"Meanwhile, British farmers have already been hit with a fertiliser crisis. A block on fertiliser chemicals exported by Russia means prices have more than doubled, leaving farmers to cope with the rise alongside soaring energy bills and supply chain disruption."
Telegraph
That is good news. Encourage the use of more environmentally friendly alternatives.
That's rather too sweeping.
Chemicals always = bad Using double the land to grow the same crops and fertilise with less controllable portions of poo always = good
There's a million nuances in between and "most natural" and "best for environment" cannot be treated as synonyms.
Sweeping can be a feature if brief. There are numerous alternatives to traditional fertilizers commercially available to agriculture and horticulture now. Cost of product and cost of application varies. Some add increases of disease resistance to certain crops reducing need for fungicide. If this encourages more innovation and research into an already burgeoning industry in alternatives it is nothing but positive.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
No I don't simply mean passport holder. He's lived in the UK for eighteen years. He became a citizen by naturalising 7 years after he moved here.
That makes him a Brit and it's racist to say anything else.
Who is he? Temerko?
UK mainstream politicians should not be accepting sizeable donations from anyone who has close links to Russias security forces, however long they have been in the UK or whatever passport they hold.
If people consider that view racist, I would rather be considered racist than pretend it is okay to be accepting these donations.
I really really doubt the same people claiming it is racist to question Tories receiving funds from ex Putin cronies, would give Corbyn the same leeway. I would be consistent on both.
Indeed I would cap donations at £1k per year per person/business/union, to make the whole issue go away.
What evidence fo you have that Temerko has close links to Russia's security forces? Other than he used to be Russian?
Whether they were born in Moscow or Manchester, anyone whom there is actual evidence or especially a conviction for such absolutely is an issue. Casting aspersions due to race is an entirely different matter.
And considering the courts said that Putin was trying to persecute Temerko back in 2005 I'm assuming the evidence from the courts is the polar opposite of your allegations. Unless you have some overwhelming new evidence?
From reuters below. According to them he himself accepts he has had formal relations with Russian security services. Claims to have fallen out with Putin and that is the most likely explanation by far but if you were FSB wanting an agent active at the top of UK politics, your cover story would indeed be a fall out.
Really no-one should be able to buy access to our political leaders in the way they do, but to allow people with historic links to a hostile superpower to do so, whether they have fallen out or not, is a massive security risk.
"Temerko said that in those days his status meant he was essentially untouchable. His security ties, he said, once got him access to a meeting of the Russian Security Council, the circle of 24 top Russian officials, chaired by Putin, who steer national security policy."
"One of Temerko’s former business partners in Russia, Leonid Nevzlin, said Temerko had long-standing ties with Russian security agencies, but declined to say whether he believes those ties remain active. Nevzlin and Temerko were shareholders in oil firm Yukos, before Putin’s government seized control of the company. Nevzlin, who was one of the main shareholders, said Yukos’s management brought Temerko in “for several projects as well as for his contacts at the top of the Federal Security Service and the Defence Ministry."
"Asked to respond, Temerko said in a follow-up interview this week that his role at Yukos encompassed the oil company’s connections with the entire Russian state, not just with the Defence Ministry. His relations with people in the security services, he added, were “formal” and not “personal.” He denied having any ongoing links with Russian security services."
Not to be a Grammar Nazi but there is a crucial difference between "has" and "had". The use of past tense or present tense there is extremely important.
Throughout history many defectors and migrants have left a country and played important roles going forwards in even classified materials. The Manhattan Project in World War Two famously even had German-born scientists working in it like Hans Bethe.
The fact that Temerko had connections with Russia doesn't mean he has them. Yes you can imply that the fall out with Putin's Russia could be a "cover story" but the simple fact is that its more than that - the evidence has been put before the courts already and the courts ruled that he was being persecuted by Putin. Furthermore I expect (but have no evidence, its simply reasonable to assume) that MI6 would put such potentially exposed people on a watchlist and be looking for evidence of any such risks.
I put faith in the security services and the rule of law where the courts have ruled that he is persecuted by Putin. Why do you object to the rule of law?
First I am considered a racist for objecting to ex Putin connections funding the Tory party and having privileged access to our leaders, now I am accused of rejecting the rule of law.
This is simply bonkers.
For a low level MoD or Security Services role we would interview people with great background depth and rule out people for things like an alcoholic mother or a brother with a gambling problem. Yet many seem quite content with billionaires who attended the Russian Security Council meetings chaired by Putin to pay for access to our PMs and Foreign Secretaries.
I question institutions because they repeatedly fail and need scrutiny. I question financial motives because it is an obvious way to control people. This is common sense, not racism or rejecting the rule of law.
Its not bonkers. The security services (presumably) and the courts (definitely) have looked into Temerko. Since decades ago, when Tony Blair was PM. The courts ruled that Termerko was being persecuted by Putin, that is a matter of case history that is public record. That is the rule of law.
Furthermore Termerko acquired British citizenship over a decade ago, seven years after he migrated here when Blair was Prime Minister. So he is British, that is a simple fact, so to call him Russian instead of British is racism that belongs in the BNP. Migrants who acquire British citizenship are Britons they are not the nationality of their birth and that is unequivocal.
Or do you seriously not accept that migrants who have had British citizenship for over a decade are Britons?
He is British. He is an ex Putin connection who many say has current connections to the Russian state. He himself says he has had past connections to the Russian state and security services but does not any more.
It is not being born Russian that should disqualify him from paid access to the PM, it is the connections to the Russian state and its security apparatus.
Past connections, not present ones, which the courts (and presumably our security services) have already ruled upon.
Should that mean he's disbarred for life, when the courts have already ruled on this matter?
Disbarred? From what, buying the influence of a PM? Yes
Living here, running a business, expressing his opinions? No
The naivety, or doublespeak, is also staggering. If a former security contact of the Russian state and Putin says he's no longer in that line of work, we can obviously *entirely* trust him. After all, people trained in espionage or security are always entirely honest about this sort of thing, by definition.
It's actually a very easy problem to solve - just limit the size of donations. Russian oligarchs buying influence of course is dodgy, but they are mostly probably buying influence in favour of the super-rich, like other big donors.
We underestimate the difference between the way property rights are traditionally regarded in Britain versus most other countries.
You could argue that Britain, essentially, has centuries of upholding the rights of the property owner.
Wealthy people who live in regimes where everything you have can be taken off you by the government or its agents if they want it, notice this stuff.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
The paid Tory consultants on here are looking ever more ridiculous with their pathetic support of the Leader.
I'm not sure they are paid and I don't like to accuse regulars of trolling (which is the base of all base accusations and a sign that you've run out of steam) but I totally agree with you.
This has been the hard Right's worst hour on pb.com
Odd comments coming from someone who seems to somewhat back Russia in this, and another whose hero is paid by Russia.
At least we can string a few words together, only odd thing here is your pompous crap input. Try adding some value even if only a pittance. You have no idea who I think are heroes and your pathetic attempt at an insult just about sums you up, now F off and get a life of your own.
Now now, Malc. You have been a rather robust defender of Salmond on here, have you not?
Jury also supported him and threw out all the false claims, though the culprits and their friends managed to escape by use of gagging orders. Not Scotland's Judiciary's finest moment along with Government and Civil Service assistance. Never have so many memories been forgotten/mistaken in history.
I know about the court case, but this is about his accepting Putin's shilling.
He sells them his programmes, unlike the Tories and many others who get it for favours rendered. Big difference, are you actually saying that no member of the public should ever have any interaction with any Russian business, yet are happy that teh Tories are getting wheelbarrows from them and selling them golden passports. Strange thinking.
Virtue signalling at its worst. Where are we better off, RT banned in the UK, the BBC banned in Russia, or both continuing broadcasting and letting viewers decide who to believe?
How has anyone advocated breaking the law? Broadcasting is licensed by OFCOM. Asking that the regulator reviews the license held by RT is not "banning" them nor "breaking the law".
RT look likely to be in breach of Rules 5.11 and 5.12 of the Broadcasting Code and thus their license to broadcast in the UK
They’re asking for “banning” not “referring to OFCOM” - which is what Dorries has done.
Yes. And on what grounds would OFCOM withdraw its license and thus ban it? Because it is in breach of its license terms! Which is what they will now go after. And frankly seems self-evident if the stuff people are reporting on Twitter is true.
@Farooq Three books, picked at random from my library on the subject;
Alexander Polunov, Russia in the Nineteenth Century P.106 'The peasants could not accept such prominent features of the [1861] reform as the preservation of gentry landholding and the redemption of their allotments...the peasants began to suspect the Tsar had been deceived...rumours arose of a scheduled hour or promised hour when the Tsar would announce real emancipation to them, without redemption payments or reduced allotments.'
P.232 Inequality and stratification would inevitably result when the peasants personally owned their allotment land and could buy and sell it...Stolypin predicted that some of the peasants who lost their lands would find work in the growing industrial cities. For others, he proposed large scale emigration to the eastern areas of the empire...[which] would remove the hapless, embittered and potentially rebellious peasants from overpopulated central Russia.'
Peter Waldron,The End of Imperial Russia P. 51
'The need for them [the peasantry] to pay for the land they farmed was wholly at odds with the fundamental belief among the peasants that, as they worked the land, they were its real owners.'
P.54 'Even where farmsteads were formed wholly separate from the village settlements, there are many examples of them being occupied only seasonally so that the peasants returned to live in the village during the winter. The attraction of the village community remained strong.'
J. N. WEstwood, Endurance and Endeavour, Russian History 1812-1992
P.79 'To the peasant, who believed the land was rightfully his, it seemed he was being compelled to buy his own property....many were in no hurry because they anticipated the land to be received would be more of a burden than an asset; it was too small to support him but entailed heavy tax and redemption payments.'
I’m not taking the pee or anything Doctor, but you can reference Anna Karenina too, it covers the subject very well.
Communists to serfs: we are going to free you. Serfs to Communists: bugger off you deluded capitalist twits, we like our way off life, we are guaranteed work and housing.
There was a distinction between serfs and peasants, though, no? Serfdom had - surely - been abolished by the twentieth century? Serfs were basically slaves, albeit slaves who had the privileges of being able to be subject to taxes and conscription.
I've read a couple of histories of Russia, though some time ago now, so I may be misremebering. They may as well have been subtitled '1000 years of sheer unrelenting bloody misery for everyone'.
Serfdom was abolished in 1861, but the final part of it - the redemption payments for the land peasants worked - was only finally cancelled in 1906.
"Scotland’s relatively cautious approach to coronavirus policy had an effect on public behaviour last year, including encouraging the greater use of masks, but did not stop death rates climbing above those of England during the Delta and Omicron variant waves, Financial Times analysis of official data shows.
Scotland continued to require the use of face coverings in public places last summer and introduced vaccine passports in the autumn, yet registered higher per capita deaths for much of the period compared with England, where such policies were not imposed.
The higher Scottish death rates through the autumn and in January will fuel fierce debate over the merits of the different approaches taken across the UK during the pandemic." (£)
There is something fundamentally wrong with this approach of trying to parse precisely death rates versus countermeasures. Disease, and in particular, pandemics, are the ultimate complex adaptive system. Two parallel entities adopting exactly the same measures (so far as we are capable of measuring them) will not have the same outcomes. That does not mean that the entity with the worse outcome performed worse.
Sure, try and find out which measures seem universally to have had a positive or negative impact in each system in which they were adopted. Also, try to find out things like are masks as effective when R=2.6 as they are when R hits 15. That is, if masks help cut transmission by 75% at 2.6, does that 75% hold at 15, or does it drop to the point of uselessness at very high Rs?
These are useful things to try to analyze. Whether France or Scotland or Denmark or South Korea did 'best' is for the birds. Complex adaptive systems do not permit that sort of judgment, even if you can measure things like excess deaths accurately.
Agree that it’s simplistic to associate differences in excess deaths with any one single NPI - but it’s increasingly clear that there have been more excess deaths in Scotland than England - The Times suggesting that poorer underlying health may be an important factor:
Scotland has experienced the highest number of extra deaths from all causes during the pandemic compared with other parts of the UK, according to Times analysis. New calculations show the rise in the number of people who died, compared with the five years before the pandemic, was significantly greater in Scotland than England.
With an average of 23.9 excess deaths per million people every week since the spring of 2020, the surge in mortality was worse than Wales on 22.9, England on 18.6 and Northern Ireland on 18.8. As mortality rates and hospital admissions from Covid are lower north of the border, it is thought that people dying from other illnesses are behind the toll.
Which makes one wonder whether greater focus on control of COVID in Scotland will be helpful in the long run.
You clearly did not understand my post. I am talking about what, at an epistemological level, can be known and what is completely beyond the possibility of being known, rather than theorized.
We simply cannot tell whether the difference is due to the measures taken, or is simply random, or is simply due to the sensitivity of the system to initial conditions. This is simply not possible to discern, no matter the data or the quality of the analysis.
One of the most powerful speeches in the debate came from Liam Byrne, the Labour former chief secretary to the Treasury, who mocked Liz Truss’s claim in interviews this morning that the Russians who have given money to the Conservative party are not linked to the Putin regime in Moscow. (See 9.32am.) Saying that he intended to offer the Tories a vetting service, Byrne listed seven donors who he implied were suspect.
Lubov Chernukhin
Byrne said Chernukin had donated £2.1m to the Tories. He said her husband Vladimir (the fomer Russian deputy finance minister) received £8m from Suleiman Kerimov, who was sanctioned by the US Treasury in 2018. Byrne said the transfer to Vladimir came on 29 April 2016 “mysteriously just before a donation of £1.9m to the Conservative party”.
Alexander Temerko
Byrne said Temerko was someone who had “forged a career at the top of the arms industry” and who had connections at the highest levels in the Kremlin. Byrne said Temerko was a deputy chairman of the Yukos oil comany but “somehow mysteriously escaped the purge of is colleagues”. He has donated £747,000 to the party, Byrne said.
Viktor Fedotov
Byrne said Temerko had been working very closely with Fedotov, who was a director of Aquind and a former head of a subsidiary of Lukoil. In the Pandora Papers Fedotov was revealed as man who made fortunes in the company in the mid 2000s “around the time it was alleged to be syphoning funds from the Russian state monopoly company Transneft”, Byrne said.
Dmitry Leus
Byrne said Leus had donated £54,000. According to Daily Mail, Leus was found guilty of money laundering and jailed in Russia in 2004, Byrne said. Byrne said that Leus said the prosecution was politcally motivated, and the conviction was overturned. Byrne went on:
Here is the mystery. He also donated to the Prince’s Foundation. The Prince’s Foundation has decided to return Mr Leus’s money. The Conservative party, you will be amazed to hear, has not.
Mohamed Amersi
Byrne said Amersi and his wife had given £793,000 to the Conservative party. He said Amersi had reportedly been involved in “one of the biggest corruption scandals in Europe”, which involved $220m being paid to a Gibraltar-based company owned by the daughter of the president of Uzbekistan. Byrne said Amersi says his donations came from UK profits. But the FT said he received £4m from a company he knew was secretly owned by a powerful Russian, President Putin’s telecoms minister, Byrne said.
Murtaza Lakhani
Byrne said Lakhani’s firm, Mercentile and Maritime, has donated £500,000 to the party. Byrne said Bloomberg has reported that Lakhani made made large parts of his fortune by channelling $6bn from Russian oil giant Rosneft to Kurdistan.
David Burnside
Byrne said Burnside’s firm has donated £200,000 to the party. Byrne, a former Ulster Unionist MP, boasts of his links to senior figures in the Kremlin and has introduced several to senior Tory figures, Byrne said.
Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined that at much the same age as I was when he came along, he would be looking at the obliteration of a nation state by an aggressive power in Europe.
Awful. Truly awful.
I have such happy memories of Kiev.
It does feel, in the past few years, as if we are returning to a world of authoritarian aggression and democratic weakness more familiar to my parents and grand-parents when young.
I really fear that if Putin is successful in Ukraine he will not stop there.
Comments
There are numerous alternatives to traditional fertilizers commercially available to agriculture and horticulture now.
Cost of product and cost of application varies. Some add increases of disease resistance to certain crops reducing need for fungicide.
If this encourages more innovation and research into an already burgeoning industry in alternatives it is nothing but positive.
You could argue that Britain, essentially, has centuries of upholding the rights of the property owner.
Wealthy people who live in regimes where everything you have can be taken off you by the government or its agents if they want it, notice this stuff.
So it did just about make it to the 20th century.
We simply cannot tell whether the difference is due to the measures taken, or is simply random, or is simply due to the sensitivity of the system to initial conditions. This is simply not possible to discern, no matter the data or the quality of the analysis.
One of the most powerful speeches in the debate came from Liam Byrne, the Labour former chief secretary to the Treasury, who mocked Liz Truss’s claim in interviews this morning that the Russians who have given money to the Conservative party are not linked to the Putin regime in Moscow. (See 9.32am.) Saying that he intended to offer the Tories a vetting service, Byrne listed seven donors who he implied were suspect.
Lubov Chernukhin
Byrne said Chernukin had donated £2.1m to the Tories. He said her husband Vladimir (the fomer Russian deputy finance minister) received £8m from Suleiman Kerimov, who was sanctioned by the US Treasury in 2018. Byrne said the transfer to Vladimir came on 29 April 2016 “mysteriously just before a donation of £1.9m to the Conservative party”.
Alexander Temerko
Byrne said Temerko was someone who had “forged a career at the top of the arms industry” and who had connections at the highest levels in the Kremlin. Byrne said Temerko was a deputy chairman of the Yukos oil comany but “somehow mysteriously escaped the purge of is colleagues”. He has donated £747,000 to the party, Byrne said.
Viktor Fedotov
Byrne said Temerko had been working very closely with Fedotov, who was a director of Aquind and a former head of a subsidiary of Lukoil. In the Pandora Papers Fedotov was revealed as man who made fortunes in the company in the mid 2000s “around the time it was alleged to be syphoning funds from the Russian state monopoly company Transneft”, Byrne said.
Dmitry Leus
Byrne said Leus had donated £54,000. According to Daily Mail, Leus was found guilty of money laundering and jailed in Russia in 2004, Byrne said. Byrne said that Leus said the prosecution was politcally motivated, and the conviction was overturned. Byrne went on:
Here is the mystery. He also donated to the Prince’s Foundation. The Prince’s Foundation has decided to return Mr Leus’s money. The Conservative party, you will be amazed to hear, has not.
Mohamed Amersi
Byrne said Amersi and his wife had given £793,000 to the Conservative party. He said Amersi had reportedly been involved in “one of the biggest corruption scandals in Europe”, which involved $220m being paid to a Gibraltar-based company owned by the daughter of the president of Uzbekistan. Byrne said Amersi says his donations came from UK profits. But the FT said he received £4m from a company he knew was secretly owned by a powerful Russian, President Putin’s telecoms minister, Byrne said.
Murtaza Lakhani
Byrne said Lakhani’s firm, Mercentile and Maritime, has donated £500,000 to the party. Byrne said Bloomberg has reported that Lakhani made made large parts of his fortune by channelling $6bn from Russian oil giant Rosneft to Kurdistan.
David Burnside
Byrne said Burnside’s firm has donated £200,000 to the party. Byrne, a former Ulster Unionist MP, boasts of his links to senior figures in the Kremlin and has introduced several to senior Tory figures, Byrne said.
Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined that at much the same age as I was when he came along, he would be looking at the obliteration of a nation state by an aggressive power in Europe.
Awful. Truly awful.
I have such happy memories of Kiev.
It does feel, in the past few years, as if we are returning to a world of authoritarian aggression and democratic weakness more familiar to my parents and grand-parents when young.
I really fear that if Putin is successful in Ukraine he will not stop there.