Grey Ghost

@Capt_Brexiteer @jessasstrophe If there was a single way to fix the problem every government would've been doing it since the dawn of time! I guarantee you wouldn't make any significant impact on the £3t debt in one term with any strategy, and the next government would then implement a different strategy.

Erm no, its a proven growth model. Reeves runs the economy like a drunk who believes one more drink will make it all better. My logic is sound, and based on reading the entire spectrum of thought from Kropotkin and Marx to Hayek and Rothbard. Reeves is just a narrow shallow idealist and conventional Keynesian control freak. Third Way economics is for those that have no problem with debt slavery (Central Banking Cartel)

calling Keir Starmer the worst PM ever when Liz Truss lasted 45 days and crashed the economy is genuinely unserious

@Capt_Brexiteer @jessasstrophe That's just your unproven answer just as the governments is. The reality is this is a long term issue, it isn't going to be resolved under any single government or by short term policy. Without the ability to implement long term policy we're just batting around the problem.

Incorrect. Cut taxes and bureaucratic regulation across the board, free up investment for SME's, increase spending speeding up the money cycle, that is taxed on the cycle faster and revenue is increased. Reeves has done literally everything wrong because she lacks the intellectual flexibility to move away from Keyensian idealism. She believes the economy is based on what the government does, when in reality its based on what it doesn't do when it comes to growth. This government is full of sock puppets that think as they're told. They simply are not very smart, are ruled by fear, so they run the country like control freaks. Useless one and all.

@Capt_Brexiteer @jessasstrophe They do. What I'm saying is the situation would be largely the same regardless who's in power. The countries finances aren't in a good state, but they were like that before Labour and they'll be like that after many more governments have been and gone, regardless who they are.

@TechTonix @jessasstrophe They don't, but what you're saying is a reduction in growth, increased spending, no savings and a huge increase in welfare spending keeps these rates as they are? Has no impact? They should be back to pre 2020 levels, not at almost record highs.

@XJianguo @shanaka86 It's very likely that will happen, and not just Switzerland. Given it boosts the US economy by $300 billion a year that would be a significant impact.

@shanaka86 If you feel so hostile against the U.S., you shall ask your government to cancel all Ames purchase from America. Please do it. Now! The queuing time of F35 is anyway 5-10 years. Are you still ok?

BREAKING: The United States just took over $126 million from Switzerland’s fighter jet account to cover missile shortfalls in the Iran war. Switzerland did not approve this. Switzerland did not consent. Switzerland had already frozen its Patriot payments after learning deliveries would be delayed four to five years. The US circumvented the freeze. SRF, Switzerland’s national broadcaster, reported on March 26 that Washington redirected Swiss funds originally allocated for 36 F-35 fighter jets to cover Patriot air defence shortfalls using the Foreign Military Sales pooled trust fund, a structure that allows the Pentagon to reallocate payments across a buyer’s contracts without that buyer’s permission. Swiss armaments chief Urs Loher confirmed the diverted amount is a “low three-digit million” Swiss francs and called the situation “very unsatisfactory.” The money Switzerland paid for jets is now subsidising a war Switzerland refused to participate in. Bern halted new arms exports to the US on March 20 citing the Iran conflict. Switzerland rejected two US military flyover requests linked to Iran operations. Two hundred years of armed neutrality, and Washington reached into the account anyway. Here is why. The United States fired 943 Patriot interceptors defending Gulf states in the first four days of Operation Epic Fury per a US Congressional study cited by the Jerusalem Post last week. Lockheed Martin and Boeing produce 620 Patriot interceptors per year combined. In four days, America burned through eighteen months of global Patriot production. The war has consumed roughly one-third of the entire THAAD missile stockpile. Annual THAAD production does not exceed 100 units. The cost asymmetry is what makes the depletion irreversible at current production rates. Each PAC-3 interceptor costs $3.9 million. Each Iranian Shahed drone costs between $20,000 and $50,000. The cost exchange ratio is 114 to 1 in Iran’s favour per Military Times. Iran manufactures an estimated 10,000 Shaheds per month per Reuters. America produces 620 interceptors per year. Iran builds more drones in a single week than the United States builds interceptors in an entire year. Every interceptor fired in the Gulf is one that cannot be delivered to Switzerland, Ukraine, Taiwan, Japan, or Poland. The State Department warned allies on March 27 that Patriot deliveries to Ukraine would face disruptions as the Pentagon prioritises Iran per Quiver Quantitative. Senator Chris Murphy said on record: “We’ve been told again and again one reason we can’t provide interceptors for the Patriot system for Ukraine is that they’re in short supply.” Lockheed signed a framework to quadruple production to 2,000 units per year. That capacity will not arrive for six to seven years. The Pentagon has asked Congress to shift $1.5 billion from other programmes to accelerate procurement per Bloomberg. None of this helps now. The interceptors are depleting now. The allied accounts are being raided now. Switzerland is considering reducing its F-35 order from 36 to 30 jets and accelerating evaluation of European alternatives per Bluewin and Global Defense Corp. Swiss parliamentarians have called the redirection “an unacceptable violation of procurement sovereignty.” The Swiss parliament is preparing formal hearings. Switzerland is the canary. A neutral country with two centuries of armed neutrality just had its fighter jet money taken without consent to feed a four-week-old war that burns 18 months of interceptor production every 96 hours. Every US ally with a pending defence contract should be asking one question: whose account is next? Full analysis: open.substack.com/pub/shanakaans…

@Capt_Brexiteer @jessasstrophe The numbers show it's been roughly stable since 2023 with a spike in recent weeks, so it backs up everything I've said and the commentary.

@TechTonix @jessasstrophe The numbers outweigh the commentary.

@Capt_Brexiteer @jessasstrophe Ah I see, the commentary isn't right because it doesn't say what you want it to! I'll take that as a no then, nothing else relevant to add. Have a nice day.

@TechTonix @jessasstrophe Just look at the numbers, the commentary is opinion and often tempered.

@Capt_Brexiteer @jessasstrophe Clearly not what the article says, but I'm sure you know best. You understand that the 'net zero' policy is ultimately how we're producing our own fuel source right, so that statement is contradictory. Anyhow, back to the subject of national debt. Anything relevant to add?

@TechTonix @jessasstrophe Because of Net Zero policy and not producing our own fuel sources. You have no argument here. Just false trust and hope.

@LReiding @rshereme $500 billion dollars where did you get that fantasy figure from? It's less than half that.

@rshereme Stocks fall and rise. But support for Ukraine, +$500 billions are gone forever.

Trump singlehandedly has erased over $5 trillion from the U.S. stock market in a matter of one month. Are you tired of winning yet?

@1Oratorio37 @joni_askola Exactly this. I've no doubt a new relationship will be built with future presidents who are a bit more stable, but it will never be quite what it was. Both financial and military strategies will become more diverse and less reliant on any one country.

@joni_askola It might never be fully repaired. Europe and other nations have already made massive strategic decisions and investments to become less reliant on the US. They aren't going to just roll those back every time the political winds shift in Washington.

It will take the US decades to repair the massive diplomatic damage Trump has caused. No one trusts or respects American leadership on the global stage anymore

@JimLandSky @joni_askola No, they don't. Many didn't turn completely against him until recently, but almost all evidence suggests the majority in Europe are against Trump when it comes to Iran.

@joni_askola More of the europeen people think Trump is doing right thing. Stop lie about Trump. You're paid to criticise and we don't get paid.

@Capt_Brexiteer @jessasstrophe "The UK’s 10-year gilt yield surged back above 5% and is poised to end March up over 75 basis points, as the Iran conflict drives energy prices higher and prompts a sharp shift in Bank of England expectations"

@TechTonix @jessasstrophe Fuck off, it doesn't say that. These yields have been up there since the first Labour budget. Now she is a dumb economically illiterate sock puppet.

@Capt_Brexiteer @jessasstrophe As the article you've linked to states this is largely due to the Iran war so, as I've already stated, this would be the same under any government.

@TechTonix @jessasstrophe Okay, more depth. Highest yield since 2008. UK 10 Year Bond Yield - Quote - Chart - Historical Data - News share.google/9806ioPbhXOUlz…

@Capt_Brexiteer @jessasstrophe That's from January 2025, it's not really recent information and doesn't really cover any significant portion of the Labour government so far. Again, what's happening was similar under the previous government and would be similar under any government.

When you start to realise the debt to GDP ratio is the key to my statement, you'll have to retract your rebuttal. Labour has spent more, saved less and borrowed more. As for the bond yields, I wish we could go back to Truss levels. Truss took the blame for the BoE firewall the day before the budget. Most listened to the media and hadn't been paying attention. Read more.

@Capt_Brexiteer @jessasstrophe To say he's put us in "the worst debt slavery" isn't really an honest assessment. Debt has continued to grown under every recent government, and would continue to grow regardless of who was in power, so that would be true regardless by the very nature of growth.

@jessasstrophe You're a bit gullible and naive aren't you. Truss had a plan the banking cartel didn't like, but Starmer has put us in the worst debt slavery in our history. You need to wake up to these criminals. Starmer is a sock puppet and compromised.

@gpchatbot @oldishbird1 @FurkanGozukara I think the reality will be somewhere in between. The relationship will be rebuilt fairly quickly, but parts of it will be changed forever. The UK, and most of the world, will no longer place the same level of trust in the US we have previously as we've seen how fragile it is.

@oldishbird1 @FurkanGozukara Sadly it will not. That's not how these things work. Trump has proved America cannot be trusted. A new face at the White House will not magically solve anything. Think decades.

The special relationship is completely dead. Trump brutally humiliates the UK on the world stage, mocking their aircraft carriers as pathetic toys compared to the US. He openly rejects their delayed offer for help, proving the Western coalition has completely fractured.

@DransomGSM @astraiaintel Everyone does want a quick end to the war, what Ukraine don't want is to have to completely surrender half their country to achieve that, which is largely what's being proposed. They could easily have surrendered at any point if they wanted to, it didn't really need a negotiation

@astraiaintel I'm confused as to why this is being cheered on. I would hope everyone would like a quick end to the war. Keep in mind, this war has been going on for 4 years now. What does "quick end" mean?

FUCKING FINALLY!!! ZELENSKY MADE IT CLEAR: “Trump wants a quick end to the war, but “quick” means at someone’s expense. I won’t accept peace at Ukraine’s expense.“ BIG “FUCK YOU” TO MAGA BY THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT!! 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦

@SleeeeepyT @dave43law @GBNEWS @beverleyturner In what way has Europe used NATO offensively?

@dave43law @GBNEWS @beverleyturner NATO is how Europe uses the US military. Offensive or defensive

'It comes from a shock at what he sees as the arrogance maybe of European countries, not just the UK, the arrogance of Nato.' @beverleyturner shares her analysis of President Donald Trump's comments on the UK's defence. 📺 Freeview 236, Sky 512, Virgin 604

@Shayna620 @EdwardJDavey There's no evidence of Iran having any nuclear missile capability, never mind long range.

@EdwardJDavey Iran having nuclear long-range missiles is a better idea right Ed? Also, who cares that they slaughter their own people that they dictate over? We see you, coward.

Trump’s illegal Iran war could cost the UK economy a staggering £15bn. All cheered on by Reform and the Conservatives. Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch should apologise to every family now paying the price. standard.co.uk/news/politics/…

@Caollaghan @dave43law @EricLDaugh So you've posted your own link to prove yourself wrong, well done. You don't even have to read past the headline to see it doesn't say they will be sending ships.

@dave43law @EricLDaugh theguardian.com/world/2026/mar…

🚨 HOLY CRAP. President Trump just dropped a truth nuke on American "allies" and the UK "WE come to their rescue, but they will NEVER come to ours. And I want you to remember that we said this, they didn't come to our rescue! Now they all want to help when they're annihilated!" "The other side is annihilated. They said, 'we'd love to send ships.' They actually made a statement, a couple of them, that we want to get involved when the war's over..." "...No, it's supposed to get involved with the war's BEGINNING or even before it begins!" "We had the UK say that 'we'll send,' this is three weeks ago, 'we'll send our aircraft carriers,' which aren't the best aircraft carriers, by the way, they're toys compared to what we have, but 'we'll send our aircraft carrier when the war's over.'" 😭 "I said, oh, that's wonderful. Thank you very much. Don't bother. We don't need it. And we don't need it. We don't need them!"

@comical_engr How is that "latest data", it's from 2024 we're in 2026 now. Data is available up to December 2025, which shows a different story, so perhaps that's why you're purposely using old data.

Wake up humanity - you are being sold a lie. We often hear that renewable energy is rapidly replacing fossil fuels. But the latest data from the Energy Institute – Statistical Review of World Energy (2025) tells a more sobering story. Yes, from 2010 to 2024 solar energy grew by an astonishing 1,453% and wind energy surged by 471%, while gas grew only by 31% and oil by 15%. At first glance, this looks like real change is happening to our energy supply. But here’s the reality check: in absolute terms, solar and wind increased by 1,453 TWh and 471 TWh respectively, while gas and oil increased by 9,685 TWh and 7,099 TWh. Let that sink in. We are indeed producing far more renewable energy than ever before - but global consumption of fossil fuels is still growing, and at a much larger scale. This isn’t an energy transition. It’s an energy addition! We need to confront an uncomfortable truth renewables are not replacing fossil fuels despite trillions of dollars of investment. How much more will the transition really cost us?