Salisbury Fox

Again, I am not having a go at him for informing people. My initial response was in relation to it being evidence of him being a man of the people which given he did none of the ground work is, I would suggest a poor example to use.

My point was that this can hardly be used as an example of being a man of the people given he is just announcing it.

It was Starmer who legislated it. Even Sunak committed to it and so he’s not having to do much work on this one. Seems happy to take credit though.

I think you are downplaying the deficit a little, given it was around £160 billion in 2010 and wasn’t simply a short term problem that disappeared when the financial crisis ended. It’s worth mentioning that our fiscal position was further complicated by Labour’s extensive use of PFI, which created substantial long term obligations (estimated to be £130 billion in 2010) that were not reflected in conventional public sector debt.

Black economy you mean?

Salisbury Fox respectfully disagrees…

My point is simply that every option has negative consequences. It’s about trade offs to try and ensure a sustainable and humane approach, not whether one sides cares and the other doesn’t.

As I said, I agree that tackling the root causes is essential. However, the fact that the long term solution is global doesn’t mean countries shouldn’t make difficult decisions about what they can sustainably accommodate today.

I don’t disagree that we should do more to address the root causes, although I am sceptical that anything other than global action would work. I just don’t think that supporting effective border control means accepting human suffering. A government can, and arguably should, do both.

I think you’re presenting a false choice, supporting firm immigration controls on the basis of sustainability doesn’t mean accepting human suffering.

I don’t think the solution is as simple as suggested for a number of reasons, including: If the UK made itself significantly easier to access, it could become a more attractive destination than many others increasing volume. Those who are ineligible or fail the process could continue to use traffickers. Of course those that fail should be subject to removal for but that is still not an easy process. Processing centres may not be able to handle the volume meaning backlogs appear. There is also the practical question of housing, public services and employment. Any expansion would need to consider whether there is enough capacity, particularly given existing pressures such as housing shortages, youth unemployment and the impact of automation/AI on future jobs.

It certainly would be hypocritical given the past social media messaging that will consistently be brought up. I do believe that he would be better advised to go for an election immediately as I can’t see anything materially being better in 3 or so years and so he would probably still get a majority albeit a significantly reduced one.

I agree that if you change party then there should be a by-election. I do however think that the consequences of changing leader should also result in a general election unless the new PM commits to the manifesto the party originally won a mandate for. Of course agreeing what represents a material change will be in the eyes of the beholder unless the deviation is very clear.

To be fair he won a huge majority despite that same media existing. I believe his main problem has been the perception that some of his government’s policies have been at odds with its stated focus on growth. Whether that’s fair or not, many see that as a contradiction.

1. Russia’s intent is to force Ukraine into its sphere of influence rather than destroying it. Dropping nukes would make them even more of a Pariah around the world and jeopardise the relationships with countries that have remained neutral or continued trading with them. 2. NATO clearly benefits from reducing Russia's war machine, but I’m sure that many countries in the alliance would rather spend their money elsewhere like we see playing out in the UK currently.

Many of those responsibilities exist because they directly affect our security and prosperity. I think it’s fair to question how much we spend on defence and look for ways where we can reduce commitments perhaps through a greater reliance on allies, but that’s a different argument to these threats don’t matter or aren’t our responsibility.

I think you’re over simplifying things. The threats we face are much broader than defending the country and overseas territories from invasion. Defence must cover deterrence, protecting trade routes, securing air and sea space, meeting our NATO commitments, protecting undersea infrastructure, cyber threats, long range missile strikes, and far more.

Apparently £28 billion is needed just to function at the level they are now and so if the £13.5 billion figure is correct then there will be some huge cuts and loss of capability.

I’m inclined to agree, particularly if there’s a shift left or rightwards of the manifesto they were elected on.

Apologies, my bad. The person who is ultimately responsible has to be the person making the decision on whether to appoint them in the first place. The grey area that Starmer is obviously using is that his decision wasn’t an informed one, but given everything that is in the public domain it shows an appalling lack of judgement anyway. I agree with Kenny that it was likely that the appointment was being pushed by McSweeney with Starmer signing it off.

The vetting process isn’t black and white as it requires flexibility. In some cases an individual may be appointed with mitigations in place, such as restrictions on access to classified materials as part of a management plan.

I do hope that whatever regime is in place when this is over is less inclined to be a supporter of terror groups around the region otherwise I don’t see the point of starting this in the first place. I don’t doubt that the CIA has operatives in country but I am far less optimistic than you based upon the mixed messaging and lack of a coherent plan so far. I also don’t believe that the US has much time left to get this finished as there is going to be a world of economic pain coming which is likely to be felt much more in 6-12 months.

I’m not suggesting they couldn’t do it, rather I don’t see why it’s necessary. They would become a static and very visible target for a lot of incoming missiles with a very short notice warning given the short distance as you indicate. They could achieve the same results of denying Iran of the income by stopping all their tankers

Desalination plants most certainly, energy infrastructure like those at Kharg island ‘could’ be considered a military objective if it effectively support Iran’s war effort. It will depend on intent, targeting and civilian impact.

Kharg island seems a bit of an unnecessary risk to me given that firstly an approach will be expected and secondly they will be a clear static target. If they want to control the oil, a safer option would surely be to blockade Iranian tankers. I agree that they would make short work of opposition, but I don’t think they have enough troops in the region for this to be a serious consideration as I would expect some high casualties. He is also struggling to find an off ramp now, this would be even harder with boots on the ground. Who knows with Trump though.