Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Savanta poll: By 58% to 35% the rail strikes are “justified” – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited June 22 in General
imageSavanta poll: By 58% to 35% the rail strikes are “justified” – politicalbetting.com

I added the above Savanta poll as an update sometime after the previous post was published and given its findings I thought it was worth a thread in Its own right. For the whole of Ministers’ strategy has been based on the public backing their robust opposition to the rail workers. If Savanta is right then Team Johnson has got this one wrong.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,988
    Farage not too unhappy with the Brexit backing RMT led strike either. However clearly support for and against splits along party lines

    https://twitter.com/DenisMacShane/status/1539329313111146497?s=20&t=aRwk1jzSowYeknTxKjrlPw
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877
    HYUFD said:

    Farage not too unhappy with the Brexit backing RMT led strike either. However clearly support for and against splits along party lines

    https://twitter.com/DenisMacShane/status/1539329313111146497?s=20&t=aRwk1jzSowYeknTxKjrlPw

    37% of Tory 2019 voters find these strikes justified?
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,195
    It does appear that the strikes are hardly in the govt's favour, its hard to bash the Labour-Union link in the current climate, and although a winter of discontent is likely to make things a little bit harder, reminding voters that things are really bad does not bode well as this govt approaches the end of its 3rd (or 13th) year in government
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,988

    HYUFD said:

    Farage not too unhappy with the Brexit backing RMT led strike either. However clearly support for and against splits along party lines

    https://twitter.com/DenisMacShane/status/1539329313111146497?s=20&t=aRwk1jzSowYeknTxKjrlPw

    37% of Tory 2019 voters find these strikes justified?
    55% don't.

    If you look at Yougov, 72% of Tory voters oppose the strikes, 65% of Labour voters support them

    Remember too 2019 Con voters includes some redwall Labour voters who normally vote Labour, voted for Boris once to get Brexit done and now have gone back to Labour
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1539255468979257346?s=20&t=dIx7KKX94Q7YBae2nat0DA
  • PensfoldPensfold Posts: 167
    The rail strike issue is less what the public think than which side is seen to win.

    If mosr people (including commuters) are not bothered then the union could find it is on a hiding to nothing. The government will want the union to be seen to lose so as to discourage other groups from strikes.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farage not too unhappy with the Brexit backing RMT led strike either. However clearly support for and against splits along party lines

    https://twitter.com/DenisMacShane/status/1539329313111146497?s=20&t=aRwk1jzSowYeknTxKjrlPw

    37% of Tory 2019 voters find these strikes justified?
    55% don't.

    If you look at Yougov, 72% of Tory voters oppose the strikes, 65% of Labour voters support them

    Remember too 2019 Con voters includes some redwall Labour voters who normally vote Labour, voted for Boris once to get Brexit done and now have gone back to Labour
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1539255468979257346?s=20&t=dIx7KKX94Q7YBae2nat0DA
    But without those you writing off you don’t have much or any majority?

    But hold on

    37% of 13941086

    =

    5158201

    13941086 minus 5158201

    You’ve only got 8,782,885 voters left if the election is “who governs Britain?”
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877
    edited June 22

    It does appear that the strikes are hardly in the govt's favour, its hard to bash the Labour-Union link in the current climate, and although a winter of discontent is likely to make things a little bit harder, reminding voters that things are really bad does not bode well as this govt approaches the end of its 3rd (or 13th) year in government

    “It does appear that the strikes are hardly in the govt's favour”

    But how does the government actually lose?

    Victory for union is 7% pay increase, slower modernisation on staffing levels, with more generous leaving offers and no involuntary redundancies, no watering down of Ts&Cs.

    Victory for government is union accepts less than 7%, agrees to faster modernisation programme on staffing levels, with option of involuntary redundancy left on table.

    But what pressures the government into u turns and concessions at this negotiation table? If in the governments mind it’s not an industrial dispute, it’s a dispute it has to win politically, it cannot lose for sake of its economic strategy battling inflation, where does any pressure come onto the government? There’s no pressure comparable to conceding and losing.

    In theory the whole country could be bankrupt by this strike, and still the government won’t concede an inch, if it’s existential for them politically to win.

    If government cannot surpress public sector pay in the coming months it says goodbye to winning the next election. So the union cannot win this one, there is zero pressure it can apply on the government to meaningfully talk and concede anything.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877
    Pensfold said:

    The rail strike issue is less what the public think than which side is seen to win.

    If mosr people (including commuters) are not bothered then the union could find it is on a hiding to nothing. The government will want the union to be seen to lose so as to discourage other groups from strikes.

    Spot on. The Union are on a hiding to nothing here. They cannot win in any scenario.

    It’s not existential for the Union to accept 4% and redundancies - it is existential crisis for the government to be seen to lose this one.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877

    Pensfold said:

    The rail strike issue is less what the public think than which side is seen to win.

    If mosr people (including commuters) are not bothered then the union could find it is on a hiding to nothing. The government will want the union to be seen to lose so as to discourage other groups from strikes.

    Spot on. The Union are on a hiding to nothing here. They cannot win in any scenario.

    It’s not existential for the Union to accept 4% and redundancies - it is existential crisis for the government to be seen to lose this one.
    It’s existential crisis to the governments re-election hopes if they cannot keep a lid on pay rises because Tory’s are not working would be a killer one liner. There is no longer a single economist who can tell you how quickly UK inflation will fall and to what levels, if you find one who is sure, they are simply lying, but energy price, which has largely driven it so far will stop inflating, so inflation can then fall, provided other types of inflation such as wage inflation does not fuel it instead.

    I don’t think I am saying anything particularly ground breaking or clever here, why don’t we just keep it simple. The government does not need wage inflation to start fuelling inflation, it needs inflation down asap. If the government loses industrial disputes it will start to set a bit of a trend. Across public and private sector, if rail industry can get 7% rise then why can’t I? The main reason this post is on topic is because you would expect NHS staff and teachers to do far better in these sort of polls than ticket office staff and train guards?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877
    It’s Wednesday already which means by elections are tomorrow. I am 2 hours ahead of you in Malta so if declaration is 4am I will hear it first, then I will post and let you know what happened. Take care 🙋‍♀️
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,195

    It does appear that the strikes are hardly in the govt's favour, its hard to bash the Labour-Union link in the current climate, and although a winter of discontent is likely to make things a little bit harder, reminding voters that things are really bad does not bode well as this govt approaches the end of its 3rd (or 13th) year in government

    “It does appear that the strikes are hardly in the govt's favour”

    But how does the government actually lose?

    Victory for union is 7% pay increase, slower modernisation on staffing levels, with more generous leaving offers and no involuntary redundancies, no watering down of Ts&Cs.

    Victory for government is union accepts less than 7%, agrees to faster modernisation programme on staffing levels, with option of involuntary redundancy left on table.

    But what pressures the government into u turns and concessions at this negotiation table? If in the governments mind it’s not an industrial dispute, it’s a dispute it has to win politically, it cannot lose for sake of its economic strategy battling inflation, where does any pressure come onto the government? There’s no pressure comparable to conceding and losing.

    In theory the whole country could be bankrupt by this strike, and still the government won’t concede an inch, if it’s existential for them politically to win.

    If government cannot surpress public sector pay in the coming months it says goodbye to winning the next election. So the union cannot win this one, there is zero pressure it can apply on the government to meaningfully talk and concede anything.
    Suppressing public sector pay will do the govt no favours among voters many of whom are public sector employees who are facing a squeeze of unprecedented proportions (wait till mortgage rates start moving properly), the red wall seats, voters in Armed Forces, Police services, local govt etc (and family members), they will vent their unhappiness through the ballot box
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326
    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,267
    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    Quite a pickle Lithuania are in. They are simply implementing EU sanctions. So either they break with EU sanctions, or they do this.

    Russia would be absolutely unbelievably idiotic to attack Lithuania now.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326
    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19



  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,876
    Foxy said:
    I haven't been following this in detail, but everything I have heard has sounded completely insane.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,876
    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19
    The only two reasons I can think of for Russia attacking NATO are that:

    1. The Russians conclude they will lose the war in Ukraine and they believe defeat against NATO is politically more survivable than defeat against Ukraine alone.

    2. The Russians convince themselves that NATO is even more of a Potemkin military than Russia and they can force NATO to stop supplying arms to Ukraine by exposing NATO weakness and division.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326

    Foxy said:
    I haven't been following this in detail, but everything I have heard has sounded completely insane.
    It does seem that the "good guys with guns are the way to respond to school shootings" is not a particularly robust one.

    It also seems that the classroom door was not locked.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790
    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19
    Well, Belarus is making noises about attacking Ukraine again to protect itself from Poland (yeah, right...), and it remains to be seen if Lukashenko will march his men down the hill again.

    As for Kaliningrad: the Russians have lots of military there, including nukes and its Baltic Fleet. A fair number of soldiers as well.

    Lithuania is in a damned if it does, damned if it does not situation.

    As with the original invasion, if Russia does anything it is not because they have been 'poked' or provoked. They will do something because their leader wants a new empire that encompasses the territory of neighbouring independent states.

    Putin and Russia see any reaction that goes against their wishes as an escalation.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19
    The only two reasons I can think of for Russia attacking NATO are that:

    1. The Russians conclude they will lose the war in Ukraine and they believe defeat against NATO is politically more survivable than defeat against Ukraine alone.

    2. The Russians convince themselves that NATO is even more of a Potemkin military than Russia and they can force NATO to stop supplying arms to Ukraine by exposing NATO weakness and division.
    3. Putin wants those eastern states as his legacy, so he attacks them anyway despite NATO.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19
    The only two reasons I can think of for Russia attacking NATO are that:

    1. The Russians conclude they will lose the war in Ukraine and they believe defeat against NATO is politically more survivable than defeat against Ukraine alone.

    2. The Russians convince themselves that NATO is even more of a Potemkin military than Russia and they can force NATO to stop supplying arms to Ukraine by exposing NATO weakness and division.
    Or a combination of both. A Russian invasion of Lithuania means we are at war with Russia. The US has stated that unequivocally an attack on Lithuania is an attack on all NATO members.

    The NATO force in Lithuania is mostly German. The British forces are in Estonia, I think.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790
    Estonia are alleging that Russian aircraft have repeatedly been entering their airspace, and performing simulated missile attacks.

    Of course, this is in *no way* an escalation, and just Russia doing what it needs to for self defence (where 'self' is defined as anywhere it wants...)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790
    You know all those videos we see of ammunition dumps going boom?

    This is allegedly what it is like to be near one when it does:
    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1539362629122248705

    Another of those videos that makes me feel sorry for the common Russian soldier who has been sent to fight by an evil man in an evil cause. But sadly, they need to be defeated.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,876
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19
    The only two reasons I can think of for Russia attacking NATO are that:

    1. The Russians conclude they will lose the war in Ukraine and they believe defeat against NATO is politically more survivable than defeat against Ukraine alone.

    2. The Russians convince themselves that NATO is even more of a Potemkin military than Russia and they can force NATO to stop supplying arms to Ukraine by exposing NATO weakness and division.
    Or a combination of both. A Russian invasion of Lithuania means we are at war with Russia. The US has stated that unequivocally an attack on Lithuania is an attack on all NATO members.

    The NATO force in Lithuania is mostly German. The British forces are in Estonia, I think.
    The NATO forces in the Baltics are very small. Maybe the Russians will convince themselves they have to defeat them now before they are reinforced.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769
    Brexit will cost UK workers 470 pounds a year

    Britain is becoming a more closed economy due to Brexit, with damaging long-term implications for productivity and wages which will leave the average worker 470 pounds ($577) a year poorer by the end of the decade, a study forecast on Wednesday.

    “… Brexit has had a more diffuse impact by reducing the UK's competitiveness and openness to trade with a wider range of countries. This will ultimately reduce productivity, and workers' real wages too…”

    The net effect of these [barriers] would lower productivity across the economy by 1.3% by 2030 compared with an unchanged trade relationship - translating to a 1.8% real-terms fall in annual pay of 470 pounds per worker.

    These figures do not include any assessment of the impact of changed migration rules.

    The impact for some sectors will be much starker. Britain's small but high profile fishing industry - many of whose members advocated strongly for Brexit - was likely to shrink by 30% due to difficulties exporting its fresh catch to EU customers, the report said.

    https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/brexit-will-cost-uk-workers-470-pounds-year-study-predicts-2022-06-21/
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19
    The only two reasons I can think of for Russia attacking NATO are that:

    1. The Russians conclude they will lose the war in Ukraine and they believe defeat against NATO is politically more survivable than defeat against Ukraine alone.

    2. The Russians convince themselves that NATO is even more of a Potemkin military than Russia and they can force NATO to stop supplying arms to Ukraine by exposing NATO weakness and division.
    Or a combination of both. A Russian invasion of Lithuania means we are at war with Russia. The US has stated that unequivocally an attack on Lithuania is an attack on all NATO members.

    The NATO force in Lithuania is mostly German. The British forces are in Estonia, I think.
    The NATO forces in the Baltics are very small. Maybe the Russians will convince themselves they have to defeat them now before they are reinforced.
    They maybe small, but they are there, and an attack on them would be quite the escalation, requiring air involvement to win.

    It is easy to see how this escalates if Putin attacks.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19
    The only two reasons I can think of for Russia attacking NATO are that:

    1. The Russians conclude they will lose the war in Ukraine and they believe defeat against NATO is politically more survivable than defeat against Ukraine alone.

    2. The Russians convince themselves that NATO is even more of a Potemkin military than Russia and they can force NATO to stop supplying arms to Ukraine by exposing NATO weakness and division.
    Or a combination of both. A Russian invasion of Lithuania means we are at war with Russia. The US has stated that unequivocally an attack on Lithuania is an attack on all NATO members.

    The NATO force in Lithuania is mostly German. The British forces are in Estonia, I think.
    The NATO forces in the Baltics are very small. Maybe the Russians will convince themselves they have to defeat them now before they are reinforced.
    They maybe small, but they are there, and an attack on them would be quite the escalation, requiring air involvement to win.

    It is easy to see how this escalates if Putin attacks.
    Your last clause is the important one: any attack would be Putin's will. His decision.

    He has already shown himself to be capable of making decisions that were to the detriment of people in other countries (including our own). Blaming Lithuania for 'escalating' does seem a little like victim-blaming.

    If Putin wants war, he will wage it. And he will use any excuse going to do it.

    Of course, there's another way that Putin can restore the land bridge to Kaliningrad and have sanctions removed from Russia. It's a really, really easy one, and one that it totally within his own hands.

    He could withdraw all his troops from Ukraine.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769
    edited June 22

    You know all those videos we see of ammunition dumps going boom?

    This is allegedly what it is like to be near one when it does:
    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1539362629122248705

    Another of those videos that makes me feel sorry for the common Russian soldier who has been sent to fight by an evil man in an evil cause. But sadly, they need to be defeated.

    Part of a longer video, which gives context.
    Please note that these do not appear to be poorly-trained Russian lads, but rather battle-hardened People’s Militia of the Luhansk People's Republic. If this is how experienced soldiers behave, imagine how daft untrained wee boys sent unwillingly to a foreign country behave in similar circumstances.

    From 16 June, Ukrainian military hit ammunition depot and secondary explosions, in Khrustalnyi… perhaps.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdGA88Eo8vs

    Where are their clothes, helmets, protective equipment, weapons, commanding officers and routines?
    And why is someone filming this on their mobile? Presumably later removed from their corpse by the Ukrainians and put out on the net.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19
    The only two reasons I can think of for Russia attacking NATO are that:

    1. The Russians conclude they will lose the war in Ukraine and they believe defeat against NATO is politically more survivable than defeat against Ukraine alone.

    2. The Russians convince themselves that NATO is even more of a Potemkin military than Russia and they can force NATO to stop supplying arms to Ukraine by exposing NATO weakness and division.
    Or a combination of both. A Russian invasion of Lithuania means we are at war with Russia. The US has stated that unequivocally an attack on Lithuania is an attack on all NATO members.

    The NATO force in Lithuania is mostly German. The British forces are in Estonia, I think.
    The NATO forces in the Baltics are very small. Maybe the Russians will convince themselves they have to defeat them now before they are reinforced.
    They maybe small, but they are there, and an attack on them would be quite the escalation, requiring air involvement to win.

    It is easy to see how this escalates if Putin attacks.
    If and when Russia attacks Lithuania, will fellow NATO member Turkey come to their aid? Seems unlikely.

    Heck, it isn’t that long ago since the President said the United States would not automatically defend the Baltic states from Russia if they were invaded.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/07/21/donald-trump-cast-doubt-on-the-baltics-involvement-in-nato-heres-what-they-actually-do/


  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,236

    It is almost certain that there will be a huge wave of strikes in the public sector. The government are all over the place. They have 10% inflation then insist on 1-2% pay rises - after a decade of pay being essentially frozen. Public sector workers are essentially being taken for fools. They've already been squeezed to the max already. Government will also try and turn this in to a culture war type issue, but it will fail; they keep misreading the culture, they think it is still the 70's and people remember Red Robbo or whatever but this was before most working age peoples time. The government are just playing to their own gold plated pensioner triple lock audience who are quickly dying out in vast quantities and those who are still alive are going to vote for them anyway.

    With the train strikes, I would guess that they will continue indefinetly with popular support from the professional classes who, for the most part, welcome the opportunity to WFH.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,236
    I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.

    The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.

    State pension triple lock: rises since 2011
    Financial year State pension rise Based on
    2011/12 4.6% RPI
    2012/13 5.2% CPI
    2013/14 2.5% 2.5%
    2014/15 2.7% CPI
    2015/16 2.5% 2.5%
    2016/17 2.9% Earnings
    2017/18 2.5% 2.5%
    2018/19 3% CPI
    2019/20 2.6% Earnings
    2020/21 3.9% Earnings
    2021/22 2.5% 2.5%
    2022/23 3.1% CPI

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/money-mentor/article/state-pension-increase/
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,876
    edited June 22
    darkage said:

    I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.

    The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.

    State pension triple lock: rises since 2011
    Financial year State pension rise Based on
    2011/12 4.6% RPI
    2012/13 5.2% CPI
    2013/14 2.5% 2.5%
    2014/15 2.7% CPI
    2015/16 2.5% 2.5%
    2016/17 2.9% Earnings
    2017/18 2.5% 2.5%
    2018/19 3% CPI
    2019/20 2.6% Earnings
    2020/21 3.9% Earnings
    2021/22 2.5% 2.5%
    2022/23 3.1% CPI

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/money-mentor/article/state-pension-increase/

    While that's true, it's worth seeing it in the wider context of the erosion in value of the state pension since Thatcher removed the link to earnings.

    https://www.ft.com/content/6f8531d6-ddfd-11e4-8d14-00144feab7de

    It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,633
    Do you trust this government to rewrite completely our system of individual rights ?

    No 10 to set out sweeping plans to override power of Europe’s human rights court
    Proposal to replace Human Rights Act with bill of rights is effort to make government ‘untouchable’, say critics
    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/jun/21/uks-new-bill-of-rights-will-curtail-power-of-european-human-rights-court

    With Raab in the lead…
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,236
    edited June 22

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19
    The only two reasons I can think of for Russia attacking NATO are that:

    1. The Russians conclude they will lose the war in Ukraine and they believe defeat against NATO is politically more survivable than defeat against Ukraine alone.

    2. The Russians convince themselves that NATO is even more of a Potemkin military than Russia and they can force NATO to stop supplying arms to Ukraine by exposing NATO weakness and division.
    Or a combination of both. A Russian invasion of Lithuania means we are at war with Russia. The US has stated that unequivocally an attack on Lithuania is an attack on all NATO members.

    The NATO force in Lithuania is mostly German. The British forces are in Estonia, I think.
    The NATO forces in the Baltics are very small. Maybe the Russians will convince themselves they have to defeat them now before they are reinforced.
    They maybe small, but they are there, and an attack on them would be quite the escalation, requiring air involvement to win.

    It is easy to see how this escalates if Putin attacks.
    If and when Russia attacks Lithuania, will fellow NATO member Turkey come to their aid? Seems unlikely.

    Heck, it isn’t that long ago since the President said the United States would not automatically defend the Baltic states from Russia if they were invaded.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/07/21/donald-trump-cast-doubt-on-the-baltics-involvement-in-nato-heres-what-they-actually-do/

    Turkey (or Turkiye) under Erdogan is proving to be an extremely unreliable ally. They appear to have acted in a deeply problematic manner over Finland and Sweden; only making its opposition to NATO membership for these countries known after they submitted their application. It does not bode well at all for the effectiveness and stability of the alliance.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769
    While the world is, understandably, focussing on other matters, under the radar it looks like Scottish Labour are having a wee surge. If the Tories had any common sense* they’d have a snap Independence Referendum. It’s their best chance of a win.

    Last 3 YouGov polls, the only pollster to correctly weigh geographical sub-samples:

    Voting intention - Scotland
    Reverse chronological order
    (+/- change from last UK GE)

    SNP 40 49 48 average 46% (+1)
    SLab 29 16 18 average 21% (+2)
    SCon 17 21 18 average 19% (-6)
    SLD 6 8 10 average 8% (-2)
    Grn 3 4 5 average 4% (+3)
    Ref 3 0 1 average 1% (-)
    oth (primarily Alba) 2 3 1 average 2% (+1)

    Yes parties 52% (+5)
    No parties 49% (-4)

    We desperately need some proper, full-sample polling.
    We got one for Wales the other day, but no Scottish polling in ages. Why?

    (* I know, I know…)
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,876
    A snap independence referendum - by which I assume you mean one with a short campaign in the very near future - would be criticised by Scottish Nationalists on that basis, and so would be seen as illegitimate. It would be the worst possible approach because another victory for the Union would fail to settle the issue for that reason.

    So I can see why Scot Nats would suggest it.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,236
    Nigelb said:

    Do you trust this government to rewrite completely our system of individual rights ?

    No 10 to set out sweeping plans to override power of Europe’s human rights court
    Proposal to replace Human Rights Act with bill of rights is effort to make government ‘untouchable’, say critics
    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/jun/21/uks-new-bill-of-rights-will-curtail-power-of-european-human-rights-court

    With Raab in the lead…

    Clearly the Rwanda thing was conveniently timed.
    I think that the governments proposals just need to be looked at on their merits.
    But it seems that the strategic problem is the ECHR and its role in essentially setting out domestic policy by way of its decisions, which should be in the proper realm of politics.
    What confuses me is why the government makes no attempt to seriously reform that. It just keeps coming up with flawed domestic workarounds.
    There are many echoes of the UK's relationship with the EU. It never seriously tried to actually fix the underlying problem.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 1,387
    Nigelb said:

    Do you trust this government to rewrite completely our system of individual rights ?

    No 10 to set out sweeping plans to override power of Europe’s human rights court
    Proposal to replace Human Rights Act with bill of rights is effort to make government ‘untouchable’, say critics
    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/jun/21/uks-new-bill-of-rights-will-curtail-power-of-european-human-rights-court

    With Raab in the lead…

    No 10 thinks if if just sticks British on the Bill of Rights and screams sovereignty then people will lap it up . Sadly that’s likely to be the case for those who fall for this type of guff .

  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769
    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19
    The only two reasons I can think of for Russia attacking NATO are that:

    1. The Russians conclude they will lose the war in Ukraine and they believe defeat against NATO is politically more survivable than defeat against Ukraine alone.

    2. The Russians convince themselves that NATO is even more of a Potemkin military than Russia and they can force NATO to stop supplying arms to Ukraine by exposing NATO weakness and division.
    Or a combination of both. A Russian invasion of Lithuania means we are at war with Russia. The US has stated that unequivocally an attack on Lithuania is an attack on all NATO members.

    The NATO force in Lithuania is mostly German. The British forces are in Estonia, I think.
    The NATO forces in the Baltics are very small. Maybe the Russians will convince themselves they have to defeat them now before they are reinforced.
    They maybe small, but they are there, and an attack on them would be quite the escalation, requiring air involvement to win.

    It is easy to see how this escalates if Putin attacks.
    If and when Russia attacks Lithuania, will fellow NATO member Turkey come to their aid? Seems unlikely.

    Heck, it isn’t that long ago since the President said the United States would not automatically defend the Baltic states from Russia if they were invaded.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/07/21/donald-trump-cast-doubt-on-the-baltics-involvement-in-nato-heres-what-they-actually-do/

    Turkey (or Turkiye) under Erdogan is proving to be an extremely unreliable ally. They appear to have acted in a deeply problematic manner over Finland and Sweden; only making its opposition to NATO membership for these countries known after they submitted their application. It does not bode well at all for the effectiveness and stability of the alliance.
    In fairness to Turkey, they have made their strong distaste for Sweden crystal clear in the last decade. And vice-versa. However, it is not a bilateral relationship which the rest of the planet has bothered paying much attention to. At least, not since the Great Northern War (1700–1721), the result of which arguably lies at the root of the current conflict.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_War
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769
    darkage said:

    Nigelb said:

    Do you trust this government to rewrite completely our system of individual rights ?

    No 10 to set out sweeping plans to override power of Europe’s human rights court
    Proposal to replace Human Rights Act with bill of rights is effort to make government ‘untouchable’, say critics
    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/jun/21/uks-new-bill-of-rights-will-curtail-power-of-european-human-rights-court

    With Raab in the lead…

    Clearly the Rwanda thing was conveniently timed.
    I think that the governments proposals just need to be looked at on their merits.
    But it seems that the strategic problem is the ECHR and its role in essentially setting out domestic policy by way of its decisions, which should be in the proper realm of politics.
    What confuses me is why the government makes no attempt to seriously reform that. It just keeps coming up with flawed domestic workarounds.
    There are many echoes of the UK's relationship with the EU. It never seriously tried to actually fix the underlying problem.
    “…essentially setting out domestic policy by way of its decisions, which should be in the proper realm of politics. ”

    Scots, take note.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769
    Outcome next UK GE?

    NOM 1.78
    Con Maj 3.8
    Lab Maj 5
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,383

    Brexit will cost UK workers 470 pounds a year

    Britain is becoming a more closed economy due to Brexit, with damaging long-term implications for productivity and wages which will leave the average worker 470 pounds ($577) a year poorer by the end of the decade, a study forecast on Wednesday.

    “… Brexit has had a more diffuse impact by reducing the UK's competitiveness and openness to trade with a wider range of countries. This will ultimately reduce productivity, and workers' real wages too…”

    The net effect of these [barriers] would lower productivity across the economy by 1.3% by 2030 compared with an unchanged trade relationship - translating to a 1.8% real-terms fall in annual pay of 470 pounds per worker.

    These figures do not include any assessment of the impact of changed migration rules.

    The impact for some sectors will be much starker. Britain's small but high profile fishing industry - many of whose members advocated strongly for Brexit - was likely to shrink by 30% due to difficulties exporting its fresh catch to EU customers, the report said.

    https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/brexit-will-cost-uk-workers-470-pounds-year-study-predicts-2022-06-21/

    Only 470 British pounds? That's like $9, right?
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,236

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19
    The only two reasons I can think of for Russia attacking NATO are that:

    1. The Russians conclude they will lose the war in Ukraine and they believe defeat against NATO is politically more survivable than defeat against Ukraine alone.

    2. The Russians convince themselves that NATO is even more of a Potemkin military than Russia and they can force NATO to stop supplying arms to Ukraine by exposing NATO weakness and division.
    Or a combination of both. A Russian invasion of Lithuania means we are at war with Russia. The US has stated that unequivocally an attack on Lithuania is an attack on all NATO members.

    The NATO force in Lithuania is mostly German. The British forces are in Estonia, I think.
    The NATO forces in the Baltics are very small. Maybe the Russians will convince themselves they have to defeat them now before they are reinforced.
    They maybe small, but they are there, and an attack on them would be quite the escalation, requiring air involvement to win.

    It is easy to see how this escalates if Putin attacks.
    If and when Russia attacks Lithuania, will fellow NATO member Turkey come to their aid? Seems unlikely.

    Heck, it isn’t that long ago since the President said the United States would not automatically defend the Baltic states from Russia if they were invaded.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/07/21/donald-trump-cast-doubt-on-the-baltics-involvement-in-nato-heres-what-they-actually-do/

    Turkey (or Turkiye) under Erdogan is proving to be an extremely unreliable ally. They appear to have acted in a deeply problematic manner over Finland and Sweden; only making its opposition to NATO membership for these countries known after they submitted their application. It does not bode well at all for the effectiveness and stability of the alliance.
    In fairness to Turkey, they have made their strong distaste for Sweden crystal clear in the last decade. And vice-versa. However, it is not a bilateral relationship which the rest of the planet has bothered paying much attention to. At least, not since the Great Northern War (1700–1721), the result of which arguably lies at the root of the current conflict.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_War
    You mean - this war is at the root of Russian Imperial delusions?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769
    rcs1000 said:

    Brexit will cost UK workers 470 pounds a year

    Britain is becoming a more closed economy due to Brexit, with damaging long-term implications for productivity and wages which will leave the average worker 470 pounds ($577) a year poorer by the end of the decade, a study forecast on Wednesday.

    “… Brexit has had a more diffuse impact by reducing the UK's competitiveness and openness to trade with a wider range of countries. This will ultimately reduce productivity, and workers' real wages too…”

    The net effect of these [barriers] would lower productivity across the economy by 1.3% by 2030 compared with an unchanged trade relationship - translating to a 1.8% real-terms fall in annual pay of 470 pounds per worker.

    These figures do not include any assessment of the impact of changed migration rules.

    The impact for some sectors will be much starker. Britain's small but high profile fishing industry - many of whose members advocated strongly for Brexit - was likely to shrink by 30% due to difficulties exporting its fresh catch to EU customers, the report said.

    https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/brexit-will-cost-uk-workers-470-pounds-year-study-predicts-2022-06-21/

    Only 470 British pounds? That's like $9, right?
    By 2030? Maybe.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,876
    rcs1000 said:

    Brexit will cost UK workers 470 pounds a year

    Britain is becoming a more closed economy due to Brexit, with damaging long-term implications for productivity and wages which will leave the average worker 470 pounds ($577) a year poorer by the end of the decade, a study forecast on Wednesday.

    “… Brexit has had a more diffuse impact by reducing the UK's competitiveness and openness to trade with a wider range of countries. This will ultimately reduce productivity, and workers' real wages too…”

    The net effect of these [barriers] would lower productivity across the economy by 1.3% by 2030 compared with an unchanged trade relationship - translating to a 1.8% real-terms fall in annual pay of 470 pounds per worker.

    These figures do not include any assessment of the impact of changed migration rules.

    The impact for some sectors will be much starker. Britain's small but high profile fishing industry - many of whose members advocated strongly for Brexit - was likely to shrink by 30% due to difficulties exporting its fresh catch to EU customers, the report said.

    https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/brexit-will-cost-uk-workers-470-pounds-year-study-predicts-2022-06-21/

    Only 470 British pounds? That's like $9, right?
    Hey. Sterling is actually up against the dollar over the last week. (Albeit down over the last day, month, 3 months, 6 months and year)
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 2,397

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19
    The only two reasons I can think of for Russia attacking NATO are that:

    1. The Russians conclude they will lose the war in Ukraine and they believe defeat against NATO is politically more survivable than defeat against Ukraine alone.

    2. The Russians convince themselves that NATO is even more of a Potemkin military than Russia and they can force NATO to stop supplying arms to Ukraine by exposing NATO weakness and division.
    Or a combination of both. A Russian invasion of Lithuania means we are at war with Russia. The US has stated that unequivocally an attack on Lithuania is an attack on all NATO members.

    The NATO force in Lithuania is mostly German. The British forces are in Estonia, I think.
    The NATO forces in the Baltics are very small. Maybe the Russians will convince themselves they have to defeat them now before they are reinforced.
    They maybe small, but they are there, and an attack on them would be quite the escalation, requiring air involvement to win.

    It is easy to see how this escalates if Putin attacks.
    Your last clause is the important one: any attack would be Putin's will. His decision.

    He has already shown himself to be capable of making decisions that were to the detriment of people in other countries (including our own). Blaming Lithuania for 'escalating' does seem a little like victim-blaming.

    If Putin wants war, he will wage it. And he will use any excuse going to do it.

    Of course, there's another way that Putin can restore the land bridge to Kaliningrad and have sanctions removed from Russia. It's a really, really easy one, and one that it totally within his own hands.

    He could withdraw all his troops from Ukraine.
    Russia is not going to invade Lithuania. Two reasons immediately spring to mind:

    1. The calculus of a direct attack on NATO hasn't changed. It is impossible for Russia to win such a war, and it would be utter insanity to try.
    2. The Russian army is in pieces, and is having to concentrate all its strength to capture, very slowly and painfully, what's left of one small city in Eastern Ukraine, whilst scrambling to hold on to everything else it's already stolen against Ukrainian counterattacks elsewhere along the front. What, therefore, are they meant to invade Lithuania with? The 21st Novosibirsk Girl Guides Brigade, perhaps?

    Moscow's capabilities and its war aims are finite, and they become more limited the longer its armed forces and economy are worn down by this conflict. The most likely resolution to this war is that Putin manages - eventually, and at colossal cost - to complete his "liberation" of the Donbas, declares victory, and orders his troops to fortify along the borders of the occupied territories. Donbas and the land bridge to Crimea are then annexed by Russia through a process of sham plebiscites, and Ukraine is de facto partitioned.

    The end state of the conflict then becomes something like that seen with the line of control through Kashmir - two very heavily armed and well dug in forces, facing one another for decades but without the war resuming because it would be too costly for both participants. Ukraine and the West refuse to recognise the Russian annexation of South-Eastern Ukraine, so the bulk of the sanctions remain permanently in place; Russia is made to rely on Chinese largesse for survival.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,876

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19
    The only two reasons I can think of for Russia attacking NATO are that:

    1. The Russians conclude they will lose the war in Ukraine and they believe defeat against NATO is politically more survivable than defeat against Ukraine alone.

    2. The Russians convince themselves that NATO is even more of a Potemkin military than Russia and they can force NATO to stop supplying arms to Ukraine by exposing NATO weakness and division.
    Or a combination of both. A Russian invasion of Lithuania means we are at war with Russia. The US has stated that unequivocally an attack on Lithuania is an attack on all NATO members.

    The NATO force in Lithuania is mostly German. The British forces are in Estonia, I think.
    The NATO forces in the Baltics are very small. Maybe the Russians will convince themselves they have to defeat them now before they are reinforced.
    They maybe small, but they are there, and an attack on them would be quite the escalation, requiring air involvement to win.

    It is easy to see how this escalates if Putin attacks.
    If and when Russia attacks Lithuania, will fellow NATO member Turkey come to their aid? Seems unlikely.

    Heck, it isn’t that long ago since the President said the United States would not automatically defend the Baltic states from Russia if they were invaded.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/07/21/donald-trump-cast-doubt-on-the-baltics-involvement-in-nato-heres-what-they-actually-do/

    Turkey (or Turkiye) under Erdogan is proving to be an extremely unreliable ally. They appear to have acted in a deeply problematic manner over Finland and Sweden; only making its opposition to NATO membership for these countries known after they submitted their application. It does not bode well at all for the effectiveness and stability of the alliance.
    In fairness to Turkey, they have made their strong distaste for Sweden crystal clear in the last decade. And vice-versa. However, it is not a bilateral relationship which the rest of the planet has bothered paying much attention to. At least, not since the Great Northern War (1700–1721), the result of which arguably lies at the root of the current conflict.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_War
    I had no idea St Petersburg used to be Swedish.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769
    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19
    The only two reasons I can think of for Russia attacking NATO are that:

    1. The Russians conclude they will lose the war in Ukraine and they believe defeat against NATO is politically more survivable than defeat against Ukraine alone.

    2. The Russians convince themselves that NATO is even more of a Potemkin military than Russia and they can force NATO to stop supplying arms to Ukraine by exposing NATO weakness and division.
    Or a combination of both. A Russian invasion of Lithuania means we are at war with Russia. The US has stated that unequivocally an attack on Lithuania is an attack on all NATO members.

    The NATO force in Lithuania is mostly German. The British forces are in Estonia, I think.
    The NATO forces in the Baltics are very small. Maybe the Russians will convince themselves they have to defeat them now before they are reinforced.
    They maybe small, but they are there, and an attack on them would be quite the escalation, requiring air involvement to win.

    It is easy to see how this escalates if Putin attacks.
    If and when Russia attacks Lithuania, will fellow NATO member Turkey come to their aid? Seems unlikely.

    Heck, it isn’t that long ago since the President said the United States would not automatically defend the Baltic states from Russia if they were invaded.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/07/21/donald-trump-cast-doubt-on-the-baltics-involvement-in-nato-heres-what-they-actually-do/

    Turkey (or Turkiye) under Erdogan is proving to be an extremely unreliable ally. They appear to have acted in a deeply problematic manner over Finland and Sweden; only making its opposition to NATO membership for these countries known after they submitted their application. It does not bode well at all for the effectiveness and stability of the alliance.
    In fairness to Turkey, they have made their strong distaste for Sweden crystal clear in the last decade. And vice-versa. However, it is not a bilateral relationship which the rest of the planet has bothered paying much attention to. At least, not since the Great Northern War (1700–1721), the result of which arguably lies at the root of the current conflict.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_War
    You mean - this war is at the root of Russian Imperial delusions?
    Yes.

    As the article says: “The war ended with the defeat of Sweden, leaving Russia as the new dominant power in the Baltic region and as a new major force in European politics.”

    Note that Great Britain switched sides, and was on the Russian side in the final phase. As so often, if you dig deep enough, GB/UK has contributed to some dreadful shit.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790
    pigeon said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19
    The only two reasons I can think of for Russia attacking NATO are that:

    1. The Russians conclude they will lose the war in Ukraine and they believe defeat against NATO is politically more survivable than defeat against Ukraine alone.

    2. The Russians convince themselves that NATO is even more of a Potemkin military than Russia and they can force NATO to stop supplying arms to Ukraine by exposing NATO weakness and division.
    Or a combination of both. A Russian invasion of Lithuania means we are at war with Russia. The US has stated that unequivocally an attack on Lithuania is an attack on all NATO members.

    The NATO force in Lithuania is mostly German. The British forces are in Estonia, I think.
    The NATO forces in the Baltics are very small. Maybe the Russians will convince themselves they have to defeat them now before they are reinforced.
    They maybe small, but they are there, and an attack on them would be quite the escalation, requiring air involvement to win.

    It is easy to see how this escalates if Putin attacks.
    Your last clause is the important one: any attack would be Putin's will. His decision.

    He has already shown himself to be capable of making decisions that were to the detriment of people in other countries (including our own). Blaming Lithuania for 'escalating' does seem a little like victim-blaming.

    If Putin wants war, he will wage it. And he will use any excuse going to do it.

    Of course, there's another way that Putin can restore the land bridge to Kaliningrad and have sanctions removed from Russia. It's a really, really easy one, and one that it totally within his own hands.

    He could withdraw all his troops from Ukraine.
    Russia is not going to invade Lithuania. Two reasons immediately spring to mind:

    1. The calculus of a direct attack on NATO hasn't changed. It is impossible for Russia to win such a war, and it would be utter insanity to try.
    2. The Russian army is in pieces, and is having to concentrate all its strength to capture, very slowly and painfully, what's left of one small city in Eastern Ukraine, whilst scrambling to hold on to everything else it's already stolen against Ukrainian counterattacks elsewhere along the front. What, therefore, are they meant to invade Lithuania with? The 21st Novosibirsk Girl Guides Brigade, perhaps?

    Moscow's capabilities and its war aims are finite, and they become more limited the longer its armed forces and economy are worn down by this conflict. The most likely resolution to this war is that Putin manages - eventually, and at colossal cost - to complete his "liberation" of the Donbas, declares victory, and orders his troops to fortify along the borders of the occupied territories. Donbas and the land bridge to Crimea are then annexed by Russia through a process of sham plebiscites, and Ukraine is de facto partitioned.

    The end state of the conflict then becomes something like that seen with the line of control through Kashmir - two very heavily armed and well dug in forces, facing one another for decades but without the war resuming because it would be too costly for both participants. Ukraine and the West refuse to recognise the Russian annexation of South-Eastern Ukraine, so the bulk of the sanctions remain permanently in place; Russia is made to rely on Chinese largesse for survival.
    I agree that Russia is unlikely to invade Lithuania. My point is that people who talk about the west 'escalating' - as @NickPalmer did so memorably before the invasion - are excusing Russia's actions.

    As for your proposed end-state: I agree that could happen, but it would not be long-lasting. Either the sanctions against Russia slowly fall apart despite the partition, or Russia tries again to get the rest of Ukraine - perhaps through Belarus.

    As we've seen, Putin doesn't need any excuse.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19
    The only two reasons I can think of for Russia attacking NATO are that:

    1. The Russians conclude they will lose the war in Ukraine and they believe defeat against NATO is politically more survivable than defeat against Ukraine alone.

    2. The Russians convince themselves that NATO is even more of a Potemkin military than Russia and they can force NATO to stop supplying arms to Ukraine by exposing NATO weakness and division.
    Or a combination of both. A Russian invasion of Lithuania means we are at war with Russia. The US has stated that unequivocally an attack on Lithuania is an attack on all NATO members.

    The NATO force in Lithuania is mostly German. The British forces are in Estonia, I think.
    The NATO forces in the Baltics are very small. Maybe the Russians will convince themselves they have to defeat them now before they are reinforced.
    They maybe small, but they are there, and an attack on them would be quite the escalation, requiring air involvement to win.

    It is easy to see how this escalates if Putin attacks.
    If and when Russia attacks Lithuania, will fellow NATO member Turkey come to their aid? Seems unlikely.

    Heck, it isn’t that long ago since the President said the United States would not automatically defend the Baltic states from Russia if they were invaded.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/07/21/donald-trump-cast-doubt-on-the-baltics-involvement-in-nato-heres-what-they-actually-do/

    Turkey (or Turkiye) under Erdogan is proving to be an extremely unreliable ally. They appear to have acted in a deeply problematic manner over Finland and Sweden; only making its opposition to NATO membership for these countries known after they submitted their application. It does not bode well at all for the effectiveness and stability of the alliance.
    In fairness to Turkey, they have made their strong distaste for Sweden crystal clear in the last decade. And vice-versa. However, it is not a bilateral relationship which the rest of the planet has bothered paying much attention to. At least, not since the Great Northern War (1700–1721), the result of which arguably lies at the root of the current conflict.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_War
    I had no idea St Petersburg used to be Swedish.
    Oh yes. The history of the eastern Baltic is complex and fascinating.

    In fact, if you delve back into Russia’s early history, you could argue that they were a Nordic/Viking invention. Look at the etymology of “Rus”.

    Understandably, people in the Atlantic islands tend to be preoccupied with the Danish and Norwegian Viking exploits westwards, but the Swedish history into the deep east and south, all the way to Kiev and Constantinople is just as astonishing. They shaped the nascent Kiev and Rus identities.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 2,397

    darkage said:

    I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.

    The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.

    State pension triple lock: rises since 2011
    Financial year State pension rise Based on
    2011/12 4.6% RPI
    2012/13 5.2% CPI
    2013/14 2.5% 2.5%
    2014/15 2.7% CPI
    2015/16 2.5% 2.5%
    2016/17 2.9% Earnings
    2017/18 2.5% 2.5%
    2018/19 3% CPI
    2019/20 2.6% Earnings
    2020/21 3.9% Earnings
    2021/22 2.5% 2.5%
    2022/23 3.1% CPI

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/money-mentor/article/state-pension-increase/

    While that's true, it's worth seeing it in the wider context of the erosion in value of the state pension since Thatcher removed the link to earnings.

    https://www.ft.com/content/6f8531d6-ddfd-11e4-8d14-00144feab7de

    It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
    That wider context is irrelevant to the present debate over wages. What's at issue here isn't the rights or wrongs of the substantial uprating of pensions and social security coming next Spring. Rather, it's the blind insistence of the Government that pension rises = good, wage rises = bad. Clearly, if pensions need to go up by a lot to defend old people from the depredations of the inflationary environment, then wages need to increase in like fashion to protect working people.

    Inflation is being driven primarily by external factors, not by put upon workers on low and middle incomes asking to be paid a reasonable rate - its use by the Government to justify yet more shit wage settlements (whilst simultaneously insisting that bumper payouts for oldies are absolutely fine) is a laughably transparent justification for straightforward meanness. To put it succinctly, they want to force staff in hospitals and schools into using food banks, so that they don't have to contemplate asking the wealthy to part with more of their loot to cover decent wage rises. It's as simple as that.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,876
    pigeon said:

    The most likely resolution to this war is that Putin manages - eventually, and at colossal cost - to complete his "liberation" of the Donbas, declares victory, and orders his troops to fortify along the borders of the occupied territories. Donbas and the land bridge to Crimea are then annexed by Russia through a process of sham plebiscites, and Ukraine is de facto partitioned.

    The end state of the conflict then becomes something like that seen with the line of control through Kashmir - two very heavily armed and well dug in forces, facing one another for decades but without the war resuming because it would be too costly for both participants. Ukraine and the West refuse to recognise the Russian annexation of South-Eastern Ukraine, so the bulk of the sanctions remain permanently in place; Russia is made to rely on Chinese largesse for survival.

    I think that's quite optimistic for Russia. Their progress has been very slow. It would take them a long time to complete the conquest of Donetsk Oblast at the rate of advance they've managed since withdrawing from Northern Ukraine.

    I also expect that there will be a lot of equipment and training for Ukraine's armed forces in that scenario. It's not implausible that a resumption of hostilities would occur once Ukraine was confident of achieving air superiority, and we'd see something like what happened when Croatia reclaimed territory occupied by the Serbs in the 90s.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,205
    Good morning

    Inflation rate is 9.1%
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,156
    edited June 22
    Morning all. The part that seems to have really riled people in my parts is the closing of ticket offices.

    I'm not sure Boris Johnson will mind. He's hellbent on wargaming.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 8,376

    Brexit will cost UK workers 470 pounds a year

    Britain is becoming a more closed economy due to Brexit, with damaging long-term implications for productivity and wages which will leave the average worker 470 pounds ($577) a year poorer by the end of the decade, a study forecast on Wednesday.

    “… Brexit has had a more diffuse impact by reducing the UK's competitiveness and openness to trade with a wider range of countries. This will ultimately reduce productivity, and workers' real wages too…”

    The net effect of these [barriers] would lower productivity across the economy by 1.3% by 2030 compared with an unchanged trade relationship - translating to a 1.8% real-terms fall in annual pay of 470 pounds per worker.

    These figures do not include any assessment of the impact of changed migration rules.

    The impact for some sectors will be much starker. Britain's small but high profile fishing industry - many of whose members advocated strongly for Brexit - was likely to shrink by 30% due to difficulties exporting its fresh catch to EU customers, the report said.

    https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/brexit-will-cost-uk-workers-470-pounds-year-study-predicts-2022-06-21/

    Brexit lurks in the background of everything in British politics right now. Why does the government feel that public sector pay must fall in real terms every year? Because it knows that there is no money because of Brexit. Especially as it is desperately shovelling its dwindling resources into protecting its elderly client vote from the economic carnage they voted for.
    There will be a reckoning for this. Working people are sick of being taken for fools.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790
    Heathener said:

    Morning all. The part that seems to have really riled people in my parts is the closing of ticket offices.

    I'm not sure Boris Johnson will mind. He's hellbent on wargaming.

    Closing ticket offices? Welcome to the majority of the country, where there are no ticket offices.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769
    Fantastic to see the Scottish government cracking down on wildlife crime. The nasty landed toffs are ripping their hair out.

    “the fourth estate in Scotland to be handed a restriction on licences.”

    https://news.stv.tv/highlands-islands/moy-estate-in-highlands-has-general-licences-suspended-for-three-year-after-evidence-of-wildlife-crime

    Now, let’s force the toffs to eradicate Rhododendron ponticum. That won’t be cheap.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,236

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19
    The only two reasons I can think of for Russia attacking NATO are that:

    1. The Russians conclude they will lose the war in Ukraine and they believe defeat against NATO is politically more survivable than defeat against Ukraine alone.

    2. The Russians convince themselves that NATO is even more of a Potemkin military than Russia and they can force NATO to stop supplying arms to Ukraine by exposing NATO weakness and division.
    Or a combination of both. A Russian invasion of Lithuania means we are at war with Russia. The US has stated that unequivocally an attack on Lithuania is an attack on all NATO members.

    The NATO force in Lithuania is mostly German. The British forces are in Estonia, I think.
    The NATO forces in the Baltics are very small. Maybe the Russians will convince themselves they have to defeat them now before they are reinforced.
    They maybe small, but they are there, and an attack on them would be quite the escalation, requiring air involvement to win.

    It is easy to see how this escalates if Putin attacks.
    If and when Russia attacks Lithuania, will fellow NATO member Turkey come to their aid? Seems unlikely.

    Heck, it isn’t that long ago since the President said the United States would not automatically defend the Baltic states from Russia if they were invaded.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/07/21/donald-trump-cast-doubt-on-the-baltics-involvement-in-nato-heres-what-they-actually-do/

    Turkey (or Turkiye) under Erdogan is proving to be an extremely unreliable ally. They appear to have acted in a deeply problematic manner over Finland and Sweden; only making its opposition to NATO membership for these countries known after they submitted their application. It does not bode well at all for the effectiveness and stability of the alliance.
    In fairness to Turkey, they have made their strong distaste for Sweden crystal clear in the last decade. And vice-versa. However, it is not a bilateral relationship which the rest of the planet has bothered paying much attention to. At least, not since the Great Northern War (1700–1721), the result of which arguably lies at the root of the current conflict.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_War
    You mean - this war is at the root of Russian Imperial delusions?
    Yes.

    As the article says: “The war ended with the defeat of Sweden, leaving Russia as the new dominant power in the Baltic region and as a new major force in European politics.”

    Note that Great Britain switched sides, and was on the Russian side in the final phase. As so often, if you dig deep enough, GB/UK has contributed to some dreadful shit.
    But perhaps Stuart, if you take an even longer historical view, then you may come to the conclusion that Sweden were up to no good in Finland; when it was colonised 9 centuries ago.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Swedish_Crusade
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 70,236
    Justified
    The last train left an hour ago..
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,156
    And how do the credit spend Gov't respond to soaring inflation?

    Announce another huge rise in State Pensions and Benefits.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,236
    There is unlikely to be a stalemate in Ukraine. Russia are relying on the West capitulating and - I hate to say it - but it is likely to work. The inflation and subsequent unrest will do Putin's work for him. The fact is that Russia can just throw men and material in to the conflict indefinetly, the west cannot.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19
    The only two reasons I can think of for Russia attacking NATO are that:

    1. The Russians conclude they will lose the war in Ukraine and they believe defeat against NATO is politically more survivable than defeat against Ukraine alone.

    2. The Russians convince themselves that NATO is even more of a Potemkin military than Russia and they can force NATO to stop supplying arms to Ukraine by exposing NATO weakness and division.
    Or a combination of both. A Russian invasion of Lithuania means we are at war with Russia. The US has stated that unequivocally an attack on Lithuania is an attack on all NATO members.

    The NATO force in Lithuania is mostly German. The British forces are in Estonia, I think.
    The NATO forces in the Baltics are very small. Maybe the Russians will convince themselves they have to defeat them now before they are reinforced.
    They maybe small, but they are there, and an attack on them would be quite the escalation, requiring air involvement to win.

    It is easy to see how this escalates if Putin attacks.
    If and when Russia attacks Lithuania, will fellow NATO member Turkey come to their aid? Seems unlikely.

    Heck, it isn’t that long ago since the President said the United States would not automatically defend the Baltic states from Russia if they were invaded.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/07/21/donald-trump-cast-doubt-on-the-baltics-involvement-in-nato-heres-what-they-actually-do/

    Turkey (or Turkiye) under Erdogan is proving to be an extremely unreliable ally. They appear to have acted in a deeply problematic manner over Finland and Sweden; only making its opposition to NATO membership for these countries known after they submitted their application. It does not bode well at all for the effectiveness and stability of the alliance.
    In fairness to Turkey, they have made their strong distaste for Sweden crystal clear in the last decade. And vice-versa. However, it is not a bilateral relationship which the rest of the planet has bothered paying much attention to. At least, not since the Great Northern War (1700–1721), the result of which arguably lies at the root of the current conflict.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_War
    I had no idea St Petersburg used to be Swedish.
    Oh yes. The history of the eastern Baltic is complex and fascinating.

    In fact, if you delve back into Russia’s early history, you could argue that they were a Nordic/Viking invention. Look at the etymology of “Rus”.

    Understandably, people in the Atlantic islands tend to be preoccupied with the Danish and Norwegian Viking exploits westwards, but the Swedish history into the deep east and south, all the way to Kiev and Constantinople is just as astonishing. They shaped the nascent Kiev and Rus identities.
    I was surprised to discover how active the Vikings were in Constantinople. As you say, they weren't just coastal raiders.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangians

    It seems we routinely underestimate the amount of trade there was around Europe even in ancient times. Whilst Jesus reaching our green and pleasant land is a little bit of a stretch, AIUI there are indications there was a healthy trade in tin back from the southwest back into the Bronze Age.

    Or gold from Cornwall to Ireland:
    https://digventures.com/2015/06/was-there-a-bronze-age-gold-rush-in-cornwall/
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790
    Pulpstar said:

    Justified
    The last train left an hour ago..

    They were singing, "All aboard"
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,156

    Heathener said:

    Morning all. The part that seems to have really riled people in my parts is the closing of ticket offices.

    I'm not sure Boris Johnson will mind. He's hellbent on wargaming.

    Closing ticket offices? Welcome to the majority of the country, where there are no ticket offices.
    There are 1000 ticket offices in England and 1 in 8 tickets is bought over the counter, as well as many other services like railcards.

    The online ticketing system is also riven with faults, including frequently more expensive tickets unless you really know your onions about circumventing it.

    Beeching also justified his cuts. The knock-on was the death of many rural communities and industries.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769

    Heathener said:

    Morning all. The part that seems to have really riled people in my parts is the closing of ticket offices.

    I'm not sure Boris Johnson will mind. He's hellbent on wargaming.

    Closing ticket offices? Welcome to the majority of the country, where there are no ticket offices.
    That’s what I was thinking.

    Incidentally, I note that Stockholm has now even removed the final ticket machines on the Metro. Ticketing is now 100% online, or simple card blipping.

    Cash is pretty much non-existent in Scandinavian society now, at least for those of working-age or younger. This really confused a group of elderly German tourists I spoke to last month. They just looked at me uncomprehendingly when I explained how we purchase goods and services.
    No, we don’t generally accept Euros. Heck, we don’t even generally accept Kronor.
    No, there is no Bureau de Change.
    No, that bank doesn’t hold any cash, it’s just an office for booked appointments for customers.
    The poor souls didn’t even have credit or debit cards on them.
    I feel genuinely sorry for the elderly. So many are just bewildered by how fast society is changing.

    I don’t believe our children have ever personally made a financial transaction in cash. Not that I’ve ever witnessed anyway.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19
    The only two reasons I can think of for Russia attacking NATO are that:

    1. The Russians conclude they will lose the war in Ukraine and they believe defeat against NATO is politically more survivable than defeat against Ukraine alone.

    2. The Russians convince themselves that NATO is even more of a Potemkin military than Russia and they can force NATO to stop supplying arms to Ukraine by exposing NATO weakness and division.
    Or a combination of both. A Russian invasion of Lithuania means we are at war with Russia. The US has stated that unequivocally an attack on Lithuania is an attack on all NATO members.

    The NATO force in Lithuania is mostly German. The British forces are in Estonia, I think.
    The NATO forces in the Baltics are very small. Maybe the Russians will convince themselves they have to defeat them now before they are reinforced.
    They maybe small, but they are there, and an attack on them would be quite the escalation, requiring air involvement to win.

    It is easy to see how this escalates if Putin attacks.
    If and when Russia attacks Lithuania, will fellow NATO member Turkey come to their aid? Seems unlikely.

    Heck, it isn’t that long ago since the President said the United States would not automatically defend the Baltic states from Russia if they were invaded.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/07/21/donald-trump-cast-doubt-on-the-baltics-involvement-in-nato-heres-what-they-actually-do/

    Turkey (or Turkiye) under Erdogan is proving to be an extremely unreliable ally. They appear to have acted in a deeply problematic manner over Finland and Sweden; only making its opposition to NATO membership for these countries known after they submitted their application. It does not bode well at all for the effectiveness and stability of the alliance.
    In fairness to Turkey, they have made their strong distaste for Sweden crystal clear in the last decade. And vice-versa. However, it is not a bilateral relationship which the rest of the planet has bothered paying much attention to. At least, not since the Great Northern War (1700–1721), the result of which arguably lies at the root of the current conflict.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_War
    I had no idea St Petersburg used to be Swedish.
    Not really, it was a swamp before Peter the Great had it built as his new capital, but it was a Swedish swamp.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769
    Foxy said:

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19
    The only two reasons I can think of for Russia attacking NATO are that:

    1. The Russians conclude they will lose the war in Ukraine and they believe defeat against NATO is politically more survivable than defeat against Ukraine alone.

    2. The Russians convince themselves that NATO is even more of a Potemkin military than Russia and they can force NATO to stop supplying arms to Ukraine by exposing NATO weakness and division.
    Or a combination of both. A Russian invasion of Lithuania means we are at war with Russia. The US has stated that unequivocally an attack on Lithuania is an attack on all NATO members.

    The NATO force in Lithuania is mostly German. The British forces are in Estonia, I think.
    The NATO forces in the Baltics are very small. Maybe the Russians will convince themselves they have to defeat them now before they are reinforced.
    They maybe small, but they are there, and an attack on them would be quite the escalation, requiring air involvement to win.

    It is easy to see how this escalates if Putin attacks.
    If and when Russia attacks Lithuania, will fellow NATO member Turkey come to their aid? Seems unlikely.

    Heck, it isn’t that long ago since the President said the United States would not automatically defend the Baltic states from Russia if they were invaded.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/07/21/donald-trump-cast-doubt-on-the-baltics-involvement-in-nato-heres-what-they-actually-do/

    Turkey (or Turkiye) under Erdogan is proving to be an extremely unreliable ally. They appear to have acted in a deeply problematic manner over Finland and Sweden; only making its opposition to NATO membership for these countries known after they submitted their application. It does not bode well at all for the effectiveness and stability of the alliance.
    In fairness to Turkey, they have made their strong distaste for Sweden crystal clear in the last decade. And vice-versa. However, it is not a bilateral relationship which the rest of the planet has bothered paying much attention to. At least, not since the Great Northern War (1700–1721), the result of which arguably lies at the root of the current conflict.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_War
    I had no idea St Petersburg used to be Swedish.
    Not really, it was a swamp before Peter the Great had it built as his new capital, but it was a Swedish swamp.
    And the slaves who built the city in the formerly Swedish swamp were Swedes.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790
    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Morning all. The part that seems to have really riled people in my parts is the closing of ticket offices.

    I'm not sure Boris Johnson will mind. He's hellbent on wargaming.

    Closing ticket offices? Welcome to the majority of the country, where there are no ticket offices.
    There are 1000 ticket offices in England and 1 in 8 tickets is bought over the counter, as well as many other services like railcards.

    The online ticketing system is also riven with faults, including frequently more expensive tickets unless you really know your onions about circumventing it.

    Beeching also justified his cuts. The knock-on was the death of many rural communities and industries.
    I hate to break the news to you, but most of Beeching's cuts were justified. For every Waverley route that should not have been shut, there was a Wisbech and Upwell Tramway. Or a GNR Derby line. Or the Buxton - Ashbourne - Uttoxeter route. (*)

    Lines that are still loved, but were economic basket-cases.

    The world changes. Ticket offices prove useful to me on occasion, but their closure will not affect me or my travel that much.

    (*) Note: the much-loved Matlock to Buxton line - part of the Midland's route to Manchester - was not mentioned in the Beeching Cuts. But they closed it anyway because of internal railway politics... And thanks to Labour's Barbara Castle...
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19
    The only two reasons I can think of for Russia attacking NATO are that:

    1. The Russians conclude they will lose the war in Ukraine and they believe defeat against NATO is politically more survivable than defeat against Ukraine alone.

    2. The Russians convince themselves that NATO is even more of a Potemkin military than Russia and they can force NATO to stop supplying arms to Ukraine by exposing NATO weakness and division.
    Or a combination of both. A Russian invasion of Lithuania means we are at war with Russia. The US has stated that unequivocally an attack on Lithuania is an attack on all NATO members.

    The NATO force in Lithuania is mostly German. The British forces are in Estonia, I think.
    The NATO forces in the Baltics are very small. Maybe the Russians will convince themselves they have to defeat them now before they are reinforced.
    They maybe small, but they are there, and an attack on them would be quite the escalation, requiring air involvement to win.

    It is easy to see how this escalates if Putin attacks.
    If and when Russia attacks Lithuania, will fellow NATO member Turkey come to their aid? Seems unlikely.

    Heck, it isn’t that long ago since the President said the United States would not automatically defend the Baltic states from Russia if they were invaded.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/07/21/donald-trump-cast-doubt-on-the-baltics-involvement-in-nato-heres-what-they-actually-do/

    Turkey (or Turkiye) under Erdogan is proving to be an extremely unreliable ally. They appear to have acted in a deeply problematic manner over Finland and Sweden; only making its opposition to NATO membership for these countries known after they submitted their application. It does not bode well at all for the effectiveness and stability of the alliance.
    In fairness to Turkey, they have made their strong distaste for Sweden crystal clear in the last decade. And vice-versa. However, it is not a bilateral relationship which the rest of the planet has bothered paying much attention to. At least, not since the Great Northern War (1700–1721), the result of which arguably lies at the root of the current conflict.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_War
    I had no idea St Petersburg used to be Swedish.
    Oh yes. The history of the eastern Baltic is complex and fascinating.

    In fact, if you delve back into Russia’s early history, you could argue that they were a Nordic/Viking invention. Look at the etymology of “Rus”.

    Understandably, people in the Atlantic islands tend to be preoccupied with the Danish and Norwegian Viking exploits westwards, but the Swedish history into the deep east and south, all the way to Kiev and Constantinople is just as astonishing. They shaped the nascent Kiev and Rus identities.
    I was surprised to discover how active the Vikings were in Constantinople. As you say, they weren't just coastal raiders.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangians

    It seems we routinely underestimate the amount of trade there was around Europe even in ancient times. Whilst Jesus reaching our green and pleasant land is a little bit of a stretch, AIUI there are indications there was a healthy trade in tin back from the southwest back into the Bronze Age.

    Or gold from Cornwall to Ireland:
    https://digventures.com/2015/06/was-there-a-bronze-age-gold-rush-in-cornwall/
    The Sutton Hoo finds include items from Constantinople, which is unsurprising, as the evidence points to the ship and crew originating in Mälardalen, the region around what is now Stockholm. And at that time there were strong trading routes between what is now Sweden and Constantinople. The Sutton Hoo items just made it unusually far west.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 5,623

    Heathener said:

    Morning all. The part that seems to have really riled people in my parts is the closing of ticket offices.

    I'm not sure Boris Johnson will mind. He's hellbent on wargaming.

    Closing ticket offices? Welcome to the majority of the country, where there are no ticket offices.
    That’s what I was thinking.

    Incidentally, I note that Stockholm has now even removed the final ticket machines on the Metro. Ticketing is now 100% online, or simple card blipping.

    Cash is pretty much non-existent in Scandinavian society now, at least for those of working-age or younger. This really confused a group of elderly German tourists I spoke to last month. They just looked at me uncomprehendingly when I explained how we purchase goods and services.
    No, we don’t generally accept Euros. Heck, we don’t even generally accept Kronor.
    No, there is no Bureau de Change.
    No, that bank doesn’t hold any cash, it’s just an office for booked appointments for customers.
    The poor souls didn’t even have credit or debit cards on them.
    I feel genuinely sorry for the elderly. So many are just bewildered by how fast society is changing.

    I don’t believe our children have ever personally made a financial transaction in cash. Not that I’ve ever witnessed anyway.

    This seems to vary by country. Certainly when I visited Copenhagen in 2019 I didn't need any. Last week in Poland I was quite happily using plastic everywhere I went, but then crossed into Germany, where prices are higher, and found that people still default to cash. You can still pay by contact less in most places, but have to ask.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,156
    edited June 22

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Morning all. The part that seems to have really riled people in my parts is the closing of ticket offices.

    I'm not sure Boris Johnson will mind. He's hellbent on wargaming.

    Closing ticket offices? Welcome to the majority of the country, where there are no ticket offices.
    There are 1000 ticket offices in England and 1 in 8 tickets is bought over the counter, as well as many other services like railcards.

    The online ticketing system is also riven with faults, including frequently more expensive tickets unless you really know your onions about circumventing it.

    Beeching also justified his cuts. The knock-on was the death of many rural communities and industries.
    I hate to break the news to you, but most of Beeching's cuts were justified. For every Waverley route that should not have been shut, there was a Wisbech and Upwell Tramway. Or a GNR Derby line. Or the Buxton - Ashbourne - Uttoxeter route. (*)

    Lines that are still loved, but were economic basket-cases.

    The world changes. Ticket offices prove useful to me on occasion, but their closure will not affect me or my travel that much.

    I totally disagree with you but then you put economic profit above wellbeing.

    It's a grim dystopian utilitarian landscape compared with a vision of good sense and protecting all people. Yes it means a little less 'me me me': you yourself said it: it will not affect ME or MY. Many of us during the pandemic recalibrated our lives.

    Your kind of selfishness and self-centredness is part of what is plunging this country down the plughole.

    Karma bites and when it does it bites hard.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,830

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Morning all. The part that seems to have really riled people in my parts is the closing of ticket offices.

    I'm not sure Boris Johnson will mind. He's hellbent on wargaming.

    Closing ticket offices? Welcome to the majority of the country, where there are no ticket offices.
    There are 1000 ticket offices in England and 1 in 8 tickets is bought over the counter, as well as many other services like railcards.

    The online ticketing system is also riven with faults, including frequently more expensive tickets unless you really know your onions about circumventing it.

    Beeching also justified his cuts. The knock-on was the death of many rural communities and industries.
    I hate to break the news to you, but most of Beeching's cuts were justified. For every Waverley route that should not have been shut, there was a Wisbech and Upwell Tramway. Or a GNR Derby line. Or the Buxton - Ashbourne - Uttoxeter route. (*)

    Lines that are still loved, but were economic basket-cases.

    The world changes. Ticket offices prove useful to me on occasion, but their closure will not affect me or my travel that much.

    (*) Note: the much-loved Matlock to Buxton line - part of the Midland's route to Manchester - was not mentioned in the Beeching Cuts. But they closed it anyway because of internal railway politics... And thanks to Labour's Barbara Castle...
    Pull up the tailgate, Jack. I'm all right.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790
    edited June 22

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19
    The only two reasons I can think of for Russia attacking NATO are that:

    1. The Russians conclude they will lose the war in Ukraine and they believe defeat against NATO is politically more survivable than defeat against Ukraine alone.

    2. The Russians convince themselves that NATO is even more of a Potemkin military than Russia and they can force NATO to stop supplying arms to Ukraine by exposing NATO weakness and division.
    Or a combination of both. A Russian invasion of Lithuania means we are at war with Russia. The US has stated that unequivocally an attack on Lithuania is an attack on all NATO members.

    The NATO force in Lithuania is mostly German. The British forces are in Estonia, I think.
    The NATO forces in the Baltics are very small. Maybe the Russians will convince themselves they have to defeat them now before they are reinforced.
    They maybe small, but they are there, and an attack on them would be quite the escalation, requiring air involvement to win.

    It is easy to see how this escalates if Putin attacks.
    If and when Russia attacks Lithuania, will fellow NATO member Turkey come to their aid? Seems unlikely.

    Heck, it isn’t that long ago since the President said the United States would not automatically defend the Baltic states from Russia if they were invaded.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/07/21/donald-trump-cast-doubt-on-the-baltics-involvement-in-nato-heres-what-they-actually-do/

    Turkey (or Turkiye) under Erdogan is proving to be an extremely unreliable ally. They appear to have acted in a deeply problematic manner over Finland and Sweden; only making its opposition to NATO membership for these countries known after they submitted their application. It does not bode well at all for the effectiveness and stability of the alliance.
    In fairness to Turkey, they have made their strong distaste for Sweden crystal clear in the last decade. And vice-versa. However, it is not a bilateral relationship which the rest of the planet has bothered paying much attention to. At least, not since the Great Northern War (1700–1721), the result of which arguably lies at the root of the current conflict.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_War
    I had no idea St Petersburg used to be Swedish.
    Oh yes. The history of the eastern Baltic is complex and fascinating.

    In fact, if you delve back into Russia’s early history, you could argue that they were a Nordic/Viking invention. Look at the etymology of “Rus”.

    Understandably, people in the Atlantic islands tend to be preoccupied with the Danish and Norwegian Viking exploits westwards, but the Swedish history into the deep east and south, all the way to Kiev and Constantinople is just as astonishing. They shaped the nascent Kiev and Rus identities.
    I was surprised to discover how active the Vikings were in Constantinople. As you say, they weren't just coastal raiders.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangians

    It seems we routinely underestimate the amount of trade there was around Europe even in ancient times. Whilst Jesus reaching our green and pleasant land is a little bit of a stretch, AIUI there are indications there was a healthy trade in tin back from the southwest back into the Bronze Age.

    Or gold from Cornwall to Ireland:
    https://digventures.com/2015/06/was-there-a-bronze-age-gold-rush-in-cornwall/
    The Sutton Hoo finds include items from Constantinople, which is unsurprising, as the evidence points to the ship and crew originating in Mälardalen, the region around what is now Stockholm. And at that time there were strong trading routes between what is now Sweden and Constantinople. The Sutton Hoo items just made it unusually far west.
    ISTR there was a Time Team from a bronze age or iron age site in Cornwall where they found an artefact from what is now Turkey.

    (This is where @Richard_Tyndall comes along and gives us chapter and verse...)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326

    Foxy said:

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19
    The only two reasons I can think of for Russia attacking NATO are that:

    1. The Russians conclude they will lose the war in Ukraine and they believe defeat against NATO is politically more survivable than defeat against Ukraine alone.

    2. The Russians convince themselves that NATO is even more of a Potemkin military than Russia and they can force NATO to stop supplying arms to Ukraine by exposing NATO weakness and division.
    Or a combination of both. A Russian invasion of Lithuania means we are at war with Russia. The US has stated that unequivocally an attack on Lithuania is an attack on all NATO members.

    The NATO force in Lithuania is mostly German. The British forces are in Estonia, I think.
    The NATO forces in the Baltics are very small. Maybe the Russians will convince themselves they have to defeat them now before they are reinforced.
    They maybe small, but they are there, and an attack on them would be quite the escalation, requiring air involvement to win.

    It is easy to see how this escalates if Putin attacks.
    If and when Russia attacks Lithuania, will fellow NATO member Turkey come to their aid? Seems unlikely.

    Heck, it isn’t that long ago since the President said the United States would not automatically defend the Baltic states from Russia if they were invaded.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/07/21/donald-trump-cast-doubt-on-the-baltics-involvement-in-nato-heres-what-they-actually-do/

    Turkey (or Turkiye) under Erdogan is proving to be an extremely unreliable ally. They appear to have acted in a deeply problematic manner over Finland and Sweden; only making its opposition to NATO membership for these countries known after they submitted their application. It does not bode well at all for the effectiveness and stability of the alliance.
    In fairness to Turkey, they have made their strong distaste for Sweden crystal clear in the last decade. And vice-versa. However, it is not a bilateral relationship which the rest of the planet has bothered paying much attention to. At least, not since the Great Northern War (1700–1721), the result of which arguably lies at the root of the current conflict.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_War
    I had no idea St Petersburg used to be Swedish.
    Not really, it was a swamp before Peter the Great had it built as his new capital, but it was a Swedish swamp.
    And the slaves who built the city in the formerly Swedish swamp were Swedes.
    When I was there for the World Cup I saw Peter's original cottage, which has an interesting exhibition of the construction of the city.

    Many Russian serfs died in the construction, as well as Swedish prisoners. All those lovely canals are the result.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,830
    edited June 22
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,156
    p.s. You can 'justify' crushing any 'little person' on the spurious pretext of profitability above all.

    It's the same capitalist mantra which has always put profit above people.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,156

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Morning all. The part that seems to have really riled people in my parts is the closing of ticket offices.

    I'm not sure Boris Johnson will mind. He's hellbent on wargaming.

    Closing ticket offices? Welcome to the majority of the country, where there are no ticket offices.
    There are 1000 ticket offices in England and 1 in 8 tickets is bought over the counter, as well as many other services like railcards.

    The online ticketing system is also riven with faults, including frequently more expensive tickets unless you really know your onions about circumventing it.

    Beeching also justified his cuts. The knock-on was the death of many rural communities and industries.
    I hate to break the news to you, but most of Beeching's cuts were justified. For every Waverley route that should not have been shut, there was a Wisbech and Upwell Tramway. Or a GNR Derby line. Or the Buxton - Ashbourne - Uttoxeter route. (*)

    Lines that are still loved, but were economic basket-cases.

    The world changes. Ticket offices prove useful to me on occasion, but their closure will not affect me or my travel that much.

    (*) Note: the much-loved Matlock to Buxton line - part of the Midland's route to Manchester - was not mentioned in the Beeching Cuts. But they closed it anyway because of internal railway politics... And thanks to Labour's Barbara Castle...
    Pull up the tailgate, Jack. I'm all right.
    Exactly!

    And on that note I shall bid you all a nice day. Look out for your fellow human beings.

    xx
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769

    Heathener said:

    Morning all. The part that seems to have really riled people in my parts is the closing of ticket offices.

    I'm not sure Boris Johnson will mind. He's hellbent on wargaming.

    Closing ticket offices? Welcome to the majority of the country, where there are no ticket offices.
    That’s what I was thinking.

    Incidentally, I note that Stockholm has now even removed the final ticket machines on the Metro. Ticketing is now 100% online, or simple card blipping.

    Cash is pretty much non-existent in Scandinavian society now, at least for those of working-age or younger. This really confused a group of elderly German tourists I spoke to last month. They just looked at me uncomprehendingly when I explained how we purchase goods and services.
    No, we don’t generally accept Euros. Heck, we don’t even generally accept Kronor.
    No, there is no Bureau de Change.
    No, that bank doesn’t hold any cash, it’s just an office for booked appointments for customers.
    The poor souls didn’t even have credit or debit cards on them.
    I feel genuinely sorry for the elderly. So many are just bewildered by how fast society is changing.

    I don’t believe our children have ever personally made a financial transaction in cash. Not that I’ve ever witnessed anyway.

    This seems to vary by country. Certainly when I visited Copenhagen in 2019 I didn't need any. Last week in Poland I was quite happily using plastic everywhere I went, but then crossed into Germany, where prices are higher, and found that people still default to cash. You can still pay by contact less in most places, but have to ask.
    My top tip for the next two decades: watch Poland. That place is on the up and up. Those people are truly astonishing. Ferociously ambitious, hard-working, proud, dependable, resilient, ruthless. Everything the English used to be.

    (Barring nuclear war of course, but then let’s face it, we’re all fucked.)

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,176
    edited June 22

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19
    The only two reasons I can think of for Russia attacking NATO are that:

    1. The Russians conclude they will lose the war in Ukraine and they believe defeat against NATO is politically more survivable than defeat against Ukraine alone.

    2. The Russians convince themselves that NATO is even more of a Potemkin military than Russia and they can force NATO to stop supplying arms to Ukraine by exposing NATO weakness and division.
    Or a combination of both. A Russian invasion of Lithuania means we are at war with Russia. The US has stated that unequivocally an attack on Lithuania is an attack on all NATO members.

    The NATO force in Lithuania is mostly German. The British forces are in Estonia, I think.
    The NATO forces in the Baltics are very small. Maybe the Russians will convince themselves they have to defeat them now before they are reinforced.
    They maybe small, but they are there, and an attack on them would be quite the escalation, requiring air involvement to win.

    It is easy to see how this escalates if Putin attacks.
    If and when Russia attacks Lithuania, will fellow NATO member Turkey come to their aid? Seems unlikely.

    Heck, it isn’t that long ago since the President said the United States would not automatically defend the Baltic states from Russia if they were invaded.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/07/21/donald-trump-cast-doubt-on-the-baltics-involvement-in-nato-heres-what-they-actually-do/

    Turkey (or Turkiye) under Erdogan is proving to be an extremely unreliable ally. They appear to have acted in a deeply problematic manner over Finland and Sweden; only making its opposition to NATO membership for these countries known after they submitted their application. It does not bode well at all for the effectiveness and stability of the alliance.
    In fairness to Turkey, they have made their strong distaste for Sweden crystal clear in the last decade. And vice-versa. However, it is not a bilateral relationship which the rest of the planet has bothered paying much attention to. At least, not since the Great Northern War (1700–1721), the result of which arguably lies at the root of the current conflict.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_War
    I had no idea St Petersburg used to be Swedish.
    Oh yes. The history of the eastern Baltic is complex and fascinating.

    In fact, if you delve back into Russia’s early history, you could argue that they were a Nordic/Viking invention. Look at the etymology of “Rus”.

    Understandably, people in the Atlantic islands tend to be preoccupied with the Danish and Norwegian Viking exploits westwards, but the Swedish history into the deep east and south, all the way to Kiev and Constantinople is just as astonishing. They shaped the nascent Kiev and Rus identities.
    I was surprised to discover how active the Vikings were in Constantinople. As you say, they weren't just coastal raiders.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangians

    It seems we routinely underestimate the amount of trade there was around Europe even in ancient times. Whilst Jesus reaching our green and pleasant land is a little bit of a stretch, AIUI there are indications there was a healthy trade in tin back from the southwest back into the Bronze Age.

    Or gold from Cornwall to Ireland:
    https://digventures.com/2015/06/was-there-a-bronze-age-gold-rush-in-cornwall/
    The Sutton Hoo finds include items from Constantinople, which is unsurprising, as the evidence points to the ship and crew originating in Mälardalen, the region around what is now Stockholm. And at that time there were strong trading routes between what is now Sweden and Constantinople. The Sutton Hoo items just made it unusually far west.
    We forget, sometimes, how easy coastal sea traffic was in those times compared with trying to cross forests full of wild beasts.


    And good morning to one and all!
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,876

    Heathener said:

    Morning all. The part that seems to have really riled people in my parts is the closing of ticket offices.

    I'm not sure Boris Johnson will mind. He's hellbent on wargaming.

    Closing ticket offices? Welcome to the majority of the country, where there are no ticket offices.
    That’s what I was thinking.

    Incidentally, I note that Stockholm has now even removed the final ticket machines on the Metro. Ticketing is now 100% online, or simple card blipping.

    Cash is pretty much non-existent in Scandinavian society now, at least for those of working-age or younger. This really confused a group of elderly German tourists I spoke to last month. They just looked at me uncomprehendingly when I explained how we purchase goods and services.
    No, we don’t generally accept Euros. Heck, we don’t even generally accept Kronor.
    No, there is no Bureau de Change.
    No, that bank doesn’t hold any cash, it’s just an office for booked appointments for customers.
    The poor souls didn’t even have credit or debit cards on them.
    I feel genuinely sorry for the elderly. So many are just bewildered by how fast society is changing.

    I don’t believe our children have ever personally made a financial transaction in cash. Not that I’ve ever witnessed anyway.

    This seems to vary by country. Certainly when I visited Copenhagen in 2019 I didn't need any. Last week in Poland I was quite happily using plastic everywhere I went, but then crossed into Germany, where prices are higher, and found that people still default to cash. You can still pay by contact less in most places, but have to ask.
    My top tip for the next two decades: watch Poland. That place is on the up and up. Those people are truly astonishing. Ferociously ambitious, hard-working, proud, dependable, resilient, ruthless. Everything the English used to be.

    (Barring nuclear war of course, but then let’s face it, we’re all fucked.)
    Also deeply politically divided to an extent that the rule of law is being undermined. It's hard not to see that acting as a brake on economic development.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326
    edited June 22

    Heathener said:

    Morning all. The part that seems to have really riled people in my parts is the closing of ticket offices.

    I'm not sure Boris Johnson will mind. He's hellbent on wargaming.

    Closing ticket offices? Welcome to the majority of the country, where there are no ticket offices.
    That’s what I was thinking.

    Incidentally, I note that Stockholm has now even removed the final ticket machines on the Metro. Ticketing is now 100% online, or simple card blipping.

    Cash is pretty much non-existent in Scandinavian society now, at least for those of working-age or younger. This really confused a group of elderly German tourists I spoke to last month. They just looked at me uncomprehendingly when I explained how we purchase goods and services.
    No, we don’t generally accept Euros. Heck, we don’t even generally accept Kronor.
    No, there is no Bureau de Change.
    No, that bank doesn’t hold any cash, it’s just an office for booked appointments for customers.
    The poor souls didn’t even have credit or debit cards on them.
    I feel genuinely sorry for the elderly. So many are just bewildered by how fast society is changing.

    I don’t believe our children have ever personally made a financial transaction in cash. Not that I’ve ever witnessed anyway.

    This seems to vary by country. Certainly when I visited Copenhagen in 2019 I didn't need any. Last week in Poland I was quite happily using plastic everywhere I went, but then crossed into Germany, where prices are higher, and found that people still default to cash. You can still pay by contact less in most places, but have to ask.
    When I visited Stokholm about 5 years ago, I got a couple of hundred pounds worth of cash, but really struggled to spend it (though Mrs Foxy proved capable of resolving the problem) as everywhere was contactless to pay.

    I posted here at the time how I thought national currencies were obsolete, as with contactless payments does it really mater if the purchase was in SKR, £ or €?

    I am off to Germany for a medical conference later this year, shall see if I need cash at all. The only time I use cash at the moment seems to be contributing to retirement/leaving/baby collections at work.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19
    The only two reasons I can think of for Russia attacking NATO are that:

    1. The Russians conclude they will lose the war in Ukraine and they believe defeat against NATO is politically more survivable than defeat against Ukraine alone.

    2. The Russians convince themselves that NATO is even more of a Potemkin military than Russia and they can force NATO to stop supplying arms to Ukraine by exposing NATO weakness and division.
    Or a combination of both. A Russian invasion of Lithuania means we are at war with Russia. The US has stated that unequivocally an attack on Lithuania is an attack on all NATO members.

    The NATO force in Lithuania is mostly German. The British forces are in Estonia, I think.
    The NATO forces in the Baltics are very small. Maybe the Russians will convince themselves they have to defeat them now before they are reinforced.
    They maybe small, but they are there, and an attack on them would be quite the escalation, requiring air involvement to win.

    It is easy to see how this escalates if Putin attacks.
    If and when Russia attacks Lithuania, will fellow NATO member Turkey come to their aid? Seems unlikely.

    Heck, it isn’t that long ago since the President said the United States would not automatically defend the Baltic states from Russia if they were invaded.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/07/21/donald-trump-cast-doubt-on-the-baltics-involvement-in-nato-heres-what-they-actually-do/

    Turkey (or Turkiye) under Erdogan is proving to be an extremely unreliable ally. They appear to have acted in a deeply problematic manner over Finland and Sweden; only making its opposition to NATO membership for these countries known after they submitted their application. It does not bode well at all for the effectiveness and stability of the alliance.
    In fairness to Turkey, they have made their strong distaste for Sweden crystal clear in the last decade. And vice-versa. However, it is not a bilateral relationship which the rest of the planet has bothered paying much attention to. At least, not since the Great Northern War (1700–1721), the result of which arguably lies at the root of the current conflict.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_War
    I had no idea St Petersburg used to be Swedish.
    Oh yes. The history of the eastern Baltic is complex and fascinating.

    In fact, if you delve back into Russia’s early history, you could argue that they were a Nordic/Viking invention. Look at the etymology of “Rus”.

    Understandably, people in the Atlantic islands tend to be preoccupied with the Danish and Norwegian Viking exploits westwards, but the Swedish history into the deep east and south, all the way to Kiev and Constantinople is just as astonishing. They shaped the nascent Kiev and Rus identities.
    I was surprised to discover how active the Vikings were in Constantinople. As you say, they weren't just coastal raiders.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangians

    It seems we routinely underestimate the amount of trade there was around Europe even in ancient times. Whilst Jesus reaching our green and pleasant land is a little bit of a stretch, AIUI there are indications there was a healthy trade in tin back from the southwest back into the Bronze Age.

    Or gold from Cornwall to Ireland:
    https://digventures.com/2015/06/was-there-a-bronze-age-gold-rush-in-cornwall/
    The Sutton Hoo finds include items from Constantinople, which is unsurprising, as the evidence points to the ship and crew originating in Mälardalen, the region around what is now Stockholm. And at that time there were strong trading routes between what is now Sweden and Constantinople. The Sutton Hoo items just made it unusually far west.
    We forget, sometimes, how easy coastal sea traffic was in those times compared with trying to cross forests full of wild beasts.

    And good morning to one and all!
    Good morning to you! It is beautifully sunny here.

    As for trade routes: someone on here linked to the following a while back: basically a route map/planner for the Roman empire. A good way of losing an hour or two. And yes, sea routes were much faster.

    https://orbis.stanford.edu/
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498
    I was a holdout for using cash on small transactions. Before Covid. Now? pretty much everything is contactless and increasingly using my phone.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 58,562
    Good morning, everyone.

    The decline of cash is a bad thing.

    The invention benefited everyone, but the elimination makes it easier to track people, easier to surreptitiously tax them, and easier to steal from them (you notice if you lose a note from a wallet. But if your balance declines by the same amount with no warning sign, would you?). If your bank or phone is on the blink then paying can become impossible, even though you have the funds.

    I'm not opposed to using other methods, but the elimination of cash would be a very bad thing indeed.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769
    edited June 22

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19
    The only two reasons I can think of for Russia attacking NATO are that:

    1. The Russians conclude they will lose the war in Ukraine and they believe defeat against NATO is politically more survivable than defeat against Ukraine alone.

    2. The Russians convince themselves that NATO is even more of a Potemkin military than Russia and they can force NATO to stop supplying arms to Ukraine by exposing NATO weakness and division.
    Or a combination of both. A Russian invasion of Lithuania means we are at war with Russia. The US has stated that unequivocally an attack on Lithuania is an attack on all NATO members.

    The NATO force in Lithuania is mostly German. The British forces are in Estonia, I think.
    The NATO forces in the Baltics are very small. Maybe the Russians will convince themselves they have to defeat them now before they are reinforced.
    They maybe small, but they are there, and an attack on them would be quite the escalation, requiring air involvement to win.

    It is easy to see how this escalates if Putin attacks.
    If and when Russia attacks Lithuania, will fellow NATO member Turkey come to their aid? Seems unlikely.

    Heck, it isn’t that long ago since the President said the United States would not automatically defend the Baltic states from Russia if they were invaded.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/07/21/donald-trump-cast-doubt-on-the-baltics-involvement-in-nato-heres-what-they-actually-do/

    Turkey (or Turkiye) under Erdogan is proving to be an extremely unreliable ally. They appear to have acted in a deeply problematic manner over Finland and Sweden; only making its opposition to NATO membership for these countries known after they submitted their application. It does not bode well at all for the effectiveness and stability of the alliance.
    In fairness to Turkey, they have made their strong distaste for Sweden crystal clear in the last decade. And vice-versa. However, it is not a bilateral relationship which the rest of the planet has bothered paying much attention to. At least, not since the Great Northern War (1700–1721), the result of which arguably lies at the root of the current conflict.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_War
    I had no idea St Petersburg used to be Swedish.
    Oh yes. The history of the eastern Baltic is complex and fascinating.

    In fact, if you delve back into Russia’s early history, you could argue that they were a Nordic/Viking invention. Look at the etymology of “Rus”.

    Understandably, people in the Atlantic islands tend to be preoccupied with the Danish and Norwegian Viking exploits westwards, but the Swedish history into the deep east and south, all the way to Kiev and Constantinople is just as astonishing. They shaped the nascent Kiev and Rus identities.
    I was surprised to discover how active the Vikings were in Constantinople. As you say, they weren't just coastal raiders.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangians

    It seems we routinely underestimate the amount of trade there was around Europe even in ancient times. Whilst Jesus reaching our green and pleasant land is a little bit of a stretch, AIUI there are indications there was a healthy trade in tin back from the southwest back into the Bronze Age.

    Or gold from Cornwall to Ireland:
    https://digventures.com/2015/06/was-there-a-bronze-age-gold-rush-in-cornwall/
    The Sutton Hoo finds include items from Constantinople, which is unsurprising, as the evidence points to the ship and crew originating in Mälardalen, the region around what is now Stockholm. And at that time there were strong trading routes between what is now Sweden and Constantinople. The Sutton Hoo items just made it unusually far west.
    We forget, sometimes, how easy coastal sea traffic was in those times compared with trying to cross forests full of wild beasts.


    And good morning to one and all!
    Not just coasts. The great and small rivers and lakes of Europe were the superhighways of their era.

    I laugh when people say how “remote” the Hebrides or Northern Isles are. Err… yes… if you look at modern roads or railways. But in the post-Roman world places like these, and Cornwall, Sicily, Crete, Kiev and Gdansk were the easier bits of the continent to trade with. They were hubs, not backwaters
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326

    Heathener said:

    Morning all. The part that seems to have really riled people in my parts is the closing of ticket offices.

    I'm not sure Boris Johnson will mind. He's hellbent on wargaming.

    Closing ticket offices? Welcome to the majority of the country, where there are no ticket offices.
    That’s what I was thinking.

    Incidentally, I note that Stockholm has now even removed the final ticket machines on the Metro. Ticketing is now 100% online, or simple card blipping.

    Cash is pretty much non-existent in Scandinavian society now, at least for those of working-age or younger. This really confused a group of elderly German tourists I spoke to last month. They just looked at me uncomprehendingly when I explained how we purchase goods and services.
    No, we don’t generally accept Euros. Heck, we don’t even generally accept Kronor.
    No, there is no Bureau de Change.
    No, that bank doesn’t hold any cash, it’s just an office for booked appointments for customers.
    The poor souls didn’t even have credit or debit cards on them.
    I feel genuinely sorry for the elderly. So many are just bewildered by how fast society is changing.

    I don’t believe our children have ever personally made a financial transaction in cash. Not that I’ve ever witnessed anyway.

    This seems to vary by country. Certainly when I visited Copenhagen in 2019 I didn't need any. Last week in Poland I was quite happily using plastic everywhere I went, but then crossed into Germany, where prices are higher, and found that people still default to cash. You can still pay by contact less in most places, but have to ask.
    My top tip for the next two decades: watch Poland. That place is on the up and up. Those people are truly astonishing. Ferociously ambitious, hard-working, proud, dependable, resilient, ruthless. Everything the English used to be.

    (Barring nuclear war of course, but then let’s face it, we’re all fucked.)
    Also deeply politically divided to an extent that the rule of law is being undermined. It's hard not to see that acting as a brake on economic development.
    I suspect recent events will put Poland and the other Visegrad countries much more firmly in the European camp. Possibly not Hungary.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,036
    On booking offices, the only time I use them is to buy a ticket that the machine won't sell me. We can use our Network Railcards (1/3 off journeys in the old Network Southeast area) from 10am. But I can't buy a ticket from a machine until 10am, and so I can't catch the 10am to London. But the booking office will sell me a ticket at 09:55.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Morning all. The part that seems to have really riled people in my parts is the closing of ticket offices.

    I'm not sure Boris Johnson will mind. He's hellbent on wargaming.

    Closing ticket offices? Welcome to the majority of the country, where there are no ticket offices.
    There are 1000 ticket offices in England and 1 in 8 tickets is bought over the counter, as well as many other services like railcards.

    The online ticketing system is also riven with faults, including frequently more expensive tickets unless you really know your onions about circumventing it.

    Beeching also justified his cuts. The knock-on was the death of many rural communities and industries.
    I hate to break the news to you, but most of Beeching's cuts were justified. For every Waverley route that should not have been shut, there was a Wisbech and Upwell Tramway. Or a GNR Derby line. Or the Buxton - Ashbourne - Uttoxeter route. (*)

    Lines that are still loved, but were economic basket-cases.

    The world changes. Ticket offices prove useful to me on occasion, but their closure will not affect me or my travel that much.

    (*) Note: the much-loved Matlock to Buxton line - part of the Midland's route to Manchester - was not mentioned in the Beeching Cuts. But they closed it anyway because of internal railway politics... And thanks to Labour's Barbara Castle...
    Pull up the tailgate, Jack. I'm all right.
    That's a rather poor response to my point, which is that millions of people already have to manage without ticket offices for their journeys.

    And I cannot speak for other people (obvs.), but for me, losing them would not be a major issue.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,383
    tlg86 said:

    On booking offices, the only time I use them is to buy a ticket that the machine won't sell me. We can use our Network Railcards (1/3 off journeys in the old Network Southeast area) from 10am. But I can't buy a ticket from a machine until 10am, and so I can't catch the 10am to London. But the booking office will sell me a ticket at 09:55.

    Have you ever tried using an app to purchase a ticket?

    I use Trainline, and it is bloody brilliant.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,383

    Good morning, everyone.

    The decline of cash is a bad thing.

    The invention benefited everyone, but the elimination makes it easier to track people, easier to surreptitiously tax them, and easier to steal from them (you notice if you lose a note from a wallet. But if your balance declines by the same amount with no warning sign, would you?). If your bank or phone is on the blink then paying can become impossible, even though you have the funds.

    I'm not opposed to using other methods, but the elimination of cash would be a very bad thing indeed.

    Monero.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,830
    edited June 22

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19
    The only two reasons I can think of for Russia attacking NATO are that:

    1. The Russians conclude they will lose the war in Ukraine and they believe defeat against NATO is politically more survivable than defeat against Ukraine alone.

    2. The Russians convince themselves that NATO is even more of a Potemkin military than Russia and they can force NATO to stop supplying arms to Ukraine by exposing NATO weakness and division.
    Or a combination of both. A Russian invasion of Lithuania means we are at war with Russia. The US has stated that unequivocally an attack on Lithuania is an attack on all NATO members.

    The NATO force in Lithuania is mostly German. The British forces are in Estonia, I think.
    The NATO forces in the Baltics are very small. Maybe the Russians will convince themselves they have to defeat them now before they are reinforced.
    They maybe small, but they are there, and an attack on them would be quite the escalation, requiring air involvement to win.

    It is easy to see how this escalates if Putin attacks.
    If and when Russia attacks Lithuania, will fellow NATO member Turkey come to their aid? Seems unlikely.

    Heck, it isn’t that long ago since the President said the United States would not automatically defend the Baltic states from Russia if they were invaded.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/07/21/donald-trump-cast-doubt-on-the-baltics-involvement-in-nato-heres-what-they-actually-do/

    Turkey (or Turkiye) under Erdogan is proving to be an extremely unreliable ally. They appear to have acted in a deeply problematic manner over Finland and Sweden; only making its opposition to NATO membership for these countries known after they submitted their application. It does not bode well at all for the effectiveness and stability of the alliance.
    In fairness to Turkey, they have made their strong distaste for Sweden crystal clear in the last decade. And vice-versa. However, it is not a bilateral relationship which the rest of the planet has bothered paying much attention to. At least, not since the Great Northern War (1700–1721), the result of which arguably lies at the root of the current conflict.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_War
    I had no idea St Petersburg used to be Swedish.
    Oh yes. The history of the eastern Baltic is complex and fascinating.

    In fact, if you delve back into Russia’s early history, you could argue that they were a Nordic/Viking invention. Look at the etymology of “Rus”.

    Understandably, people in the Atlantic islands tend to be preoccupied with the Danish and Norwegian Viking exploits westwards, but the Swedish history into the deep east and south, all the way to Kiev and Constantinople is just as astonishing. They shaped the nascent Kiev and Rus identities.
    I was surprised to discover how active the Vikings were in Constantinople. As you say, they weren't just coastal raiders.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangians

    It seems we routinely underestimate the amount of trade there was around Europe even in ancient times. Whilst Jesus reaching our green and pleasant land is a little bit of a stretch, AIUI there are indications there was a healthy trade in tin back from the southwest back into the Bronze Age.

    Or gold from Cornwall to Ireland:
    https://digventures.com/2015/06/was-there-a-bronze-age-gold-rush-in-cornwall/
    The Sutton Hoo finds include items from Constantinople, which is unsurprising, as the evidence points to the ship and crew originating in Mälardalen, the region around what is now Stockholm. And at that time there were strong trading routes between what is now Sweden and Constantinople. The Sutton Hoo items just made it unusually far west.
    ISTR there was a Time Team from a bronze age or iron age site in Cornwall where they found an artefact from what is now Turkey.

    (This is where @Richard_Tyndall comes along and gives us chapter and verse...)
    This one?
    From Constantinople to Cornwall (Padstow, Cornwall) | S15E10 | Time Team
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz6qQS3LL8k

    There is an accompanying commentary video at
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5gyxDkSmpo

    ETA not sure if it is the episode you have in mind but Tony Robinson introduces the dig with Turkish and African pottery. There might also be some flint knapping by one of @Leon's Cornish ancestors.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,176

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Cicero said:

    Foxy said:

    Lithuania has blocked Russia from using its railways to ship coal, metals, electronics and other sanctioned goods to the military exclave of Kaliningrad

    https://t.co/sA1dHSJUyL

    Potentially quite an escalation in terms of NATO becoming directly involved.

    The escalation was Russia beginning moves to derecognise the independence of Lithuania. Given that there is a Russian military plan to use the railway to stage an occupation of Lithuania, Vilnius is quite right to keep any Russian activity out of its territory. Especially since all the Lithuanians are doing is insisting on sanctions compliance.
    Sure, Russia said a few days ago that Lithuania is not a real country, and also quite open about other ex-Soviet counties too. A clear threat to the independence of the Baltic States, and others such as the Caucuses.

    Arguably, goods in transit from one bit of Russia to another are not busting sanctions.

    Not sure how much military the Russians still have in Belarus and Kaliningrad, but attempting to take that railroad corridor would be a direct attack on a NATO member. It could get quite hairy indeed.

    In other news, the German artillery has arrived in Ukraine, quite a formidable capability.

    https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1539225560588734466?t=fnl4vvWVT36A4PmcWer6_w&s=19
    The only two reasons I can think of for Russia attacking NATO are that:

    1. The Russians conclude they will lose the war in Ukraine and they believe defeat against NATO is politically more survivable than defeat against Ukraine alone.

    2. The Russians convince themselves that NATO is even more of a Potemkin military than Russia and they can force NATO to stop supplying arms to Ukraine by exposing NATO weakness and division.
    Or a combination of both. A Russian invasion of Lithuania means we are at war with Russia. The US has stated that unequivocally an attack on Lithuania is an attack on all NATO members.

    The NATO force in Lithuania is mostly German. The British forces are in Estonia, I think.
    The NATO forces in the Baltics are very small. Maybe the Russians will convince themselves they have to defeat them now before they are reinforced.
    They maybe small, but they are there, and an attack on them would be quite the escalation, requiring air involvement to win.

    It is easy to see how this escalates if Putin attacks.
    If and when Russia attacks Lithuania, will fellow NATO member Turkey come to their aid? Seems unlikely.

    Heck, it isn’t that long ago since the President said the United States would not automatically defend the Baltic states from Russia if they were invaded.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/07/21/donald-trump-cast-doubt-on-the-baltics-involvement-in-nato-heres-what-they-actually-do/

    Turkey (or Turkiye) under Erdogan is proving to be an extremely unreliable ally. They appear to have acted in a deeply problematic manner over Finland and Sweden; only making its opposition to NATO membership for these countries known after they submitted their application. It does not bode well at all for the effectiveness and stability of the alliance.
    In fairness to Turkey, they have made their strong distaste for Sweden crystal clear in the last decade. And vice-versa. However, it is not a bilateral relationship which the rest of the planet has bothered paying much attention to. At least, not since the Great Northern War (1700–1721), the result of which arguably lies at the root of the current conflict.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_War
    I had no idea St Petersburg used to be Swedish.
    Oh yes. The history of the eastern Baltic is complex and fascinating.

    In fact, if you delve back into Russia’s early history, you could argue that they were a Nordic/Viking invention. Look at the etymology of “Rus”.

    Understandably, people in the Atlantic islands tend to be preoccupied with the Danish and Norwegian Viking exploits westwards, but the Swedish history into the deep east and south, all the way to Kiev and Constantinople is just as astonishing. They shaped the nascent Kiev and Rus identities.
    I was surprised to discover how active the Vikings were in Constantinople. As you say, they weren't just coastal raiders.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangians

    It seems we routinely underestimate the amount of trade there was around Europe even in ancient times. Whilst Jesus reaching our green and pleasant land is a little bit of a stretch, AIUI there are indications there was a healthy trade in tin back from the southwest back into the Bronze Age.

    Or gold from Cornwall to Ireland:
    https://digventures.com/2015/06/was-there-a-bronze-age-gold-rush-in-cornwall/
    The Sutton Hoo finds include items from Constantinople, which is unsurprising, as the evidence points to the ship and crew originating in Mälardalen, the region around what is now Stockholm. And at that time there were strong trading routes between what is now Sweden and Constantinople. The Sutton Hoo items just made it unusually far west.
    We forget, sometimes, how easy coastal sea traffic was in those times compared with trying to cross forests full of wild beasts.

    And good morning to one and all!
    Good morning to you! It is beautifully sunny here.

    As for trade routes: someone on here linked to the following a while back: basically a route map/planner for the Roman empire. A good way of losing an hour or two. And yes, sea routes were much faster.

    https://orbis.stanford.edu/
    I did a WEA course on ancient Icelandic literature during lockdown;. We had a map of the world from a Viking point of view, basically from the North Pole downwards. It's surprising how close places we think of as far away from each other are, in fact!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,383
    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Morning all. The part that seems to have really riled people in my parts is the closing of ticket offices.

    I'm not sure Boris Johnson will mind. He's hellbent on wargaming.

    Closing ticket offices? Welcome to the majority of the country, where there are no ticket offices.
    That’s what I was thinking.

    Incidentally, I note that Stockholm has now even removed the final ticket machines on the Metro. Ticketing is now 100% online, or simple card blipping.

    Cash is pretty much non-existent in Scandinavian society now, at least for those of working-age or younger. This really confused a group of elderly German tourists I spoke to last month. They just looked at me uncomprehendingly when I explained how we purchase goods and services.
    No, we don’t generally accept Euros. Heck, we don’t even generally accept Kronor.
    No, there is no Bureau de Change.
    No, that bank doesn’t hold any cash, it’s just an office for booked appointments for customers.
    The poor souls didn’t even have credit or debit cards on them.
    I feel genuinely sorry for the elderly. So many are just bewildered by how fast society is changing.

    I don’t believe our children have ever personally made a financial transaction in cash. Not that I’ve ever witnessed anyway.

    This seems to vary by country. Certainly when I visited Copenhagen in 2019 I didn't need any. Last week in Poland I was quite happily using plastic everywhere I went, but then crossed into Germany, where prices are higher, and found that people still default to cash. You can still pay by contact less in most places, but have to ask.
    When I visited Stokholm about 5 years ago, I got a couple of hundred pounds worth of cash, but really struggled to spend it (though Mrs Foxy proved capable of resolving the problem) as everywhere was contactless to pay.

    I posted here at the time how I thought national currencies were obsolete, as with contactless payments does it really mater if the purchase was in SKR, £ or €?

    I am off to Germany for a medical conference later this year, shall see if I need cash at all. The only time I use cash at the moment seems to be contributing to retirement/leaving/baby collections at work.
    When I spend time in Hong Kong, I no longer bother to exchange cash. Other than tipping at the hotel, where would I use it?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326

    Good morning, everyone.

    The decline of cash is a bad thing.

    The invention benefited everyone, but the elimination makes it easier to track people, easier to surreptitiously tax them, and easier to steal from them (you notice if you lose a note from a wallet. But if your balance declines by the same amount with no warning sign, would you?). If your bank or phone is on the blink then paying can become impossible, even though you have the funds.

    I'm not opposed to using other methods, but the elimination of cash would be a very bad thing indeed.

    I have an account with Starling (which doesn't charge commission on foreign currency purchases) which sends me notifications for even very modest transactions. Far more information than simply looking in my wallet to see what's left. Interesting budgeting software as part of the App too.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769
    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    On booking offices, the only time I use them is to buy a ticket that the machine won't sell me. We can use our Network Railcards (1/3 off journeys in the old Network Southeast area) from 10am. But I can't buy a ticket from a machine until 10am, and so I can't catch the 10am to London. But the booking office will sell me a ticket at 09:55.

    Have you ever tried using an app to purchase a ticket?

    I use Trainline, and it is bloody brilliant.
    Ditto.

    Is there a term for fear of technology? If so, it seems to be rife.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,876
    It had to happen eventually - I've caught Covid. Surprised not to have done so earlier, but, also, I'm glad that I didn't catch the vomiting virus that also spread at the wedding we went to last week.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,460
    Nigelb said:

    Do you trust this government to rewrite completely our system of individual rights ?

    No 10 to set out sweeping plans to override power of Europe’s human rights court
    Proposal to replace Human Rights Act with bill of rights is effort to make government ‘untouchable’, say critics
    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/jun/21/uks-new-bill-of-rights-will-curtail-power-of-european-human-rights-court

    With Raab in the lead…

    Solution looking for a problem.
Sign In or Register to comment.