Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[HVC]

For sheilbh

National Service: a Canadian view

Doesn't really say much, but thought you'd enjoy it since you like canadian political views

[Sheilbh]

For sheilbh

National Service: a Canadian view

Doesn't really say much, but thought you'd enjoy it since you like canadian political views

I think some of the possible benefits of the voluntary stuff could also apply to Canada - but it's not and it shouldn't be an either/or for other stuff.

I'd add that security for Canada is very different than what European leaders are contemplating (especially with the expectation that the US may, more or less pull out, because of either Trump or China). It is not an accident that several European countries have re-introduced national service and others are talking about it as an idea at this point (and post-Russia's invasion). As I say in the UK just six months ago the Chief of the General Staff was slapped down by the government for suggesting that the UK might need to consider having a "citizen army". The German defence minister who has been leading the debate there has said they think there's a risk within 5-8 years of a Russian attack on  NATO country.

Even if it's not the focus now - having the database and system to administer a program like that would be helpful. As I say unless things change in Europe (or the Pacific), I wouldn't be surprised if his is a second term Labour policy with more of a defence focus.

Incidentally there's been some conversation around a more voluntary (but encouraged scheme) involving military but also emergency response to climate disasters in Australia who have a similarly challenging security environment.

[crazy canuck]

Shielbh, have you noticed who is adjacent to Canada's Northern border?

[Sheilbh]

Yeah but also the US is on your southern border and they can't go anywhere. The chances of the US withdrawing from its role in North American security to focus on Asia (or because Trump) feel low. Though obviously that carries its own issues

I think that's a different security situation to Europe. Whether it's NATO, EU or bilateral security arrangements the risk here is the Baltic states, Poland, Gotland and the US as security guarantor either focusing elsewhere because of a crisis in the Pacific or (perhaps perceived need) to counter China, or because of Trump.

But as I say the security situation and climate emergencies in Australia mean there are conversations there looking at possible versions of (voluntary but encouraged) national service. Those issues don't seem a million miles away from in Canada?

[Josquius]

I'd add that security for Canada is very different than what European leaders are contemplating (especially with the expectation that the US may, more or less pull out, because of either Trump or China). It is not an accident that several European countries have re-introduced national service and others are talking about it as an idea at this point (and post-Russia's invasion). As I say in the UK just six months ago the Chief of the General Staff was slapped down by the government for suggesting that the UK might need to consider having a "citizen army"

Don't I recall in a similar time span other senior army figures saying they didnt want conscripts.


Closest thing Google gives me https://news.sky.com/story/head-of-armed-forces-plays-down-conscription-fears-and-says-uk-not-on-the-cusp-of-war-13082342

[Sheilbh]

Don't I recall in a similar time span other senior army figures saying they didnt want conscripts.

He was told off privately by the Chief of the Defence Staff, but the source on that was that it wasn't "helpful to have that discussion publicly". He later suggested that it was perhaps a bit "alarmist" as "Britain is secure" (personally - I am not reassured when the most senior military person in the country is saying "Britain is secure" but that may just be me ).

He also added, which is absolutely right, that it was a decision and a discussion for politicians. Which is totally correct and the issue I have with the general suggesting it is more that it's not for them to try to dictate policy.

The government rejected the idea then. Obviously part of their line was that the army didn't want it and there were retired generals who were opposed. And it would be a profound shift in the type of military we have and what it's for.

But, as I say, you've got the German defence minister saying Russia could invade a NATO country in 5-8 years, the (Dutch) chair of NATO military command saying that private citizens may need to be prepared for conflict in the next 20 years and the CGS here saying we may need to train and equip a "citizen army" capable of deployment on land. France has re-introduced it, as have the Swedes - Norway, Denmark and Finland never abolished it. Poland has also re-introduced some elements. Maybe Britain is exceptional and can just ignore the situation giving rise to that, or retreat behind the Channel - I'm not convinced.

[Josquius]

All politics aside and purely looking at defence. I really don't see what good conscripts would do for the UK.
We aren't on the front line. We aren't going to be invaded.
If Russia pulls through Ukraine and then invades someone else Britain's resources should be put into providing support to these other nations who do have more of a case for conscription.
Missiles, air power, ramping up shell production, etc...
Even in terms of ground forces we'd be providing more the specialist pros for the counter attack than the meat shields to blunt the initial attack.

[Tamas]

All politics aside and purely looking at defence. I really don't see what good conscripts would do for the UK.
We aren't on the front line. We aren't going to be invaded.
If Russia pulls through Ukraine and then invades someone else Britain's resources should be put into providing support to these other nations who do have more of a case for conscription.
Missiles, air power, ramping up shell production, etc...
Even in terms of ground forces we'd be providing more the specialist pros for the counter attack than the meat shields to blunt the initial attack.

Exactly. Britain will be nuked into oblivion way before Russia would try to invade.

Canada has a substantially higher risk of having to fight Russia on its own territory.

[Grey Fox]

No one's crossing the artic ocean with an invasion force but missiles are a sure possibility and missile defense is already the USA responsability.

[Josquius]

Election wise just found out my home towns long standing MP is retiring due to his health.
The replacement...

https://x.com/lukeakehurst/status/1702104361478820012



Israel isn't particularly an issue at all for me in the election.
 What I've told myself is if someone had bad enough views there to sway my vote (for either side) you could guarantee they'd have plentiful far more shitty views elsewhere.
But that is pretty crap. Nothing to do with the area either.

[crazy canuck]

No one's crossing the artic ocean with an invasion force but missiles are a sure possibility and missile defense is already the USA responsability.

And we are talking about what happens if Trump wins.

[Sheilbh]

But that is pretty crap. Nothing to do with the area either.

I've said before - Labour is far more into parachuting people into very safe constituencies than the Tories. See the very safe seats all over (North-East, South Wales, Birmingham) for NEC members, think tankers, union officials with no connection to the area who, at best, have been a councillor in London.

There's also lots of bright young thing councillors from, say, Camden or Hackney returning to run in the seats they were born or raised in making a big deal of being a councillor on their election material, but not clarifying where. You can tell everywhere who the leadership's favoured candidate was because they appear to have had an agency on retainer to produce very similar selection leaflets, social media videos etc.

Off the top of my head I can't think of a previous election where basically a party's entire list of candidates has been as centrally picked and controlled as Labour in this election.

And we are talking about what happens if Trump wins.

I think this is an important difference - I think in Europe the growing thinking is Trump would be bad but only in worsening existing bipartisan trends.

Basically American administrations since Obama at leas have been saying very clearly that they want (and believe they need) to focus on the Pacific and the rise of China. They do not want such a load-bearing role in European (or Middle Eastern) security. There's been a divide in US foreign policy circles of those who think the US can still do it all v those who think they need to choose and focus because it's not 1950 anymore. I think that latter group are winning out and if they do the overwhelming consensus, from what I can see, is that China is a major security risk and threat to the US in a way that Russia and the Middle East aren't.

I think from a European perspective that is driving the sense that we need to be more responsible for our own security, but also that we need to demonstrate more understanding/support for the US in the Pacific (which they identify as their big security risk) if we want them to care about our security risks. It is a significantly different world than Europe has experienced for the last 35 years (as I say, I think in large part the writing has been on the wall for the best part of 20 years and we've ignored it).

[Tonitrus]

No one's crossing the artic ocean with an invasion force but missiles are a sure possibility and missile defense is already the USA responsability.

And we are talking about what happens if Trump wins.

Trump will buy Greenland for the block.

[Josquius]

But that is pretty crap. Nothing to do with the area either.

I've said before - Labour is far more into parachuting people into very safe constituencies than the Tories. See the very safe seats all over (North-East, South Wales, Birmingham) for NEC members, think tankers, union officials with no connection to the area who, at best, have been a councillor in London.

Yeah, I found out about it as I met my mam today and she brought up the ex MP quitting. First I'd heard of it.
She didn't know who they'd got to replace him yet and I mentioned it'll probably be an expert in something or other, a technocrat, who would be good to have in a junior cabinet position.
I gave it a quick Google and stumbled on this guy. I've not had a chance to do much digging beyond skimming his Wikipeida but about all he seems to have going for him is he's really hard for zionism.
Which... Yeah. Do not want. I'd be surprised if we have triple figure Jewish people round our way never mind any connection to Palestine whatsoever.
Maybe it's to help with the red-brown vote? - but then that was a problem next door*. We remained loyal.

Incidentally the ex guy wasn't local but he was from a similar Midlands mining area. Which is also fine.


*which I need to do more digging into. My mam also mentioned some stuff on the ex labour MP for nw Durham, a young woman who was apparently a really good mp albeit Corbyn friendly, got some seriously horrific treatment from the local fascists. Which is very believable though never reported.

There's also lots of bright young thing councillors from, say, Camden or Hackney returning to run in the seats they were born or raised in making a big deal of being a councillor on their election material, but not clarifying where. You can tell everywhere who the leadership's favoured candidate was because they appear to have had an agency on retainer to produce very similar selection leaflets, social media videos etc.

This sort of thing I honestly don't mind at all.
It's the law of the country that to get anywhere in life some time in London is hard to avoid.
If someone is from an area but goes to work in London for a decade before returning the that's great local representation in my book.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, I found out about it as I met my mam today and she brought up the ex MP quitting. First I'd heard of it.
She didn't know who they'd got to replace him yet and I mentioned it'll probably be an expert in something or other, a technocrat, who would be good to have in a junior cabinet position.
I gave it a quick Google and stumbled on this guy. I've not had a chance to do much digging beyond skimming his Wikipeida but about all he seems to have going for him is he's really hard for zionism.
Which... Yeah. Do not want. I'd be surprised if we have triple figure Jewish people round our way never mind any connection to Palestine whatsoever.
Maybe it's to help with the red-brown vote? - but then that was a problem next door*. We remained loyal.

No he's a long-standing councillor, I think in Hackney, who has on the Labour NEC for years and years. He's normally the lead on the centrist slate (so I feel like he was one of the resistance NEC during the Corbyn years). He's on the ultra-Blairite right of the party. He's been very involved in the disciplinary cases against the left and in shepherding rule changes through conference that are believed to help the right/hurt the left.

During the Corbyn he founded or ran a think tank, I think Labour First, which was about fighting for the Labour right pov/fighting to win.

It's rewarding an ultra-loyalist for Starmer who, in the internal party politics of committee rooms and rulebooks has done a lot of useful work. As well as the reward you can see the appeal in having that sort of MP (that sort of figure, historically made up about half the Scottish Labour MPs ).

*which I need to do more digging into. My mam also mentioned some stuff on the ex labour MP for nw Durham, a young woman who was apparently a really good mp albeit Corbyn friendly, got some seriously horrific treatment from the local fascists. Which is very believable though never reported.

Laura Pidcock? I'd always thought she was a bit like Richard Burgon to be honest She has a sterling record of turning historic Labour strongholds Tory both at council and constituency level which suggests she might not be that good.

This sort of thing I honestly don't mind at all.
It's the law of the country that to get anywhere in life some time in London is hard to avoid.
If someone is from an area but goes to work in London for a decade before returning the that's great local representation in my book.

Maybe. My read is it's a bunch of twinks who couldn't get out of their suburban hell-hole fast enough, now returning and pretending to like it