Best Of

Said to be petrol queues in Crimea.

https://x.com/bohuslavskakate/status/2065767692854792541

Map of Crimean bridges:

https://x.com/wartranslated/status/2065780906187444684

There’s also restrictions in Moscow and St. Petersberg, 20 litre limits for petrol. That’s not going to get you far in a very large country.

https://x.com/angelshalagina/status/2065697645436227879

Large fuel queues in Krasnodar yesterday evening. Crimeans have been driving across the bridge to refuel there which has spread the shortages.

The levels of range anxiety must be pretty high over there.

So many ranges to be anxious about.

I've seen a video from someone in Crimea riding their horse about, and I'd guess a certain amount of travel range from a horse might be easier to guarantee than with a car right now. A supply of oats is safer to store than fuel.

I haven't seen any videos from smug Russians in Crimea with an EV and solar panels though.

I think the "bond market" is used as a bogeyman.

Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.

If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation."
And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."

The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.

I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.

Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.

If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.

That's not how it works.
There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves.
The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.

I think the "bond market" is used as a bogeyman.

Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.

If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation."
And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."

I don't believe Starmer is bold enough for such a plan. His inevitable immediate replacement could do exactly that. The stillborn DIP was looking at solutions ten to fifteen years away. If we have a crisis it is not fifteen years away.

I think the "bond market" is used as a bogeyman.

Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.

If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation."
And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."

The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.

I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.

Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.

If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.

What’s the current cost to the UK of the Ukraine war, both in terms of military support (in actual money, not made-up military accounting), and in benefits to Ukranian refugees and host families in the UK?

Because that is money that no longer needs to be spent once we’ve put Putin back in his box, and should be able to be taken into account by the bond markets.

This is interesting, from a Change.org email. Why Sikh leaders are demanding a public enquiry:

Dabinderjit Singh, chief executive for political engagement at the Sikh Federation, has started a Change.org petition demanding a statutory public inquiry into the death of 18-year-old Henry Nowak, and the institutions that failed him.

The petition argues that multi-agency oversights contributed to Henry’s death; that police conduct at the scene was seriously deficient; and that a criminal trial at Southampton Crown Court not only failed to deliver justice for his family but brought the sacred Kirpan — a Sikh religious symbol — needlessly into disrepute.

do you agree? Sign Dabinderjit Singh’s petition today.

There was a lot of reporting that appeared to suggest the Sikh ceremonial knife was the murder weapon, but that wasn’t actually the case.

The Sikh community are worried that there will now be pressure to remove the religious exemption that exists for carrying these ceremonial knives in public.

Most Sikhs wear basically a badge in the shape of a dagger. It's tiny and could not seriously be called a weapon. The killer also had one. He did not need to carry an actual knife for religious purposes.

The murderer was not carrying a kirpan, but he did justify his carrying of a deadly weapon by referencing the law concerning carrying them. That makes the law just as much a contributing factor as it would be if he had stabbed Nowak using a kirpan.

No, it doesn’t. That logic says that the law is to blame for offences committed by “sovereign citizens”.

If someone breaks the law (or falsely claims a safe harbour) the law isn’t a contributing factor

He would still have been breaking the law if he had stabbed someone with a kirpan - there are laws against stabbing people. What's under consideration is whether repeal of the law permitting carrying weapons of this type would make the public safer. This case makes that impossible to deny.

Does it? The number of stabbings (even if down on 1977) suggests laws against using knives are routinely ignored, let alone carrying them.

Given that the killer was carrying a deadly weapon unchallenged because he claimed a religious exemption, yes.

If unchallenged, he did not need to claim anything. But as it happened, the knife covered by the exemption was different from the knife used to kill Nowak. And any exemption would not have covered murder in any case.

This is a silly avenue of discussion and you know it is. We have learned that police are guided to excercise particular sensitivity with protected groups, and whistle-blowing tells us that police are terrified of being accused of racism. Having a religious exemption in place for ceremonial daggers absolutely makes it far more difficult for police to challenge and remove those weapons. This is a photo of it: https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/26157307.bodycam-footage-shows-henry-nowak-final-moments/ - would you as a police officer split hairs about it in a potentially racially charged situation? Looks fairly ceremonial to me. Can debate the real life impacts of laws rather than the exactitudes of them?

Nah, that’s daggery not ceremonial. *This* is ceremonial:

https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/why-was-penny-mordaunt-the-one-to-carry-the-sword-of-state-645671b9d2ca9.jpg

Nah, that's not a knife.

*This* is a knife:

https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-samsung-rvo1&hs=thj&sca_esv=b9deebf3d4eef4da&sxsrf=ANbL-n7dcDF8bA0kQfiZf6qIIdf3Q202FA:1781357315629&udm=2&fbs=ADc_l-YQanUcJSoe62luYRIM6gsUdrPbLi6w63glmGbBPeGKs4L7_ndoqDk-0jwJiw9KyfvquLvwel5d4wRoroBFWxs0oJy_TGdP0Dk30UFMPqzosQyIJyeEanq4e_7LmuUktj-n-zCDVYsJSSSHF50FlOGKSZ1EKTVX40VnpBiSto53fd3Eu41duBQ_mCGTWe-PPtmtcGORjmRnXIDYFpfamnXJW0Y0ebjRjjqblbVULVPbX_JfCLQ&q=thats+not+a+knife+gif&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPkpCQqYSVAxW9WUEAHbY0JHIQtKgLegQIERAB&biw=384&bih=642&dpr=2.81#sv=CAMSVxoyKhBlLVdseTg4WDZtMzVWR25NMg5XbHk4OFg2bTM1VkduTToOVkI2bTdQa0JBbVFJbE0gBCoXCgFzEhBlLVdseTg4WDZtMzVWR25NGAEwAUoECAEQAhgHIL_oku4ESggQAhgBIAIoAQ

I think the "bond market" is used as a bogeyman.

Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.

If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation."
And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."

Why? The extra defence needs are not going to be a one off investment, they are going to be a permanent element of government spending (however it is now dressed up). So isn't taxes the obvious way to raise the money? If we were in the middle of a war that's different, but I can't see the justification for requiring our grandchildren to pay for it.

This is interesting, from a Change.org email. Why Sikh leaders are demanding a public enquiry:

Dabinderjit Singh, chief executive for political engagement at the Sikh Federation, has started a Change.org petition demanding a statutory public inquiry into the death of 18-year-old Henry Nowak, and the institutions that failed him.

The petition argues that multi-agency oversights contributed to Henry’s death; that police conduct at the scene was seriously deficient; and that a criminal trial at Southampton Crown Court not only failed to deliver justice for his family but brought the sacred Kirpan — a Sikh religious symbol — needlessly into disrepute.

do you agree? Sign Dabinderjit Singh’s petition today.

There was a lot of reporting that appeared to suggest the Sikh ceremonial knife was the murder weapon, but that wasn’t actually the case.

The Sikh community are worried that there will now be pressure to remove the religious exemption that exists for carrying these ceremonial knives in public.

Most Sikhs wear basically a badge in the shape of a dagger. It's tiny and could not seriously be called a weapon. The killer also had one. He did not need to carry an actual knife for religious purposes.

The murderer was not carrying a kirpan, but he did justify his carrying of a deadly weapon by referencing the law concerning carrying them. That makes the law just as much a contributing factor as it would be if he had stabbed Nowak using a kirpan.

No, it doesn’t. That logic says that the law is to blame for offences committed by “sovereign citizens”.

If someone breaks the law (or falsely claims a safe harbour) the law isn’t a contributing factor

He would still have been breaking the law if he had stabbed someone with a kirpan - there are laws against stabbing people. What's under consideration is whether repeal of the law permitting carrying weapons of this type would make the public safer. This case makes that impossible to deny.

Does it? The number of stabbings (even if down on 1977) suggests laws against using knives are routinely ignored, let alone carrying them.

Given that the killer was carrying a deadly weapon unchallenged because he claimed a religious exemption, yes.

If unchallenged, he did not need to claim anything. But as it happened, the knife covered by the exemption was different from the knife used to kill Nowak. And any exemption would not have covered murder in any case.

The "Kirpan" law has been in place since 1988, and the numbers of murders over those 38 years involving a kirpan is 0. It is hard to deny that there is some increased risk but experience tells us it is completely negligible and would be a complete waste of government time to legislate on, unless it is all about virtue signalling*.

* Surely not, as if there is one thing the patriotic right hates it is virtue signalling........(done by others)......

It’s my understanding that the various laws on knives have endotoxins for religious and cultural usage.

There is no actual definition of what that is in the laws.

So no literal definition of what is a Kirpan or Sgian dubh etc.

The problem is then who defines such things. The police and courts seem to have been using customary usage to create case law.

That's not how it's supposed to work, for example section 139(5) of the Offensive Weapons Act 1988 reads -

Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had the article with him—

(a)for use at work;

(b)for religious reasons; or

(c)as part of any national costume.

So it's a defence to a prosecution to say the knife was carried for religious reasons, but the burden is supposed to be on the defendant to show that. In essence it is a matter of fact, the defendant has to show that he had the article with him for religious reasons. If a Sikh had a kirpan on him for other than religious reasons, while admittedly that might be hard to prove, he doesn't have the defence.

For example, if a Sikh online threatened to harm someone with a kirpan and then was arrested with the blade on the way to commit an offence then, theoretically, he won't have the defence because the prosecution could show that the item was not with him for religious reasons, but to cause harm. If another Sikh had exactly the same form of knife with him but had made no such threats then he'd be more likely to have the defence.

Case law exists to fill in the gaps in legislation that can't cover every single eventuality.

I can see a bigger problem with the law as drafted. Professional assassins have a perfectly clear exemption.........

Excellent.

I think the "bond market" is used as a bogeyman.

Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.

If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation."
And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."

I agree. We need to accept we are effectively moving to a wartime situation and act and spend accordingly. I still think we need to have a radical rethink of Government and what we expect it to provide but that doesn't detract from the basic argument that we need to spend far more on defence right now because once we have moved to the armed conflict stage it will be way too late.