Doesn't Project Fear ever take a day off?

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,933
1,910
113
Project Fear hasn’t missed a beat since Boris got the job.

Yesterday’s World At One on Radio 4 was a collector’s item, a veritable cornucopia of Scare Stories ‘R’ Us.

Not since miserablist Leonard Cohen’s first album has there been a more depressing 40-odd minutes of music to slash your wrists by...

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Since taking over as Prime Minister, Boris Johnson has been bombarded with scare stories about a No Deal Brexit. Doesn't Project Fear ever take a day off?


By Richard Littlejohn for the Daily Mail
30 July 2019

Seems like I’m not the only one who doesn’t do honeymoon periods. Project Fear hasn’t missed a beat since Boris got the job.

Yesterday’s World At One on Radio 4 was a collector’s item, a veritable cornucopia of Scare Stories ‘R’ Us.

Not since miserablist Leonard Cohen’s first album has there been a more depressing 40-odd minutes of music to slash your wrists by.


Prime Minister Boris Johnson is pictured above giving a speech earlier this week at the Science and Industry Museum in Manchester. Project Fear hasn’t missed a beat since Boris got the job

No turn was unstoned in the producers’ efforts to put the fear of God into us. They even managed to track down a professor in Australia, of all places, to warn that No Deal Boris was passing a death sentence on what remains of the British car industry.

This was predicated upon Vauxhall saying it might have to reconsider plans to build a new model at Ellesmere Port.

Now there’s a surprise. Multinational motor manufacturers never miss a trick when it comes to putting the squeeze on governments for tax-breaks, regional development grants and so forth.

Given that Boris is already planning to bribe the North with a tsunami of public money, it wasn’t necessary.

Merseyside can expect a large bung from the Treasury, especially with lone Scouse Tory Esther McVey in the Cabinet, and Vauxhall will almost certainly be one of the beneficiaries.


They even managed to track down a professor in Australia, of all places, to warn that No Deal Boris was passing a death sentence on what remains of the British car industry. This was predicated upon Vauxhall saying it might have to reconsider plans to build a new model at Ellesmere Port [File photo]


The truth of the matter is that, Brexit or not, the car industry is in far better shape than any time in history, including when I covered it in the Seventies and British Leyland was a byword for clapped-out nationalisation and industrial anarchy.

Still, why let the facts get in the way of a good horror story?

This latest doomsday bulletin from Project Fear was as predictable as the Confederation of British Industry going into full Grim Reaper mode at the prospect of Boris taking us out of the EU without a ‘deal’.

Even so, the CBI was forced to admit that other European countries were less well prepared than Britain for that increasingly likely eventuality.

Given that this corporatist, fanatically pro-EU organisation has been spectacularly wrong on just about everything I can remember, this was a rare confession that our so-called European ‘partners’ have just as much, if not more, to lose than we do.


As part of Boris’s ‘love bomb’ to Britain, he intends to turn on the spending taps, splashing out on everything from high-speed rail to social care and schools. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I always thought the Guardian was in favour of more public spending. Mr Johnson is pictured at Bute House, Edinburgh, with First Minister Nicola Sturgeon yesterday

The World At Sixes And Sevens then wheeled on the pro-Remain Labour MP for Ellesmere Port, where 58 per cent of his constituents voted Leave.

Prime Minister Johnson wasn’t just the nemesis of Vauxhall, he wailed, he was going to close down British manufacturing industry entirely. Don’t these people ever take a day off?

As Boris embarks on his summer of sorcery, his natural enemies are cranking up their opposition to a No Deal departure.

Hilariously, the Guardian warned yesterday of an impending ‘No Deal Brexit Emergency’, which would leave public spending plans ‘in tatters’.

Hang on a minute. As part of Boris’s ‘love bomb’ to Britain, he intends to turn on the spending taps, splashing out on everything from high-speed rail to social care and schools.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I always thought the Guardian was in favour of more public spending. Apparently not, if it’s promoted by a pro-Brexit Tory PM. (Mind you, ‘emergency’ is the Left’s favourite new word. See also ‘climate emergency’, what we used to call summer.)

The Grauniad furthermore quoted some quango I’ve never heard of accusing Boris of planning to destroy the Union.

They obviously hadn’t noticed that Johnson was in Scotland yesterday, sucking up to Wee Burney and Ruth Davidson, and is making whistle-stop visits to Wales and Northern Ireland.

He’s also going to bombard every home in Britain with a leaflet spelling out the benefits of Brexit — in stark contrast to the defeatist drivel churned out by the Vichy government presided over for three dismal years by Mother Theresa and Spread Fear Phil.

Maybe he could revive the spirit of World War II and send a refurbished fleet of Lancaster bombers to drop the leaflets from 25,000ft — rather as the RAF did over Germany before hostilities turned seriously grumpy. That would probably appeal to Boris’s Churchillian sense of destiny.

Actually, yesterday’s World At One managed to draw not a World War II but a Cold War analogy between a Boris Brexit and a nuclear winter.

An author who writes about the advertising industry explained that the leaflets the new Government would be sending out may be reminiscent of the Cold War ‘protect and survive’ propaganda, giving advice on what to do in the event of a nuclear holocaust.

Everybody hide!

I’m assuming this was tongue in cheek, but with Project Fear you never know. Elsewhere yesterday, it threw up a prediction that every farmer in Britain would go bankrupt if a No Deal Brexit goes ahead — despite assurances to the contrary from Michael Gove.

At this rate, it’s a small step from agricultural Armageddon and manufacturing devastation to nuclear annihilation.

And on that bombshell, as Clarkson likes to say, enough Brexit already. Maybe a honeymoon period isn’t such a bad thing after all.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...D-LITTLEJOHN-Doesnt-Project-Fear-day-off.html
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Why would they miss a beat, they are well paid to be fuktards that s l o w d o w n even the easiest of tasks. The prick forgot to mention the main income will be selling weapons to be used against unarmed people. How does that make you feel? Ican break down the material below if it is too complicated for you. 8/10 are NATO aligned thugs, that is who you are and that is all you have been since at least 1815.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry
The arms industry, also known as the defense industry or the arms trade, is a global industry which manufactures and sells weapons and military technology. It consists of a commercial industry involved in the research and development, engineering, production, and servicing of military material, equipment, and facilities. Arms-producing companies, also referred to as arms dealers, defense contractors, or as the military industry, produce arms for the armed forces of states and for civilians. Departments of government also operate in the arms industry, buying and selling weapons, munitions and other military items. An arsenal is a place where arms and ammunition - whether privately or publicly owned - are made, maintained and repaired, stored, or issued, in any combination. Products of the arms industry include guns, artillery, ammunition, missiles, military aircraft, military vehicles, ships, electronic systems, night-vision devices, holographic weapon sights, laser rangefinders, laser sights, hand grenades, landmines and more. The arms industry also provides other logistical and operational support.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) estimated military expenditures as of 2012 at roughly $1.8 trillion.[1] This represented a relative decline from 1990, when military expenditures made up 4% of world GDP. Part of the money goes to the procurement of military hardware and services from the military industry. The combined arms-sales of the top 100 largest arms-producing companies amounted to an estimated $395 billion in 2012 according to SIPRI.[2] In 2004 over $30 billion were spent in the international arms-trade (a figure that excludes domestic sales of arms).[3] According to SIPRI, the volume of international transfers of major weapons in 2010–14 was 16 percent higher than in 2005–2009. The five biggest exporters in 2010–2014 were the United States, Russia, China, Germany and France, and the five biggest importers were India, Saudi Arabia, China, the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan.[4]
Many industrialized countries have a domestic arms-industry to supply their own military forces. Some countries also have a substantial legal or illegal domestic trade in weapons for use by their own citizens, primarily for self-defense, hunting or sporting purposes. Illegal trade in small arms occurs in many countries and regions affected by political instability. The Small Arms Survey estimates that 875 million small arms circulate worldwide, produced by more than 1,000 companies from nearly 100 countries.[5]
Governments award contracts to supply their country's military; such arms contracts can become of substantial political importance. The link between politics and the arms trade can result in the development of what U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower described in 1961 as a military-industrial complex, where the armed forces, commerce, and politics become closely linked, similarly to the European multilateral defense procurement. Various corporations, some publicly held, others private, bid for these contracts, which are often worth many billions of dollars. Sometimes, as with the contract for the international Joint Strike Fighter, a competitive tendering process takes place, with the decision made on the merits of the designs submitted by the companies involved. Other times, no bidding or competition takes place.

World's largest arms exporters
Units are in Trend Indicator Values expressed as millions of U.S. dollars at 1990s prices. These numbers may not represent real financial flows as prices for the underlying arms can be as low as zero in the case of military aid. The following are estimates from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.[15]
2012–2016
Rank Supplier Arms Exp

1
United States 47,169

2
Russia 33,186

3
China 9,132

4
France 8,564

5
Germany 7,946

6
United Kingdom 6,586

7
Spain 3,958

8
Italy 3,823

9
Ukraine 3,677

10
Israel 3,233

Sgraffito at the Lambert Sevart weapons factory, in Liege (Belgium) (early 20th century).

Note that rankings for exporters below a billion dollars are less meaningful, as they can be swayed by single contracts. A much more accurate picture of export volume, free from yearly fluctuations, is presented by 5-year moving averages.
Next to SIPRI there are several other sources that provide data on international transfers of arms. These include national reports by national governments about arms exports, the UN register on conventional arms and an annual publication by the U.S. Congressional Research Service that includes data on arms exports to developing countries as compiled by U.S. intelligence agencies. A list of such sources can be found at the SIPRI website.[16] Due to the different methodologies and definitions used different sources often provide significantly different data.



World’s biggest postwar arms exporter
SIPRI uses the "trend-indicator values" (TIV). These are based on the known unit production costs of weapons and represent the transfer of military resources rather than the financial value of the transfer.[17]
1950–2017
Rank Supplier Arms Exp (in billion TIV)
1
United States 673,010

2
Russia 588,150

3
United Kingdom 140,380

4
France 120,700

5
Germany 85,980

6
China 53,090

7
Italy 32,270

8
Czech Republic 31,250

9
Netherlands 24,010

10
Israel 16,790



World's largest arms importers
Units are in Trend Indicator Values expressed as millions of U.S. dollars at 1990s prices. These numbers may not represent real financial flows as prices for the underlying arms can be as low as zero in the case of military aid.[15]
2012–2016rank Recipient Arms imp

1
India 18,239

2
Saudi Arabia 11,689

3
United Arab Emirates 6,593

4
China 6,381

5
Australia 5,636

6
Algeria 5,312

7
Turkey 4,721

8
Iraq 4,598

9
Pakistan 4,494

10
Vietnam 4,273 Please note that arms import rankings fluctuate heavily as countries enter and exit wars. Export data tend to be less volatile as exporters tend to be more technologically advanced and have stable production flows. 5-year moving averages present a much more accurate picture of import volume, free from yearly fluctuations.



List of major weapon manufacturers
Main articles: List of modern armament manufacturers and List of defense contractors


Share of arms sales by country. Source is provided by SIPRI.[18]

Further information: Companies by arms sales
This is a list of the world's largest arms manufacturers and other military service companies who profit the most from the War economy, their origin is shown as well. The information is based on a list published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute for 2018.[19] The list provided by the SIPRI excludes companies based in China. The numbers are in billions of US dollars.
Rank Company name Defense Revenue (US$ billions) % of Total Revenue from Defense

1 Lockheed Martin 44.9 88%

2 Boeing 26.9 29%

3 Raytheon 23.8 94%

4 BAE Systems 22.9 98%

5 Northrop Grumman 22.3 87%

6 General Dynamics 19.4 63%

7 Airbus 11.2 15%

8 Thales Group 9.0 51%

9 Leonardo 8.8 68%

10 Almaz-Antey 8.5 94%
 
Last edited:

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
I like the hardware, I don't see perpetual war being the best road to creating a thriving world. Spend the same amount of money, just a different direction. I doubt the Netherlands has a big Civil War planned for that $1T slush fund that is for 'social programs'? Do you need a link?
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,933
1,910
113
Germany are spending 1,3 % on the military.

Most Luftwaffe planes are unable to take off.

Most German soldiers are armed with brooms rather than guns. In Afghanistan, they weren't allowed to at night.

The German military is today a pitiable and feeble "fighting force".

By the way, where are Britain's suppose EU "friends and allies" in the Strait of Hormuz? The are nowhere to be seen! They just do not have the military might of the British.
 

Serryah

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 3, 2008
10,860
2,737
113
New Brunswick
Most Luftwaffe planes are unable to take off.

Most German soldiers are armed with brooms rather than guns. In Afghanistan, they weren't allowed to at night.

The German military is today a pitiable and feeble "fighting force".

By the way, where are Britain's suppose EU "friends and allies" in the Strait of Hormuz? The are nowhere to be seen! They just do not have the military might of the British.


The British don't have the military might that the British once had.


But I've a question for you, Blackie...


So Brexit happens. Hard or soft, doesn't matter, Britain is no longer part of the EU officially.

Things are good... for a while. Then it goes south.


Who is to blame then? You can't blame the EU anymore, they don't matter. Your scapegoat is gone. So... will you blame the party in power? Will you blame the Remainers? Immigrants?
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
28,542
8,146
113
B.C.
The British don't have the military might that the British once had.


But I've a question for you, Blackie...


So Brexit happens. Hard or soft, doesn't matter, Britain is no longer part of the EU officially.

Things are good... for a while. Then it goes south.


Who is to blame then? You can't blame the EU anymore, they don't matter. Your scapegoat is gone. So... will you blame the party in power? Will you blame the Remainers? Immigrants?
Conversely, if Brexit doesn’t occur and things go south with the EU as they are bound to , who is to blame ?
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,933
1,910
113
The British don't have the military might that the British once had.

Neither do the Americans, Germans, French and Canadians.

Canada, don't forget, once had the third-biggest navy.

So Brexit happens. Hard or soft, doesn't matter,

There's no such thing as a Soft Brexit. It's mythical. It's just a term invented by the Remainers after they lost the referendum and really means "Brexit in name only."

Britain is no longer part of the EU officially.

Things are good... for a while. Then it goes south.

Who is to blame then? You can't blame the EU anymore, they don't matter.

Your scapegoat is gone. So... will you blame the party in power? Will you blame the Remainers? Immigrants?

Well we'll just blame it on the things that people in other sovereign, independent, states like Canada blame economic downturns on - you know, we'll be a normal sovereign self-governing nation. And yet you make it sound as though that's weird and bad.
 

Serryah

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 3, 2008
10,860
2,737
113
New Brunswick
Neither do the Americans, Germans, French and Canadians.

Canada, don't forget, once had the third-biggest navy.


And yet you claim that the Brits still have this super awesome military, etc.

Guess you are more American like in that fashion, since the US has the same feelings.




There's no such thing as a Soft Brexit. It's mythical. It's just a term invented by the Remainers after they lost the referendum and really means "Brexit in name only."


Not the point.




Well we'll just blame it on the things that people in other sovereign, independent, states like Canada blame economic downturns on - you know, we'll be a normal sovereign self-governing nation. And yet you make it sound as though that's weird and bad.


It's not weird or bad, but it's just confusing because you still do that NOW, but with the added EU bits.


Leaving the EU just means it'll be solely the fault of the British. I was just wondering if you would somehow still blame it on everyone else but your fellow countrymen/countrywomen.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,933
1,910
113
And yet you claim that the Brits still have this super awesome military, etc.

Because we do. Britain has the second-most powerful armed forces on Earth.

Not the point.

You mentioned Soft Brexit. I pointed out that there's no such thing. It was a good point
It's not weird or bad, but it's just confusing because you still do that NOW, but with the added EU bits.

Britain's still in the EU.
Leaving the EU just means it'll be solely the fault of the British.

So what?

What a bizarre argument you have against a country regaining its independence: "You mustn't become independent, otherwise you wouldn't be able to blame your rulers on your future failings. It'll be all your fault."

Would you have used the same weird logic to argue against Indian, American or Canadian independence, or does your oddball view only extend to British independence?
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,933
1,910
113
BoJo plays by the rules


COMMENT
The Sun Says
The Sun
7 Aug 2019

JUST listen to the rank hypocrisy of Remainer MPs, now aghast that Boris Johnson might force Brexit through even if he loses a no-confidence vote.

Constitutional experts reckon he would be within his rights to stay put and hold an election AFTER Brexit day.

Remainer saboteurs are outraged. Tory robot Dominic Grieve pops up from his luxurious French holiday home and, with a staggering lack of self-awareness, accuses No10 of “arrogance”.

But most of these same MPs got elected under false pretences, lying about respecting the referendum result.

They then used every dodgy Parliamentary trick, getting their pet Speaker Bercow to invent or bend rules, hoping to secure a second referendum. They have more chicanery lined up — yet have the gall to insist Boris plays by the rules.

Our PM has a majority of just one. But he has a 17.4million majority on his side. All power to him.


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9669713/boris-johnson-hypocritical-remainer-mps-play-rules/
 

Serryah

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 3, 2008
10,860
2,737
113
New Brunswick
Because we do. Britain has the second-most powerful armed forces on Earth.


What do you mean by 'powerful'? Is it spending or number of members or what?



You mentioned Soft Brexit. I pointed out that there's no such thing. It was a good point

I mentioned it because it's an often mentioned thing to the opposite of Hard Brexit.

But again, naming Brexit 'hard or soft' wasn't the point of that particular comment. It was, however it happens, Britain is gone from the EU.


Britain's still in the EU.


For now, yes.



So what?

What a bizarre argument you have against a country regaining its independence: "You mustn't become independent, otherwise you wouldn't be able to blame your rulers on your future failings. It'll be all your fault."

Would you have used the same weird logic to argue against Indian, American or Canadian independence, or does your oddball view only extend to British independence?

You're missing the point, again.

But maybe it's because you can't connect the dots, so I'll try to explain it better.

Right now, Britain's ills are all placed on the feet of the EU. After Brexit, it'll be all on the feet of your government.

I was asking what you would do when things go wrong, because you have shown yourself to be someone who has no issues blaming everything that goes wrong on other people/places/entities and not taking your own accountability for blame. It is never Britain's fault things go wrong, it's always 'other'.

So as I pointed out, your scapegoat of blaming the EU will be gone soon, so who will you blame instead for the troubles that will come up?

I was wondering if you would actually accept that Britain isn't as great a country as you think it is once things start to go wrong.

Does that make it clearer for you?
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,933
1,910
113
What do you mean by 'powerful'? Is it spending or number of members or what?

Well it's certainly not numbers.

The USA is the most powerful militarily, but it doesn't have the numbers that China has.

China has the numbers, but it doesn't have the power projection and the technology. China would likely win a war against Britain on China's doorstep, but anywhere else in the world Britain would win.

I mentioned it because it's an often mentioned thing to the opposite of Hard Brexit.

The terms "Hard Brexit" and "Soft Brexit" didn't exist before and during the referendum. They were only invented AFTER the referendum by the defeated Remainers as a ploy to keep Britain in the EU in all but name only.


You're missing the point, again.

But maybe it's because you can't connect the dots, so I'll try to explain it better.

Right now, Britain's ills are all placed on the feet of the EU. After Brexit, it'll be all on the feet of your government.

I was asking what you would do when things go wrong, because you have shown yourself to be someone who has no issues blaming everything that goes wrong on other people/places/entities and not taking your own accountability for blame. It is never Britain's fault things go wrong, it's always 'other'.

I reckon we should carry on blaming it in on the EU. After all, many countries still blame all their woes on Britain 50-odd years after independence.
 

Serryah

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 3, 2008
10,860
2,737
113
New Brunswick
Well it's certainly not numbers.

The USA is the most powerful militarily, but it doesn't have the numbers that China has.

China has the numbers, but it doesn't have the power projection and the technology. China would likely win a war against Britain on China's doorstep, but anywhere else in the world Britain would win.


Actually, it's not.


Britain is #8 on the Global Firepower Index, for 2019

https://www.globalfirepower.com/


Last year, it was sixth.

I don't know where you get your info from but it's questionable to say the least.



The terms "Hard Brexit" and "Soft Brexit" didn't exist before and during the referendum. They were only invented AFTER the referendum by the defeated Remainers as a ploy to keep Britain in the EU in all but name only.


Again, the name of it doesn't matter and was not the point.




I reckon we should carry on blaming it in on the EU. After all, many countries still blame all their woes on Britain 50-odd years after independence.


Holy Cow! Actual truth from Blackie! It's a day to celebrate!


Sort of.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,933
1,910
113
As soon as I saw Britain ranked below Japan and South Korea, two localised powers without the global reach of the British military, I knew not to take it seriously.
 

Serryah

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 3, 2008
10,860
2,737
113
New Brunswick
As soon as I saw Britain ranked below Japan and South Korea, two localised powers without the global reach of the British military, I knew not to take it seriously.


I am not shocked or surprised by that at all.


A total 'inconvenient truth' for you, I'm sure, to hear that Britain isn't 'the best'.
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
28,542
8,146
113
B.C.
I am not shocked or surprised by that at all.


A total 'inconvenient truth' for you, I'm sure, to hear that Britain isn't 'the best'.
If I am flying in an airplane , my trust would go first to pilots trained in American military and second in British military . French , German Canadian , among others could also qualify.
 

Serryah

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 3, 2008
10,860
2,737
113
New Brunswick
Totally wrong, to be more precise.


Yes, you are. But that's okay, you often are.

Considering the criteria they look at to judge who has what militarily, and that it's not biased, your denial of Britain's placement is laudable.


BTW, did you even look at WHY Britain is placed below SK and Japan, or did you just swear and claim this somehow a travesty to your country?
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,933
1,910
113
BTW, did you even look at WHY Britain is placed below SK and Japan

Nope.

In fact, I don't know why I even bothered looking at all. GlobalFirepower, you see, is well-known for being hugely inaccurate in its rankings, basing them almost solely on quantity rather than quality.

It doesn't take into account for, example, logistics. It ranks China and Russia and even Japan and South Korea above Britain. Now China and Russia may have the numbers but what and Japan and Soutth Korea lack is a global presence, with the abilitty to project armed forces anywhere in the world within 24 hours and with military bases all around the world. These are capablities Britain has. Russia has a large military, but its blaoted, slow and stuck within the confines of its own borders. Britain, on the other hand, can find anywhere in the world, and would beat China and Russia in war away from their own doorsteps.