SSKs. (b) in the west the UK and US are pre-eminent when it comes to SSNs. (c) When it comes to strategic defence the UK, US, and Aus were already closer than any mix with France.

France is 'surprised'. Hmmmmmm. The debate about going the nuclear submarine route in Australia is not new - this decision did not come out of nowhere. The limitations of the Collins class against the distances that the RAN needs to deploy - both in terms of the distances involves with Austrlian littoral waters and in terms of transit times and support required to get to anywhere useful in the Indo-Pacific region.

The UK deployed a SSN with the HMS Queen Elizabeth - that SSN didn't become apparent publicly until it turned up at Busan in South Korea. It didn't need refuelling and it could keep up a consistent rate of progress (Speed of Advance) across the oceans. I would asume that the Busan visit wasn't needed for replenishment - but was a friendly visit that quietly made a point about its presence that far from the UK.

And its worth noting that the RAN was after 12 (yes 12 .... count how many submarines the UK has these days) conventional submarines. 12 conventional boats are not cheap. The deployment limitations of a conventional boat mean that if they drop to 7 or 8 SSNs they'll get significantly more useful time on station from the smaller fleet of nuclear powered boats.

So France's real complaint isn't about the US or UK - but about the prevarications of the Australians who should have made this decision a decade ago - and not wasted their own time and France's time and expectations.

Along with this we should note that behind the scenes the French, UK, and US military cooperate rather more than the posturing politcians on all sides might like to admit at this moment in time.

 

[Big Janner]

The bottom lines here are that (a) the Australian want/need SSNs and not SSKs. (b) in the west the UK and US are pre-eminent when it comes to SSNs. (c) When it comes to strategic defence the UK, US, and Aus were already closer than any mix with France.

France is 'surprised'. Hmmmmmm. The debate about going the nuclear submarine route in Australia is not new - this decision did not come out of nowhere. The limitations of the Collins class against the distances that the RAN needs to deploy - both in terms of the distances involves with Austrlian littoral waters and in terms of transit times and support required to get to anywhere useful in the Indo-Pacific region.

The UK deployed a SSN with the HMS Queen Elizabeth - that SSN didn't become apparent publicly until it turned up at Busan in South Korea. It didn't need refuelling and it could keep up a consistent rate of progress (Speed of Advance) across the oceans. I would asume that the Busan visit wasn't needed for replenishment - but was a friendly visit that quietly made a point about its presence that far from the UK.

And its worth noting that the RAN was after 12 (yes 12 .... count how many submarines the UK has these days) conventional submarines. 12 conventional boats are not cheap. The deployment limitations of a conventional boat mean that if they drop to 7 or 8 SSNs they'll get significantly more useful time on station from the smaller fleet of nuclear powered boats.

So France's real complaint isn't about the US or UK - but about the prevarications of the Australians who should have made this decision a decade ago - and not wasted their own time and France's time and expectations.

Along with this we should note that behind the scenes the French, UK, and US military cooperate rather more than the posturing politcians on all sides might like to admit at this moment in time.

Nicely put

 

[grober]

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation I tried fitting South China Sea or even Pacific in there but it doesn't fit.

The bottom lines here are that (a) the Australian want/need SSNs and not SSKs. (b) in the west the UK and US are pre-eminent when it comes to SSNs. (c) When it comes to strategic defence the UK, US, and Aus were already closer than any mix with France.

France is 'surprised'. Hmmmmmm. The debate about going the nuclear submarine route in Australia is not new - this decision did not come out of nowhere. The limitations of the Collins class against the distances that the RAN needs to deploy - both in terms of the distances involves with Austrlian littoral waters and in terms of transit times and support required to get to anywhere useful in the Indo-Pacific region.

The UK deployed a SSN with the HMS Queen Elizabeth - that SSN didn't become apparent publicly until it turned up at Busan in South Korea. It didn't need refuelling and it could keep up a consistent rate of progress (Speed of Advance) across the oceans. I would asume that the Busan visit wasn't needed for replenishment - but was a friendly visit that quietly made a point about its presence that far from the UK.

And its worth noting that the RAN was after 12 (yes 12 .... count how many submarines the UK has these days) conventional submarines. 12 conventional boats are not cheap. The deployment limitations of a conventional boat mean that if they drop to 7 or 8 SSNs they'll get significantly more useful time on station from the smaller fleet of nuclear powered boats.

So France's real complaint isn't about the US or UK - but about the prevarications of the Australians who should have made this decision a decade ago - and not wasted their own time and France's time and expectations.

Along with this we should note that behind the scenes the French, UK, and US military cooperate rather more than the posturing politcians on all sides might like to admit at this moment in time.

The operational tactical advantages of Nuclear submarines is pretty much a given but I'm not sure if getting involved in an area of potential conflict on the other side of the world is in the UK's strategic interests if we are putting "UK first " as suggested.
We avoided a post French colonial VIETNAM after Korea , Australia didn't - to their cost-and that didn't turn out so well? The lesson learned perhaps is that in any foreign conflict alliance with the US there's only one country calling the shots! While Trump had no foreign policy Biden , while more pro-active , seems to be maintaining the "America First Policy" propounded by his predecessor.

Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Besides which we have another military threat a little closer to home than the US or OZ has.

 

[markjay]

I am guessing that - like in the now-infamous Al-Yamama deal with the Saudi Royal family - in large parts our motivation behind it was to create jobs in the UK.

Also, the thing is, that China, Russia, and Iran, each send out their long tentacles to whatever parts of the world they can reach, while the West is drawing back for political, ethical, and financial reasons. It may seem like the right thing to do at any one point of time, but looking at it as an ongoing process, it's a worry.

 

[Gollom]

The bottom lines here are that (a) the Australian want/need SSNs and not SSKs. (b) in the west the UK and US are pre-eminent when it comes to SSNs. (c) When it comes to strategic defence the UK, US, and Aus were already closer than any mix with France.

France is 'surprised'. Hmmmmmm. The debate about going the nuclear submarine route in Australia is not new - this decision did not come out of nowhere. The limitations of the Collins class against the distances that the RAN needs to deploy - both in terms of the distances involves with Austrlian littoral waters and in terms of transit times and support required to get to anywhere useful in the Indo-Pacific region.

The UK deployed a SSN with the HMS Queen Elizabeth - that SSN didn't become apparent publicly until it turned up at Busan in South Korea. It didn't need refuelling and it could keep up a consistent rate of progress (Speed of Advance) across the oceans. I would asume that the Busan visit wasn't needed for replenishment - but was a friendly visit that quietly made a point about its presence that far from the UK.

And its worth noting that the RAN was after 12 (yes 12 .... count how many submarines the UK has these days) conventional submarines. 12 conventional boats are not cheap. The deployment limitations of a conventional boat mean that if they drop to 7 or 8 SSNs they'll get significantly more useful time on station from the smaller fleet of nuclear powered boats.

So France's real complaint isn't about the US or UK - but about the prevarications of the Australians who should have made this decision a decade ago - and not wasted their own time and France's time and expectations.

Along with this we should note that behind the scenes the French, UK, and US military cooperate rather more than the posturing politcians on all sides might like to admit at this moment in time.

Very interesting


SSN? SSK? Yes, I could trawl the internet but......

 

[markjay]

Very interesting


SSN? SSK? Yes, I could trawl the internet but......

I did....:

SSN (hull classification symbol) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

SSK (hull classification symbol) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Basically is Nuclear powered vs (conventional) Diesel-electric powered.

 

[C240Sport97]

I am guessing that - like in the now-infamous Al-Yamama deal with the Saudi Royal family - in large parts our motivation behind it was to create jobs in the UK.

not the same thing at all.

Saudi Arabia would never be allowed access to nuclear powered subs .. Australia is the only other country to be granted access to the technology by the US and UK

plus the press release talks only about the possibility of hundreds of jobs.

 

[m80]

I wonder if the future will see the US and the UK assisting AU to build a larger fleet, and generally increase their military presence in the world.

China have been pushing their expansion for a while and and AU are well placed to patrol the southern Pacific.

It seems NZ aren't too happy, possibly feeling that their remote advantage is threatened some.

 

[GeeJayW]

It seems NZ aren't too happy, possibly feeling that their remote advantage is threatened some.

Is NZ ever happy about anything?

 

[Petrol Pete]

But these nuclear power stations are subject to UK law, rules and procedures. Macron can't do didly squat. Plus the hole he is in is already big enough - yet he keeps digging

Yes , the hole he is digging is now all of 4 foot deep, a few more inches and he will need a step ladder to get out !

 

[grober]

I am guessing that - like in the now-infamous Al-Yamama deal with the Saudi Royal family - in large parts our motivation behind it was to create jobs in the UK.

Also, the thing is, that China, Russia, and Iran, each send out their long tentacles to whatever parts of the world they can reach, while the West is drawing back for political, ethical, and financial reasons. It may seem like the right thing to do at any one point of time, but looking at it as an ongoing process, it's a worry.

Australia to rent nuclear submarines from US as it waits for new ones

I believe the idea is that the AUSTRALIANS will lease their subs [Second hand? ] initially from the US till they develop their own nuclear submarine construction capability----maybe the UK has a possible role to play at that point? and remember with the yanks there''s always a quid pro quo
U.S. Seeking Basing in Australia After Submarine Deal

 

[m80]

and remember with the yanks there''s always a quid pro quo

I tend to look at it as dollar pro.
It sounds like that lease lend advantage again,
with the further advantage to the US that AU will be doing their patrolling for them.
Making money and saving money all in one sweet deal.
I'm surprised the European partners weren't expected to lease the east cost missiles that weren't aimed at Russia.

 

[Dryce]

Australia to rent nuclear submarines from US as it waits for new ones

India did the same with the Russians. They rented. Then have started building their own - though they seem to take a long time to actually procure and build and commssion anything.

When the Australians introduced the Collins class they took on ex RN submariners to fill out their numbers.

Building a sustainable capability in terms of manpower and technical abilities is non-trivial.

When the UK introduced its first nuclear submarine it had assistance from the US in supply of the first reactor and back those days the RN had a large number of conventional submarines with a large pool of experience. The Australians have 6 Collins class - they and the total crew complements are a fairly small pool by comparison. The UK had quite a bit of growing nuclear experience and a large (if declining) industrial base. Australia is starting from a lower relative base.