Can we now read it as a fact that the Mail consider the replacement of Chamberlain with Churchill in WWII to be a stupid mistake?
If not, why not? I understand there was a bloody war on at the time, and one somewhat closer to home and with a large number of British troops already in action.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I hate STW (aka the SWP rebadged for people who shop at Waitrose) but this is out of date - the statement you link to is dated 18 February. The war began (or at least it’s current incarnation started) on 24 February. So it’s not perhaps surprising that there is not much space devoted to the Russian occupation.
I'm unsure that is of any relevance. Everyone knew the war was going to occur, and STW's website currently does not look much different.
I think we have copious evidence on PB alone that that was not the case.
So many savvy takes.
Okay, anyone who was paying attention.
The only way the war would not have occurred would have been if the Ukraine had capitulated to Russia before it began.
And if Russia wins in Ukraine, Putin has made it very clear which countries he sees as being the next to be inserted into his Empire of Shittiness.
There is an interesting case that Putin was just sabre rattling, but decided to go ahead when he failed to get any concessions. It would explain the Russian pisspoor preparation, lack or bombardment in advance, confused war plans, logistics, and general hopelessness. He had painted himself into a corner.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I hate STW (aka the SWP rebadged for people who shop at Waitrose) but this is out of date - the statement you link to is dated 18 February. The war began (or at least it’s current incarnation started) on 24 February. So it’s not perhaps surprising that there is not much space devoted to the Russian occupation.
I'm unsure that is of any relevance. Everyone knew the war was going to occur, and STW's website currently does not look much different.
Here's the strapline at the top of the website: "We’re calling on the British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine and give its support to a negotiated peace by backing the peace proposals now being discussed by Ukrainian President Zelensky and his Russian counterparts…".
They appear not to have noticed the complete incompatibility of the two sides' peace proposals. Nor that Putin has announced that the talks are over because of the UK/Ukraine "provocation" in Bucha...
STW, of which I'm neither a member, nor a financial supporter, hasn't covered itself with glory. It did in Iraq but it often doesn't. However that shouldn't stop us from looking at what it says. The world seems to have moved on from the formal, chessboard style of 'war' between nations seen in the past to a less formal situation, almost as per Orwell in '1984'. I don't think it's true to say that 'Everyone knew the war was going to occur'; it seemed very possible but countries had moved right up to the brink before and stepped back. It's revolutionaries, as suggested in my previous sentence which don't. What is happening in Ukraine is appalling; like most people I've made contributions to Ukraine relief funds and I've emailed my MP to say how ashamed I feel of Britains response to the refugee situation. However, I wouldn't be too surprised if the Donbass area was transferred to Russia, probably with population movements, and some Russian 'loyalists' still in Ukraine took the opportunity to move to Russia.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I think you're going a bit over the top, but I personally would be very, very chary about associating with anything that Claudia Webbe was. One has to be careful about being wise after the event, but one cannot say that Ukraine has always been whiter than white. However, there's no doubt whatsoever that the Russian state and particularly the Russian army has behaved appallingly.
"... but one cannot say that Ukraine has always been whiter than white. "
There are several things to say about this.
Firstly, Ukraine has not been whiter than white. However, it has been an independent sate for all of three decades, and for much of that time had massive amounts of political interference from its larger neighbour. And, for eight years, military interference. What state would Ukraine be in if it had been allowed to take the same route as (say) Poland, Romania or Lithuania without Russia's interference?
Secondly, any misdeeds by Ukraine, internally and internationally, are infinitesimal compared to Russia's. They're really not worth mentioning in the same sentence for fear of equating them.
That's the problem with STW's and Corbyn's position. They strive to blame *anyone* other than Russia for Russia's aggression. Including ourselves.
This war, this awful, hideous tragedy that has killed tens of thousands and displaced millions, is the result of one country's actions. Russia. They are solely to blame. Nothing any other country has done to them warrants their fascist and imperialist actions.
Blame Russia. end of.
What country on the planet has been "whiter than white" ? .
It is also not a very acceptable phrase nowadays. White = purity and good. Black = darkness and evil.
Not really kosher in this day and age. Plenty of alternatives.
Choice of language often says a lot about a person.
It might be I am from the Jeremy Clarkson wing of the LDs but really?
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I hate STW (aka the SWP rebadged for people who shop at Waitrose) but this is out of date - the statement you link to is dated 18 February. The war began (or at least it’s current incarnation started) on 24 February. So it’s not perhaps surprising that there is not much space devoted to the Russian occupation.
I'm unsure that is of any relevance. Everyone knew the war was going to occur, and STW's website currently does not look much different.
Here's the strapline at the top of the website: "We’re calling on the British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine and give its support to a negotiated peace by backing the peace proposals now being discussed by Ukrainian President Zelensky and his Russian counterparts…"
"talking up the war."
It's our fault, apparently.
Note there's no call for Russia to pull out of Ukraine: the easiest way for this war to be stopped.
I'm not a STW fan but your post prompted me to have a look. Reading the piece behind the strapline I see
"President Zelensky has outlined the two most essential conditions of peace: that the invading Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine and that the Ukraine will become a neutral country, not a member of NATO. These terms are the basis of an agreement, according to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
We welcome these developments as the necessary first steps to ending the bloodshed, allowing refugees to return to their homes, and ending the economic damage being done to the livelihoods of ordinary working people both in the combatant states are [sic] around the globe."
That is not a particularly outrageous view, and certainly not treason. I agree that it doesn't explicitly assign blame and the statement is pretty naively optimistic about the peace talks but citing Zelensky approvingly and calling it a Russian invasion is reasonably clear.
You miss the point I was making: that the first thing it mentions is *our* responsibility. WTF does it mention 'British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine' ?
I see nothing on that site that says they want anything other than a Russian victory.
You have been all over the place on Ukraine, Nick. It is not our fault. It is not Ukraine's fault (aside from the fact they commit the ultimate crime of wanting to be a sovereign nation). It is not NATO's fault.
The war is Russia's fault. If 'Stop the War' really wanted the war to end, they would be pouring their ire onto Russia and calling on them to withdraw.
They are not.
I have been active in the peace movement, but have never liked STW as it is a hard left front, while mine is a more Christian approach to peace.
Nonetheless calling for Russian withdrawal is clearly not saying "they want a Russian victory".
They're not really calling for a Russian withdrawal though, are they? They just mention Zelenskyy's position, and ignore Lavatory's twisting and turning.
It's quite simple: they need to say: "Russia is at fault for this war and must withdraw," with no caveats. I'd also like something about stopping the war crimes they are committing.
They are calling for Russian withdrawal. You may not want to believe it, but that is the STW position.
This scandal is simultaneously outrageous and boring. It’s OMG and Yawn
I can see Boris surviving, quite easily, out of voter apathy
Is anyone out there really boiling with anger? I doubt it. It’s like a car crash filmed in such ultra-slow-motion you lose interest
As I say downthread, it's more a "fuck that, I'm not getting off my arse for that clown" come election time, rather than "MAKE WAY, I'M VOTING FOR THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS, THE LAST BASTION OF RIGHTOUSNESS, TO SMITE THESE WRONGDOERS".
It is fabulously poetic that good time guy Boris will be brought down (sooner or later) over cakes, drinks and parties. I sense tempers are gradually calming over these indiscretions, probably not enough to save his skin for long. But in time he’ll still get cheered by the crowds at Wimbledon etc…
A problem all friendly countries have is that their own stocks of weaponry are low - and they need to keep some back for their own use. Replenishment takes time.
Even the US has problems. They have given 7,000 Javelins to Ukraine. That is 1/3 of their inventory. Yet they only make 1,000 a year - and could, with time, get it up to 6,480 a year.
They have sent 2,000 Stingers to Ukraine. They do not make them for themselves any more, and it is believed that the 2,000 is one quarter of the US's remaining stocks. Lead time is 24 months.
There is only so much material that can be given. That does not really excuse Germany (and to a lesser extent France's) tardiness in providing anything.
Part of the excellent performance by the Ukraine forces against armour is due to incredibly profligate expenditure of weapons; they are firing off hundreds of ATGMs every day.
No other armed forces that weren't a) in an existential struggle for survival and b) were getting them all gratis would expend them at that rate.
But you're correct to observe that's there's a limit and they are probably going to run NATO dry quite soon.
Where do you get the figure that they are firing off hundreds per day? Or do you count RPGs?
If they were firing that number, and knocking out a handful of tanks each day, it would be a problem, but I suspect the effectiveness to be rather better than that.
And similar. It has been a thing since the invention of weapons that usage often greatly outstrips supply and production.
Hit rates are often tiny. Expenditure of anti-tank missiles (for example) has always been vastly higher than supplies - from their introduction in the 60s onwards.
Henry V is believed to have taken a million arrows to Agincourt.
There were people worrying in the 80s that the stocks of vaguely smart weapons would be fired in a week, if the Russians went Full Tonto at the Fulda Gap.
This goes up and down the weapons pyramid - if you want a new fighter jet, lead time is *years*.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I hate STW (aka the SWP rebadged for people who shop at Waitrose) but this is out of date - the statement you link to is dated 18 February. The war began (or at least it’s current incarnation started) on 24 February. So it’s not perhaps surprising that there is not much space devoted to the Russian occupation.
I'm unsure that is of any relevance. Everyone knew the war was going to occur, and STW's website currently does not look much different.
Here's the strapline at the top of the website: "We’re calling on the British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine and give its support to a negotiated peace by backing the peace proposals now being discussed by Ukrainian President Zelensky and his Russian counterparts…"
"talking up the war."
It's our fault, apparently.
Note there's no call for Russia to pull out of Ukraine: the easiest way for this war to be stopped.
I'm not a STW fan but your post prompted me to have a look. Reading the piece behind the strapline I see
"President Zelensky has outlined the two most essential conditions of peace: that the invading Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine and that the Ukraine will become a neutral country, not a member of NATO. These terms are the basis of an agreement, according to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
We welcome these developments as the necessary first steps to ending the bloodshed, allowing refugees to return to their homes, and ending the economic damage being done to the livelihoods of ordinary working people both in the combatant states are [sic] around the globe."
That is not a particularly outrageous view, and certainly not treason. I agree that it doesn't explicitly assign blame and the statement is pretty naively optimistic about the peace talks but citing Zelensky approvingly and calling it a Russian invasion is reasonably clear.
You miss the point I was making: that the first thing it mentions is *our* responsibility. WTF does it mention 'British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine' ?
I see nothing on that site that says they want anything other than a Russian victory.
You have been all over the place on Ukraine, Nick. It is not our fault. It is not Ukraine's fault (aside from the fact they commit the ultimate crime of wanting to be a sovereign nation). It is not NATO's fault.
The war is Russia's fault. If 'Stop the War' really wanted the war to end, they would be pouring their ire onto Russia and calling on them to withdraw.
They are not.
I have been active in the peace movement, but have never liked STW as it is a hard left front, while mine is a more Christian approach to peace.
Nonetheless calling for Russian withdrawal is clearly not saying "they want a Russian victory".
They're not really calling for a Russian withdrawal though, are they? They just mention Zelenskyy's position, and ignore Lavatory's twisting and turning.
It's quite simple: they need to say: "Russia is at fault for this war and must withdraw," with no caveats. I'd also like something about stopping the war crimes they are committing.
They are calling for Russian withdrawal. You may not want to believe it, but that is the STW position.
How do you get that from what they say and the current situation?
If they want to call for a Russian withdrawal, they should say so, clearly and unambiguously. They choose not to. Read what they say: they 'welcome the developments'. They do not call for it.
Having established that Johnson is more of a "conviction" politician than we had thought, I think the punters will indeed be tempted to give the Tories a fairly clear shot across the bows in May. As for the rubbish about "there is a war on", frankly I´d far rather have Ben Wallace looking after the shop (and I suspect he is the only member of the cabinet who can turn things around for the Conservatives anyway).
Although Johnson does get some kudos for the UK position with regard to Ukraine, the general view over here is that he is a pretty fly and untrustworthy cove, and it is Britain as a whole that has been committed to fight, so I don´t think that there would be too many concerns if he went. Indeed, a new UK leader may be able to get far better responses from the EU NATO members, which Johnson has singularly failed to do.
The pressure in the Baltic is still quite severe, with several hundred new refugees arriving every day. However there is some pride here that Estonia has managed to supply nearly four times more weapons to Ukraine than either France or Germany. More than half of Estonian households have also donated to Ukrainian causes.
As the Russian tanks disappear into the Ukrainian steppe, there is a sense that for the time being the direct military threat to the Baltic is reducing fast. If Finland (and possibly Sweden) does join NATO, then the overall security position in the Baltic will improve substantially.
As for Russia itself: the support of large numbers of Russians not only for the attack on Ukraine, but for the brutal and despicible way the war has been conducted is duly noted, and even Russian speakers here are shocked. Indeed the power of the Russian media here has fallen sharply, not only because access has been restricted, but the contrast between the free media reporting and the Russian media is so extreme as to be grotesque. Russia is going into a very dark place indeed. The civilised world should not tolerate the barbarian Putin for one second more than it has to.
The latest attack by Russian forces against the Donbas is better coordinated and led than last time, but the Russian losses on the Northern front will be difficult to replace. The Estonians do view the current situation as an emergency, which is why so much kit has been sent to Ukraine. We must hope that the Ukrainians can continue to hold on.
The cold winter has clung on, but spring is finally on its way, and we hope that a comprehensive defeat in Ukraine might turn Russia away from the road to catastrophe. Nevertheless, for as long as the Mafiosi are in charge in the Kremlin, there remains a high risk of their casual contempt for human life leading to an all out nuclear war. As in the Cold War, we must remember that the best way to preserve peace is to ensure our deterents are credible and that the challenge to the global order by Putin in the name of the neofascist rubbish of Dugin, must be comprehensively beaten. This is our final warning.
This scandal is simultaneously outrageous and boring. It’s OMG and Yawn
I can see Boris surviving, quite easily, out of voter apathy
Is anyone out there really boiling with anger? I doubt it. It’s like a car crash filmed in such ultra-slow-motion you lose interest
As I say downthread, it's more a "fuck that, I'm not getting off my arse for that clown" come election time, rather than "MAKE WAY, I'M VOTING FOR THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS, THE LAST BASTION OF RIGHTOUSNESS, TO SMITE THESE WRONGDOERS".
Sadly, Clegg having messed up.
Indeed. Sorry yellows but there remains something grating about your messaging. A lot more work needed to attract floating voters rather than just preaching to the choir. In May if I get around to it I’ll be voting for the local independent candidate once again, that runs under the banner of a loose coalition of independent candidates.
Lib Dems still not doing enough for me. Boris broke the rules because the rules were stupid, draconian and ill advised. Whereas we still see too much pearl clutching about him needing to go because he didn’t piously adhere to those stupid rules.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I hate STW (aka the SWP rebadged for people who shop at Waitrose) but this is out of date - the statement you link to is dated 18 February. The war began (or at least it’s current incarnation started) on 24 February. So it’s not perhaps surprising that there is not much space devoted to the Russian occupation.
I'm unsure that is of any relevance. Everyone knew the war was going to occur, and STW's website currently does not look much different.
I think we have copious evidence on PB alone that that was not the case.
So many savvy takes.
Okay, anyone who was paying attention.
The only way the war would not have occurred would have been if the Ukraine had capitulated to Russia before it began.
And if Russia wins in Ukraine, Putin has made it very clear which countries he sees as being the next to be inserted into his Empire of Shittiness.
There is an interesting case that Putin was just sabre rattling, but decided to go ahead when he failed to get any concessions. It would explain the Russian pisspoor preparation, lack or bombardment in advance, confused war plans, logistics, and general hopelessness. He had painted himself into a corner.
Not my view, but not completely daft either.
You don't sabre rattle to that extent. The more you build up troops, the harder it can become to withdraw them.
And again, you're getting dangerously near blaming others for Russia's aggression: what 'concessions' could Ukraine have offered? Listen to what Putin's asked for: it is nothing other than not just Ukraine, but virtually entire Eastern Europe, under Russia's thumb.
And answer another question: why on earth should Russia have got concessions?
Can we now read it as a fact that the Mail consider the replacement of Chamberlain with Churchill in WWII to be a stupid mistake?
If not, why not? I understand there was a bloody war on at the time, and one somewhat closer to home and with a large number of British troops already in action.
Was it the Mail or the Express which, when the country voted FOR EEC membership in 1975 declared that they had never wavered in their belief that Britain's future was in Europe?
Sending hundreds of weapons to Ukraine seems to be doing nothing but feeding the fire. There seems to be only one thing that makes a country secure and that is ownership of a nuclear weapon. If 'The West' want to deter Russia's invasion give Ukraine the ultimate deterrant. Ten nuclear warheads with instructions.
"with instructions" - very good. The pictures-without-words in the manner of Ikea instructions would be called for. First you have to count up the components then lay out a mat for the assembly.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I hate STW (aka the SWP rebadged for people who shop at Waitrose) but this is out of date - the statement you link to is dated 18 February. The war began (or at least it’s current incarnation started) on 24 February. So it’s not perhaps surprising that there is not much space devoted to the Russian occupation.
I'm unsure that is of any relevance. Everyone knew the war was going to occur, and STW's website currently does not look much different.
I think we have copious evidence on PB alone that that was not the case.
So many savvy takes.
Okay, anyone who was paying attention.
The only way the war would not have occurred would have been if the Ukraine had capitulated to Russia before it began.
And if Russia wins in Ukraine, Putin has made it very clear which countries he sees as being the next to be inserted into his Empire of Shittiness.
There is an interesting case that Putin was just sabre rattling, but decided to go ahead when he failed to get any concessions. It would explain the Russian pisspoor preparation, lack or bombardment in advance, confused war plans, logistics, and general hopelessness. He had painted himself into a corner.
Not my view, but not completely daft either.
You don't sabre rattle to that extent. The more you build up troops, the harder it can become to withdraw them.
And again, you're getting dangerously near blaming others for Russia's aggression: what 'concessions' could Ukraine have offered? Listen to what Putin's asked for: it is nothing other than not just Ukraine, but virtually entire Eastern Europe, under Russia's thumb.
And answer another question: why on earth should Russia have got concessions?
I am not saying that the concessions the Russians were demanding were reasonable. It is possible that the Russians thought them obtainable though.
This scandal is simultaneously outrageous and boring. It’s OMG and Yawn
I can see Boris surviving, quite easily, out of voter apathy
Is anyone out there really boiling with anger? I doubt it. It’s like a car crash filmed in such ultra-slow-motion you lose interest
As I say downthread, it's more a "fuck that, I'm not getting off my arse for that clown" come election time, rather than "MAKE WAY, I'M VOTING FOR THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS, THE LAST BASTION OF RIGHTOUSNESS, TO SMITE THESE WRONGDOERS".
Sadly, Clegg having messed up.
Indeed. Sorry yellows but there remains something grating about your messaging. A lot more work needed to attract floating voters rather than just preaching to the choir. In May if I get around to it I’ll be voting for the local independent candidate once again, that runs under the banner of a loose coalition of independent candidates.
Lib Dems still not doing enough for me. Boris broke the rules because the rules were stupid, draconian and ill advised. Whereas we still see too much pearl clutching about him needing to go because he didn’t piously adhere to those stupid rules.
Many conservative voters will be staying at home rather than voting for anyone else, Liberal Democrat, Labour or Independent on May 5th.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I hate STW (aka the SWP rebadged for people who shop at Waitrose) but this is out of date - the statement you link to is dated 18 February. The war began (or at least it’s current incarnation started) on 24 February. So it’s not perhaps surprising that there is not much space devoted to the Russian occupation.
I'm unsure that is of any relevance. Everyone knew the war was going to occur, and STW's website currently does not look much different.
I think we have copious evidence on PB alone that that was not the case.
So many savvy takes.
All of which were based on The Rational Opponent Fallacy.
This scandal is simultaneously outrageous and boring. It’s OMG and Yawn
I can see Boris surviving, quite easily, out of voter apathy
Is anyone out there really boiling with anger? I doubt it. It’s like a car crash filmed in such ultra-slow-motion you lose interest
As I say downthread, it's more a "fuck that, I'm not getting off my arse for that clown" come election time, rather than "MAKE WAY, I'M VOTING FOR THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS, THE LAST BASTION OF RIGHTOUSNESS, TO SMITE THESE WRONGDOERS".
Sadly, Clegg having messed up.
Indeed. Sorry yellows but there remains something grating about your messaging. A lot more work needed to attract floating voters rather than just preaching to the choir. In May if I get around to it I’ll be voting for the local independent candidate once again, that runs under the banner of a loose coalition of independent candidates.
Lib Dems still not doing enough for me. Boris broke the rules because the rules were stupid, draconian and ill advised. Whereas we still see too much pearl clutching about him needing to go because he didn’t piously adhere to those stupid rules.
I'm not quite as worried about Boris breaking the rules but about his insisting that he didn't, and indeed that there was no opportunity for him to do so.
I must say I don't envy Conservative canvassers over the next couple of weeks. I expect that we'll be told that in Epping they've been welcomed, of course.
Having established that Johnson is more of a "conviction" politician than we had thought, I think the punters will indeed be tempted to give the Tories a fairly clear shot across the bows in May. As for the rubbish about "there is a war on", frankly I´d far rather have Ben Wallace looking after the shop (and I suspect he is the only member of the cabinet who can turn things around for the Conservatives anyway).
Although Johnson does get some kudos for the UK position with regard to Ukraine, the general view over here is that he is a pretty fly and untrustworthy cove, and it is Britain as a whole that has been committed to fight, so I don´t think that there would be too many concerns if he went. Indeed, a new UK leader may be able to get far better responses from the EU NATO members, which Johnson has singularly failed to do.
The pressure in the Baltic is still quite severe, with several hundred new refugees arriving every day. However there is some pride here that Estonia has managed to supply nearly four times more weapons to Ukraine than either France or Germany. More than half of Estonian households have also donated to Ukrainian causes.
As the Russian tanks disappear into the Ukrainian steppe, there is a sense that for the time being the direct military threat to the Baltic is reducing fast. If Finland (and possibly Sweden) does join NATO, then the overall security position in the Baltic will improve substantially.
As for Russia itself: the support of large numbers of Russians not only for the attack on Ukraine, but for the brutal and despicible way the war has been conducted is duly noted, and even Russian speakers here are shocked. Indeed the power of the Russian media here has fallen sharply, not only because access has been restricted, but the contrast between the free media reporting and the Russian media is so extreme as to be grotesque. Russia is going into a very dark place indeed. The civilised world should not tolerate the barbarian Putin for one second more than it has to.
The latest attack by Russian forces against the Donbas is better coordinated and led than last time, but the Russian losses on the Northern front will be difficult to replace. The Estonians do view the current situation as an emergency, which is why so much kit has been sent to Ukraine. We must hope that the Ukrainians can continue to hold on.
The cold winter has clung on, but spring is finally on its way, and we hope that a comprehensive defeat in Ukraine might turn Russia away from the road to catastrophe. Nevertheless, for as long as the Mafiosi are in charge in the Kremlin, there remains a high risk of their casual contempt for human life leading to an all out nuclear war. As in the Cold War, we must remember that the best way to preserve peace is to ensure our deterents are credible and that the challenge to the global order by Putin in the name of the neofascist rubbish of Dugin, must be comprehensively beaten. This is our final warning.
Yes NATO’s greatest strength is it’s deterrent value. Get the Finns and Swedes through the door asap. As for Ireland, their studied “neutrality” looks evermore unprincipled and self serving as the years go by.
Hopefully the same lesson is being learned in the Pacific as well. Aukus / Jaukus a good start but doesn’t go far enough for me.
As for Russia, not at all clear we will have a moment of reckoning whereby the mass of Russian public opinion has that crucial moment of introspection over the nation’s actions. It’s going to be a puss filled boil on the side of Europe’s face for a good long while sadly.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I hate STW (aka the SWP rebadged for people who shop at Waitrose) but this is out of date - the statement you link to is dated 18 February. The war began (or at least it’s current incarnation started) on 24 February. So it’s not perhaps surprising that there is not much space devoted to the Russian occupation.
I'm unsure that is of any relevance. Everyone knew the war was going to occur, and STW's website currently does not look much different.
Here's the strapline at the top of the website: "We’re calling on the British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine and give its support to a negotiated peace by backing the peace proposals now being discussed by Ukrainian President Zelensky and his Russian counterparts…"
"talking up the war."
It's our fault, apparently.
Note there's no call for Russia to pull out of Ukraine: the easiest way for this war to be stopped.
I'm not a STW fan but your post prompted me to have a look. Reading the piece behind the strapline I see
"President Zelensky has outlined the two most essential conditions of peace: that the invading Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine and that the Ukraine will become a neutral country, not a member of NATO. These terms are the basis of an agreement, according to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
We welcome these developments as the necessary first steps to ending the bloodshed, allowing refugees to return to their homes, and ending the economic damage being done to the livelihoods of ordinary working people both in the combatant states are [sic] around the globe."
That is not a particularly outrageous view, and certainly not treason. I agree that it doesn't explicitly assign blame and the statement is pretty naively optimistic about the peace talks but citing Zelensky approvingly and calling it a Russian invasion is reasonably clear.
You miss the point I was making: that the first thing it mentions is *our* responsibility. WTF does it mention 'British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine' ?
I see nothing on that site that says they want anything other than a Russian victory.
You have been all over the place on Ukraine, Nick. It is not our fault. It is not Ukraine's fault (aside from the fact they commit the ultimate crime of wanting to be a sovereign nation). It is not NATO's fault.
The war is Russia's fault. If 'Stop the War' really wanted the war to end, they would be pouring their ire onto Russia and calling on them to withdraw.
They are not.
I have been active in the peace movement, but have never liked STW as it is a hard left front, while mine is a more Christian approach to peace.
Nonetheless calling for Russian withdrawal is clearly not saying "they want a Russian victory".
They're not really calling for a Russian withdrawal though, are they? They just mention Zelenskyy's position, and ignore Lavatory's twisting and turning.
It's quite simple: they need to say: "Russia is at fault for this war and must withdraw," with no caveats. I'd also like something about stopping the war crimes they are committing.
They are calling for Russian withdrawal. You may not want to believe it, but that is the STW position.
How do you get that from what they say and the current situation?
If they want to call for a Russian withdrawal, they should say so, clearly and unambiguously. They choose not to. Read what they say: they 'welcome the developments'. They do not call for it.
Why don't they call for it?
Mate. You're losing it. Go to their website. The banner headline on the front page says "Russian Troops Out".
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
If you’re not going into academia or medicine, then get a job at 18 and either get sponsored by a company a few years down the line, or sign up for OU courses and do a degree over time. It’s totally mad to get £50k in debt by the age of 21 or 22.
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
As so often, everybody misunderstands the actual situation with student loans. For 90%+ of students this factoid irrelevant, they were never paying them back over the course of their lifetime anyway. Student loans are for all intents and purposes a capped graduate tax, where they will be paying tax on their income for the rest of their lives. The exception are those who go on to earn a very large salary and of course they will be being taxed heavily in other ways even after they paid off the student loan.
The people being diddled are the government (and in return all of us) as the debt gets written off.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I hate STW (aka the SWP rebadged for people who shop at Waitrose) but this is out of date - the statement you link to is dated 18 February. The war began (or at least it’s current incarnation started) on 24 February. So it’s not perhaps surprising that there is not much space devoted to the Russian occupation.
I'm unsure that is of any relevance. Everyone knew the war was going to occur, and STW's website currently does not look much different.
Here's the strapline at the top of the website: "We’re calling on the British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine and give its support to a negotiated peace by backing the peace proposals now being discussed by Ukrainian President Zelensky and his Russian counterparts…"
"talking up the war."
It's our fault, apparently.
Note there's no call for Russia to pull out of Ukraine: the easiest way for this war to be stopped.
I'm not a STW fan but your post prompted me to have a look. Reading the piece behind the strapline I see
"President Zelensky has outlined the two most essential conditions of peace: that the invading Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine and that the Ukraine will become a neutral country, not a member of NATO. These terms are the basis of an agreement, according to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
We welcome these developments as the necessary first steps to ending the bloodshed, allowing refugees to return to their homes, and ending the economic damage being done to the livelihoods of ordinary working people both in the combatant states are [sic] around the globe."
That is not a particularly outrageous view, and certainly not treason. I agree that it doesn't explicitly assign blame and the statement is pretty naively optimistic about the peace talks but citing Zelensky approvingly and calling it a Russian invasion is reasonably clear.
You miss the point I was making: that the first thing it mentions is *our* responsibility. WTF does it mention 'British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine' ?
I see nothing on that site that says they want anything other than a Russian victory.
You have been all over the place on Ukraine, Nick. It is not our fault. It is not Ukraine's fault (aside from the fact they commit the ultimate crime of wanting to be a sovereign nation). It is not NATO's fault.
The war is Russia's fault. If 'Stop the War' really wanted the war to end, they would be pouring their ire onto Russia and calling on them to withdraw.
They are not.
I have been active in the peace movement, but have never liked STW as it is a hard left front, while mine is a more Christian approach to peace.
Nonetheless calling for Russian withdrawal is clearly not saying "they want a Russian victory".
They're not really calling for a Russian withdrawal though, are they? They just mention Zelenskyy's position, and ignore Lavatory's twisting and turning.
It's quite simple: they need to say: "Russia is at fault for this war and must withdraw," with no caveats. I'd also like something about stopping the war crimes they are committing.
They are calling for Russian withdrawal. You may not want to believe it, but that is the STW position.
How do you get that from what they say and the current situation?
If they want to call for a Russian withdrawal, they should say so, clearly and unambiguously. They choose not to. Read what they say: they 'welcome the developments'. They do not call for it.
Why don't they call for it?
This is the headline on the STW website:
"STOP THE WAR IN UKRAINE - RUSSIAN TROOPS OUT NO NATO EXPANSION - NO NUCLEAR WAR"
This scandal is simultaneously outrageous and boring. It’s OMG and Yawn
I can see Boris surviving, quite easily, out of voter apathy
Is anyone out there really boiling with anger? I doubt it. It’s like a car crash filmed in such ultra-slow-motion you lose interest
As I say downthread, it's more a "fuck that, I'm not getting off my arse for that clown" come election time, rather than "MAKE WAY, I'M VOTING FOR THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS, THE LAST BASTION OF RIGHTOUSNESS, TO SMITE THESE WRONGDOERS".
Sadly, Clegg having messed up.
Indeed. Sorry yellows but there remains something grating about your messaging. A lot more work needed to attract floating voters rather than just preaching to the choir. In May if I get around to it I’ll be voting for the local independent candidate once again, that runs under the banner of a loose coalition of independent candidates.
Lib Dems still not doing enough for me. Boris broke the rules because the rules were stupid, draconian and ill advised. Whereas we still see too much pearl clutching about him needing to go because he didn’t piously adhere to those stupid rules.
I'm not quite as worried about Boris breaking the rules but about his insisting that he didn't, and indeed that there was no opportunity for him to do so.
I must say I don't envy Conservative canvassers over the next couple of weeks. I expect that we'll be told that in Epping they've been welcomed, of course.
I'd like to think the people of Epping will be asking themselves a more pertinent question: who will empty my dustbins next week? Surely the answer there, as almost everywhere, would be the LibDems?
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
As so often, everybody misunderstands the actual situation with student loans. For 90%+ of students this factoid irrelevant, they were never paying them back over the course of their lifetime. Student loans are for all intents and purposes a capped graduate tax.
The people being diddled as the government (and in return all of us) as the debt gets written off.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I hate STW (aka the SWP rebadged for people who shop at Waitrose) but this is out of date - the statement you link to is dated 18 February. The war began (or at least it’s current incarnation started) on 24 February. So it’s not perhaps surprising that there is not much space devoted to the Russian occupation.
I'm unsure that is of any relevance. Everyone knew the war was going to occur, and STW's website currently does not look much different.
Here's the strapline at the top of the website: "We’re calling on the British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine and give its support to a negotiated peace by backing the peace proposals now being discussed by Ukrainian President Zelensky and his Russian counterparts…"
"talking up the war."
It's our fault, apparently.
Note there's no call for Russia to pull out of Ukraine: the easiest way for this war to be stopped.
I'm not a STW fan but your post prompted me to have a look. Reading the piece behind the strapline I see
"President Zelensky has outlined the two most essential conditions of peace: that the invading Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine and that the Ukraine will become a neutral country, not a member of NATO. These terms are the basis of an agreement, according to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
We welcome these developments as the necessary first steps to ending the bloodshed, allowing refugees to return to their homes, and ending the economic damage being done to the livelihoods of ordinary working people both in the combatant states are [sic] around the globe."
That is not a particularly outrageous view, and certainly not treason. I agree that it doesn't explicitly assign blame and the statement is pretty naively optimistic about the peace talks but citing Zelensky approvingly and calling it a Russian invasion is reasonably clear.
You miss the point I was making: that the first thing it mentions is *our* responsibility. WTF does it mention 'British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine' ?
I see nothing on that site that says they want anything other than a Russian victory.
You have been all over the place on Ukraine, Nick. It is not our fault. It is not Ukraine's fault (aside from the fact they commit the ultimate crime of wanting to be a sovereign nation). It is not NATO's fault.
The war is Russia's fault. If 'Stop the War' really wanted the war to end, they would be pouring their ire onto Russia and calling on them to withdraw.
They are not.
I have been active in the peace movement, but have never liked STW as it is a hard left front, while mine is a more Christian approach to peace.
Nonetheless calling for Russian withdrawal is clearly not saying "they want a Russian victory".
They're not really calling for a Russian withdrawal though, are they? They just mention Zelenskyy's position, and ignore Lavatory's twisting and turning.
It's quite simple: they need to say: "Russia is at fault for this war and must withdraw," with no caveats. I'd also like something about stopping the war crimes they are committing.
They are calling for Russian withdrawal. You may not want to believe it, but that is the STW position.
How do you get that from what they say and the current situation?
If they want to call for a Russian withdrawal, they should say so, clearly and unambiguously. They choose not to. Read what they say: they 'welcome the developments'. They do not call for it.
Why don't they call for it?
Mate. You're losing it. Go to their website. The banner headline on the front page says "Russian Troops Out".
This scandal is simultaneously outrageous and boring. It’s OMG and Yawn
I can see Boris surviving, quite easily, out of voter apathy
Is anyone out there really boiling with anger? I doubt it. It’s like a car crash filmed in such ultra-slow-motion you lose interest
As I say downthread, it's more a "fuck that, I'm not getting off my arse for that clown" come election time, rather than "MAKE WAY, I'M VOTING FOR THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS, THE LAST BASTION OF RIGHTOUSNESS, TO SMITE THESE WRONGDOERS".
The Tories will be hoping that, come the 2024 election, partygate will be a dim and boring memory. This might well work. Unfortunately for them, by 2024 there’s a high chance the economy will be in the toilet, so they will get binned for THAT, instead
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
Many of them would have been better off doing an apprenticeship with no debt, if their degree did not lead them to a higher paid job
Friends of mine in the 50's went straight into banking etc at 16 and did very well.
There's no way I could have got a teaching qualification without being a graduate. Luckily I went to University in the late 70s when they paid you to go.
This scandal is simultaneously outrageous and boring. It’s OMG and Yawn
I can see Boris surviving, quite easily, out of voter apathy
Is anyone out there really boiling with anger? I doubt it. It’s like a car crash filmed in such ultra-slow-motion you lose interest
As I say downthread, it's more a "fuck that, I'm not getting off my arse for that clown" come election time, rather than "MAKE WAY, I'M VOTING FOR THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS, THE LAST BASTION OF RIGHTOUSNESS, TO SMITE THESE WRONGDOERS".
The Tories will be hoping that, come the 2024 election, partygate will be a dim and boring memory. This might well work. Unfortunately for them, by 2024 there’s a high chance the economy will be in the toilet, so they will get binned for THAT, instead
The Tories can bring up the pandemic without bringing up partygate.
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
If you’re not going into academia or medicine, then get a job at 18 and either get sponsored by a company a few years down the line, or sign up for OU courses and do a degree over time. It’s totally mad to get £50k in debt by the age of 21 or 22.
But in reality the system is such you aren't really in £50k of debt. Nobody reposing your house / car if you don't earn etc. This debt is really a capped graduate tax, which 90%+ of people never pay off, and the tiny minority who do will have flipped their degree in a highly lucrative career earn £100k+ (so it probably was worth it).
The problem is actually the system encourages too many to go to university full time, saddling the tax payer will all this unpaid debt over the next 40-50 years.
I have said this a million times here on PB. What we actually need is a system where it isn't seen as bad to go to university part-time around a job and also practically every student who is full time moving away from home and incurring his massive extra debt just to go to a middling uni, when a similar ranked one is just around the corner.
The biggest rip off that has occurred in the uni sector, and never talked about, accommodation costs. Quite normal for a room in halls to be £150-200 a week and students forced to pay 40-50 weeks of the year. You can get a mortgage on your own flat, even house, in many places that are charging this. £8-10k a year just to live in a pokey room.
Sending hundreds of weapons to Ukraine seems to be doing nothing but feeding the fire. There seems to be only one thing that makes a country secure and that is ownership of a nuclear weapon. If 'The West' want to deter Russia's invasion give Ukraine the ultimate deterrant. Ten nuclear warheads with instructions.
"with instructions" - very good. The pictures-without-words in the manner of Ikea instructions would be called for. First you have to count up the components then lay out a mat for the assembly.
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
If you’re not going into academia or medicine, then get a job at 18 and either get sponsored by a company a few years down the line, or sign up for OU courses and do a degree over time. It’s totally mad to get £50k in debt by the age of 21 or 22.
It's de facto state policy that ~ 50% of school leavers head off to Uni. If what you say is true, why is this ?
Full responsibility: "I did it. I lied about it. I'm sorry. I resign."
Johnson-style responsibility: "I did it, but nobody told me having beers, on my birthday, surrounded by a group singing 'happy birthday', was a party. It's their fault. They made me lie. So I'm staying." https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1514160069952389122
Actually Sky have played a piece with Boris at a school on the same day with the schoolchildren singing happy birthday and giving him a cake
I expect the result of all this is that we will not have such draconian rules again, irrespective of whether Boris survives or not
The quicky birthday cake hand over after a meeting with Sunak is the least offensive of all the parties iirc. Others involve invites, bring your own booze, went on for hours etc etc.
Anyway, at the end of the day the real hardcore of the issue is that he lied about it to Commons at first hoping to get away with it. That is a resignation issue and they all know it.
So far only Nigel Adams MP has shown an ounce of backbone iirc.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I think you're going a bit over the top, but I personally would be very, very chary about associating with anything that Claudia Webbe was. One has to be careful about being wise after the event, but one cannot say that Ukraine has always been whiter than white. However, there's no doubt whatsoever that the Russian state and particularly the Russian army has behaved appallingly.
"... but one cannot say that Ukraine has always been whiter than white. "
There are several things to say about this.
Firstly, Ukraine has not been whiter than white. However, it has been an independent sate for all of three decades, and for much of that time had massive amounts of political interference from its larger neighbour. And, for eight years, military interference. What state would Ukraine be in if it had been allowed to take the same route as (say) Poland, Romania or Lithuania without Russia's interference?
Secondly, any misdeeds by Ukraine, internally and internationally, are infinitesimal compared to Russia's. They're really not worth mentioning in the same sentence for fear of equating them.
That's the problem with STW's and Corbyn's position. They strive to blame *anyone* other than Russia for Russia's aggression. Including ourselves.
This war, this awful, hideous tragedy that has killed tens of thousands and displaced millions, is the result of one country's actions. Russia. They are solely to blame. Nothing any other country has done to them warrants their fascist and imperialist actions.
Blame Russia. end of.
What country on the planet has been "whiter than white" ? .
It is also not a very acceptable phrase nowadays. White = purity and good. Black = darkness and evil.
Not really kosher in this day and age. Plenty of alternatives.
Choice of language often says a lot about a person.
It might be I am from the Jeremy Clarkson wing of the LDs but really?
I’ve seen the view seriously taken that white as good and black as white should not be used because it’s linked to racism. Only by a minority of idiots though, who don’t understand that the concept of white/black is linked to light/darkness and can be found in any number of ancient cultures that far pre-date our modern western world or any concept of white being the supreme race.
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
If you’re not going into academia or medicine, then get a job at 18 and either get sponsored by a company a few years down the line, or sign up for OU courses and do a degree over time. It’s totally mad to get £50k in debt by the age of 21 or 22.
But in reality the system is such you aren't really in £50k of debt. Nobody reposing your house / car if you don't earn etc. This debt is really a capped graduate tax, which 90%+ of people never pay off, and the tiny minority who do will have flipped their degree in a highly lucrative career earn £100k+ (so it probably was worth it).
Yes but, for those on average incomes (not City salaries), they are very much taken into account when applying for a mortgage.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I hate STW (aka the SWP rebadged for people who shop at Waitrose) but this is out of date - the statement you link to is dated 18 February. The war began (or at least it’s current incarnation started) on 24 February. So it’s not perhaps surprising that there is not much space devoted to the Russian occupation.
I'm unsure that is of any relevance. Everyone knew the war was going to occur, and STW's website currently does not look much different.
Here's the strapline at the top of the website: "We’re calling on the British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine and give its support to a negotiated peace by backing the peace proposals now being discussed by Ukrainian President Zelensky and his Russian counterparts…"
"talking up the war."
It's our fault, apparently.
Note there's no call for Russia to pull out of Ukraine: the easiest way for this war to be stopped.
I'm not a STW fan but your post prompted me to have a look. Reading the piece behind the strapline I see
"President Zelensky has outlined the two most essential conditions of peace: that the invading Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine and that the Ukraine will become a neutral country, not a member of NATO. These terms are the basis of an agreement, according to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
We welcome these developments as the necessary first steps to ending the bloodshed, allowing refugees to return to their homes, and ending the economic damage being done to the livelihoods of ordinary working people both in the combatant states are [sic] around the globe."
That is not a particularly outrageous view, and certainly not treason. I agree that it doesn't explicitly assign blame and the statement is pretty naively optimistic about the peace talks but citing Zelensky approvingly and calling it a Russian invasion is reasonably clear.
STWC there are misrepresenting Lavrov's position in their petition, though.
The claim that Lavrov believes that withdrawing Russian troops from Ukraine is the basis of any peace agreement is from cloud cuckoo land imo.
The international borders of Ukraine, as recognised and affirmed by other countries including Russia, include the Crimea, Donbas and Luhansk. This includes areas of Ukraine which the Russian Government of which Lavrov is Foreign Minister have 'annexed' and now claim to be a part of Russia.
STWC are trying to create a moral equivalence been Russia and Ukraine - between the aggressor and their victim.
I can only suggest that STW are - as in my view is their SOP - just trying further to con their gullibles.
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
If you’re not going into academia or medicine, then get a job at 18 and either get sponsored by a company a few years down the line, or sign up for OU courses and do a degree over time. It’s totally mad to get £50k in debt by the age of 21 or 22.
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
As so often, everybody misunderstands the actual situation with student loans. For 90%+ of students this factoid irrelevant, they were never paying them back over the course of their lifetime. Student loans are for all intents and purposes a capped graduate tax.
The people being diddled as the government (and in return all of us) as the debt gets written off.
What interest did you pay?
The point is that the whole loan/interest thing is a painfully thin bit of obfuscation for the fact that this is a graduate tax in a hat. Most students today will never pay off the loan (and those that do have probably been foolish when you do the lifetime cost calculation). So the "interest rate" is irrelevant, since the total loan amount is greater than the sum of the lifetime total of minimum payments.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I hate STW (aka the SWP rebadged for people who shop at Waitrose) but this is out of date - the statement you link to is dated 18 February. The war began (or at least it’s current incarnation started) on 24 February. So it’s not perhaps surprising that there is not much space devoted to the Russian occupation.
I'm unsure that is of any relevance. Everyone knew the war was going to occur, and STW's website currently does not look much different.
Here's the strapline at the top of the website: "We’re calling on the British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine and give its support to a negotiated peace by backing the peace proposals now being discussed by Ukrainian President Zelensky and his Russian counterparts…"
"talking up the war."
It's our fault, apparently.
Note there's no call for Russia to pull out of Ukraine: the easiest way for this war to be stopped.
I'm not a STW fan but your post prompted me to have a look. Reading the piece behind the strapline I see
"President Zelensky has outlined the two most essential conditions of peace: that the invading Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine and that the Ukraine will become a neutral country, not a member of NATO. These terms are the basis of an agreement, according to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
We welcome these developments as the necessary first steps to ending the bloodshed, allowing refugees to return to their homes, and ending the economic damage being done to the livelihoods of ordinary working people both in the combatant states are [sic] around the globe."
That is not a particularly outrageous view, and certainly not treason. I agree that it doesn't explicitly assign blame and the statement is pretty naively optimistic about the peace talks but citing Zelensky approvingly and calling it a Russian invasion is reasonably clear.
You miss the point I was making: that the first thing it mentions is *our* responsibility. WTF does it mention 'British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine' ?
I see nothing on that site that says they want anything other than a Russian victory.
You have been all over the place on Ukraine, Nick. It is not our fault. It is not Ukraine's fault (aside from the fact they commit the ultimate crime of wanting to be a sovereign nation). It is not NATO's fault.
The war is Russia's fault. If 'Stop the War' really wanted the war to end, they would be pouring their ire onto Russia and calling on them to withdraw.
They are not.
I have been active in the peace movement, but have never liked STW as it is a hard left front, while mine is a more Christian approach to peace.
Nonetheless calling for Russian withdrawal is clearly not saying "they want a Russian victory".
They're not really calling for a Russian withdrawal though, are they? They just mention Zelenskyy's position, and ignore Lavatory's twisting and turning.
It's quite simple: they need to say: "Russia is at fault for this war and must withdraw," with no caveats. I'd also like something about stopping the war crimes they are committing.
They are calling for Russian withdrawal. You may not want to believe it, but that is the STW position.
How do you get that from what they say and the current situation?
If they want to call for a Russian withdrawal, they should say so, clearly and unambiguously. They choose not to. Read what they say: they 'welcome the developments'. They do not call for it.
Why don't they call for it?
Mate. You're losing it. Go to their website. The banner headline on the front page says "Russian Troops Out".
Full responsibility: "I did it. I lied about it. I'm sorry. I resign."
Johnson-style responsibility: "I did it, but nobody told me having beers, on my birthday, surrounded by a group singing 'happy birthday', was a party. It's their fault. They made me lie. So I'm staying." https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1514160069952389122
Actually Sky have played a piece with Boris at a school on the same day with the schoolchildren singing happy birthday and giving him a cake
I expect the result of all this is that we will not have such draconian rules again, irrespective of whether Boris survives or not
The quicky birthday cake hand over after a meeting with Sunak is the least offensive of all the parties iirc. Others involve invites, bring your own booze, went on for hours etc etc.
Anyway, at the end of the day the real hardcore of the issue is that he lied about it to Commons at first hoping to get away with it. That is a resignation issue and they all know it.
So far only Nigel Adams MP has shown an ounce of backbone iirc.
To play devil’s advocate, based on what we know isn’t this one of the very few where it can be said the PM was invited to a non-work thing and stuck around? Most of the others he was implicated in seem to have been leaving speeches, with the exception of the thing in the garden where everyone might swear blind they were discussing only work.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I hate STW (aka the SWP rebadged for people who shop at Waitrose) but this is out of date - the statement you link to is dated 18 February. The war began (or at least it’s current incarnation started) on 24 February. So it’s not perhaps surprising that there is not much space devoted to the Russian occupation.
I'm unsure that is of any relevance. Everyone knew the war was going to occur, and STW's website currently does not look much different.
Here's the strapline at the top of the website: "We’re calling on the British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine and give its support to a negotiated peace by backing the peace proposals now being discussed by Ukrainian President Zelensky and his Russian counterparts…"
"talking up the war."
It's our fault, apparently.
Note there's no call for Russia to pull out of Ukraine: the easiest way for this war to be stopped.
I'm not a STW fan but your post prompted me to have a look. Reading the piece behind the strapline I see
"President Zelensky has outlined the two most essential conditions of peace: that the invading Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine and that the Ukraine will become a neutral country, not a member of NATO. These terms are the basis of an agreement, according to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
We welcome these developments as the necessary first steps to ending the bloodshed, allowing refugees to return to their homes, and ending the economic damage being done to the livelihoods of ordinary working people both in the combatant states are [sic] around the globe."
That is not a particularly outrageous view, and certainly not treason. I agree that it doesn't explicitly assign blame and the statement is pretty naively optimistic about the peace talks but citing Zelensky approvingly and calling it a Russian invasion is reasonably clear.
You miss the point I was making: that the first thing it mentions is *our* responsibility. WTF does it mention 'British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine' ?
I see nothing on that site that says they want anything other than a Russian victory.
You have been all over the place on Ukraine, Nick. It is not our fault. It is not Ukraine's fault (aside from the fact they commit the ultimate crime of wanting to be a sovereign nation). It is not NATO's fault.
The war is Russia's fault. If 'Stop the War' really wanted the war to end, they would be pouring their ire onto Russia and calling on them to withdraw.
They are not.
I have been active in the peace movement, but have never liked STW as it is a hard left front, while mine is a more Christian approach to peace.
Nonetheless calling for Russian withdrawal is clearly not saying "they want a Russian victory".
They're not really calling for a Russian withdrawal though, are they? They just mention Zelenskyy's position, and ignore Lavatory's twisting and turning.
It's quite simple: they need to say: "Russia is at fault for this war and must withdraw," with no caveats. I'd also like something about stopping the war crimes they are committing.
They are calling for Russian withdrawal. You may not want to believe it, but that is the STW position.
How do you get that from what they say and the current situation?
If they want to call for a Russian withdrawal, they should say so, clearly and unambiguously. They choose not to. Read what they say: they 'welcome the developments'. They do not call for it.
Why don't they call for it?
Mate. You're losing it. Go to their website. The banner headline on the front page says "Russian Troops Out".
“Today’s reading for RPI inflation means that the maximum interest rate, which is charged to current students and graduates earning more than £49,130, will rise from its current level of 4.5% to an eye-watering 12%”
Their faults are very different but in terms of potential damage Corbyn is orders of magnitude worse. There are few things more dangerous than highly moral (by one definition) fanatics getting power.
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
As so often, everybody misunderstands the actual situation with student loans. For 90%+ of students this factoid irrelevant, they were never paying them back over the course of their lifetime. Student loans are for all intents and purposes a capped graduate tax.
The people being diddled as the government (and in return all of us) as the debt gets written off.
What interest did you pay?
The point is that the whole loan/interest thing is a painfully thin bit of obfuscation for the fact that this is a graduate tax in a hat. Most students today will never pay off the loan (and those that do have probably been foolish when you do the lifetime cost calculation). So the "interest rate" is irrelevant, since the total loan amount is greater than the sum of the lifetime total of minimum payments.
IT sounds a complete dogs dinner.
Why not just have a graduate tax if they are trying to have one in all but name.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I hate STW (aka the SWP rebadged for people who shop at Waitrose) but this is out of date - the statement you link to is dated 18 February. The war began (or at least it’s current incarnation started) on 24 February. So it’s not perhaps surprising that there is not much space devoted to the Russian occupation.
I'm unsure that is of any relevance. Everyone knew the war was going to occur, and STW's website currently does not look much different.
Here's the strapline at the top of the website: "We’re calling on the British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine and give its support to a negotiated peace by backing the peace proposals now being discussed by Ukrainian President Zelensky and his Russian counterparts…"
"talking up the war."
It's our fault, apparently.
Note there's no call for Russia to pull out of Ukraine: the easiest way for this war to be stopped.
I'm not a STW fan but your post prompted me to have a look. Reading the piece behind the strapline I see
"President Zelensky has outlined the two most essential conditions of peace: that the invading Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine and that the Ukraine will become a neutral country, not a member of NATO. These terms are the basis of an agreement, according to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
We welcome these developments as the necessary first steps to ending the bloodshed, allowing refugees to return to their homes, and ending the economic damage being done to the livelihoods of ordinary working people both in the combatant states are [sic] around the globe."
That is not a particularly outrageous view, and certainly not treason. I agree that it doesn't explicitly assign blame and the statement is pretty naively optimistic about the peace talks but citing Zelensky approvingly and calling it a Russian invasion is reasonably clear.
You miss the point I was making: that the first thing it mentions is *our* responsibility. WTF does it mention 'British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine' ?
I see nothing on that site that says they want anything other than a Russian victory.
You have been all over the place on Ukraine, Nick. It is not our fault. It is not Ukraine's fault (aside from the fact they commit the ultimate crime of wanting to be a sovereign nation). It is not NATO's fault.
The war is Russia's fault. If 'Stop the War' really wanted the war to end, they would be pouring their ire onto Russia and calling on them to withdraw.
They are not.
I have been active in the peace movement, but have never liked STW as it is a hard left front, while mine is a more Christian approach to peace.
Nonetheless calling for Russian withdrawal is clearly not saying "they want a Russian victory".
They're not really calling for a Russian withdrawal though, are they? They just mention Zelenskyy's position, and ignore Lavatory's twisting and turning.
It's quite simple: they need to say: "Russia is at fault for this war and must withdraw," with no caveats. I'd also like something about stopping the war crimes they are committing.
They are calling for Russian withdrawal. You may not want to believe it, but that is the STW position.
How do you get that from what they say and the current situation?
If they want to call for a Russian withdrawal, they should say so, clearly and unambiguously. They choose not to. Read what they say: they 'welcome the developments'. They do not call for it.
Why don't they call for it?
Mate. You're losing it. Go to their website. The banner headline on the front page says "Russian Troops Out".
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
As so often, everybody misunderstands the actual situation with student loans. For 90%+ of students this factoid irrelevant, they were never paying them back over the course of their lifetime. Student loans are for all intents and purposes a capped graduate tax.
The people being diddled as the government (and in return all of us) as the debt gets written off.
What interest did you pay?
The point is that the whole loan/interest thing is a painfully thin bit of obfuscation for the fact that this is a graduate tax in a hat. Most students today will never pay off the loan (and those that do have probably been foolish when you do the lifetime cost calculation). So the "interest rate" is irrelevant, since the total loan amount is greater than the sum of the lifetime total of minimum payments.
IT sounds a complete dogs dinner.
Why not just have a graduate tax if they are trying to have one in all but name.
Because nobody knows how to deal with historic graduates and still pretend it’s fair.
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
As so often, everybody misunderstands the actual situation with student loans. For 90%+ of students this factoid irrelevant, they were never paying them back over the course of their lifetime. Student loans are for all intents and purposes a capped graduate tax.
The people being diddled as the government (and in return all of us) as the debt gets written off.
What interest did you pay?
Personally, very little, as I made a lot of money gambling while I was a student and I paid it off everything in full while a post-grad. But it wasn't a very smart move, I probably should have just bought a house outright while doing my PhD.
“Today’s reading for RPI inflation means that the maximum interest rate, which is charged to current students and graduates earning more than £49,130, will rise from its current level of 4.5% to an eye-watering 12%”
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I hate STW (aka the SWP rebadged for people who shop at Waitrose) but this is out of date - the statement you link to is dated 18 February. The war began (or at least it’s current incarnation started) on 24 February. So it’s not perhaps surprising that there is not much space devoted to the Russian occupation.
I'm unsure that is of any relevance. Everyone knew the war was going to occur, and STW's website currently does not look much different.
Here's the strapline at the top of the website: "We’re calling on the British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine and give its support to a negotiated peace by backing the peace proposals now being discussed by Ukrainian President Zelensky and his Russian counterparts…"
"talking up the war."
It's our fault, apparently.
Note there's no call for Russia to pull out of Ukraine: the easiest way for this war to be stopped.
I'm not a STW fan but your post prompted me to have a look. Reading the piece behind the strapline I see
"President Zelensky has outlined the two most essential conditions of peace: that the invading Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine and that the Ukraine will become a neutral country, not a member of NATO. These terms are the basis of an agreement, according to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
We welcome these developments as the necessary first steps to ending the bloodshed, allowing refugees to return to their homes, and ending the economic damage being done to the livelihoods of ordinary working people both in the combatant states are [sic] around the globe."
That is not a particularly outrageous view, and certainly not treason. I agree that it doesn't explicitly assign blame and the statement is pretty naively optimistic about the peace talks but citing Zelensky approvingly and calling it a Russian invasion is reasonably clear.
You miss the point I was making: that the first thing it mentions is *our* responsibility. WTF does it mention 'British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine' ?
I see nothing on that site that says they want anything other than a Russian victory.
You have been all over the place on Ukraine, Nick. It is not our fault. It is not Ukraine's fault (aside from the fact they commit the ultimate crime of wanting to be a sovereign nation). It is not NATO's fault.
The war is Russia's fault. If 'Stop the War' really wanted the war to end, they would be pouring their ire onto Russia and calling on them to withdraw.
They are not.
I have been active in the peace movement, but have never liked STW as it is a hard left front, while mine is a more Christian approach to peace.
Nonetheless calling for Russian withdrawal is clearly not saying "they want a Russian victory".
They're not really calling for a Russian withdrawal though, are they? They just mention Zelenskyy's position, and ignore Lavatory's twisting and turning.
It's quite simple: they need to say: "Russia is at fault for this war and must withdraw," with no caveats. I'd also like something about stopping the war crimes they are committing.
They are calling for Russian withdrawal. You may not want to believe it, but that is the STW position.
How do you get that from what they say and the current situation?
If they want to call for a Russian withdrawal, they should say so, clearly and unambiguously. They choose not to. Read what they say: they 'welcome the developments'. They do not call for it.
Why don't they call for it?
Mate. You're losing it. Go to their website. The banner headline on the front page says "Russian Troops Out".
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I hate STW (aka the SWP rebadged for people who shop at Waitrose) but this is out of date - the statement you link to is dated 18 February. The war began (or at least it’s current incarnation started) on 24 February. So it’s not perhaps surprising that there is not much space devoted to the Russian occupation.
I'm unsure that is of any relevance. Everyone knew the war was going to occur, and STW's website currently does not look much different.
Here's the strapline at the top of the website: "We’re calling on the British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine and give its support to a negotiated peace by backing the peace proposals now being discussed by Ukrainian President Zelensky and his Russian counterparts…"
"talking up the war."
It's our fault, apparently.
Note there's no call for Russia to pull out of Ukraine: the easiest way for this war to be stopped.
I'm not a STW fan but your post prompted me to have a look. Reading the piece behind the strapline I see
"President Zelensky has outlined the two most essential conditions of peace: that the invading Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine and that the Ukraine will become a neutral country, not a member of NATO. These terms are the basis of an agreement, according to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
We welcome these developments as the necessary first steps to ending the bloodshed, allowing refugees to return to their homes, and ending the economic damage being done to the livelihoods of ordinary working people both in the combatant states are [sic] around the globe."
That is not a particularly outrageous view, and certainly not treason. I agree that it doesn't explicitly assign blame and the statement is pretty naively optimistic about the peace talks but citing Zelensky approvingly and calling it a Russian invasion is reasonably clear.
You miss the point I was making: that the first thing it mentions is *our* responsibility. WTF does it mention 'British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine' ?
I see nothing on that site that says they want anything other than a Russian victory.
You have been all over the place on Ukraine, Nick. It is not our fault. It is not Ukraine's fault (aside from the fact they commit the ultimate crime of wanting to be a sovereign nation). It is not NATO's fault.
The war is Russia's fault. If 'Stop the War' really wanted the war to end, they would be pouring their ire onto Russia and calling on them to withdraw.
They are not.
I have been active in the peace movement, but have never liked STW as it is a hard left front, while mine is a more Christian approach to peace.
Nonetheless calling for Russian withdrawal is clearly not saying "they want a Russian victory".
They're not really calling for a Russian withdrawal though, are they? They just mention Zelenskyy's position, and ignore Lavatory's twisting and turning.
It's quite simple: they need to say: "Russia is at fault for this war and must withdraw," with no caveats. I'd also like something about stopping the war crimes they are committing.
They are calling for Russian withdrawal. You may not want to believe it, but that is the STW position.
How do you get that from what they say and the current situation?
If they want to call for a Russian withdrawal, they should say so, clearly and unambiguously. They choose not to. Read what they say: they 'welcome the developments'. They do not call for it.
Why don't they call for it?
Mate. You're losing it. Go to their website. The banner headline on the front page says "Russian Troops Out".
You are peddling fake news. There are worse organisations than STW to peddle fake news against but you (and PB) should have higher standards.
Fair point, but given what has happened to a non Nato Ukraine, opposition to Nato expansion (also in the banner headline) represents a peculiar view to say the least. The Soviets/Russians have not laid a military boot on Nato territory in 70 years; does this hint that it is effective at preserving peace within its borders? And with what hidden agenda does STW oppose Sweden and Finland joining Nato?
The awesome truth is that if Nato had pledged that an attack on Ukraine was to be treated as breaching Article 5 the invasion would never have happened.
Bit of a scoop in Private Eye. We were discussing Owen Jones last night. This is not a good look for him or the Guardian
‘Owen Jones has relentlessly persecuted women online, including his own colleagues. An external investigator brought in by The Guardian has found him guilty of bullying a female columnist. Yet it has tried to keep the report quiet and appears not to have sanctioned Jones at all.’
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
As so often, everybody misunderstands the actual situation with student loans. For 90%+ of students this factoid irrelevant, they were never paying them back over the course of their lifetime. Student loans are for all intents and purposes a capped graduate tax.
The people being diddled as the government (and in return all of us) as the debt gets written off.
What interest did you pay?
The point is that the whole loan/interest thing is a painfully thin bit of obfuscation for the fact that this is a graduate tax in a hat. Most students today will never pay off the loan (and those that do have probably been foolish when you do the lifetime cost calculation). So the "interest rate" is irrelevant, since the total loan amount is greater than the sum of the lifetime total of minimum payments.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I hate STW (aka the SWP rebadged for people who shop at Waitrose) but this is out of date - the statement you link to is dated 18 February. The war began (or at least it’s current incarnation started) on 24 February. So it’s not perhaps surprising that there is not much space devoted to the Russian occupation.
I'm unsure that is of any relevance. Everyone knew the war was going to occur, and STW's website currently does not look much different.
Here's the strapline at the top of the website: "We’re calling on the British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine and give its support to a negotiated peace by backing the peace proposals now being discussed by Ukrainian President Zelensky and his Russian counterparts…"
"talking up the war."
It's our fault, apparently.
Note there's no call for Russia to pull out of Ukraine: the easiest way for this war to be stopped.
I'm not a STW fan but your post prompted me to have a look. Reading the piece behind the strapline I see
"President Zelensky has outlined the two most essential conditions of peace: that the invading Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine and that the Ukraine will become a neutral country, not a member of NATO. These terms are the basis of an agreement, according to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
We welcome these developments as the necessary first steps to ending the bloodshed, allowing refugees to return to their homes, and ending the economic damage being done to the livelihoods of ordinary working people both in the combatant states are [sic] around the globe."
That is not a particularly outrageous view, and certainly not treason. I agree that it doesn't explicitly assign blame and the statement is pretty naively optimistic about the peace talks but citing Zelensky approvingly and calling it a Russian invasion is reasonably clear.
You miss the point I was making: that the first thing it mentions is *our* responsibility. WTF does it mention 'British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine' ?
I see nothing on that site that says they want anything other than a Russian victory.
You have been all over the place on Ukraine, Nick. It is not our fault. It is not Ukraine's fault (aside from the fact they commit the ultimate crime of wanting to be a sovereign nation). It is not NATO's fault.
The war is Russia's fault. If 'Stop the War' really wanted the war to end, they would be pouring their ire onto Russia and calling on them to withdraw.
They are not.
I have been active in the peace movement, but have never liked STW as it is a hard left front, while mine is a more Christian approach to peace.
Nonetheless calling for Russian withdrawal is clearly not saying "they want a Russian victory".
They're not really calling for a Russian withdrawal though, are they? They just mention Zelenskyy's position, and ignore Lavatory's twisting and turning.
It's quite simple: they need to say: "Russia is at fault for this war and must withdraw," with no caveats. I'd also like something about stopping the war crimes they are committing.
They are calling for Russian withdrawal. You may not want to believe it, but that is the STW position.
How do you get that from what they say and the current situation?
If they want to call for a Russian withdrawal, they should say so, clearly and unambiguously. They choose not to. Read what they say: they 'welcome the developments'. They do not call for it.
Why don't they call for it?
Mate. You're losing it. Go to their website. The banner headline on the front page says "Russian Troops Out".
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
As so often, everybody misunderstands the actual situation with student loans. For 90%+ of students this factoid irrelevant, they were never paying them back over the course of their lifetime. Student loans are for all intents and purposes a capped graduate tax.
The people being diddled as the government (and in return all of us) as the debt gets written off.
What interest did you pay?
The point is that the whole loan/interest thing is a painfully thin bit of obfuscation for the fact that this is a graduate tax in a hat. Most students today will never pay off the loan (and those that do have probably been foolish when you do the lifetime cost calculation). So the "interest rate" is irrelevant, since the total loan amount is greater than the sum of the lifetime total of minimum payments.
IT sounds a complete dogs dinner.
Why not just have a graduate tax if they are trying to have one in all but name.
It is a dogs dinner. The original 1990/91 scheme was a loan. The 1998 scheme off the back of the Dearing report basically provided the mechanism to convert it into a graduate tax, and that was consolidated in 2004.
I presume that this was done because it was politically easier to be seen to be "tweaking" the existing system, rather than introducing a graduate tax.
Bit of a scoop in Private Eye. We were discussing Owen Jones last night. This is not a good look for him or the Guardian
‘Owen Jones has relentlessly persecuted women online, including his own colleagues. An external investigator brought in by The Guardian has found him guilty of bullying a female columnist. Yet it has tried to keep the report quiet and appears not to have sanctioned Jones at all.’
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
As so often, everybody misunderstands the actual situation with student loans. For 90%+ of students this factoid irrelevant, they were never paying them back over the course of their lifetime. Student loans are for all intents and purposes a capped graduate tax.
The people being diddled as the government (and in return all of us) as the debt gets written off.
What interest did you pay?
The point is that the whole loan/interest thing is a painfully thin bit of obfuscation for the fact that this is a graduate tax in a hat. Most students today will never pay off the loan (and those that do have probably been foolish when you do the lifetime cost calculation). So the "interest rate" is irrelevant, since the total loan amount is greater than the sum of the lifetime total of minimum payments.
IT sounds a complete dogs dinner.
Why not just have a graduate tax if they are trying to have one in all but name.
Because you will be adding a new tax band, 9% on everybody tax bill for their entire lifetime after first £27k. The PR for that would make NI rise look minor and also its a terrible message to successful people and I am pretty sure lead to a brain drain. Remember also if it a tax bill, it doesn't follow them if they move, as the moment it does. If you move abroad you still have to pay it.
“Today’s reading for RPI inflation means that the maximum interest rate, which is charged to current students and graduates earning more than £49,130, will rise from its current level of 4.5% to an eye-watering 12%”
Although it’s actually a fair bit more complicated than that, if you read the link…
12%. That is absolutely outrageous given how low base rates are.
One could make an agreement that student loans rates ought to be based on gilt rates plus a bit for risk.
The new student loan regime (which I believe has been trailed but not put into action yet) extends the payment period but reduces the interest rate to the RPI, rather than the RPI+4%.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I hate STW (aka the SWP rebadged for people who shop at Waitrose) but this is out of date - the statement you link to is dated 18 February. The war began (or at least it’s current incarnation started) on 24 February. So it’s not perhaps surprising that there is not much space devoted to the Russian occupation.
I'm unsure that is of any relevance. Everyone knew the war was going to occur, and STW's website currently does not look much different.
Here's the strapline at the top of the website: "We’re calling on the British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine and give its support to a negotiated peace by backing the peace proposals now being discussed by Ukrainian President Zelensky and his Russian counterparts…"
"talking up the war."
It's our fault, apparently.
Note there's no call for Russia to pull out of Ukraine: the easiest way for this war to be stopped.
I'm not a STW fan but your post prompted me to have a look. Reading the piece behind the strapline I see
"President Zelensky has outlined the two most essential conditions of peace: that the invading Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine and that the Ukraine will become a neutral country, not a member of NATO. These terms are the basis of an agreement, according to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
We welcome these developments as the necessary first steps to ending the bloodshed, allowing refugees to return to their homes, and ending the economic damage being done to the livelihoods of ordinary working people both in the combatant states are [sic] around the globe."
That is not a particularly outrageous view, and certainly not treason. I agree that it doesn't explicitly assign blame and the statement is pretty naively optimistic about the peace talks but citing Zelensky approvingly and calling it a Russian invasion is reasonably clear.
You miss the point I was making: that the first thing it mentions is *our* responsibility. WTF does it mention 'British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine' ?
I see nothing on that site that says they want anything other than a Russian victory.
You have been all over the place on Ukraine, Nick. It is not our fault. It is not Ukraine's fault (aside from the fact they commit the ultimate crime of wanting to be a sovereign nation). It is not NATO's fault.
The war is Russia's fault. If 'Stop the War' really wanted the war to end, they would be pouring their ire onto Russia and calling on them to withdraw.
They are not.
I have been active in the peace movement, but have never liked STW as it is a hard left front, while mine is a more Christian approach to peace.
Nonetheless calling for Russian withdrawal is clearly not saying "they want a Russian victory".
They're not really calling for a Russian withdrawal though, are they? They just mention Zelenskyy's position, and ignore Lavatory's twisting and turning.
It's quite simple: they need to say: "Russia is at fault for this war and must withdraw," with no caveats. I'd also like something about stopping the war crimes they are committing.
They are calling for Russian withdrawal. You may not want to believe it, but that is the STW position.
How do you get that from what they say and the current situation?
If they want to call for a Russian withdrawal, they should say so, clearly and unambiguously. They choose not to. Read what they say: they 'welcome the developments'. They do not call for it.
Why don't they call for it?
Mate. You're losing it. Go to their website. The banner headline on the front page says "Russian Troops Out".
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
If you’re not going into academia or medicine, then get a job at 18 and either get sponsored by a company a few years down the line, or sign up for OU courses and do a degree over time. It’s totally mad to get £50k in debt by the age of 21 or 22.
But in reality the system is such you aren't really in £50k of debt. Nobody reposing your house / car if you don't earn etc. This debt is really a capped graduate tax, which 90%+ of people never pay off, and the tiny minority who do will have flipped their degree in a highly lucrative career earn £100k+ (so it probably was worth it).
The problem is actually the system encourages too many to go to university full time, saddling the tax payer will all this unpaid debt over the next 40-50 years.
I have said this a million times here on PB. What we actually need is a system where it isn't seen as bad to go to university part-time around a job and also practically every student who is full time moving away from home and incurring his massive extra debt just to go to a middling uni, when a similar ranked one is just around the corner.
The biggest rip off that has occurred in the uni sector, and never talked about, accommodation costs. Quite normal for a room in halls to be £150-200 a week and students forced to pay 40-50 weeks of the year. You can get a mortgage on your own flat, even house, in many places that are charging this. £8-10k a year just to live in a pokey room.
And the universities have often “partnered” with property developers.
One plan is that halls of residence get permission much more easily. Build them en mass is a so-so area. Round the corner from where I live, they are doing this. Following some gentrification, they knock the partitions through to turn them into proper flats and flog them. Then build some more student accommodation….
The student fees are a vital part of the business plan - as is rest of the mega-campus setups. The idea is to get all the spending money from the students - eating, drinking, sleeping… a company town.
That’s why universities were shitting themselves about remote study….
This scandal is simultaneously outrageous and boring. It’s OMG and Yawn
I can see Boris surviving, quite easily, out of voter apathy
Is anyone out there really boiling with anger? I doubt it. It’s like a car crash filmed in such ultra-slow-motion you lose interest
As I say downthread, it's more a "fuck that, I'm not getting off my arse for that clown" come election time, rather than "MAKE WAY, I'M VOTING FOR THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS, THE LAST BASTION OF RIGHTOUSNESS, TO SMITE THESE WRONGDOERS".
The Tories will be hoping that, come the 2024 election, partygate will be a dim and boring memory. This might well work. Unfortunately for them, by 2024 there’s a high chance the economy will be in the toilet, so they will get binned for THAT, instead
The Tories can bring up the pandemic without bringing up partygate.
No one will ‘bring up the pandemic’. It is so ghastly and bleak we will erase it from the collective memory ASAFP
The last two years and 3 months are already a blur for me. I’ve forgotten what happened when, was it 2020 or 21, and what’s more, I don’t care. Just forget it. Forget the whole thing. This will be a universal urge
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
As so often, everybody misunderstands the actual situation with student loans. For 90%+ of students this factoid irrelevant, they were never paying them back over the course of their lifetime. Student loans are for all intents and purposes a capped graduate tax.
The people being diddled as the government (and in return all of us) as the debt gets written off.
What interest did you pay?
The point is that the whole loan/interest thing is a painfully thin bit of obfuscation for the fact that this is a graduate tax in a hat. Most students today will never pay off the loan (and those that do have probably been foolish when you do the lifetime cost calculation). So the "interest rate" is irrelevant, since the total loan amount is greater than the sum of the lifetime total of minimum payments.
IT sounds a complete dogs dinner.
Why not just have a graduate tax if they are trying to have one in all but name.
Because nobody knows how to deal with historic graduates and still pretend it’s fair.
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
As so often, everybody misunderstands the actual situation with student loans. For 90%+ of students this factoid irrelevant, they were never paying them back over the course of their lifetime. Student loans are for all intents and purposes a capped graduate tax.
The people being diddled as the government (and in return all of us) as the debt gets written off.
What interest did you pay?
The point is that the whole loan/interest thing is a painfully thin bit of obfuscation for the fact that this is a graduate tax in a hat. Most students today will never pay off the loan (and those that do have probably been foolish when you do the lifetime cost calculation). So the "interest rate" is irrelevant, since the total loan amount is greater than the sum of the lifetime total of minimum payments.
IT sounds a complete dogs dinner.
Why not just have a graduate tax if they are trying to have one in all but name.
Because you will be adding a new tax band, 9% on everybody tax bill for their entire lifetime over £27k. The PR for that would make NI rise look minor and also its a terrible message to successful people and I am pretty sure lead to brain drain.
Also those of us that had a loan and paid it off. Are we to pay again ?!
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
As so often, everybody misunderstands the actual situation with student loans. For 90%+ of students this factoid irrelevant, they were never paying them back over the course of their lifetime. Student loans are for all intents and purposes a capped graduate tax.
The people being diddled as the government (and in return all of us) as the debt gets written off.
What interest did you pay?
The point is that the whole loan/interest thing is a painfully thin bit of obfuscation for the fact that this is a graduate tax in a hat. Most students today will never pay off the loan (and those that do have probably been foolish when you do the lifetime cost calculation). So the "interest rate" is irrelevant, since the total loan amount is greater than the sum of the lifetime total of minimum payments.
IT sounds a complete dogs dinner.
Why not just have a graduate tax if they are trying to have one in all but name.
Because nobody knows how to deal with historic graduates and still pretend it’s fair.
A simple solution to that would be to give everyone on one of the old systems a one-off choice - stay on existing loan or join the new graduate tax and have the loan written off.
I thought the argument against grad tax was more about overseas students then not paying back the loan if working abroad. Something of a paper argument, as they also - if working abroad for life, or UK citizen working abroad for life - would not be paying off the loan either. So in theory the loan cannot be dodged by working abroad (although it can simply not be paid) whereas a tax could be doged by working abroad. If there is a concern about that then it probably would be legal now to differentiate between UK and non-UK citizens and offer a tax to the former and a loan to the latter (probably was not possible to do that for at least EU students whilst in the EU?)
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
As so often, everybody misunderstands the actual situation with student loans. For 90%+ of students this factoid irrelevant, they were never paying them back over the course of their lifetime. Student loans are for all intents and purposes a capped graduate tax.
The people being diddled as the government (and in return all of us) as the debt gets written off.
What interest did you pay?
The point is that the whole loan/interest thing is a painfully thin bit of obfuscation for the fact that this is a graduate tax in a hat. Most students today will never pay off the loan (and those that do have probably been foolish when you do the lifetime cost calculation). So the "interest rate" is irrelevant, since the total loan amount is greater than the sum of the lifetime total of minimum payments.
IT sounds a complete dogs dinner.
Why not just have a graduate tax if they are trying to have one in all but name.
A graduate tax would encourage immigration to avoid it.
Full responsibility: "I did it. I lied about it. I'm sorry. I resign."
Johnson-style responsibility: "I did it, but nobody told me having beers, on my birthday, surrounded by a group singing 'happy birthday', was a party. It's their fault. They made me lie. So I'm staying." https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1514160069952389122
Actually Sky have played a piece with Boris at a school on the same day with the schoolchildren singing happy birthday and giving him a cake
I expect the result of all this is that we will not have such draconian rules again, irrespective of whether Boris survives or not
The quicky birthday cake hand over after a meeting with Sunak is the least offensive of all the parties iirc. Others involve invites, bring your own booze, went on for hours etc etc.
Anyway, at the end of the day the real hardcore of the issue is that he lied about it to Commons at first hoping to get away with it. That is a resignation issue and they all know it.
So far only Nigel Adams MP has shown an ounce of backbone iirc.
I understand very serious conversations are going on with conservative mps, and he may not be as safe as some are suggesting
Next week the HOC is back plus possibly more fines and pictures then Sue Gray's report could see his mps act and it is the moment of most peril for his leadership
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
As so often, everybody misunderstands the actual situation with student loans. For 90%+ of students this factoid irrelevant, they were never paying them back over the course of their lifetime. Student loans are for all intents and purposes a capped graduate tax.
The people being diddled as the government (and in return all of us) as the debt gets written off.
What interest did you pay?
The point is that the whole loan/interest thing is a painfully thin bit of obfuscation for the fact that this is a graduate tax in a hat. Most students today will never pay off the loan (and those that do have probably been foolish when you do the lifetime cost calculation). So the "interest rate" is irrelevant, since the total loan amount is greater than the sum of the lifetime total of minimum payments.
IT sounds a complete dogs dinner.
Why not just have a graduate tax if they are trying to have one in all but name.
Because you will be adding a new tax band, 9% on everybody tax bill for their entire lifetime over £27k. The PR for that would make NI rise look minor and also its a terrible message to successful people and I am pretty sure lead to brain drain.
Also those of us that had a loan and paid it off. Are we to pay again ?!
Right, I am not paying again after I wrote a £30k cheque already....I would be 100% off if they government turned around and said now I need to start paying 9% extra.
My money is on Johnson staying through to the next GE.
The MPs and members knew he was a feckless lazy liar when they elected him so the fact that he just keeps proving the point time and again doesn't alter anything. They didn't care then and they don't care now. The Conservative Party has morphed into UKIP-lite and is sadly following the route of the GOP, albeit to a lesser extent so far.
Many of the ex-Tories on PB have of course realised this and left the party.
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
As so often, everybody misunderstands the actual situation with student loans. For 90%+ of students this factoid irrelevant, they were never paying them back over the course of their lifetime. Student loans are for all intents and purposes a capped graduate tax.
The people being diddled as the government (and in return all of us) as the debt gets written off.
What interest did you pay?
The point is that the whole loan/interest thing is a painfully thin bit of obfuscation for the fact that this is a graduate tax in a hat. Most students today will never pay off the loan (and those that do have probably been foolish when you do the lifetime cost calculation). So the "interest rate" is irrelevant, since the total loan amount is greater than the sum of the lifetime total of minimum payments.
IT sounds a complete dogs dinner.
Why not just have a graduate tax if they are trying to have one in all but name.
Because you will be adding a new tax band, 9% on everybody tax bill for their entire lifetime over £27k. The PR for that would make NI rise look minor and also its a terrible message to successful people and I am pretty sure lead to brain drain.
Also those of us that had a loan and paid it off. Are we to pay again ?!
Like NI, a grad loan is a de facto tax - but the political cost of turning it into an actual tax would be enormous. To turn it into a tax they'd have to 'cut off' with new graduates in much the same way the state pension is a bit different if you're older or younger.
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
As so often, everybody misunderstands the actual situation with student loans. For 90%+ of students this factoid irrelevant, they were never paying them back over the course of their lifetime. Student loans are for all intents and purposes a capped graduate tax.
The people being diddled as the government (and in return all of us) as the debt gets written off.
What interest did you pay?
The point is that the whole loan/interest thing is a painfully thin bit of obfuscation for the fact that this is a graduate tax in a hat. Most students today will never pay off the loan (and those that do have probably been foolish when you do the lifetime cost calculation). So the "interest rate" is irrelevant, since the total loan amount is greater than the sum of the lifetime total of minimum payments.
IT sounds a complete dogs dinner.
Why not just have a graduate tax if they are trying to have one in all but name.
Because you will be adding a new tax band, 9% on everybody tax bill for their entire lifetime after first £27k. The PR for that would make NI rise look minor and also its a terrible message to successful people and I am pretty sure lead to a brain drain. Remember also if it a tax bill, it doesn't follow them if they move, as the moment it does. If you move abroad you still have to pay it.
I don’t know anyone that kept up student loan repayments when they moved abroad. Part of the problem is that the portfolio is so poorly managed.
Bit of a scoop in Private Eye. We were discussing Owen Jones last night. This is not a good look for him or the Guardian
‘Owen Jones has relentlessly persecuted women online, including his own colleagues. An external investigator brought in by The Guardian has found him guilty of bullying a female columnist. Yet it has tried to keep the report quiet and appears not to have sanctioned Jones at all.’
It doesn't surprise me. You don't have to look that hard to find that Owen Jones has instigated loads of social media pile-ons / attempts at "cancelling" people and then tries to claim nothing to do with him and hides behind as a gay man everybody is being homophobic yadda yadda (especially after he was physically attacked in public). We all remember when he had a total meltdown on Sky News and stomped off, claiming it was all homophobic.
“Today’s reading for RPI inflation means that the maximum interest rate, which is charged to current students and graduates earning more than £49,130, will rise from its current level of 4.5% to an eye-watering 12%”
Although it’s actually a fair bit more complicated than that, if you read the link…
12%. That is absolutely outrageous given how low base rates are.
One could make an agreement that student loans rates ought to be based on gilt rates plus a bit for risk.
AFAICS it is RPI + 3%, based on the rate the previous March.
RTPI this morning is 9%; CPI is 7%.
Which would be 12%.
They are right that this is way out of balance, and exasperated by the current algorithm. Just the same as the energy cap, which has not been sensibly mitigated.
CPI is a no brainer, since nearly everything else has moved to that. I do not expect BJ and co to do even that. They (BJ + RS) will lose the political capital of moving when he should, and will then have to do it anyway so he will lose the advantage of the savings he was hoping to make for the Govt as well.
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
As so often, everybody misunderstands the actual situation with student loans. For 90%+ of students this factoid irrelevant, they were never paying them back over the course of their lifetime. Student loans are for all intents and purposes a capped graduate tax.
The people being diddled as the government (and in return all of us) as the debt gets written off.
What interest did you pay?
The point is that the whole loan/interest thing is a painfully thin bit of obfuscation for the fact that this is a graduate tax in a hat. Most students today will never pay off the loan (and those that do have probably been foolish when you do the lifetime cost calculation). So the "interest rate" is irrelevant, since the total loan amount is greater than the sum of the lifetime total of minimum payments.
The difficult bit is whether to pay it off if in receipt of a windfall, say a £50 k inheiritance.
You would feel very stupid if you did that, then a future government abolished the scheme and brought in a graduate tax.
I would favour a low rate of interest, say gilt rates +1% for expenses, and encourage early repayment so that everyone benefits including government coffers. It would have to be bipartisan though.
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
As so often, everybody misunderstands the actual situation with student loans. For 90%+ of students this factoid irrelevant, they were never paying them back over the course of their lifetime. Student loans are for all intents and purposes a capped graduate tax.
The people being diddled as the government (and in return all of us) as the debt gets written off.
What interest did you pay?
The point is that the whole loan/interest thing is a painfully thin bit of obfuscation for the fact that this is a graduate tax in a hat. Most students today will never pay off the loan (and those that do have probably been foolish when you do the lifetime cost calculation). So the "interest rate" is irrelevant, since the total loan amount is greater than the sum of the lifetime total of minimum payments.
The difficult bit is whether to pay it off if in receipt of a windfall, say a £50 k inheiritance.
You would feel very stupid if you did that, then a future government abolished the scheme and brought in a graduate tax.
I would favour a low rate of interest, say gilt rates +1% for expenses, and encourage early repayment so that everyone benefits including government coffers. It would have to be bipartisan though.
Basically in nearly every case, no you don't pay it off. I did, and it was a stupid decision. Again, it isn't really about wanting people to pay it off or not, it is not really a loan, its a capped graduate tax. You could see it as actually "progressive" as with the higher rate as you catch well paid people for longer (in fact nearly all their lives).
If it was only 1-2%, lots of people who make decent money would pay this off really quickly, while people on £30-40k a year would still be saddled with repayments for most of their lives.
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
As so often, everybody misunderstands the actual situation with student loans. For 90%+ of students this factoid irrelevant, they were never paying them back over the course of their lifetime. Student loans are for all intents and purposes a capped graduate tax.
The people being diddled as the government (and in return all of us) as the debt gets written off.
What interest did you pay?
The point is that the whole loan/interest thing is a painfully thin bit of obfuscation for the fact that this is a graduate tax in a hat. Most students today will never pay off the loan (and those that do have probably been foolish when you do the lifetime cost calculation). So the "interest rate" is irrelevant, since the total loan amount is greater than the sum of the lifetime total of minimum payments.
IT sounds a complete dogs dinner.
Why not just have a graduate tax if they are trying to have one in all but name.
Because you will be adding a new tax band, 9% on everybody tax bill for their entire lifetime over £27k. The PR for that would make NI rise look minor and also its a terrible message to successful people and I am pretty sure lead to brain drain.
Also those of us that had a loan and paid it off. Are we to pay again ?!
I'd say not.
Those of us who invested in insulating our houses 15 or 30 years ago are not going to get grants now for what we did then.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I hate STW (aka the SWP rebadged for people who shop at Waitrose) but this is out of date - the statement you link to is dated 18 February. The war began (or at least it’s current incarnation started) on 24 February. So it’s not perhaps surprising that there is not much space devoted to the Russian occupation.
I'm unsure that is of any relevance. Everyone knew the war was going to occur, and STW's website currently does not look much different.
Here's the strapline at the top of the website: "We’re calling on the British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine and give its support to a negotiated peace by backing the peace proposals now being discussed by Ukrainian President Zelensky and his Russian counterparts…"
"talking up the war."
It's our fault, apparently.
Note there's no call for Russia to pull out of Ukraine: the easiest way for this war to be stopped.
I'm not a STW fan but your post prompted me to have a look. Reading the piece behind the strapline I see
"President Zelensky has outlined the two most essential conditions of peace: that the invading Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine and that the Ukraine will become a neutral country, not a member of NATO. These terms are the basis of an agreement, according to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
We welcome these developments as the necessary first steps to ending the bloodshed, allowing refugees to return to their homes, and ending the economic damage being done to the livelihoods of ordinary working people both in the combatant states are [sic] around the globe."
That is not a particularly outrageous view, and certainly not treason. I agree that it doesn't explicitly assign blame and the statement is pretty naively optimistic about the peace talks but citing Zelensky approvingly and calling it a Russian invasion is reasonably clear.
You miss the point I was making: that the first thing it mentions is *our* responsibility. WTF does it mention 'British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine' ?
I see nothing on that site that says they want anything other than a Russian victory.
You have been all over the place on Ukraine, Nick. It is not our fault. It is not Ukraine's fault (aside from the fact they commit the ultimate crime of wanting to be a sovereign nation). It is not NATO's fault.
The war is Russia's fault. If 'Stop the War' really wanted the war to end, they would be pouring their ire onto Russia and calling on them to withdraw.
They are not.
I have been active in the peace movement, but have never liked STW as it is a hard left front, while mine is a more Christian approach to peace.
Nonetheless calling for Russian withdrawal is clearly not saying "they want a Russian victory".
They're not really calling for a Russian withdrawal though, are they? They just mention Zelenskyy's position, and ignore Lavatory's twisting and turning.
It's quite simple: they need to say: "Russia is at fault for this war and must withdraw," with no caveats. I'd also like something about stopping the war crimes they are committing.
They are calling for Russian withdrawal. You may not want to believe it, but that is the STW position.
How do you get that from what they say and the current situation?
If they want to call for a Russian withdrawal, they should say so, clearly and unambiguously. They choose not to. Read what they say: they 'welcome the developments'. They do not call for it.
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
As so often, everybody misunderstands the actual situation with student loans. For 90%+ of students this factoid irrelevant, they were never paying them back over the course of their lifetime. Student loans are for all intents and purposes a capped graduate tax.
The people being diddled as the government (and in return all of us) as the debt gets written off.
What interest did you pay?
The point is that the whole loan/interest thing is a painfully thin bit of obfuscation for the fact that this is a graduate tax in a hat. Most students today will never pay off the loan (and those that do have probably been foolish when you do the lifetime cost calculation). So the "interest rate" is irrelevant, since the total loan amount is greater than the sum of the lifetime total of minimum payments.
IT sounds a complete dogs dinner.
Why not just have a graduate tax if they are trying to have one in all but name.
The difference is a graduate tax never stops. Paying off a loan does eventually stop.
You can argue the toss about with is better/fairer, but there is a difference.
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
As so often, everybody misunderstands the actual situation with student loans. For 90%+ of students this factoid irrelevant, they were never paying them back over the course of their lifetime. Student loans are for all intents and purposes a capped graduate tax.
The people being diddled as the government (and in return all of us) as the debt gets written off.
What interest did you pay?
The point is that the whole loan/interest thing is a painfully thin bit of obfuscation for the fact that this is a graduate tax in a hat. Most students today will never pay off the loan (and those that do have probably been foolish when you do the lifetime cost calculation). So the "interest rate" is irrelevant, since the total loan amount is greater than the sum of the lifetime total of minimum payments.
IT sounds a complete dogs dinner.
Why not just have a graduate tax if they are trying to have one in all but name.
The difference is a graduate tax never stops. Paying off a loan does eventually stop.
You can argue the toss about with is better/fairer, but there is a difference.
Not for the vast majority of students since the fees went to £9,000 a year.
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
As so often, everybody misunderstands the actual situation with student loans. For 90%+ of students this factoid irrelevant, they were never paying them back over the course of their lifetime. Student loans are for all intents and purposes a capped graduate tax.
The people being diddled as the government (and in return all of us) as the debt gets written off.
What interest did you pay?
The point is that the whole loan/interest thing is a painfully thin bit of obfuscation for the fact that this is a graduate tax in a hat. Most students today will never pay off the loan (and those that do have probably been foolish when you do the lifetime cost calculation). So the "interest rate" is irrelevant, since the total loan amount is greater than the sum of the lifetime total of minimum payments.
IT sounds a complete dogs dinner.
Why not just have a graduate tax if they are trying to have one in all but name.
Because you will be adding a new tax band, 9% on everybody tax bill for their entire lifetime over £27k. The PR for that would make NI rise look minor and also its a terrible message to successful people and I am pretty sure lead to brain drain.
Also those of us that had a loan and paid it off. Are we to pay again ?!
Right, I am not paying again after I wrote a £30k cheque already....I would be 100% off if they government turned around and said now I need to start paying 9% extra.
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
As so often, everybody misunderstands the actual situation with student loans. For 90%+ of students this factoid irrelevant, they were never paying them back over the course of their lifetime. Student loans are for all intents and purposes a capped graduate tax.
The people being diddled as the government (and in return all of us) as the debt gets written off.
What interest did you pay?
The point is that the whole loan/interest thing is a painfully thin bit of obfuscation for the fact that this is a graduate tax in a hat. Most students today will never pay off the loan (and those that do have probably been foolish when you do the lifetime cost calculation). So the "interest rate" is irrelevant, since the total loan amount is greater than the sum of the lifetime total of minimum payments.
IT sounds a complete dogs dinner.
Why not just have a graduate tax if they are trying to have one in all but name.
It is a dogs dinner. The original 1990/91 scheme was a loan. The 1998 scheme off the back of the Dearing report basically provided the mechanism to convert it into a graduate tax, and that was consolidated in 2004.
I presume that this was done because it was politically easier to be seen to be "tweaking" the existing system, rather than introducing a graduate tax.
The marginal real tax rate for a middling, student loan laden professional (with or without 8 small starving children and high maintenance spouses to feed) is:
20% IT 13.25% NI 9% Loan
= 42.25%
While the working pensioner's marginal rate is 20%.
The entire thing is a scam designed to keep the headline rate for lazy journalists at 20% (now promised to go down to 19%, gosh!) while punishing aspirational people from less well off backgrounds who stay in their country and work, and who had to max out their loans to survive.
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
As so often, everybody misunderstands the actual situation with student loans. For 90%+ of students this factoid irrelevant, they were never paying them back over the course of their lifetime. Student loans are for all intents and purposes a capped graduate tax.
The people being diddled as the government (and in return all of us) as the debt gets written off.
What interest did you pay?
The point is that the whole loan/interest thing is a painfully thin bit of obfuscation for the fact that this is a graduate tax in a hat. Most students today will never pay off the loan (and those that do have probably been foolish when you do the lifetime cost calculation). So the "interest rate" is irrelevant, since the total loan amount is greater than the sum of the lifetime total of minimum payments.
IT sounds a complete dogs dinner.
Why not just have a graduate tax if they are trying to have one in all but name.
A graduate tax would encourage immigration to avoid it.
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
As so often, everybody misunderstands the actual situation with student loans. For 90%+ of students this factoid irrelevant, they were never paying them back over the course of their lifetime. Student loans are for all intents and purposes a capped graduate tax.
The people being diddled as the government (and in return all of us) as the debt gets written off.
What interest did you pay?
The point is that the whole loan/interest thing is a painfully thin bit of obfuscation for the fact that this is a graduate tax in a hat. Most students today will never pay off the loan (and those that do have probably been foolish when you do the lifetime cost calculation). So the "interest rate" is irrelevant, since the total loan amount is greater than the sum of the lifetime total of minimum payments.
The difficult bit is whether to pay it off if in receipt of a windfall, say a £50 k inheiritance.
You would feel very stupid if you did that, then a future government abolished the scheme and brought in a graduate tax.
I would favour a low rate of interest, say gilt rates +1% for expenses, and encourage early repayment so that everyone benefits including government coffers. It would have to be bipartisan though.
Basically in nearly every case, no you don't pay it off. I did, and it was a stupid decision. Again, it isn't really about wanting people to pay it off or not, it is not really a loan, its a capped graduate tax. You could see it as actually "progressive" as with the higher rate as you catch well paid people for longer (in fact nearly all their lives).
If it was only 1-2%, lots of people who make decent money would pay this off really quickly, while people on £30-40k a year would still be saddled with repayments for most of their lives.
The scheme creates a lot of perverse incentives, to emigrate (in practice the debt cannot be enforced abroad. I have a nephew in Sydney who will never pay) and not to enter a high earning career. So if you become a part time teacher or work on a checkout, you never repay.
Sweden now applying for nato membership. Finland could follow suit. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine counterproductive. President Putin wants to reduce size of alliance but will likely do opposite .. https://twitter.com/sima_kotecha/status/1514180138212155398
For low earning (post 2012) graduates, they’ll rack up £2.2k interest (9%) on a £50k student loan over the six months from September.
They’re being diddled.
As so often, everybody misunderstands the actual situation with student loans. For 90%+ of students this factoid irrelevant, they were never paying them back over the course of their lifetime. Student loans are for all intents and purposes a capped graduate tax.
The people being diddled as the government (and in return all of us) as the debt gets written off.
What interest did you pay?
The point is that the whole loan/interest thing is a painfully thin bit of obfuscation for the fact that this is a graduate tax in a hat. Most students today will never pay off the loan (and those that do have probably been foolish when you do the lifetime cost calculation). So the "interest rate" is irrelevant, since the total loan amount is greater than the sum of the lifetime total of minimum payments.
The difficult bit is whether to pay it off if in receipt of a windfall, say a £50 k inheiritance.
You would feel very stupid if you did that, then a future government abolished the scheme and brought in a graduate tax.
I would favour a low rate of interest, say gilt rates +1% for expenses, and encourage early repayment so that everyone benefits including government coffers. It would have to be bipartisan though.
Basically in nearly every case, no you don't pay it off. I did, and it was a stupid decision. Again, it isn't really about wanting people to pay it off or not, it is not really a loan, its a capped graduate tax. You could see it as actually "progressive" as with the higher rate as you catch well paid people for longer (in fact nearly all their lives).
If it was only 1-2%, lots of people who make decent money would pay this off really quickly, while people on £30-40k a year would still be saddled with repayments for most of their lives.
The scheme creates a lot of perverse incentives, to emigrate (in practice the debt cannot be enforced abroad. I have a nephew in Sydney who will never pay) and not to enter a high earning career. So if you become a part time teacher or work on a checkout, you never repay.
Personally, as somebody more right leaning economically, I don't have a problem with that. But if you are more "progressive" are you going to be happy to saddle say somebody on £35-40k a year with a tax bill of 9% on that taxable £10k that means they still aren't going to be able to pay off the debt, while somebody who says gets to £100k a year 10 years after graduating, while be heavily incentivised (and able) to clear that debt and then never have to pay any more student loan repayments.
In terms of emigrating, if you just had a graduate tax, that would be even more explicitly encourage emigration. The current system, most people don't understand it, effectively an amount of tax just disappears out their wage packet every month in the same way as NI does.
This scandal is simultaneously outrageous and boring. It’s OMG and Yawn
I can see Boris surviving, quite easily, out of voter apathy
Is anyone out there really boiling with anger? I doubt it. It’s like a car crash filmed in such ultra-slow-motion you lose interest
As I say downthread, it's more a "fuck that, I'm not getting off my arse for that clown" come election time, rather than "MAKE WAY, I'M VOTING FOR THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS, THE LAST BASTION OF RIGHTOUSNESS, TO SMITE THESE WRONGDOERS".
Sadly, Clegg having messed up.
Indeed. Sorry yellows but there remains something grating about your messaging. A lot more work needed to attract floating voters rather than just preaching to the choir. In May if I get around to it I’ll be voting for the local independent candidate once again, that runs under the banner of a loose coalition of independent candidates.
Lib Dems still not doing enough for me. Boris broke the rules because the rules were stupid, draconian and ill advised. Whereas we still see too much pearl clutching about him needing to go because he didn’t piously adhere to those stupid rules.
I'm not quite as worried about Boris breaking the rules but about his insisting that he didn't, and indeed that there was no opportunity for him to do so.
I must say I don't envy Conservative canvassers over the next couple of weeks. I expect that we'll be told that in Epping they've been welcomed, of course.
I'd like to think the people of Epping will be asking themselves a more pertinent question: who will empty my dustbins next week? Surely the answer there, as almost everywhere, would be the LibDems?
Scaffies vote LD? Or LD activists are conscripted onto the bin lorries?
Comments
Can we now read it as a fact that the Mail consider the replacement of Chamberlain with Churchill in WWII to be a stupid mistake?
If not, why not? I understand there was a bloody war on at the time, and one somewhat closer to home and with a large number of British troops already in action.
Not my view, but not completely daft either.
The world seems to have moved on from the formal, chessboard style of 'war' between nations seen in the past to a less formal situation, almost as per Orwell in '1984'.
I don't think it's true to say that 'Everyone knew the war was going to occur'; it seemed very possible but countries had moved right up to the brink before and stepped back. It's revolutionaries, as suggested in my previous sentence which don't.
What is happening in Ukraine is appalling; like most people I've made contributions to Ukraine relief funds and I've emailed my MP to say how ashamed I feel of Britains response to the refugee situation.
However, I wouldn't be too surprised if the Donbass area was transferred to Russia, probably with population movements, and some Russian 'loyalists' still in Ukraine took the opportunity to move to Russia.
7 billion is quite a lot to lose however wealthy you are.
https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2022/04/13/assets-suspected-to-be-linked-to-abramovich-frozen/
They’re being diddled.
And similar. It has been a thing since the invention of weapons that usage often greatly outstrips supply and production.
Hit rates are often tiny. Expenditure of anti-tank missiles (for example) has always been vastly higher than supplies - from their introduction in the 60s onwards.
Henry V is believed to have taken a million arrows to Agincourt.
There were people worrying in the 80s that the stocks of vaguely smart weapons would be fired in a week, if the Russians went Full Tonto at the Fulda Gap.
This goes up and down the weapons pyramid - if you want a new fighter jet, lead time is *years*.
If they want to call for a Russian withdrawal, they should say so, clearly and unambiguously. They choose not to. Read what they say: they 'welcome the developments'. They do not call for it.
Why don't they call for it?
Although Johnson does get some kudos for the UK position with regard to Ukraine, the general view over here is that he is a pretty fly and untrustworthy cove, and it is Britain as a whole that has been committed to fight, so I don´t think that there would be too many concerns if he went. Indeed, a new UK leader may be able to get far better responses from the EU NATO members, which Johnson has singularly failed to do.
The pressure in the Baltic is still quite severe, with several hundred new refugees arriving every day. However there is some pride here that Estonia has managed to supply nearly four times more weapons to Ukraine than either France or Germany. More than half of Estonian households have also donated to Ukrainian causes.
As the Russian tanks disappear into the Ukrainian steppe, there is a sense that for the time being the direct military threat to the Baltic is reducing fast. If Finland (and possibly Sweden) does join NATO, then the overall security position in the Baltic will improve substantially.
As for Russia itself: the support of large numbers of Russians not only for the attack on Ukraine, but for the brutal and despicible way the war has been conducted is duly noted, and even Russian speakers here are shocked. Indeed the power of the Russian media here has fallen sharply, not only because access has been restricted, but the contrast between the free media reporting and the Russian media is so extreme as to be grotesque. Russia is going into a very dark place indeed. The civilised world should not tolerate the barbarian Putin for one second more than it has to.
The latest attack by Russian forces against the Donbas is better coordinated and led than last time, but the Russian losses on the Northern front will be difficult to replace. The Estonians do view the current situation as an emergency, which is why so much kit has been sent to Ukraine. We must hope that the Ukrainians can continue to hold on.
The cold winter has clung on, but spring is finally on its way, and we hope that a comprehensive defeat in Ukraine might turn Russia away from the road to catastrophe. Nevertheless, for as long as the Mafiosi are in charge in the Kremlin, there remains a high risk of their casual contempt for human life leading to an all out nuclear war. As in the Cold War, we must remember that the best way to preserve peace is to ensure our deterents are credible and that the challenge to the global order by Putin in the name of the neofascist rubbish of Dugin, must be comprehensively beaten. This is our final warning.
a) The earning threshold at which you start paying it back.
b) The percentage you pay.
c) How long you are liable to pay before it gets written off.
It's a graduate tax, and I think I'm right in saying that the last one changed (i.e. got worse) quite recently, but barely got a mention in the news.
Lib Dems still not doing enough for me. Boris broke the rules because the rules were stupid, draconian and ill advised. Whereas we still see too much pearl clutching about him needing to go because he didn’t piously adhere to those stupid rules.
And again, you're getting dangerously near blaming others for Russia's aggression: what 'concessions' could Ukraine have offered? Listen to what Putin's asked for: it is nothing other than not just Ukraine, but virtually entire Eastern Europe, under Russia's thumb.
And answer another question: why on earth should Russia have got concessions?
To punish Putin, shove a red hot poker up his arse.
Handle first, so the hot bit is left outside.
So his useful idiots in the West can’t pull it out.
I must say I don't envy Conservative canvassers over the next couple of weeks. I expect that we'll be told that in Epping they've been welcomed, of course.
Hopefully the same lesson is being learned in the Pacific as well. Aukus / Jaukus a good start but doesn’t go far enough for me.
As for Russia, not at all clear we will have a moment of reckoning whereby the mass of Russian public opinion has that crucial moment of introspection over the nation’s actions. It’s going to be a puss filled boil on the side of Europe’s face for a good long while sadly.
https://www.stopwar.org.uk/
You are peddling fake news. There are worse organisations than STW to peddle fake news against but you (and PB) should have higher standards.
Indeed Blair was even recently blethering about it needing to increase to 75%
Young people were sold a lie by New Labour.
The people being diddled are the government (and in return all of us) as the debt gets written off.
"STOP THE WAR IN UKRAINE - RUSSIAN TROOPS OUT NO NATO EXPANSION - NO NUCLEAR WAR"
https://www.stopwar.org.uk/
It reads pretty clear and unambiguously to me.
Stop the war in Ukraine - Russian troops out no
NATO expansion - No nuclear war
Better formatting needed, I think. Unless STW do favour NATO expansion and are against Russian troop withdrawal!
The problem is actually the system encourages too many to go to university full time, saddling the tax payer will all this unpaid debt over the next 40-50 years.
I have said this a million times here on PB. What we actually need is a system where it isn't seen as bad to go to university part-time around a job and also practically every student who is full time moving away from home and incurring his massive extra debt just to go to a middling uni, when a similar ranked one is just around the corner.
The biggest rip off that has occurred in the uni sector, and never talked about, accommodation costs. Quite normal for a room in halls to be £150-200 a week and students forced to pay 40-50 weeks of the year. You can get a mortgage on your own flat, even house, in many places that are charging this. £8-10k a year just to live in a pokey room.
Anyway, at the end of the day the real hardcore of the issue is that he lied about it to Commons at first hoping to get away with it. That is a resignation issue and they all know it.
So far only Nigel Adams MP has shown an ounce of backbone iirc.
The claim that Lavrov believes that withdrawing Russian troops from Ukraine is the basis of any peace agreement is from cloud cuckoo land imo.
The international borders of Ukraine, as recognised and affirmed by other countries including Russia, include the Crimea, Donbas and Luhansk. This includes areas of Ukraine which the Russian Government of which Lavrov is Foreign Minister have 'annexed' and now claim to be a part of Russia.
STWC are trying to create a moral equivalence been Russia and Ukraine - between the aggressor and their victim.
I can only suggest that STW are - as in my view is their SOP - just trying further to con their gullibles.
No Nato - Expansion? No. Nuclear war.
I still maintain what I was saying about "British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine"
Do you agree with that statement?
Why not just have a graduate tax if they are trying to have one in all but name.
Russian troops out? No
No NATO - Expansion? No
Nuclear war
The awesome truth is that if Nato had pledged that an attack on Ukraine was to be treated as breaching Article 5 the invasion would never have happened.
‘Owen Jones has relentlessly persecuted women online, including his own colleagues. An external investigator brought in by The Guardian has found him guilty of bullying a female columnist. Yet it has tried to keep the report quiet and appears not to have sanctioned Jones at all.’
https://twitter.com/victoriapeckham/status/1514169122027884544?s=21&t=k6u1A4BZmOEQvg3zmxC7hg
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/student-loans-tuition-fees-changes/
In Ukraine Russian troops
Out no
Nato Expansion? No.
Nuclear war
I presume that this was done because it was politically easier to be seen to be "tweaking" the existing system, rather than introducing a graduate tax.
And Putin probably really really does hate NATO
Stop the war in Ukraine - Russian troops out.
No Nato - expansion. No nuclear war.
But it is confusing as it's all caps, and one could subliminally read it as Russian troops out? No!
One plan is that halls of residence get permission much more easily. Build them en mass is a so-so area. Round the corner from where I live, they are doing this. Following some gentrification, they knock the partitions through to turn them into proper flats and flog them. Then build some more student accommodation….
The student fees are a vital part of the business plan - as is rest of the mega-campus setups. The idea is to get all the spending money from the students - eating, drinking, sleeping… a company town.
That’s why universities were shitting themselves about remote study….
The last two years and 3 months are already a blur for me. I’ve forgotten what happened when, was it 2020 or 21, and what’s more, I don’t care. Just forget it. Forget the whole thing. This will be a universal urge
I thought the argument against grad tax was more about overseas students then not paying back the loan if working abroad. Something of a paper argument, as they also - if working abroad for life, or UK citizen working abroad for life - would not be paying off the loan either. So in theory the loan cannot be dodged by working abroad (although it can simply not be paid) whereas a tax could be doged by working abroad. If there is a concern about that then it probably would be legal now to differentiate between UK and non-UK citizens and offer a tax to the former and a loan to the latter (probably was not possible to do that for at least EU students whilst in the EU?)
A graduate debt follows you….
Next week the HOC is back plus possibly more fines and pictures then Sue Gray's report could see his mps act and it is the moment of most peril for his leadership
The MPs and members knew he was a feckless lazy liar when they elected him so the fact that he just keeps proving the point time and again doesn't alter anything. They didn't care then and they don't care now. The Conservative Party has morphed into UKIP-lite and is sadly following the route of the GOP, albeit to a lesser extent so far.
Many of the ex-Tories on PB have of course realised this and left the party.
RTPI this morning is 9%; CPI is 7%.
Which would be 12%.
They are right that this is way out of balance, and exasperated by the current algorithm. Just the same as the energy cap, which has not been sensibly mitigated.
CPI is a no brainer, since nearly everything else has moved to that. I do not expect BJ and co to do even that. They (BJ + RS) will lose the political capital of moving when he should, and will then have to do it anyway so he will lose the advantage of the savings he was hoping to make for the Govt as well.
You would feel very stupid if you did that, then a future government abolished the scheme and brought in a graduate tax.
I would favour a low rate of interest, say gilt rates +1% for expenses, and encourage early repayment so that everyone benefits including government coffers. It would have to be bipartisan though.
If it was only 1-2%, lots of people who make decent money would pay this off really quickly, while people on £30-40k a year would still be saddled with repayments for most of their lives.
Those of us who invested in insulating our houses 15 or 30 years ago are not going to get grants now for what we did then.
You can argue the toss about with is better/fairer, but there is a difference.
French President Emmanuel Macron said: “I would be careful with such terms today because these two peoples (Russians and Ukrainians) are brothers.”
https://twitter.com/kyivindependent/status/1514174397577367555
Keir Starmer has transformed the party in his first two years as leader, but Labour is still lacking personalities
Time to send for Ed Balls?
Latest @FinancialTimes column
https://www.ft.com/content/9082bfed-c4ae-4a21-9731-72b809cc7157
20% IT
13.25% NI
9% Loan
= 42.25%
While the working pensioner's marginal rate is 20%.
The entire thing is a scam designed to keep the headline rate for lazy journalists at 20% (now promised to go down to 19%, gosh!) while punishing aspirational people from less well off backgrounds who stay in their country and work, and who had to max out their loans to survive.
Meritocracy it is not.
https://twitter.com/sima_kotecha/status/1514180138212155398
In terms of emigrating, if you just had a graduate tax, that would be even more explicitly encourage emigration. The current system, most people don't understand it, effectively an amount of tax just disappears out their wage packet every month in the same way as NI does.