With all this wrangling about what the Type 32 may or may not be, it might be worth noting something that Babock told investors in a recent briefing on the Type 31. /1
"This is a no-change contract, deliberately structured to specifically restrict customer change." This might explain why the government needs a Type 32, perhaps the RN desiring changes but having to wait to get them. /2
In terms of what Type 32 could be, if based off Type 31, remember that Type 31 is basically just a Danish Iver Huitfeldt class frigate with a bunch of shit removed above the waterline and more Brrrrritish on the inside. /3
Of course the whole thing could just be a giant smokescreen This is the MoD after all. It could end just being a PowerPoint on someones computer. Also caution the excitement over 24 escorts. By the 2030s the Type 45 will be a quarter century old... /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It seems International Aid is the hot topic right now so I suppose I should do a thread to at least maintain some sort of veneer of relevance for the benefit of newer followers. So here we go, /1
IA has a bunch of problems associated with it, most of which come back to the word "credibility". A lot of this is to do with the wheres and the hows of UK aid. So let's start with the where /2
For example last year the UK's biggest destination for bilateral aid was Pakistan. The same country that was keeping Bin Laden tucked away safely all those years and has its own nuclear weapons program. £305 million. /3
Thread time. You should read Maajid's thread anyway because I think it's quite interesting and shows that people outside defence Twitter are thinking on the subject, but I want to dive deeper into this specific statement about "preparing for war". 1/
First, caveat emptor, let's be clear that you can discuss the rationale behind a nations actions without agreeing with or endorsing their strategy and methods. This shouldn't need stating, but hey, it's Twitter. /2
China might be preparing for war, but it's unlikely to be offensive in nature, at least in the sense of circa 1930s Japan. The Chinese Belt and Road initiative is a solution to an unfortunate problem of Chinese geography. /3
"The analysis does not make judgements about any future UK Government policy decisions or responses" - Not a good start
From the outset the paper is quite transparent. It's going to attempt to show why the governments current policy approach to Brexit is the bestest. It is heavil tinted with political bias, which is precisely why the office for budget responsbility was set up.
OK. let's start with the Bank of England report. For reference here is the PDF if anyone wants to actually read the whole thing and not just the twitter highlights;bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/fi…
Let's start with a defence of the BoE. The banks analysis represents scenarios, not a forecast. This is an important distinction to make. A scenario relies on making a series of connected assumptions and then mapping out what happens from there. Here ends the defence of the BoE
The first critcism, as noted by many, is that the BoE only looked at negative scenarios. It did not consider any more positive scenarios that might come from a no-deal Brexit. The entire document as a result carries something of a natural bias.
Piece on the BBC just now about Trump was very instructive in general voting/poltiical theory. Interviewing residents in New York the responses were mainly along the lines of "who cares, they're all criminals" and "if he's getting things done, I don't care if he's a dick".
This is something that is often overlooked when people study the reasoning behind voter intentions and the general mentality of voters. Voters want results and they're prepared to overlook certain flaws in order to get those results.
This is difficult for many journalists and politicos to understand; that the public are pragmatic and a lot more savvy then they're given credit for. This in turn is instructive about Brexit and the attacks on Leave voters for example.