Paul Brand @PaulBrandITV · 12m Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.
That is quoting out of context. She was essentially making the tax cuts = higher growth = bigger slice of the cake for everyone argument so beloved of Maggie. Many economists disagree with it but it’s not quite the quote that tweet suggests.
Having now seem the full 2 minute clip, it's not at all taken out of context.
I agree. She said the higher paid benefiting the most was “fair”, so I don’t get this whole “taken out of the context” stuff.
She is quite clearly against redistributed and all for trickle down
The new approach from the Truss fandom is to claim anything they don't like is "out of context" or "misinterpreted". She is literally doing a Trump.
That's nothing like Trump whatsoever. Saying X is out of context or misinterpreted is the way traditional politics is done. You keep one foot in the world of facts, but then you try to spin them in your direction. The Trump method isn't to say X was misinterpreted, he'd say X never happened, and it's a total lie made up by the media, and the other side did X.
Paul Brand @PaulBrandITV · 12m Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.
That is quoting out of context. She was essentially making the tax cuts = higher growth = bigger slice of the cake for everyone argument so beloved of Maggie. Many economists disagree with it but it’s not quite the quote that tweet suggests.
Having now seem the full 2 minute clip, it's not at all taken out of context.
I agree. She said the higher paid benefiting the most was “fair”, so I don’t get this whole “taken out of the context” stuff.
She is quite clearly against redistributed and all for trickle down
The new approach from the Truss fandom is to claim anything they don't like is "out of context" or "misinterpreted". She is literally doing a Trump.
That's nothing like Trump whatsoever. Saying X is out of context or misinterpreted is the way traditional politics is done. You keep one foot in the world of facts, but then you try to spin them in your direction. The Trump method isn't to say X was misinterpreted, he'd say X never happened, and it's a total lie made up by the media, and the other side did X.
In short: yes but it’s looking less likely by the day. Truss has copied the Johnsonian playbook of promising all things to all people but is not as skilled a communicator. She would have been better served sticking to core principles and messages rather than the scattergun approach of the recent couple of weeks.
She is inevitably going to disappoint some people.
I see a route to a small majority. But to do so Truss needs to grow into the role, be a lucky general with the Ukraine war coming to an end and energy prices starting to come down, and bet the house on some eye-catching policies to help with cost of living and hope that they don’t send the economy out of control. Oh and improve her presentation skills. That is a big ask. Conceivable? Yes. Likely? Probably not.
There is an assumption that an end to the Ukraine was will be a quick fix for energy prices. If, as we hope, Ukraine does win doesn’t mean some quick rapprochement and the cheap energy taps coming back on. A sullen, chastened, Russia and a distrustful West will not result in a happy resumption of the status quo ante.
There is no quick end to the war for Ukraine, if the goal is to recover all the territory lost since 2014.
There is no quick end to the war for Russia, if the goal is to recover its "historical" lands.
If we want the war to end, then both countries will need to compromise. That is always how wars end.
Ultimately, this is what will happen because Ukrainians and Russians will want to stop dying and because Europe will run out of patience and money.
The financial costs of this war are being borne very unequally. It is Europe that is being impoverished -- not the USA and not China. It is European industries & businesses & governments that will be bankrupted by energy costs.
If we want the war to end quickly with a Ukrainian win, then the only sensible course is massive military intervention by NATO on the Ukrainian side.
That obviously carries huge risks, but it makes more sense than half-hearted support that is currently being offered.
The half hearted military support of Ukraine combined with a an economic war that will cost Europe, and mush of the wider world dearly is a terrible mistake.
We, the west, and Europe in particular should have given the Ukrainians the weapons they need, in the quantities they needed to win this, combined with training. It may be too late now, I don't know, I hope not, but we have fought this totally the wrong way.
Promising to spend an extra 100 billion euros to upgrade your own armed forces over the next few years, is a lot more expensive and a lot less effective than spending 10 billion over a copole of months.
There’s already tens of billions being spent by NATO countries arming and training the Ukranians. There’s a limit to how quickly the more advanced weapons can be deployed, because of training and logistics.
I agree that it’s important, that the rate of deployment is kept up as we move towards the winter, and that the NATO leaders don’t forget that this war is existential for European security. Russia needs to be defeated militarily, and withdraw totally from Ukraine.
Paul Brand @PaulBrandITV · 12m Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.
Hard to judge without context but I suspect most socialists would agree with her. The true disparities in this country come from wealth, not income. It is the appreciation of capital assets, principally homes but not exclusively so, that has created division in our society. This has been greatly accentuated by QE which has proven to be a tax on earnings whilst capital assets grew exponentially in nominal terms.
The fact that these gains have either been taxed not at all (houses) or very lightly (CGT -Entrepreneur Reliefs= diddly squat) whilst incomes have been penalised has allowed the rich to get much richer and kept the poor in their place. The aspirational middle classes have been squeezed out as creating capital from income so savagely taxed is almost impossible. Thatcher's dream of a shareholding, property owning democracy is dead. The death of these dreams is the Tories' biggest problems and it serves them right.
Most of us still own property, certainly over 40, hence we have less wealth inequality even than say Sweden or Germany. Average incomes however have not risen much since 2008 while City wages and CEO wages have boomed.
And if you think the left welcome Truss' proposed NI cut benefitting the highest earners most I suggest you haven't read Twitter this morning
That is not what I said and the cut in NI is a terrible idea. Sunak had already excluded the low to medium paid from it in his budget so it is almost entirely a benefit for the better paid which is the exact opposite of what is required right now given the CoL crisis.
But you are right that many over the age of 40 have at least got some modest foothold in the appreciating assets game. It is why the Tories still poll reasonably well with them but barely exist in those younger who have missed out. If the Tories want a future they need to massively increase housebuilding so that the value of property falls in real if not nominal terms and becomes more affordable to the young.
To an extent but remember most under 39s voted Labour even in 2019 when the Conservatives won a landslide victory.
It is 40 to 60 year olds who determine general elections, as long as most of them still own property the Conservatives can still win.
Under 40s almost always vote Labour and over 60s almost always vote Conservative
That obviously carries huge risks, but it makes more sense than half-hearted support that is currently being offered.
Biden's aid, and he's doing most of it while the rest doesn't happen without his sanction, always seems to be very carefully calibrated to keep Ukraine in the fight without letting them acheive a decisive victory that destabilises the Russian Federation or risks WW3.
Alhamdulilah, a strident and ill-informed Russophobe like Truss can only have a marginal effect on the conflict.
In short: yes but it’s looking less likely by the day. Truss has copied the Johnsonian playbook of promising all things to all people but is not as skilled a communicator. She would have been better served sticking to core principles and messages rather than the scattergun approach of the recent couple of weeks.
She is inevitably going to disappoint some people.
I see a route to a small majority. But to do so Truss needs to grow into the role, be a lucky general with the Ukraine war coming to an end and energy prices starting to come down, and bet the house on some eye-catching policies to help with cost of living and hope that they don’t send the economy out of control. Oh and improve her presentation skills. That is a big ask. Conceivable? Yes. Likely? Probably not.
There is an assumption that an end to the Ukraine was will be a quick fix for energy prices. If, as we hope, Ukraine does win doesn’t mean some quick rapprochement and the cheap energy taps coming back on. A sullen, chastened, Russia and a distrustful West will not result in a happy resumption of the status quo ante.
There is no quick end to the war for Ukraine, if the goal is to recover all the territory lost since 2014.
There is no quick end to the war for Russia, if the goal is to recover its "historical" lands.
If we want the war to end, then both countries will need to compromise. That is always how wars end.
Ultimately, this is what will happen because Ukrainians and Russians will want to stop dying and because Europe will run out of patience and money.
The financial costs of this war are being borne very unequally. It is Europe that is being impoverished -- not the USA and not China. It is European industries & businesses & governments that will be bankrupted by energy costs.
If we want the war to end quickly with a Ukrainian win, then the only sensible course is massive military intervention by NATO on the Ukrainian side.
That obviously carries huge risks, but it makes more sense than half-hearted support that is currently being offered.
The half hearted military support of Ukraine combined with a an economic war that will cost Europe, and mush of the wider world dearly is a terrible mistake.
We, the west, and Europe in particular should have given the Ukrainians the weapons they need, in the quantities they needed to win this, combined with training. It may be too late now, I don't know, I hope not, but we have fought this totally the wrong way.
Promising to spend an extra 100 billion euros to upgrade your own armed forces over the next few years, is a lot more expensive and a lot less effective than spending 10 billion over a copole of months.
I think there is also the problem that stocks of weapons and ammunition and the logistic and training capacity to UKR forces is quite limited. Giving lots more now runs the risk of neutering our own forces, and delivering to a UKR army that is keen but green.
The longer the war goes on, the stronger the UKR becomes, provided they can continue to hold on, and whatever else is happening in Kherson they look capable of holding on. The toughest bit for UKR will be keeping its internal economy going. Economic aid is as important as military aid.
Wherever the frontier finally rests, it is clear that Ukraine will be solidly be in the EU and NATO, at least in defacto if not dejure terms.
Yes we all know that the word “disaster” is the prevalent one used in describing Truss. What’s still not clear to me is exactly why.
I’ll speculate. I think Truss has inadvertently tapped into sub conscious sexism in British society. Were she a man who had held multiple cabinet roles (including Foreign Sec) without much in the way of either scandalous underperformance or spectacular achievement, with a relatively successful private sector career behind them, wooden presentation skills and right wing economic instincts, we wouldn’t call them “a disaster”.
We would call them Jeremy Hunt. The same Jeremy Hunt that the soft left now seems to think is some sort of Tory elder statesman and the only sane member of the Conservative Party.
Give her a chance. If she’s shit then we’ll all vote her out in very short order!
I think that's right, for some reason, that's probably innate to human natcher, people get a lot more emotional and therefore extreme in there assessments of female leaders, both left and right, and both pro and anti.
To name a few, Hillary Clinton or Shara Palin, Dian Abbot, or Margret Thatcher, theses all have big fan clubs and big hate groups. its hard to think of the same position for or against comparable men.
All of the recent polls bar one YouGov have Labour above 40, are Opinium picking up too few Labour voters or are we back to 2015 where Labour voters are too engaged
Paul Brand @PaulBrandITV · 12m Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.
Hard to judge without context but I suspect most socialists would agree with her. The true disparities in this country come from wealth, not income. It is the appreciation of capital assets, principally homes but not exclusively so, that has created division in our society. This has been greatly accentuated by QE which has proven to be a tax on earnings whilst capital assets grew exponentially in nominal terms.
The fact that these gains have either been taxed not at all (houses) or very lightly (CGT -Entrepreneur Reliefs= diddly squat) whilst incomes have been penalised has allowed the rich to get much richer and kept the poor in their place. The aspirational middle classes have been squeezed out as creating capital from income so savagely taxed is almost impossible. Thatcher's dream of a shareholding, property owning democracy is dead. The death of these dreams is the Tories' biggest problems and it serves them right.
I agree with you, but I'm not convinced that Truss does. She merely thinks that regressive income tax/NI is OK - I see no interest in reducing wealth inequality.
I am not saying she does. I agree she probably doesn't. I was merely making the point that the tweet saying that there was too much focus on income inequality is ambiguous as very small snippets so often are.
Yes we all know that the word “disaster” is the prevalent one used in describing Truss. What’s still not clear to me is exactly why.
It's because she says, and does, really stupid shit.
"With me, what you see is what you get," says Liz Truss, who in the space of her political career has gone from an anti-monarchist Lib Dem, to a Cameroon Remain-supporting Conservative, to a hardline Brexiteer. https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1566345535866474496
One of the more glib of your endless torrent of retweets. Truss joined the Conservative party in 1996. She then worked for about a decade in the private sector, during which time she also began her “political career” contesting council seats. For the Conservative Party.
Her position as being a former Remainer to Brexit backer describes about half the Parliamentary Conservative Party. And the LOTO.
Saying “what you see is what you get” is clearly a nod to her less than polished politician presentation skills. A break from the am-dram / advertising days of Blair / Cameron.
It’s clear her premiership will live or die on her plan for energy. And you don’t know what that is yet. You just have an irrational hatred of her.
The more I think about it, the more I believe the Biden “semi fascist” speech was a crazy mistake
Standing in front of a blood red backdrop, flanked by marines, saying the Republicans are fascist, is basically saying: “republicans must never win. They are not American. I am America”
It’s the equivalent of Charles II dissolving Parliament in 1629
Hardly. It's the current version of the GOP which is the problem, not the institution itself. Started with the tea party insurrection and has led us here where lies are truth and losing is being cheated.
Doesn't always have to stay like that...
It is an unusually naive post from @Leon. A Trump victory in 2024 would be dangerously like the election of Hitler in January 33. Not because Trump is a Nazi or a war monger but because he has no respect for democratic principles or rules.
The evidence that the current Republican party has no respect for institutions, the rule of law, election results and dissent is simply overwhelming. A Trump victory, giving him access to the levers of power once again, is very likely to be fatal to a working democracy in the United States. The threat is real and Biden was right to point it out, even if his backdrop was seriously silly.
To be fair even Dick Cheney has said Trump is a dangerous threat to the US, not just Biden. Cheney is certainly no Woke left liberal
mostly older professionals who worked their way up and are retired or close to it.
Damn the older professionals you know are a lot cooler than my parents
My neighbour is 60 and more of a party animal than me. We were bopping to Abba for ages. It was great. And all the neighbours were there so there weren’t any noise complaints!
Yes we all know that the word “disaster” is the prevalent one used in describing Truss. What’s still not clear to me is exactly why.
It's because she says, and does, really stupid shit.
"With me, what you see is what you get," says Liz Truss, who in the space of her political career has gone from an anti-monarchist Lib Dem, to a Cameroon Remain-supporting Conservative, to a hardline Brexiteer. https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1566345535866474496
One of the more glib of your endless torrent of retweets. Truss joined the Conservative party in 1996. She then worked for about a decade in the private sector, during which time she also began her “political career” contesting council seats. For the Conservative Party.
Her position as being a former Remainer to Brexit backer describes about half the Parliamentary Conservative Party. And the LOTO.
Saying “what you see is what you get” is clearly a nod to her less than polished politician presentation skills. A break from the am-dram / advertising days of Blair / Cameron.
It’s clear her premiership will live or die on her plan for energy. And you don’t know what that is yet. You just have an irrational hatred of her.
Oh her premiership will die on her plan for energy - because, sadly, there is no plan that will plausibly work…
The more I think about it, the more I believe the Biden “semi fascist” speech was a crazy mistake
Standing in front of a blood red backdrop, flanked by marines, saying the Republicans are fascist, is basically saying: “republicans must never win. They are not American. I am America”
It’s the equivalent of Charles II dissolving Parliament in 1629
Hardly. It's the current version of the GOP which is the problem, not the institution itself. Started with the tea party insurrection and has led us here where lies are truth and losing is being cheated.
Doesn't always have to stay like that...
It is an unusually naive post from @Leon. A Trump victory in 2024 would be dangerously like the election of Hitler in January 33. Not because Trump is a Nazi or a war monger but because he has no respect for democratic principles or rules.
The evidence that the current Republican party has no respect for institutions, the rule of law, election results and dissent is simply overwhelming. A Trump victory, giving him access to the levers of power once again, is very likely to be fatal to a working democracy in the United States. The threat is real and Biden was right to point it out, even if his backdrop was seriously silly.
I see Wokeness as more dangerous long term to the entire west, than a “legitimate” Trump victory
You are free to disagree. But I take this position not of naivety but cold hearted realpolitik
America is in danger of destroying the Enlightenment whichever way it turns - Trump or Biden
Of course the best outcome is trump dropping dead - so sad - and de Santis winning
Wokeness is annoying and positively harmful in places, specifically with sexually confused teenagers, but to suggest that it is more of a threat to our future than the collapse of the leading democracy in the world into another kleptocracy is just bizarre.
Thought experiment. I suggest the best possible outcome for America now is an obviously valid Trump win in 2024. A win that he doesn’t have to enforce with violence
Would that be deserved? No. Of course not. He’s a maniac and a brute
However it would mollify the right in the USA. At a crucial moment. Pulling them back from civil war
And trump is not obviously a bad politician. He has good instincts - like lab leak. The big issue would be US withdrawal from NATO and isolationism - clearly bad for the UK, tho justifiable from a US perspective
The likely alternative - a win by an aged Biden and a worsening of Wokeness leads, I think, to civil strife of some kind
You’ve really gone full alt-right. A Trump win would mean that 2024 is the last open US general election. Sure, elections would happen, but in largely the same way that elections in China happen.
“Woke” is something that keeps you awake at night but it is a straw man, a shibboleth for you chaps of the alt-right. “Woke” - the imaginary enemy. While Trump forces 10 year old rape victims to give birth, fixes the electoral system so only Republicans can win, casts opposition as “Enemies of the State” (as he did yesterday) you’ll still be banging on about sodding pronouns and statues.
Just to add my appreciation for this response. So we’ll crafted!
The more I think about it, the more I believe the Biden “semi fascist” speech was a crazy mistake
Standing in front of a blood red backdrop, flanked by marines, saying the Republicans are fascist, is basically saying: “republicans must never win. They are not American. I am America”
It’s the equivalent of Charles II dissolving Parliament in 1629
Hardly. It's the current version of the GOP which is the problem, not the institution itself. Started with the tea party insurrection and has led us here where lies are truth and losing is being cheated.
Doesn't always have to stay like that...
It is an unusually naive post from @Leon. A Trump victory in 2024 would be dangerously like the election of Hitler in January 33. Not because Trump is a Nazi or a war monger but because he has no respect for democratic principles or rules.
The evidence that the current Republican party has no respect for institutions, the rule of law, election results and dissent is simply overwhelming. A Trump victory, giving him access to the levers of power once again, is very likely to be fatal to a working democracy in the United States. The threat is real and Biden was right to point it out, even if his backdrop was seriously silly.
I see Wokeness as more dangerous long term to the entire west, than a “legitimate” Trump victory
You are free to disagree. But I take this position not of naivety but cold hearted realpolitik
America is in danger of destroying the Enlightenment whichever way it turns - Trump or Biden
Of course the best outcome is trump dropping dead - so sad - and de Santis winning
If only there was a powerful, anti-woke world leader who you could get fully behind.
Yes we all know that the word “disaster” is the prevalent one used in describing Truss. What’s still not clear to me is exactly why.
It's because she says, and does, really stupid shit.
"With me, what you see is what you get," says Liz Truss, who in the space of her political career has gone from an anti-monarchist Lib Dem, to a Cameroon Remain-supporting Conservative, to a hardline Brexiteer. https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1566345535866474496
To be fair to Truss she has at least always been an economic conservative and a social liberal. She is the closest we have yet had to a libertarian ideologue as UK PM
Always interesting to see how caricaturists have attempted to draw HMQ's likely next Prime Minister, particularly since the last one was effectively a living caricature:
I think Ben Jennings has been best so far at caricaturing Truss. A great likeness of her appearance and projected personality, and he has already been able to show her in other guises (eg as a predatory bird) without losing this core likeness: https://twitter.com/BJennings90/status/1564581806707556354
The more I think about it, the more I believe the Biden “semi fascist” speech was a crazy mistake
Standing in front of a blood red backdrop, flanked by marines, saying the Republicans are fascist, is basically saying: “republicans must never win. They are not American. I am America”
It’s the equivalent of Charles II dissolving Parliament in 1629
Hardly. It's the current version of the GOP which is the problem, not the institution itself. Started with the tea party insurrection and has led us here where lies are truth and losing is being cheated.
Doesn't always have to stay like that...
It is an unusually naive post from @Leon. A Trump victory in 2024 would be dangerously like the election of Hitler in January 33. Not because Trump is a Nazi or a war monger but because he has no respect for democratic principles or rules.
The evidence that the current Republican party has no respect for institutions, the rule of law, election results and dissent is simply overwhelming. A Trump victory, giving him access to the levers of power once again, is very likely to be fatal to a working democracy in the United States. The threat is real and Biden was right to point it out, even if his backdrop was seriously silly.
I see Wokeness as more dangerous long term to the entire west, than a “legitimate” Trump victory
You are free to disagree. But I take this position not of naivety but cold hearted realpolitik
America is in danger of destroying the Enlightenment whichever way it turns - Trump or Biden
Of course the best outcome is trump dropping dead - so sad - and de Santis winning
Wokeness is annoying and positively harmful in places, specifically with sexually confused teenagers, but to suggest that it is more of a threat to our future than the collapse of the leading democracy in the world into another kleptocracy is just bizarre.
At some point the flesh-golem known as Leon had his Shem replaced with a copy of the Daily Telegraph stapled to a UFOlogy magazine.
The more I think about it, the more I believe the Biden “semi fascist” speech was a crazy mistake
Standing in front of a blood red backdrop, flanked by marines, saying the Republicans are fascist, is basically saying: “republicans must never win. They are not American. I am America”
It’s the equivalent of Charles II dissolving Parliament in 1629
Hardly. It's the current version of the GOP which is the problem, not the institution itself. Started with the tea party insurrection and has led us here where lies are truth and losing is being cheated.
Doesn't always have to stay like that...
It is an unusually naive post from @Leon. A Trump victory in 2024 would be dangerously like the election of Hitler in January 33. Not because Trump is a Nazi or a war monger but because he has no respect for democratic principles or rules.
The evidence that the current Republican party has no respect for institutions, the rule of law, election results and dissent is simply overwhelming. A Trump victory, giving him access to the levers of power once again, is very likely to be fatal to a working democracy in the United States. The threat is real and Biden was right to point it out, even if his backdrop was seriously silly.
I see Wokeness as more dangerous long term to the entire west, than a “legitimate” Trump victory
You are free to disagree. But I take this position not of naivety but cold hearted realpolitik
America is in danger of destroying the Enlightenment whichever way it turns - Trump or Biden
Of course the best outcome is trump dropping dead - so sad - and de Santis winning
Wokeness is annoying and positively harmful in places, specifically with sexually confused teenagers, but to suggest that it is more of a threat to our future than the collapse of the leading democracy in the world into another kleptocracy is just bizarre.
You need to read deeply to understand how dangerous it is. You haven’t. That’s fair. You’re a hard pressed working lawyer I’m a time-rich knapper with hours to explore this world
I see Woke as = Marxism in about 1908
I refer you to the comments of @darkage who is of the Left yet has the same “paranoid” opinion of Woke as me
I'm currently watching my Don's team playing a pre season friendly, 6-0 up early in the second half and my son got an assist. Thought I'd report an interesting addition to the footballing lexicon - the "Brexit tackle" (noun and verb) - an ugly, needlessly aggressive tackle that is nevertheless just within the rules. I think its derivation is that it harks back to an earlier style of English football and is in contrast to a more skillful Continental European style of play.
I'm currently watching my Don's team playing a pre season friendly, 6-0 up early in the second half and my son got an assist. Thought I'd report an interesting addition to the footballing lexicon - the "Brexit tackle" (noun and verb) - an ugly, needlessly aggressive tackle that is nevertheless just within the rules. I think its derivation is that it harks back to an earlier style of English football and is in contrast to a more skillful Continental European style of play.
In short: yes but it’s looking less likely by the day. Truss has copied the Johnsonian playbook of promising all things to all people but is not as skilled a communicator. She would have been better served sticking to core principles and messages rather than the scattergun approach of the recent couple of weeks.
She is inevitably going to disappoint some people.
I see a route to a small majority. But to do so Truss needs to grow into the role, be a lucky general with the Ukraine war coming to an end and energy prices starting to come down, and bet the house on some eye-catching policies to help with cost of living and hope that they don’t send the economy out of control. Oh and improve her presentation skills. That is a big ask. Conceivable? Yes. Likely? Probably not.
There is an assumption that an end to the Ukraine was will be a quick fix for energy prices. If, as we hope, Ukraine does win doesn’t mean some quick rapprochement and the cheap energy taps coming back on. A sullen, chastened, Russia and a distrustful West will not result in a happy resumption of the status quo ante.
There is no quick end to the war for Ukraine, if the goal is to recover all the territory lost since 2014.
There is no quick end to the war for Russia, if the goal is to recover its "historical" lands.
If we want the war to end, then both countries will need to compromise. That is always how wars end.
Ultimately, this is what will happen because Ukrainians and Russians will want to stop dying and because Europe will run out of patience and money.
The financial costs of this war are being borne very unequally. It is Europe that is being impoverished -- not the USA and not China. It is European industries & businesses & governments that will be bankrupted by energy costs.
If we want the war to end quickly with a Ukrainian win, then the only sensible course is massive military intervention by NATO on the Ukrainian side.
That obviously carries huge risks, but it makes more sense than half-hearted support that is currently being offered.
Compromise not always how wars end. I'm not even sure it's *usually* how wars end. Wars also end by one side losing. That's how WW2 ended (both the Germany part and the Japan part), and how the Falklands War ended, and effectively how both US and the Russian wars in Afghanistan ended.
The practical problem with Ukraine giving up territory is that it's not obvious why Putin doesn't just take what he's got, build up the logistics as far as the border, give it a couple of years to rearm and then try again. If someone's got a way to guarantee "this much but no further" then it might be rational for both Ukraine and the other western countries to agree, but the history of such attempts isn't great.
Direct military intervention by NATO could plausibly be very expensive for NATO members because it might result in World War 3, which would be substantially worse for EU states than expensive energy prices.
Wars do sometimes end up with one side definitely losing -- and WW2 is a good example.
The Falklands War is another (though as the claim to the Malvinas has not been withdrawn, it is perhaps premature to regard this matter as "over"). Like most boundary disputes, there is enormous resilience to achieving a resolution.
This War at present seems to bear little resemblance to either WW2 or the Falklands War. I don't think the invasion of Russia is even remotely possible without nuclear holocaust -- as of course would be necessary for the parallel with WW2. And the War is nothing like the Falklands conflict, which was very limited in its scope to some desolate, underpopulated islands.
The US and Russian Wars in Afghanistan are better parallels, though I think the Iran-Iraq War is still closer still. It has two reasonably matched armies fighting a war about where the boundary of their countries should be.
The Russian War in Afghanistan lasted a decade. The US war lasted for closer to two decades. The Iran-Iraq War lasted 8 years.
I think these are reasonable estimates for how long this war will take, if matters continue as present.
I agree, there's no sign of it ending soon. I suppose you could argue that this war has been going on since 2014 so it's already in year 8. But Russia still seems to be in the "credulous demented patriotism" phase that the US was in around 2001, and it took a good 12 or 13 years from there before it even became common to say it may not have been such a great idea to try to govern Afghanistan.
I'm currently watching my Don's team playing a pre season friendly, 6-0 up early in the second half and my son got an assist. Thought I'd report an interesting addition to the footballing lexicon - the "Brexit tackle" (noun and verb) - an ugly, needlessly aggressive tackle that is nevertheless just within the rules. I think its derivation is that it harks back to an earlier style of English football and is in contrast to a more skillful Continental European style of play.
Oh come now, I dislike the Brexit-right as much as anyone born after the fall of the wall but have you seen how the French play football?
The more I think about it, the more I believe the Biden “semi fascist” speech was a crazy mistake
Standing in front of a blood red backdrop, flanked by marines, saying the Republicans are fascist, is basically saying: “republicans must never win. They are not American. I am America”
It’s the equivalent of Charles II dissolving Parliament in 1629
Hardly. It's the current version of the GOP which is the problem, not the institution itself. Started with the tea party insurrection and has led us here where lies are truth and losing is being cheated.
Doesn't always have to stay like that...
It is an unusually naive post from @Leon. A Trump victory in 2024 would be dangerously like the election of Hitler in January 33. Not because Trump is a Nazi or a war monger but because he has no respect for democratic principles or rules.
The evidence that the current Republican party has no respect for institutions, the rule of law, election results and dissent is simply overwhelming. A Trump victory, giving him access to the levers of power once again, is very likely to be fatal to a working democracy in the United States. The threat is real and Biden was right to point it out, even if his backdrop was seriously silly.
I see Wokeness as more dangerous long term to the entire west, than a “legitimate” Trump victory
You are free to disagree. But I take this position not of naivety but cold hearted realpolitik
America is in danger of destroying the Enlightenment whichever way it turns - Trump or Biden
Of course the best outcome is trump dropping dead - so sad - and de Santis winning
Wokeness is annoying and positively harmful in places, specifically with sexually confused teenagers, but to suggest that it is more of a threat to our future than the collapse of the leading democracy in the world into another kleptocracy is just bizarre.
You have to reckon that Socialism, Marxism, and left-wing Utopias generally are pretty much discredited these days and the type of disaffected romantics who attached themselves to such causes have few credible places to go now. Woke provides a home, but as a serious progressive social movement it lacks depth and is readily dismissed.
It is not a threat to civilisation as we know it, just a useful rallying point for some and Bogeyman for others who like to feel the barbarians are always at the gate.
I'm currently watching my Don's team playing a pre season friendly, 6-0 up early in the second half and my son got an assist. Thought I'd report an interesting addition to the footballing lexicon - the "Brexit tackle" (noun and verb) - an ugly, needlessly aggressive tackle that is nevertheless just within the rules. I think its derivation is that it harks back to an earlier style of English football and is in contrast to a more skillful Continental European style of play.
mostly older professionals who worked their way up and are retired or close to it.
Damn the older professionals you know are a lot cooler than my parents
My neighbour is 60 and more of a party animal than me. We were bopping to Abba for ages. It was great. And all the neighbours were there so there weren’t any noise complaints!
Boomers and older Gen X will redefine what old age is like. It won't be bingo and Vera Lynn singalongs.
In short: yes but it’s looking less likely by the day. Truss has copied the Johnsonian playbook of promising all things to all people but is not as skilled a communicator. She would have been better served sticking to core principles and messages rather than the scattergun approach of the recent couple of weeks.
She is inevitably going to disappoint some people.
I see a route to a small majority. But to do so Truss needs to grow into the role, be a lucky general with the Ukraine war coming to an end and energy prices starting to come down, and bet the house on some eye-catching policies to help with cost of living and hope that they don’t send the economy out of control. Oh and improve her presentation skills. That is a big ask. Conceivable? Yes. Likely? Probably not.
There is an assumption that an end to the Ukraine was will be a quick fix for energy prices. If, as we hope, Ukraine does win doesn’t mean some quick rapprochement and the cheap energy taps coming back on. A sullen, chastened, Russia and a distrustful West will not result in a happy resumption of the status quo ante.
There is no quick end to the war for Ukraine, if the goal is to recover all the territory lost since 2014.
There is no quick end to the war for Russia, if the goal is to recover its "historical" lands.
If we want the war to end, then both countries will need to compromise. That is always how wars end.
Ultimately, this is what will happen because Ukrainians and Russians will want to stop dying and because Europe will run out of patience and money.
The financial costs of this war are being borne very unequally. It is Europe that is being impoverished -- not the USA and not China. It is European industries & businesses & governments that will be bankrupted by energy costs.
If we want the war to end quickly with a Ukrainian win, then the only sensible course is massive military intervention by NATO on the Ukrainian side.
That obviously carries huge risks, but it makes more sense than half-hearted support that is currently being offered.
Compromise not always how wars end. I'm not even sure it's *usually* how wars end. Wars also end by one side losing. That's how WW2 ended (both the Germany part and the Japan part), and how the Falklands War ended, and effectively how both US and the Russian wars in Afghanistan ended.
The practical problem with Ukraine giving up territory is that it's not obvious why Putin doesn't just take what he's got, build up the logistics as far as the border, give it a couple of years to rearm and then try again. If someone's got a way to guarantee "this much but no further" then it might be rational for both Ukraine and the other western countries to agree, but the history of such attempts isn't great.
Direct military intervention by NATO could plausibly be very expensive for NATO members because it might result in World War 3, which would be substantially worse for EU states than expensive energy prices.
Long-term strong UN border protection has worked well in Cyprus and if it included a bunch of NATO troops I don't think Russia would try to overrun them because of the obvious consequences. Finding an acceptable deal is obviously difficult, but long-term leases without prejudice to the final status might be a way forward for Donbas and Crimea. I'd really prefer to see local UN-run plebiscites for each area, but that could be a second stage. Zelensky might count on winning them, while Putin might hope that weary current residents would settle for the status quo.
The essential precondition is that both sides actually want to stop the killing rnough to even consider compromise. That's not currently the case, as Putin wants to be a new czar resoring Mother Russia and Zelensky, though not himself historically super-nationalist, is surrounded by people who see restoration of the whole of Ukraine as a holy project. The propaganda on each side that they're on the point of dramatic breakthrough looks inconsistent with reality, but it's hard to back away from that. If the Kherson offensive bogs down and a long winter sets in with little movement, that could change. I also think (and I know many here won't agree) that the west shouldn't pump up the conflict - keep supplying enough to prevent further Russian progress, but don't fuel the "never settle before Crimea is Ukrainian" stuff. Quite possibly that medium strategy is what the west is actually doing?
Thought experiment. I suggest the best possible outcome for America now is an obviously valid Trump win in 2024. A win that he doesn’t have to enforce with violence
Would that be deserved? No. Of course not. He’s a maniac and a brute
However it would mollify the right in the USA. At a crucial moment. Pulling them back from civil war
And trump is not obviously a bad politician. He has good instincts - like lab leak. The big issue would be US withdrawal from NATO and isolationism - clearly bad for the UK, tho justifiable from a US perspective
The likely alternative - a win by an aged Biden and a worsening of Wokeness leads, I think, to civil strife of some kind
You’ve really gone full alt-right. A Trump win would mean that 2024 is the last open US general election. Sure, elections would happen, but in largely the same way that elections in China happen.
“Woke” is something that keeps you awake at night but it is a straw man, a shibboleth for you chaps of the alt-right. “Woke” - the imaginary enemy. While Trump forces 10 year old rape victims to give birth, fixes the electoral system so only Republicans can win, casts opposition as “Enemies of the State” (as he did yesterday) you’ll still be banging on about sodding pronouns and statues.
You literally think Woke is just pronouns and statues even as they saw the breasts off 15 year olds. You’re a dangerous cretin
It takes a special sort of dangerous cretin to fail to see that thousands of women and girls in the USA are in far greater danger from Trump and the Republican war on abortion than your attempt to link Biden to a few examples (of debatable veracity) of wrongly performed gender reassignment surgery. A few examples of the latter isn’t the same league, ballpark, fucking sport as the Republican policy of children being forced to carry potentially lethal pregnancies to term across the nation, of communities across the south and elsewhere being effectively disenfranchised. That is what you are advocating. Get your head on and your priorities right. “Sawing off breasts” FFS. You need to sort yourself out.
I'm currently watching my Don's team playing a pre season friendly, 6-0 up early in the second half and my son got an assist. Thought I'd report an interesting addition to the footballing lexicon - the "Brexit tackle" (noun and verb) - an ugly, needlessly aggressive tackle that is nevertheless just within the rules. I think its derivation is that it harks back to an earlier style of English football and is in contrast to a more skillful Continental European style of play.
Oh come now, I dislike the Brexit-right as much as anyone born after the fall of the wall but have you seen how the French play football?
Ha ha.
I should add that my son and his mates have a great deal of enthusiasm for the Brexit tackle. So far it is the only aspect of Brexit that they express any kind of enthusiasm for.
The more I think about it, the more I believe the Biden “semi fascist” speech was a crazy mistake
Standing in front of a blood red backdrop, flanked by marines, saying the Republicans are fascist, is basically saying: “republicans must never win. They are not American. I am America”
It’s the equivalent of Charles II dissolving Parliament in 1629
Hardly. It's the current version of the GOP which is the problem, not the institution itself. Started with the tea party insurrection and has led us here where lies are truth and losing is being cheated.
Doesn't always have to stay like that...
It is an unusually naive post from @Leon. A Trump victory in 2024 would be dangerously like the election of Hitler in January 33. Not because Trump is a Nazi or a war monger but because he has no respect for democratic principles or rules.
The evidence that the current Republican party has no respect for institutions, the rule of law, election results and dissent is simply overwhelming. A Trump victory, giving him access to the levers of power once again, is very likely to be fatal to a working democracy in the United States. The threat is real and Biden was right to point it out, even if his backdrop was seriously silly.
I see Wokeness as more dangerous long term to the entire west, than a “legitimate” Trump victory
You are free to disagree. But I take this position not of naivety but cold hearted realpolitik
America is in danger of destroying the Enlightenment whichever way it turns - Trump or Biden
Of course the best outcome is trump dropping dead - so sad - and de Santis winning
If only there was a powerful, anti-woke world leader who you could get fully behind.
Thought experiment. I suggest the best possible outcome for America now is an obviously valid Trump win in 2024. A win that he doesn’t have to enforce with violence
Would that be deserved? No. Of course not. He’s a maniac and a brute
However it would mollify the right in the USA. At a crucial moment. Pulling them back from civil war
And trump is not obviously a bad politician. He has good instincts - like lab leak. The big issue would be US withdrawal from NATO and isolationism - clearly bad for the UK, tho justifiable from a US perspective
The likely alternative - a win by an aged Biden and a worsening of Wokeness leads, I think, to civil strife of some kind
You’ve really gone full alt-right. A Trump win would mean that 2024 is the last open US general election. Sure, elections would happen, but in largely the same way that elections in China happen.
“Woke” is something that keeps you awake at night but it is a straw man, a shibboleth for you chaps of the alt-right. “Woke” - the imaginary enemy. While Trump forces 10 year old rape victims to give birth, fixes the electoral system so only Republicans can win, casts opposition as “Enemies of the State” (as he did yesterday) you’ll still be banging on about sodding pronouns and statues.
You literally think Woke is just pronouns and statues even as they saw the breasts off 15 year olds. You’re a dangerous cretin
A post that demonstrates fully that you just lost that argument.
A comment that proves you don’t even UNDERSTAND the argument
I UNDERSTAND that you have ignored a spectacular act of sedition and accused the other side as being the danger to democracy.
Paul Brand @PaulBrandITV · 12m Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.
Hard to judge without context but I suspect most socialists would agree with her. The true disparities in this country come from wealth, not income. It is the appreciation of capital assets, principally homes but not exclusively so, that has created division in our society. This has been greatly accentuated by QE which has proven to be a tax on earnings whilst capital assets grew exponentially in nominal terms.
The fact that these gains have either been taxed not at all (houses) or very lightly (CGT -Entrepreneur Reliefs= diddly squat) whilst incomes have been penalised has allowed the rich to get much richer and kept the poor in their place. The aspirational middle classes have been squeezed out as creating capital from income so savagely taxed is almost impossible. Thatcher's dream of a shareholding, property owning democracy is dead. The death of these dreams is the Tories' biggest problems and it serves them right.
Most of us still own property, certainly over 40, hence we have less wealth inequality even than say Sweden or Germany. Average incomes however have not risen much since 2008 while City wages and CEO wages have boomed.
And if you think the left welcome Truss' proposed NI cut benefitting the highest earners most I suggest you haven't read Twitter this morning
That is not what I said and the cut in NI is a terrible idea. Sunak had already excluded the low to medium paid from it in his budget so it is almost entirely a benefit for the better paid which is the exact opposite of what is required right now given the CoL crisis.
But you are right that many over the age of 40 have at least got some modest foothold in the appreciating assets game. It is why the Tories still poll reasonably well with them but barely exist in those younger who have missed out. If the Tories want a future they need to massively increase housebuilding so that the value of property falls in real if not nominal terms and becomes more affordable to the young.
To an extent but remember most under 39s voted Labour even in 2019 when the Conservatives won a landslide victory.
It is 40 to 60 year olds who determine general elections, as long as most of them still own property the Conservatives can still win.
Under 40s almost always vote Labour and over 60s almost always vote Conservative
There were some graphs yesterday which show that isn't wholly true, even now, and in any event is a fairly recent phenomenon. No reason why today's under 40s shouldn't continue voting Labour.
I have been giving this a lot of thought over the last few days, it seems to me that Liz Truss cannot win the Red Wall.
She is not what they voted for, what politics they want, or indeed the approach they want.
They voted for "Boris", she is not Boris Johnson, she is a right-wing Thatcherite tribute act. They voted against that for thirty years, even through Labour losing in landslides.
She might win a majority but it will not be through the Red Wall. The approach she has to take is the Cameron one - but she seems to have pissed off the Blue Wall as well.
There is a scenario - albeit unlikely - where they genuinely win just over 100 seats.
Paul Brand @PaulBrandITV · 12m Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.
Hard to judge without context but I suspect most socialists would agree with her. The true disparities in this country come from wealth, not income. It is the appreciation of capital assets, principally homes but not exclusively so, that has created division in our society. This has been greatly accentuated by QE which has proven to be a tax on earnings whilst capital assets grew exponentially in nominal terms.
The fact that these gains have either been taxed not at all (houses) or very lightly (CGT -Entrepreneur Reliefs= diddly squat) whilst incomes have been penalised has allowed the rich to get much richer and kept the poor in their place. The aspirational middle classes have been squeezed out as creating capital from income so savagely taxed is almost impossible. Thatcher's dream of a shareholding, property owning democracy is dead. The death of these dreams is the Tories' biggest problems and it serves them right.
Most of us still own property, certainly over 40, hence we have less wealth inequality even than say Sweden or Germany. Average incomes however have not risen much since 2008 while City wages and CEO wages have boomed.
And if you think the left welcome Truss' proposed NI cut benefitting the highest earners most I suggest you haven't read Twitter this morning
That is not what I said and the cut in NI is a terrible idea. Sunak had already excluded the low to medium paid from it in his budget so it is almost entirely a benefit for the better paid which is the exact opposite of what is required right now given the CoL crisis.
But you are right that many over the age of 40 have at least got some modest foothold in the appreciating assets game. It is why the Tories still poll reasonably well with them but barely exist in those younger who have missed out. If the Tories want a future they need to massively increase housebuilding so that the value of property falls in real if not nominal terms and becomes more affordable to the young.
To an extent but remember most under 39s voted Labour even in 2019 when the Conservatives won a landslide victory.
It is 40 to 60 year olds who determine general elections, as long as most of them still own property the Conservatives can still win.
Under 40s almost always vote Labour and over 60s almost always vote Conservative
There were some graphs yesterday which show that isn't wholly true, even now, and in any event is a fairly recent phenomenon. No reason why today's under 40s shouldn't continue voting Labour.
One of my pals has the gold bug. He has produced some interesting figures. Pre 2008 gold was $900 or £470 ozt. A week ago, when he did the figures, it was $1749 (+93%) and £1485 (+215%) ozt.
In short, against gold, the supply of which increases by <1% a year, Sterling now has roughly 1/3rd of the value that it had in 2008 and the Dollar roughly 50%. This is the hidden inflation that we have not properly measured over the last 15 years. It has been hidden because almost all fiat currencies have been debased by QE. If you had £1m in 2008 in cash it is worth roughly £330k today, at least in terms of the amount of gold it can buy. This has spread to many other assets, if not quite to the same extent. If you had assets in 2008 that have appreciated in this way you are in nominal terms 3x richer today. If you had cash or were dependent on wages which have not increased in real terms you are significantly poorer.
The more I think about it, the more I believe the Biden “semi fascist” speech was a crazy mistake
Standing in front of a blood red backdrop, flanked by marines, saying the Republicans are fascist, is basically saying: “republicans must never win. They are not American. I am America”
It’s the equivalent of Charles II dissolving Parliament in 1629
Hardly. It's the current version of the GOP which is the problem, not the institution itself. Started with the tea party insurrection and has led us here where lies are truth and losing is being cheated.
Doesn't always have to stay like that...
It is an unusually naive post from @Leon. A Trump victory in 2024 would be dangerously like the election of Hitler in January 33. Not because Trump is a Nazi or a war monger but because he has no respect for democratic principles or rules.
The evidence that the current Republican party has no respect for institutions, the rule of law, election results and dissent is simply overwhelming. A Trump victory, giving him access to the levers of power once again, is very likely to be fatal to a working democracy in the United States. The threat is real and Biden was right to point it out, even if his backdrop was seriously silly.
I see Wokeness as more dangerous long term to the entire west, than a “legitimate” Trump victory
You are free to disagree. But I take this position not of naivety but cold hearted realpolitik
America is in danger of destroying the Enlightenment whichever way it turns - Trump or Biden
Of course the best outcome is trump dropping dead - so sad - and de Santis winning
I think it's postmodernism not wokeness that is the real threat. I accept that the latter, however you define it, does borrow significantly from postmodernist ideology.
Long-term strong UN border protection has worked well in Cyprus and if it included a bunch of NATO troops I don't think Russia would try to overrun them because of the obvious consequences. Finding an acceptable deal is obviously difficult, but long-term leases without prejudice to the final status might be a way forward for Donbas and Crimea. I'd really prefer to see local UN-run plebiscites for each area, but that could be a second stage. Zelensky might count on winning them, while Putin might hope that weary current residents would settle for the status quo.
The unacceptability of NATO troops in Ukraine is the centre of Putin's argument for the invasion so I can't imagine him accepting that.
The more I think about it, the more I believe the Biden “semi fascist” speech was a crazy mistake
Standing in front of a blood red backdrop, flanked by marines, saying the Republicans are fascist, is basically saying: “republicans must never win. They are not American. I am America”
It’s the equivalent of Charles II dissolving Parliament in 1629
Hardly. It's the current version of the GOP which is the problem, not the institution itself. Started with the tea party insurrection and has led us here where lies are truth and losing is being cheated.
Doesn't always have to stay like that...
It is an unusually naive post from @Leon. A Trump victory in 2024 would be dangerously like the election of Hitler in January 33. Not because Trump is a Nazi or a war monger but because he has no respect for democratic principles or rules.
The evidence that the current Republican party has no respect for institutions, the rule of law, election results and dissent is simply overwhelming. A Trump victory, giving him access to the levers of power once again, is very likely to be fatal to a working democracy in the United States. The threat is real and Biden was right to point it out, even if his backdrop was seriously silly.
I see Wokeness as more dangerous long term to the entire west, than a “legitimate” Trump victory
You are free to disagree. But I take this position not of naivety but cold hearted realpolitik
America is in danger of destroying the Enlightenment whichever way it turns - Trump or Biden
Of course the best outcome is trump dropping dead - so sad - and de Santis winning
If only there was a powerful, anti-woke world leader who you could get fully behind.
Giorgia Meloni!
‘Don’t touch the fickle wee **** with a barge pole!’
Paul Brand @PaulBrandITV · 12m Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.
Hard to judge without context but I suspect most socialists would agree with her. The true disparities in this country come from wealth, not income. It is the appreciation of capital assets, principally homes but not exclusively so, that has created division in our society. This has been greatly accentuated by QE which has proven to be a tax on earnings whilst capital assets grew exponentially in nominal terms.
The fact that these gains have either been taxed not at all (houses) or very lightly (CGT -Entrepreneur Reliefs= diddly squat) whilst incomes have been penalised has allowed the rich to get much richer and kept the poor in their place. The aspirational middle classes have been squeezed out as creating capital from income so savagely taxed is almost impossible. Thatcher's dream of a shareholding, property owning democracy is dead. The death of these dreams is the Tories' biggest problems and it serves them right.
Most of us still own property, certainly over 40, hence we have less wealth inequality even than say Sweden or Germany. Average incomes however have not risen much since 2008 while City wages and CEO wages have boomed.
And if you think the left welcome Truss' proposed NI cut benefitting the highest earners most I suggest you haven't read Twitter this morning
That is not what I said and the cut in NI is a terrible idea. Sunak had already excluded the low to medium paid from it in his budget so it is almost entirely a benefit for the better paid which is the exact opposite of what is required right now given the CoL crisis.
But you are right that many over the age of 40 have at least got some modest foothold in the appreciating assets game. It is why the Tories still poll reasonably well with them but barely exist in those younger who have missed out. If the Tories want a future they need to massively increase housebuilding so that the value of property falls in real if not nominal terms and becomes more affordable to the young.
To an extent but remember most under 39s voted Labour even in 2019 when the Conservatives won a landslide victory.
It is 40 to 60 year olds who determine general elections, as long as most of them still own property the Conservatives can still win.
Under 40s almost always vote Labour and over 60s almost always vote Conservative
There were some graphs yesterday which show that isn't wholly true, even now, and in any event is a fairly recent phenomenon. No reason why today's under 40s shouldn't continue voting Labour.
Certainly since 1992 the only time most under 40s have voted Conservative was 2010. Yet the Tories have won 3 general elections since, 2 with majorities.
So while it might boost the Tory majority to win most under 40s, the Tories don't actually need the votes of most under 40s for a majority
I fear for the Nation, and wish for better leadership.
Truss is not the answer...
There’s that “disaster” word again, with added expletive. But still little in the way of insightful analysis of her shortcomings based upon her track record.
All of the recent polls bar one YouGov have Labour above 40, are Opinium picking up too few Labour voters or are we back to 2015 where Labour voters are too engaged
Opinium has its famous correction to reflect past swingback. The question is whether in today's turbulent times, swingback is really likely - essentially it consists of former Government voters saying "Oh, I suppose things aren't too bad really, and the Opposition is a bit scary, better stick with what we know". The country isn't remotely in that place at the moment.
mostly older professionals who worked their way up and are retired or close to it.
Damn the older professionals you know are a lot cooler than my parents
My neighbour is 60 and more of a party animal than me. We were bopping to Abba for ages. It was great. And all the neighbours were there so there weren’t any noise complaints!
Boomers and older Gen X will redefine what old age is like. It won't be bingo and Vera Lynn singalongs.
Typical boomer move. We've had our cake, really pigged out in fact, but we're going to damn well carry on eating it.
Again the weird disjunct between the online economic gloom and what I can actually see
It’s rammed. So what I can actually see is an awful lot of discretionary spending
Is this people partying before the end?
Younger son reported a massive queue at passport control and another one at baggage collection at Heathrow last Friday! Took him almost 3 hours to get from landing to the car hire place.
The more I think about it, the more I believe the Biden “semi fascist” speech was a crazy mistake
Standing in front of a blood red backdrop, flanked by marines, saying the Republicans are fascist, is basically saying: “republicans must never win. They are not American. I am America”
It’s the equivalent of Charles II dissolving Parliament in 1629
Hardly. It's the current version of the GOP which is the problem, not the institution itself. Started with the tea party insurrection and has led us here where lies are truth and losing is being cheated.
Doesn't always have to stay like that...
It is an unusually naive post from @Leon. A Trump victory in 2024 would be dangerously like the election of Hitler in January 33. Not because Trump is a Nazi or a war monger but because he has no respect for democratic principles or rules.
The evidence that the current Republican party has no respect for institutions, the rule of law, election results and dissent is simply overwhelming. A Trump victory, giving him access to the levers of power once again, is very likely to be fatal to a working democracy in the United States. The threat is real and Biden was right to point it out, even if his backdrop was seriously silly.
I see Wokeness as more dangerous long term to the entire west, than a “legitimate” Trump victory
You are free to disagree. But I take this position not of naivety but cold hearted realpolitik
America is in danger of destroying the Enlightenment whichever way it turns - Trump or Biden
Of course the best outcome is trump dropping dead - so sad - and de Santis winning
I think it's postmodernism not wokeness that is the real threat. I accept that the latter, however you define it, does borrow significantly from postmodernist ideology.
I fear for the Nation, and wish for better leadership.
Truss is not the answer...
There’s that “disaster” word again, with added expletive. But still little in the way of insightful analysis of her shortcomings based upon her track record.
I don't know how she will do.
But she has supported so many different things it is hard to say she has much of an ideological backbone.
She seems to say contradictory things to different people at the same time, she has a habit of putting her foot in it and then being able to argue her way out of it so she attacks the people that asked the question instead.
People say Keir Starmer is bland and weak but Liz Truss is weird and strange in a different way. I don't fear Keir Starmer as PM because he wouldn't do anything dangerous, he is far too dull for that.
But I do fear Liz Truss being told to do something stupid for poll ratings and then just doing it. She is the PM I think most likely to invade another country.
What we really can't have right now is a PM who just makes it up as they go along. And that is what we are about to get.
In short: yes but it’s looking less likely by the day. Truss has copied the Johnsonian playbook of promising all things to all people but is not as skilled a communicator. She would have been better served sticking to core principles and messages rather than the scattergun approach of the recent couple of weeks.
She is inevitably going to disappoint some people.
I see a route to a small majority. But to do so Truss needs to grow into the role, be a lucky general with the Ukraine war coming to an end and energy prices starting to come down, and bet the house on some eye-catching policies to help with cost of living and hope that they don’t send the economy out of control. Oh and improve her presentation skills. That is a big ask. Conceivable? Yes. Likely? Probably not.
There is an assumption that an end to the Ukraine was will be a quick fix for energy prices. If, as we hope, Ukraine does win doesn’t mean some quick rapprochement and the cheap energy taps coming back on. A sullen, chastened, Russia and a distrustful West will not result in a happy resumption of the status quo ante.
There is no quick end to the war for Ukraine, if the goal is to recover all the territory lost since 2014.
There is no quick end to the war for Russia, if the goal is to recover its "historical" lands.
If we want the war to end, then both countries will need to compromise. That is always how wars end.
Ultimately, this is what will happen because Ukrainians and Russians will want to stop dying and because Europe will run out of patience and money.
The financial costs of this war are being borne very unequally. It is Europe that is being impoverished -- not the USA and not China. It is European industries & businesses & governments that will be bankrupted by energy costs.
If we want the war to end quickly with a Ukrainian win, then the only sensible course is massive military intervention by NATO on the Ukrainian side.
That obviously carries huge risks, but it makes more sense than half-hearted support that is currently being offered.
The half hearted military support of Ukraine combined with a an economic war that will cost Europe, and mush of the wider world dearly is a terrible mistake.
We, the west, and Europe in particular should have given the Ukrainians the weapons they need, in the quantities they needed to win this, combined with training. It may be too late now, I don't know, I hope not, but we have fought this totally the wrong way.
Promising to spend an extra 100 billion euros to upgrade your own armed forces over the next few years, is a lot more expensive and a lot less effective than spending 10 billion over a copole of months.
I think there is also the problem that stocks of weapons and ammunition and the logistic and training capacity to UKR forces is quite limited. Giving lots more now runs the risk of neutering our own forces, and delivering to a UKR army that is keen but green.
The longer the war goes on, the stronger the UKR becomes, provided they can continue to hold on, and whatever else is happening in Kherson they look capable of holding on. The toughest bit for UKR will be keeping its internal economy going. Economic aid is as important as military aid.
Wherever the frontier finally rests, it is clear that Ukraine will be solidly be in the EU and NATO, at least in defacto if not dejure terms.
The Ukraine army may be getting slowly stronger, I'm not convinced, but maybe.
But while we all wait for this to happen, the economic pain thought Europe and much of the oil and food importing would is immense, together with the huge pain in Ukraine itself.
We, the UK have recently announced that we will be trading 20,000 troupes every 4 months, great, but why did we not start in February, and why only 20,000. we could and should have opened a taring centre on day one for any Ukraine in the UK who wanted to go home and fight, just to give them the basics and then expanded that.
It became obvious that this was going to tern in to an artillery war, when the Russians pulled back from the capital to focused on the south. Why then did we not given some/many or our AS90s self propelled 155mm guns?
If we had done these things, early and in big numbers, its likely that a lt more EU nations would have copped, as they did with flight bans and so forth.
Would this deplete our army's, a bit but, we have a big alliance NATO that allows us to take some depletion, not to mention a big air force and in the UK Navy. we could and should also have gone to the second hand market, and bought up anything we could, yes be bought some ex Belgium SPGs but we could have gone to a lot of nations in South America for example and offered to pay over the odds if they would sell some now, but we did not.
The total cost of the economic war is hard to tally up, but for a start it so far cost Europ 50 billion extra to buy gas this year, and Weston company's have lost 70 billion in wright downs from there pull outs of Russia, and the worst is still to come, cold, hunger, unemployment, civil disturbance in much of the developing would.
would an extra 10 to 20 billion on weapons really have been that expensive?
And while we wate for the Ukraine army to improve, Russia can pull out of there reserves tanks, guns and so on, its not a totally bottomless pit but it is very deep, its not all great, but it does the job. a lot has to be refurbished to get it working, and that limits the rate that this kit can be sent to the front, but it seems that its about as fast as the Ukrainians can destroy it. numbers are imprecise but since the war stated the Russians might have pulled 1000 tanks and 1000 artillery poses out of reserve, meanwhile the west pats itself on the back, become we have sent 300 mostly polish tanks, 150 SPG and 150 other artolatry guns,
In short: yes but it’s looking less likely by the day. Truss has copied the Johnsonian playbook of promising all things to all people but is not as skilled a communicator. She would have been better served sticking to core principles and messages rather than the scattergun approach of the recent couple of weeks.
She is inevitably going to disappoint some people.
I see a route to a small majority. But to do so Truss needs to grow into the role, be a lucky general with the Ukraine war coming to an end and energy prices starting to come down, and bet the house on some eye-catching policies to help with cost of living and hope that they don’t send the economy out of control. Oh and improve her presentation skills. That is a big ask. Conceivable? Yes. Likely? Probably not.
There is an assumption that an end to the Ukraine was will be a quick fix for energy prices. If, as we hope, Ukraine does win doesn’t mean some quick rapprochement and the cheap energy taps coming back on. A sullen, chastened, Russia and a distrustful West will not result in a happy resumption of the status quo ante.
There is no quick end to the war for Ukraine, if the goal is to recover all the territory lost since 2014.
There is no quick end to the war for Russia, if the goal is to recover its "historical" lands.
If we want the war to end, then both countries will need to compromise. That is always how wars end.
Ultimately, this is what will happen because Ukrainians and Russians will want to stop dying and because Europe will run out of patience and money.
The financial costs of this war are being borne very unequally. It is Europe that is being impoverished -- not the USA and not China. It is European industries & businesses & governments that will be bankrupted by energy costs.
If we want the war to end quickly with a Ukrainian win, then the only sensible course is massive military intervention by NATO on the Ukrainian side.
That obviously carries huge risks, but it makes more sense than half-hearted support that is currently being offered.
Compromise not always how wars end. I'm not even sure it's *usually* how wars end. Wars also end by one side losing. That's how WW2 ended (both the Germany part and the Japan part), and how the Falklands War ended, and effectively how both US and the Russian wars in Afghanistan ended.
The practical problem with Ukraine giving up territory is that it's not obvious why Putin doesn't just take what he's got, build up the logistics as far as the border, give it a couple of years to rearm and then try again. If someone's got a way to guarantee "this much but no further" then it might be rational for both Ukraine and the other western countries to agree, but the history of such attempts isn't great.
Direct military intervention by NATO could plausibly be very expensive for NATO members because it might result in World War 3, which would be substantially worse for EU states than expensive energy prices.
Long-term strong UN border protection has worked well in Cyprus and if it included a bunch of NATO troops I don't think Russia would try to overrun them because of the obvious consequences. Finding an acceptable deal is obviously difficult, but long-term leases without prejudice to the final status might be a way forward for Donbas and Crimea. I'd really prefer to see local UN-run plebiscites for each area, but that could be a second stage. Zelensky might count on winning them, while Putin might hope that weary current residents would settle for the status quo.
The essential precondition is that both sides actually want to stop the killing rnough to even consider compromise. That's not currently the case, as Putin wants to be a new czar resoring Mother Russia and Zelensky, though not himself historically super-nationalist, is surrounded by people who see restoration of the whole of Ukraine as a holy project. The propaganda on each side that they're on the point of dramatic breakthrough looks inconsistent with reality, but it's hard to back away from that. If the Kherson offensive bogs down and a long winter sets in with little movement, that could change. I also think (and I know many here won't agree) that the west shouldn't pump up the conflict - keep supplying enough to prevent further Russian progress, but don't fuel the "never settle before Crimea is Ukrainian" stuff. Quite possibly that medium strategy is what the west is actually doing?
Given Russia's stated motivation for this war was NATO expansion to include Ukraine, what makes you think Russia will be willing to accept a peace deal that includes NATO forces in Ukraine?
There seems to be a lot of fantasy around Russia's motivations, and what they would be willing to settle for, that seems not to have noticed that Russia launched an invasion which attempted to conquer an entire democratic country. The essential precondition for any lasting settlement is a decisive defeat for Russia's armed forces, so that Russia will accept that it cannot make further territorial gains by military means.
It's not Western support for Ukrainian nationalism that stands in the way of a peace settlement. It's aggressive, expansionist Russian imperialism. A peace deal might not end up with Ukraine restored to the borders that people freely voted for in the 90s, but no compromise can be reached until Russia is defeated, and they realise that they have to settle for what they can achieve diplomatically.
Thought experiment. I suggest the best possible outcome for America now is an obviously valid Trump win in 2024. A win that he doesn’t have to enforce with violence
Would that be deserved? No. Of course not. He’s a maniac and a brute
However it would mollify the right in the USA. At a crucial moment. Pulling them back from civil war
And trump is not obviously a bad politician. He has good instincts - like lab leak. The big issue would be US withdrawal from NATO and isolationism - clearly bad for the UK, tho justifiable from a US perspective
The likely alternative - a win by an aged Biden and a worsening of Wokeness leads, I think, to civil strife of some kind
You’ve really gone full alt-right. A Trump win would mean that 2024 is the last open US general election. Sure, elections would happen, but in largely the same way that elections in China happen.
“Woke” is something that keeps you awake at night but it is a straw man, a shibboleth for you chaps of the alt-right. “Woke” - the imaginary enemy. While Trump forces 10 year old rape victims to give birth, fixes the electoral system so only Republicans can win, casts opposition as “Enemies of the State” (as he did yesterday) you’ll still be banging on about sodding pronouns and statues.
You literally think Woke is just pronouns and statues even as they saw the breasts off 15 year olds. You’re a dangerous cretin
It takes a special sort of dangerous cretin to fail to see that thousands of women and girls in the USA are in far greater danger from Trump and the Republican war on abortion than your attempt to link Biden to a few examples (of debatable veracity) of wrongly performed gender reassignment surgery. A few examples of the latter isn’t the same league, ballpark, fucking sport as the Republican policy of children being forced to carry potentially lethal pregnancies to term across the nation, of communities across the south and elsewhere being effectively disenfranchised. That is what you are advocating. Get your head on and your priorities right. “Sawing off breasts” FFS. You need to sort yourself out.
He is doing what I'd describe as 'sane people baiting'.
Long-term strong UN border protection has worked well in Cyprus and if it included a bunch of NATO troops I don't think Russia would try to overrun them because of the obvious consequences. Finding an acceptable deal is obviously difficult, but long-term leases without prejudice to the final status might be a way forward for Donbas and Crimea. I'd really prefer to see local UN-run plebiscites for each area, but that could be a second stage. Zelensky might count on winning them, while Putin might hope that weary current residents would settle for the status quo.
The unacceptability of NATO troops in Ukraine is the centre of Putin's argument for the invasion so I can't imagine him accepting that.
Troops from Turkiye could be acceptable. Currently frenemies with both sides and have absolutely no fear of the Russians (or anybody else in my experience).
Chinese troops would also make both sides stay in their lane.
BBC News have chosen a photo of Liz Truss looking so weak it's actually hilarious. She couldn't argue her way out of a plastic bag
The Tory cabal controlling the BBC must be Sunak supporters.
It's the Tories that seem to insist the BBC is left wing, despite having run it for 12 years and put your own people on the board, perhaps you're all just a bit crap and there is no "objective" way to dress that up?
mostly older professionals who worked their way up and are retired or close to it.
Damn the older professionals you know are a lot cooler than my parents
My neighbour is 60 and more of a party animal than me. We were bopping to Abba for ages. It was great. And all the neighbours were there so there weren’t any noise complaints!
Boomers and older Gen X will redefine what old age is like. It won't be bingo and Vera Lynn singalongs.
Assuming I ever retire I’m looking forward to quiet DnD campaigns, and Scuba diving in the flooded ruins of Canary Wharf.
mostly older professionals who worked their way up and are retired or close to it.
Damn the older professionals you know are a lot cooler than my parents
My neighbour is 60 and more of a party animal than me. We were bopping to Abba for ages. It was great. And all the neighbours were there so there weren’t any noise complaints!
Boomers and older Gen X will redefine what old age is like. It won't be bingo and Vera Lynn singalongs.
Boring on about DALL-E 2 and Woke it would appear.
One of my pals has the gold bug. He has produced some interesting figures. Pre 2008 gold was $900 or £470 ozt. A week ago, when he did the figures, it was $1749 (+93%) and £1485 (+215%) ozt.
In short, against gold, the supply of which increases by ＜1% a year, Sterling now has roughly 1/3rd of the value that it had in 2008 and the Dollar roughly 50%. This is the hidden inflation that we have not properly measured over the last 15 years. It has been hidden because almost all fiat currencies have been debased by QE. If you had £1m in 2008 in cash it is worth roughly £330k today, at least in terms of the amount of gold it can buy. This has spread to many other assets, if not quite to the same extent. If you had assets in 2008 that have appreciated in this way you are in nominal terms 3x richer today. If you had cash or were dependent on wages which have not increased in real terms you are significantly poorer.
Gold is a wildly volatile speculative asset so you can't measure the value of the money in terms of the amount of gold it can buy. If you look at the chart you have a period in a few years where the gold price in USD nearly halves, I don't think it's sensible to say that during that period the value of the USD doubled.
Cost of living indexes aren't perfect and you can always quibble with the details but they do a decent job of telling you how much your money is worth.
Paul Brand @PaulBrandITV · 12m Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.
Hard to judge without context but I suspect most socialists would agree with her. The true disparities in this country come from wealth, not income. It is the appreciation of capital assets, principally homes but not exclusively so, that has created division in our society. This has been greatly accentuated by QE which has proven to be a tax on earnings whilst capital assets grew exponentially in nominal terms.
The fact that these gains have either been taxed not at all (houses) or very lightly (CGT -Entrepreneur Reliefs= diddly squat) whilst incomes have been penalised has allowed the rich to get much richer and kept the poor in their place. The aspirational middle classes have been squeezed out as creating capital from income so savagely taxed is almost impossible. Thatcher's dream of a shareholding, property owning democracy is dead. The death of these dreams is the Tories' biggest problems and it serves them right.
Most of us still own property, certainly over 40, hence we have less wealth inequality even than say Sweden or Germany. Average incomes however have not risen much since 2008 while City wages and CEO wages have boomed.
And if you think the left welcome Truss' proposed NI cut benefitting the highest earners most I suggest you haven't read Twitter this morning
That is not what I said and the cut in NI is a terrible idea. Sunak had already excluded the low to medium paid from it in his budget so it is almost entirely a benefit for the better paid which is the exact opposite of what is required right now given the CoL crisis.
But you are right that many over the age of 40 have at least got some modest foothold in the appreciating assets game. It is why the Tories still poll reasonably well with them but barely exist in those younger who have missed out. If the Tories want a future they need to massively increase housebuilding so that the value of property falls in real if not nominal terms and becomes more affordable to the young.
To an extent but remember most under 39s voted Labour even in 2019 when the Conservatives won a landslide victory.
It is 40 to 60 year olds who determine general elections, as long as most of them still own property the Conservatives can still win.
Under 40s almost always vote Labour and over 60s almost always vote Conservative
There were some graphs yesterday which show that isn't wholly true, even now, and in any event is a fairly recent phenomenon. No reason why today's under 40s shouldn't continue voting Labour.
Certainly since 1992 the only time most under 40s have voted Conservative was 2010. Yet the Tories have won 3 general elections since, 2 with majorities.
So while it might boost the Tory majority to win most under 40s, the Tories don't actually need the votes of most under 40s for a majority
2015's under 40s will be 2025s under 50s. Meanwhile many of those 70+ in 2015 will be dead by 2025!
Does anyone honestly think this last 12 years of Government has been anything but a disaster?
The huge growth in renewables is to be commended. The big regret is not taking advantage of our low interest rates to build more railways, cycle infrastructure, nuclear and tidal power.
mostly older professionals who worked their way up and are retired or close to it.
Damn the older professionals you know are a lot cooler than my parents
My neighbour is 60 and more of a party animal than me. We were bopping to Abba for ages. It was great. And all the neighbours were there so there weren’t any noise complaints!
Boomers and older Gen X will redefine what old age is like. It won't be bingo and Vera Lynn singalongs.
Boring on about DALLE-E 2 and Woke it would appear.
Again the weird disjunct between the online economic gloom and what I can actually see
It’s rammed. So what I can actually see is an awful lot of discretionary spending
Is this people partying before the end?
Younger son reported a massive queue at passport control and another one at baggage collection at Heathrow last Friday! Took him almost 3 hours to get from landing to the car hire place.
Same here. Completely jammers
I don’t think this is a glitch it just feels like an awful lot of people going on holiday
🤷♂️
What’s the psychology? Party now before it’s too late. Don’t care about the future? Unaware of the future?
mostly older professionals who worked their way up and are retired or close to it.
Damn the older professionals you know are a lot cooler than my parents
My neighbour is 60 and more of a party animal than me. We were bopping to Abba for ages. It was great. And all the neighbours were there so there weren’t any noise complaints!
Boomers and older Gen X will redefine what old age is like. It won't be bingo and Vera Lynn singalongs.
Assuming I ever retire I’m looking forward to quiet DnD campaigns, and Scuba diving in the flooded ruins of Canary Wharf.
I am planning to retire to the seaside by allowing it to reach East Leicestershire...
I'm currently watching my Don's team playing a pre season friendly, 6-0 up early in the second half and my son got an assist. Thought I'd report an interesting addition to the footballing lexicon - the "Brexit tackle" (noun and verb) - an ugly, needlessly aggressive tackle that is nevertheless just within the rules. I think its derivation is that it harks back to an earlier style of English football and is in contrast to a more skillful Continental European style of play.
Yep, row zed, get stuck in, long ball, and in the immortal words of my son's coach - "Rocky the Rock" - in the mid noughties, "no football in your own half".
This is England and it was most certainly in the subliminal mix of what drove Brexit.
In short: yes but it’s looking less likely by the day. Truss has copied the Johnsonian playbook of promising all things to all people but is not as skilled a communicator. She would have been better served sticking to core principles and messages rather than the scattergun approach of the recent couple of weeks.
She is inevitably going to disappoint some people.
I see a route to a small majority. But to do so Truss needs to grow into the role, be a lucky general with the Ukraine war coming to an end and energy prices starting to come down, and bet the house on some eye-catching policies to help with cost of living and hope that they don’t send the economy out of control. Oh and improve her presentation skills. That is a big ask. Conceivable? Yes. Likely? Probably not.
There is an assumption that an end to the Ukraine was will be a quick fix for energy prices. If, as we hope, Ukraine does win doesn’t mean some quick rapprochement and the cheap energy taps coming back on. A sullen, chastened, Russia and a distrustful West will not result in a happy resumption of the status quo ante.
There is no quick end to the war for Ukraine, if the goal is to recover all the territory lost since 2014.
There is no quick end to the war for Russia, if the goal is to recover its "historical" lands.
If we want the war to end, then both countries will need to compromise. That is always how wars end.
Ultimately, this is what will happen because Ukrainians and Russians will want to stop dying and because Europe will run out of patience and money.
The financial costs of this war are being borne very unequally. It is Europe that is being impoverished -- not the USA and not China. It is European industries & businesses & governments that will be bankrupted by energy costs.
If we want the war to end quickly with a Ukrainian win, then the only sensible course is massive military intervention by NATO on the Ukrainian side.
That obviously carries huge risks, but it makes more sense than half-hearted support that is currently being offered.
Compromise not always how wars end. I'm not even sure it's *usually* how wars end. Wars also end by one side losing. That's how WW2 ended (both the Germany part and the Japan part), and how the Falklands War ended, and effectively how both US and the Russian wars in Afghanistan ended.
The practical problem with Ukraine giving up territory is that it's not obvious why Putin doesn't just take what he's got, build up the logistics as far as the border, give it a couple of years to rearm and then try again. If someone's got a way to guarantee "this much but no further" then it might be rational for both Ukraine and the other western countries to agree, but the history of such attempts isn't great.
Direct military intervention by NATO could plausibly be very expensive for NATO members because it might result in World War 3, which would be substantially worse for EU states than expensive energy prices.
Long-term strong UN border protection has worked well in Cyprus and if it included a bunch of NATO troops I don't think Russia would try to overrun them because of the obvious consequences. Finding an acceptable deal is obviously difficult, but long-term leases without prejudice to the final status might be a way forward for Donbas and Crimea. I'd really prefer to see local UN-run plebiscites for each area, but that could be a second stage. Zelensky might count on winning them, while Putin might hope that weary current residents would settle for the status quo.
The essential precondition is that both sides actually want to stop the killing rnough to even consider compromise. That's not currently the case, as Putin wants to be a new czar resoring Mother Russia and Zelensky, though not himself historically super-nationalist, is surrounded by people who see restoration of the whole of Ukraine as a holy project. The propaganda on each side that they're on the point of dramatic breakthrough looks inconsistent with reality, but it's hard to back away from that. If the Kherson offensive bogs down and a long winter sets in with little movement, that could change. I also think (and I know many here won't agree) that the west shouldn't pump up the conflict - keep supplying enough to prevent further Russian progress, but don't fuel the "never settle before Crimea is Ukrainian" stuff. Quite possibly that medium strategy is what the west is actually doing?
FWIW, and in full arm chair general on Sunday morning mode, I think that the change will come at Kherson where more than 10K trapped Russians on the west bank of the Dneiper river are going to run out of amunition and supplies and have to surrender. When that happens, and it may take a month yet, it will be impossible for even Putin to maintain the lie that he is winning and there is very likely to be regime change in the Kremlin. This will be an extrordinarily dangerous period for our new PM to navigate. I want a Ukranian victory but I am apprehensive.
Thought experiment. I suggest the best possible outcome for America now is an obviously valid Trump win in 2024. A win that he doesn’t have to enforce with violence
Would that be deserved? No. Of course not. He’s a maniac and a brute
However it would mollify the right in the USA. At a crucial moment. Pulling them back from civil war
And trump is not obviously a bad politician. He has good instincts - like lab leak. The big issue would be US withdrawal from NATO and isolationism - clearly bad for the UK, tho justifiable from a US perspective
The likely alternative - a win by an aged Biden and a worsening of Wokeness leads, I think, to civil strife of some kind
You’ve really gone full alt-right. A Trump win would mean that 2024 is the last open US general election. Sure, elections would happen, but in largely the same way that elections in China happen.
“Woke” is something that keeps you awake at night but it is a straw man, a shibboleth for you chaps of the alt-right. “Woke” - the imaginary enemy. While Trump forces 10 year old rape victims to give birth, fixes the electoral system so only Republicans can win, casts opposition as “Enemies of the State” (as he did yesterday) you’ll still be banging on about sodding pronouns and statues.
You literally think Woke is just pronouns and statues even as they saw the breasts off 15 year olds. You’re a dangerous cretin
It takes a special sort of dangerous cretin to fail to see that thousands of women and girls in the USA are in far greater danger from Trump and the Republican war on abortion than your attempt to link Biden to a few examples (of debatable veracity) of wrongly performed gender reassignment surgery. A few examples of the latter isn’t the same league, ballpark, fucking sport as the Republican policy of children being forced to carry potentially lethal pregnancies to term across the nation, of communities across the south and elsewhere being effectively disenfranchised. That is what you are advocating. Get your head on and your priorities right. “Sawing off breasts” FFS. You need to sort yourself out.
The opposition to abortion at least has a semblance of dignity - unlike you and the Woke left. It is a genuinely held belief in the sanctity of human life from conception. I disagree but I see the morality
The tens of thousands of confused kids - and it is very many - having their heads fucked and sometimes their bodies mutilated by you vile Woke scum is outwith any moral comprehension
Summary: they are almost all fucked beyond repair and the CO intends to turn his troops into the best cycling team in the MoD because there's nothing else for them to do.
Trump would rather the mother die in child birth and the baby probably die too rather than allow the mother to live. How on Earth does that value "sanctity of life"?
Back on Planet Earth, I am a trustee of my old primary school. We have been offered a 4-year energy contract at 5 times what we currently pay annually.
Do we take it? Do we fix? What costs do we cut to pay for it? The increase is the equivalent of 2 teachers. Do we wait for Truss's brilliant plan, find that it does not help and lose even this offer?
And just as we are pondering these difficult issues, so are many other schools business, old peoples homes, hospices, nurseries etc etc all over the country.
Meanwhile the likely next PM thinks it is "fair" at this time to give a tax cut to the better off in our society. And thinks this is what people want to hear at just this time.
Paul Brand @PaulBrandITV · 12m Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.
Hard to judge without context but I suspect most socialists would agree with her. The true disparities in this country come from wealth, not income. It is the appreciation of capital assets, principally homes but not exclusively so, that has created division in our society. This has been greatly accentuated by QE which has proven to be a tax on earnings whilst capital assets grew exponentially in nominal terms.
The fact that these gains have either been taxed not at all (houses) or very lightly (CGT -Entrepreneur Reliefs= diddly squat) whilst incomes have been penalised has allowed the rich to get much richer and kept the poor in their place. The aspirational middle classes have been squeezed out as creating capital from income so savagely taxed is almost impossible. Thatcher's dream of a shareholding, property owning democracy is dead. The death of these dreams is the Tories' biggest problems and it serves them right.
Most of us still own property, certainly over 40, hence we have less wealth inequality even than say Sweden or Germany. Average incomes however have not risen much since 2008 while City wages and CEO wages have boomed.
And if you think the left welcome Truss' proposed NI cut benefitting the highest earners most I suggest you haven't read Twitter this morning
That is not what I said and the cut in NI is a terrible idea. Sunak had already excluded the low to medium paid from it in his budget so it is almost entirely a benefit for the better paid which is the exact opposite of what is required right now given the CoL crisis.
But you are right that many over the age of 40 have at least got some modest foothold in the appreciating assets game. It is why the Tories still poll reasonably well with them but barely exist in those younger who have missed out. If the Tories want a future they need to massively increase housebuilding so that the value of property falls in real if not nominal terms and becomes more affordable to the young.
To an extent but remember most under 39s voted Labour even in 2019 when the Conservatives won a landslide victory.
It is 40 to 60 year olds who determine general elections, as long as most of them still own property the Conservatives can still win.
Under 40s almost always vote Labour and over 60s almost always vote Conservative
There were some graphs yesterday which show that isn't wholly true, even now, and in any event is a fairly recent phenomenon. No reason why today's under 40s shouldn't continue voting Labour.
Certainly since 1992 the only time most under 40s have voted Conservative was 2010. Yet the Tories have won 3 general elections since, 2 with majorities.
So while it might boost the Tory majority to win most under 40s, the Tories don't actually need the votes of most under 40s for a majority
2015's under 40s will be 2025s under 50s. Meanwhile many of those 70+ in 2015 will be dead by 2025!
So what, as I said earlier by 40 most own property at least with a mortgage and they switch to considering voting Conservative, as they did in 2019.
As long as most over 40s continue to own property it doesn't matter for the Tories if most under 40s don't, they can still win anyway as they did in 2019
In short: yes but it’s looking less likely by the day. Truss has copied the Johnsonian playbook of promising all things to all people but is not as skilled a communicator. She would have been better served sticking to core principles and messages rather than the scattergun approach of the recent couple of weeks.
She is inevitably going to disappoint some people.
I see a route to a small majority. But to do so Truss needs to grow into the role, be a lucky general with the Ukraine war coming to an end and energy prices starting to come down, and bet the house on some eye-catching policies to help with cost of living and hope that they don’t send the economy out of control. Oh and improve her presentation skills. That is a big ask. Conceivable? Yes. Likely? Probably not.
There is an assumption that an end to the Ukraine was will be a quick fix for energy prices. If, as we hope, Ukraine does win doesn’t mean some quick rapprochement and the cheap energy taps coming back on. A sullen, chastened, Russia and a distrustful West will not result in a happy resumption of the status quo ante.
There is no quick end to the war for Ukraine, if the goal is to recover all the territory lost since 2014.
There is no quick end to the war for Russia, if the goal is to recover its "historical" lands.
If we want the war to end, then both countries will need to compromise. That is always how wars end.
Ultimately, this is what will happen because Ukrainians and Russians will want to stop dying and because Europe will run out of patience and money.
The financial costs of this war are being borne very unequally. It is Europe that is being impoverished -- not the USA and not China. It is European industries & businesses & governments that will be bankrupted by energy costs.
If we want the war to end quickly with a Ukrainian win, then the only sensible course is massive military intervention by NATO on the Ukrainian side.
That obviously carries huge risks, but it makes more sense than half-hearted support that is currently being offered.
Compromise not always how wars end. I'm not even sure it's *usually* how wars end. Wars also end by one side losing. That's how WW2 ended (both the Germany part and the Japan part), and how the Falklands War ended, and effectively how both US and the Russian wars in Afghanistan ended.
The practical problem with Ukraine giving up territory is that it's not obvious why Putin doesn't just take what he's got, build up the logistics as far as the border, give it a couple of years to rearm and then try again. If someone's got a way to guarantee "this much but no further" then it might be rational for both Ukraine and the other western countries to agree, but the history of such attempts isn't great.
Direct military intervention by NATO could plausibly be very expensive for NATO members because it might result in World War 3, which would be substantially worse for EU states than expensive energy prices.
Long-term strong UN border protection has worked well in Cyprus and if it included a bunch of NATO troops I don't think Russia would try to overrun them because of the obvious consequences. Finding an acceptable deal is obviously difficult, but long-term leases without prejudice to the final status might be a way forward for Donbas and Crimea. I'd really prefer to see local UN-run plebiscites for each area, but that could be a second stage. Zelensky might count on winning them, while Putin might hope that weary current residents would settle for the status quo.
The essential precondition is that both sides actually want to stop the killing rnough to even consider compromise. That's not currently the case, as Putin wants to be a new czar resoring Mother Russia and Zelensky, though not himself historically super-nationalist, is surrounded by people who see restoration of the whole of Ukraine as a holy project. The propaganda on each side that they're on the point of dramatic breakthrough looks inconsistent with reality, but it's hard to back away from that. If the Kherson offensive bogs down and a long winter sets in with little movement, that could change. I also think (and I know many here won't agree) that the west shouldn't pump up the conflict - keep supplying enough to prevent further Russian progress, but don't fuel the "never settle before Crimea is Ukrainian" stuff. Quite possibly that medium strategy is what the west is actually doing?
Supplying just enough military support to Ukraine but not enough to "pump up the conflict" is indeed a problematical concept. Not one any victim of aggression is likely to accept happily.
In short: yes but it’s looking less likely by the day. Truss has copied the Johnsonian playbook of promising all things to all people but is not as skilled a communicator. She would have been better served sticking to core principles and messages rather than the scattergun approach of the recent couple of weeks.
She is inevitably going to disappoint some people.
I see a route to a small majority. But to do so Truss needs to grow into the role, be a lucky general with the Ukraine war coming to an end and energy prices starting to come down, and bet the house on some eye-catching policies to help with cost of living and hope that they don’t send the economy out of control. Oh and improve her presentation skills. That is a big ask. Conceivable? Yes. Likely? Probably not.
There is an assumption that an end to the Ukraine was will be a quick fix for energy prices. If, as we hope, Ukraine does win doesn’t mean some quick rapprochement and the cheap energy taps coming back on. A sullen, chastened, Russia and a distrustful West will not result in a happy resumption of the status quo ante.
There is no quick end to the war for Ukraine, if the goal is to recover all the territory lost since 2014.
There is no quick end to the war for Russia, if the goal is to recover its "historical" lands.
If we want the war to end, then both countries will need to compromise. That is always how wars end.
Ultimately, this is what will happen because Ukrainians and Russians will want to stop dying and because Europe will run out of patience and money.
The financial costs of this war are being borne very unequally. It is Europe that is being impoverished -- not the USA and not China. It is European industries & businesses & governments that will be bankrupted by energy costs.
If we want the war to end quickly with a Ukrainian win, then the only sensible course is massive military intervention by NATO on the Ukrainian side.
That obviously carries huge risks, but it makes more sense than half-hearted support that is currently being offered.
Compromise not always how wars end. I'm not even sure it's *usually* how wars end. Wars also end by one side losing. That's how WW2 ended (both the Germany part and the Japan part), and how the Falklands War ended, and effectively how both US and the Russian wars in Afghanistan ended.
The practical problem with Ukraine giving up territory is that it's not obvious why Putin doesn't just take what he's got, build up the logistics as far as the border, give it a couple of years to rearm and then try again. If someone's got a way to guarantee "this much but no further" then it might be rational for both Ukraine and the other western countries to agree, but the history of such attempts isn't great.
Direct military intervention by NATO could plausibly be very expensive for NATO members because it might result in World War 3, which would be substantially worse for EU states than expensive energy prices.
Long-term strong UN border protection has worked well in Cyprus and if it included a bunch of NATO troops I don't think Russia would try to overrun them because of the obvious consequences. Finding an acceptable deal is obviously difficult, but long-term leases without prejudice to the final status might be a way forward for Donbas and Crimea. I'd really prefer to see local UN-run plebiscites for each area, but that could be a second stage. Zelensky might count on winning them, while Putin might hope that weary current residents would settle for the status quo.
The essential precondition is that both sides actually want to stop the killing rnough to even consider compromise. That's not currently the case, as Putin wants to be a new czar resoring Mother Russia and Zelensky, though not himself historically super-nationalist, is surrounded by people who see restoration of the whole of Ukraine as a holy project. The propaganda on each side that they're on the point of dramatic breakthrough looks inconsistent with reality, but it's hard to back away from that. If the Kherson offensive bogs down and a long winter sets in with little movement, that could change. I also think (and I know many here won't agree) that the west shouldn't pump up the conflict - keep supplying enough to prevent further Russian progress, but don't fuel the "never settle before Crimea is Ukrainian" stuff. Quite possibly that medium strategy is what the west is actually doing?
FWIW, and in full arm chair general on Sunday morning mode, I think that the change will come at Kherson where more than 10K trapped Russians on the west bank of the Dneiper river are going to run out of amunition and supplies and have to surrender. When that happens, and it may take a month yet, it will be impossible for even Putin to maintain the lie that he is winning and there is very likely to be regime change in the Kremlin. This will be an extrordinarily dangerous period for our new PM to navigate. I want a Ukranian victory but I am apprehensive.
Do we know how many troops (or equipment) Russia has west of that river? I've hear 25,000 quoted, but would be interested on any reliable numbers.
In short: yes but it’s looking less likely by the day. Truss has copied the Johnsonian playbook of promising all things to all people but is not as skilled a communicator. She would have been better served sticking to core principles and messages rather than the scattergun approach of the recent couple of weeks.
She is inevitably going to disappoint some people.
I see a route to a small majority. But to do so Truss needs to grow into the role, be a lucky general with the Ukraine war coming to an end and energy prices starting to come down, and bet the house on some eye-catching policies to help with cost of living and hope that they don’t send the economy out of control. Oh and improve her presentation skills. That is a big ask. Conceivable? Yes. Likely? Probably not.
There is an assumption that an end to the Ukraine was will be a quick fix for energy prices. If, as we hope, Ukraine does win doesn’t mean some quick rapprochement and the cheap energy taps coming back on. A sullen, chastened, Russia and a distrustful West will not result in a happy resumption of the status quo ante.
There is no quick end to the war for Ukraine, if the goal is to recover all the territory lost since 2014.
There is no quick end to the war for Russia, if the goal is to recover its "historical" lands.
If we want the war to end, then both countries will need to compromise. That is always how wars end.
Ultimately, this is what will happen because Ukrainians and Russians will want to stop dying and because Europe will run out of patience and money.
The financial costs of this war are being borne very unequally. It is Europe that is being impoverished -- not the USA and not China. It is European industries & businesses & governments that will be bankrupted by energy costs.
If we want the war to end quickly with a Ukrainian win, then the only sensible course is massive military intervention by NATO on the Ukrainian side.
That obviously carries huge risks, but it makes more sense than half-hearted support that is currently being offered.
Compromise not always how wars end. I'm not even sure it's *usually* how wars end. Wars also end by one side losing. That's how WW2 ended (both the Germany part and the Japan part), and how the Falklands War ended, and effectively how both US and the Russian wars in Afghanistan ended.
The practical problem with Ukraine giving up territory is that it's not obvious why Putin doesn't just take what he's got, build up the logistics as far as the border, give it a couple of years to rearm and then try again. If someone's got a way to guarantee "this much but no further" then it might be rational for both Ukraine and the other western countries to agree, but the history of such attempts isn't great.
Direct military intervention by NATO could plausibly be very expensive for NATO members because it might result in World War 3, which would be substantially worse for EU states than expensive energy prices.
Long-term strong UN border protection has worked well in Cyprus and if it included a bunch of NATO troops I don't think Russia would try to overrun them because of the obvious consequences. Finding an acceptable deal is obviously difficult, but long-term leases without prejudice to the final status might be a way forward for Donbas and Crimea. I'd really prefer to see local UN-run plebiscites for each area, but that could be a second stage. Zelensky might count on winning them, while Putin might hope that weary current residents would settle for the status quo.
The essential precondition is that both sides actually want to stop the killing rnough to even consider compromise. That's not currently the case, as Putin wants to be a new czar resoring Mother Russia and Zelensky, though not himself historically super-nationalist, is surrounded by people who see restoration of the whole of Ukraine as a holy project. The propaganda on each side that they're on the point of dramatic breakthrough looks inconsistent with reality, but it's hard to back away from that. If the Kherson offensive bogs down and a long winter sets in with little movement, that could change. I also think (and I know many here won't agree) that the west shouldn't pump up the conflict - keep supplying enough to prevent further Russian progress, but don't fuel the "never settle before Crimea is Ukrainian" stuff. Quite possibly that medium strategy is what the west is actually doing?
Given Russia's stated motivation for this war was NATO expansion to include Ukraine, what makes you think Russia will be willing to accept a peace deal that includes NATO forces in Ukraine?
There seems to be a lot of fantasy around Russia's motivations, and what they would be willing to settle for, that seems not to have noticed that Russia launched an invasion which attempted to conquer an entire democratic country. The essential precondition for any lasting settlement is a decisive defeat for Russia's armed forces, so that Russia will accept that it cannot make further territorial gains by military means.
It's not Western support for Ukrainian nationalism that stands in the way of a peace settlement. It's aggressive, expansionist Russian imperialism. A peace deal might not end up with Ukraine restored to the borders that people freely voted for in the 90s, but no compromise can be reached until Russia is defeated, and they realise that they have to settle for what they can achieve diplomatically.
There’s no deal that doesn’t let Ukraine manage its own affairs, with none of this “sphere of influence” bollocks from Russia.
Ukraine has 15 million men of fighting age, the vast majority of whom are prepared to fight to the end, for their country’s right to exist.
Trump would rather the mother die in child birth and the baby probably die too rather than allow the mother to live. How on Earth does that value "sanctity of life"?
I don’t think Trump gives a fuck about abortion. He’s just using it as a political crowbar
The more I think about it, the more I believe the Biden “semi fascist” speech was a crazy mistake
Standing in front of a blood red backdrop, flanked by marines, saying the Republicans are fascist, is basically saying: “republicans must never win. They are not American. I am America”
It’s the equivalent of Charles II dissolving Parliament in 1629
Hardly. It's the current version of the GOP which is the problem, not the institution itself. Started with the tea party insurrection and has led us here where lies are truth and losing is being cheated.
Doesn't always have to stay like that...
It is an unusually naive post from @Leon. A Trump victory in 2024 would be dangerously like the election of Hitler in January 33. Not because Trump is a Nazi or a war monger but because he has no respect for democratic principles or rules.
The evidence that the current Republican party has no respect for institutions, the rule of law, election results and dissent is simply overwhelming. A Trump victory, giving him access to the levers of power once again, is very likely to be fatal to a working democracy in the United States. The threat is real and Biden was right to point it out, even if his backdrop was seriously silly.
I see Wokeness as more dangerous long term to the entire west, than a “legitimate” Trump victory
You are free to disagree. But I take this position not of naivety but cold hearted realpolitik
America is in danger of destroying the Enlightenment whichever way it turns - Trump or Biden
Of course the best outcome is trump dropping dead - so sad - and de Santis winning
Wokeness is annoying and positively harmful in places, specifically with sexually confused teenagers, but to suggest that it is more of a threat to our future than the collapse of the leading democracy in the world into another kleptocracy is just bizarre.
You need to read deeply to understand how dangerous it is. You haven’t. That’s fair. You’re a hard pressed working lawyer I’m a time-rich knapper with hours to explore this world
I see Woke as = Marxism in about 1908
I refer you to the comments of @darkage who is of the Left yet has the same “paranoid” opinion of Woke as me
I'm sure David has the time to look at Truth Social now and again and deep read some of the lively threads thereon.
In short: yes but it’s looking less likely by the day. Truss has copied the Johnsonian playbook of promising all things to all people but is not as skilled a communicator. She would have been better served sticking to core principles and messages rather than the scattergun approach of the recent couple of weeks.
She is inevitably going to disappoint some people.
I see a route to a small majority. But to do so Truss needs to grow into the role, be a lucky general with the Ukraine war coming to an end and energy prices starting to come down, and bet the house on some eye-catching policies to help with cost of living and hope that they don’t send the economy out of control. Oh and improve her presentation skills. That is a big ask. Conceivable? Yes. Likely? Probably not.
There is an assumption that an end to the Ukraine was will be a quick fix for energy prices. If, as we hope, Ukraine does win doesn’t mean some quick rapprochement and the cheap energy taps coming back on. A sullen, chastened, Russia and a distrustful West will not result in a happy resumption of the status quo ante.
There is no quick end to the war for Ukraine, if the goal is to recover all the territory lost since 2014.
There is no quick end to the war for Russia, if the goal is to recover its "historical" lands.
If we want the war to end, then both countries will need to compromise. That is always how wars end.
Ultimately, this is what will happen because Ukrainians and Russians will want to stop dying and because Europe will run out of patience and money.
The financial costs of this war are being borne very unequally. It is Europe that is being impoverished -- not the USA and not China. It is European industries & businesses & governments that will be bankrupted by energy costs.
If we want the war to end quickly with a Ukrainian win, then the only sensible course is massive military intervention by NATO on the Ukrainian side.
That obviously carries huge risks, but it makes more sense than half-hearted support that is currently being offered.
Compromise not always how wars end. I'm not even sure it's *usually* how wars end. Wars also end by one side losing. That's how WW2 ended (both the Germany part and the Japan part), and how the Falklands War ended, and effectively how both US and the Russian wars in Afghanistan ended.
The practical problem with Ukraine giving up territory is that it's not obvious why Putin doesn't just take what he's got, build up the logistics as far as the border, give it a couple of years to rearm and then try again. If someone's got a way to guarantee "this much but no further" then it might be rational for both Ukraine and the other western countries to agree, but the history of such attempts isn't great.
Direct military intervention by NATO could plausibly be very expensive for NATO members because it might result in World War 3, which would be substantially worse for EU states than expensive energy prices.
Long-term strong UN border protection has worked well in Cyprus and if it included a bunch of NATO troops I don't think Russia would try to overrun them because of the obvious consequences. Finding an acceptable deal is obviously difficult, but long-term leases without prejudice to the final status might be a way forward for Donbas and Crimea. I'd really prefer to see local UN-run plebiscites for each area, but that could be a second stage. Zelensky might count on winning them, while Putin might hope that weary current residents would settle for the status quo.
The essential precondition is that both sides actually want to stop the killing rnough to even consider compromise. That's not currently the case, as Putin wants to be a new czar resoring Mother Russia and Zelensky, though not himself historically super-nationalist, is surrounded by people who see restoration of the whole of Ukraine as a holy project. The propaganda on each side that they're on the point of dramatic breakthrough looks inconsistent with reality, but it's hard to back away from that. If the Kherson offensive bogs down and a long winter sets in with little movement, that could change. I also think (and I know many here won't agree) that the west shouldn't pump up the conflict - keep supplying enough to prevent further Russian progress, but don't fuel the "never settle before Crimea is Ukrainian" stuff. Quite possibly that medium strategy is what the west is actually doing?
FWIW, and in full arm chair general on Sunday morning mode, I think that the change will come at Kherson where more than 10K trapped Russians on the west bank of the Dneiper river are going to run out of amunition and supplies and have to surrender. When that happens, and it may take a month yet, it will be impossible for even Putin to maintain the lie that he is winning and there is very likely to be regime change in the Kremlin. This will be an extrordinarily dangerous period for our new PM to navigate. I want a Ukranian victory but I am apprehensive.
Do we know how many troops (or equipment) Russia has west of that river? I've hear 25,000 quoted, but would be interested on any reliable numbers.
I have read numbers from 15-25k after the reinforcements but they won't all be caught. Some will get over the pontoons.
In short: yes but it’s looking less likely by the day. Truss has copied the Johnsonian playbook of promising all things to all people but is not as skilled a communicator. She would have been better served sticking to core principles and messages rather than the scattergun approach of the recent couple of weeks.
She is inevitably going to disappoint some people.
I see a route to a small majority. But to do so Truss needs to grow into the role, be a lucky general with the Ukraine war coming to an end and energy prices starting to come down, and bet the house on some eye-catching policies to help with cost of living and hope that they don’t send the economy out of control. Oh and improve her presentation skills. That is a big ask. Conceivable? Yes. Likely? Probably not.
There is an assumption that an end to the Ukraine was will be a quick fix for energy prices. If, as we hope, Ukraine does win doesn’t mean some quick rapprochement and the cheap energy taps coming back on. A sullen, chastened, Russia and a distrustful West will not result in a happy resumption of the status quo ante.
There is no quick end to the war for Ukraine, if the goal is to recover all the territory lost since 2014.
There is no quick end to the war for Russia, if the goal is to recover its "historical" lands.
If we want the war to end, then both countries will need to compromise. That is always how wars end.
Ultimately, this is what will happen because Ukrainians and Russians will want to stop dying and because Europe will run out of patience and money.
The financial costs of this war are being borne very unequally. It is Europe that is being impoverished -- not the USA and not China. It is European industries & businesses & governments that will be bankrupted by energy costs.
If we want the war to end quickly with a Ukrainian win, then the only sensible course is massive military intervention by NATO on the Ukrainian side.
That obviously carries huge risks, but it makes more sense than half-hearted support that is currently being offered.
Compromise not always how wars end. I'm not even sure it's *usually* how wars end. Wars also end by one side losing. That's how WW2 ended (both the Germany part and the Japan part), and how the Falklands War ended, and effectively how both US and the Russian wars in Afghanistan ended.
The practical problem with Ukraine giving up territory is that it's not obvious why Putin doesn't just take what he's got, build up the logistics as far as the border, give it a couple of years to rearm and then try again. If someone's got a way to guarantee "this much but no further" then it might be rational for both Ukraine and the other western countries to agree, but the history of such attempts isn't great.
Direct military intervention by NATO could plausibly be very expensive for NATO members because it might result in World War 3, which would be substantially worse for EU states than expensive energy prices.
All armchair and no general, but let me wade in with my random thoughts.
Ukraine has a good chance, I suspect, of pushing the Russians off the right bank of the Dnipro. Pushing them out of southern Ukraine with or without Crimea would be hard; pushing them out of Donbas very hard.
Ukraine probably won't win with sheer force of arms. They could on the other hand make the cost of Russia's occupation too high for them to be willing to pay. Unfortunately this could take years with immense damage to Ukraine (also to Russia but we don't care about them).
Given Ukraine's objectives are to get the Russians out of their country, leave them alone and never come back, Ukraine has little incentive to stop fighting short of outright defeat.
NATO countries will probably continue to support Ukraine. They prefer Ukraine to fight Russia, instead of themselves.
The apparent outline of a deal is Russia keeps Crimea but exits from elsewhere in southern Ukraine. Donbas is up for negotiations: (a) pre-2014 borders; (b) pre-2022 borders; (c) 2022 borders plus token extra, say Mariupol; (d) all of currently occupied East Ukraine.
In the case of a deal, neither side will probably directly agree to the other's asks, but will allow a process take over that implies that outcome
My guess is the current news blackout in Kherson is because Ukraine is taking considerable casualties, but not necessarily failing in its objectives. Pure guess however.
This from the BBC is fair comment, and if she comes up with 100 billion of targeted support to the public and businesses some on here may have red faces, and according to Truss herself all will be revealed in the next week
I have deliberately not passed judgment on Truss as I do not know her, and until she stands at the dispatch box and announces her measurers and then takes on Starmer at PMQs most comments are purely political
It is about to become 'real' next week and she will sink or swim in as short a time as the month of September 2022
Analysis: Quick action on bills - but how much and who for?
Chris Mason
Political editor
The biggest moment of the summer’s campaign to replace Boris Johnson as Prime Minister was when Liz Truss said there would be support for people paying their energy bills, having previously rejected the idea of what she called “handouts”.
Vanishingly few people, if anyone, now seriously disputes that she is going to win.
Strikingly, Liz Truss did not dispute the Sunday Times’ suggestion this morning the intervention could be huge – costing around £100bn.
And we now know she’ll set out her plans within a week of taking office.
But we still await the information which really matters: who will get support, how much support and for how long?
In short: yes but it’s looking less likely by the day. Truss has copied the Johnsonian playbook of promising all things to all people but is not as skilled a communicator. She would have been better served sticking to core principles and messages rather than the scattergun approach of the recent couple of weeks.
She is inevitably going to disappoint some people.
I see a route to a small majority. But to do so Truss needs to grow into the role, be a lucky general with the Ukraine war coming to an end and energy prices starting to come down, and bet the house on some eye-catching policies to help with cost of living and hope that they don’t send the economy out of control. Oh and improve her presentation skills. That is a big ask. Conceivable? Yes. Likely? Probably not.
There is an assumption that an end to the Ukraine was will be a quick fix for energy prices. If, as we hope, Ukraine does win doesn’t mean some quick rapprochement and the cheap energy taps coming back on. A sullen, chastened, Russia and a distrustful West will not result in a happy resumption of the status quo ante.
There is no quick end to the war for Ukraine, if the goal is to recover all the territory lost since 2014.
There is no quick end to the war for Russia, if the goal is to recover its "historical" lands.
If we want the war to end, then both countries will need to compromise. That is always how wars end.
Ultimately, this is what will happen because Ukrainians and Russians will want to stop dying and because Europe will run out of patience and money.
The financial costs of this war are being borne very unequally. It is Europe that is being impoverished -- not the USA and not China. It is European industries & businesses & governments that will be bankrupted by energy costs.
If we want the war to end quickly with a Ukrainian win, then the only sensible course is massive military intervention by NATO on the Ukrainian side.
That obviously carries huge risks, but it makes more sense than half-hearted support that is currently being offered.
Compromise not always how wars end. I'm not even sure it's *usually* how wars end. Wars also end by one side losing. That's how WW2 ended (both the Germany part and the Japan part), and how the Falklands War ended, and effectively how both US and the Russian wars in Afghanistan ended.
The practical problem with Ukraine giving up territory is that it's not obvious why Putin doesn't just take what he's got, build up the logistics as far as the border, give it a couple of years to rearm and then try again. If someone's got a way to guarantee "this much but no further" then it might be rational for both Ukraine and the other western countries to agree, but the history of such attempts isn't great.
Direct military intervention by NATO could plausibly be very expensive for NATO members because it might result in World War 3, which would be substantially worse for EU states than expensive energy prices.
Long-term strong UN border protection has worked well in Cyprus and if it included a bunch of NATO troops I don't think Russia would try to overrun them because of the obvious consequences. Finding an acceptable deal is obviously difficult, but long-term leases without prejudice to the final status might be a way forward for Donbas and Crimea. I'd really prefer to see local UN-run plebiscites for each area, but that could be a second stage. Zelensky might count on winning them, while Putin might hope that weary current residents would settle for the status quo.
The essential precondition is that both sides actually want to stop the killing rnough to even consider compromise. That's not currently the case, as Putin wants to be a new czar resoring Mother Russia and Zelensky, though not himself historically super-nationalist, is surrounded by people who see restoration of the whole of Ukraine as a holy project. The propaganda on each side that they're on the point of dramatic breakthrough looks inconsistent with reality, but it's hard to back away from that. If the Kherson offensive bogs down and a long winter sets in with little movement, that could change. I also think (and I know many here won't agree) that the west shouldn't pump up the conflict - keep supplying enough to prevent further Russian progress, but don't fuel the "never settle before Crimea is Ukrainian" stuff. Quite possibly that medium strategy is what the west is actually doing?
Given Russia's stated motivation for this war was NATO expansion to include Ukraine, what makes you think Russia will be willing to accept a peace deal that includes NATO forces in Ukraine?
There seems to be a lot of fantasy around Russia's motivations, and what they would be willing to settle for, that seems not to have noticed that Russia launched an invasion which attempted to conquer an entire democratic country.
No they didn't. And assuming by "entire" you refer to Ukraine within its pre-2014 borders, when was the last time there was a "democratic" (Yes Minister, Servant of the People, H'Angus the Monkey, Princess Leya, or whatever) election across the whole of that territory electing a single parliament or president?
* Russia will not discuss Crimea.
* Consider Sevastopol separately. A token Ukrainian naval presence there, alongside the Russian navy? I doubt it. And there is absolutely no way Kolomoisky and Zelensky will be allowed to invite the US navy in. Just not happening. An attempt would trigger WW3.
* Kherson etc. Unclear. Just about possible to imagine a Russian withdrawal.
* Donbas - i.e. the two republics that seceded in 2014 and were then undermined for eight years by Kiev-backed neo-Nazis now integrated into the Ukrainian army...could some of their territory be left in the hands of Kiev or the neo-Nazis? Possibly. But not if NATO forces drop in on the Kiev and neo-Nazi side first. Nor will they be asked in as "expert peacekeepers" satisfactory to both sides after a ceasefire between the main combatants. Remind me how Afghanistan went. They may think they're great, especially the Brits with their accents and private schools and monarchy and stuff. Much of the world thinks they're neo-colonialist scum.
Back on Planet Earth, I am a trustee of my old primary school. We have been offered a 4-year energy contract at 5 times what we currently pay annually.
Do we take it? Do we fix? What costs do we cut to pay for it? The increase is the equivalent of 2 teachers. Do we wait for Truss's brilliant plan, find that it does not help and lose even this offer?
And just as we are pondering these difficult issues, so are many other schools business, old peoples homes, hospices, nurseries etc etc all over the country.
Meanwhile the likely next PM thinks it is "fair" at this time to give a tax cut to the better off in our society. And thinks this is what people want to hear at just this time.
Tough call but I wouldn't take it. If prices remain anywhere near their current level for the next 4 years the western economy (and demand) will collapse. I would be looking for a much shorter fix. Prices will probably fall next year.
(This is obviously not financial advice that should be relied upon, expert advice should be taken etc etc)
Again the weird disjunct between the online economic gloom and what I can actually see
It’s rammed. So what I can actually see is an awful lot of discretionary spending
Is this people partying before the end?
Younger son reported a massive queue at passport control and another one at baggage collection at Heathrow last Friday! Took him almost 3 hours to get from landing to the car hire place.
Same here. Completely jammers
I don’t think this is a glitch it just feels like an awful lot of people going on holiday
🤷♂️
What’s the psychology? Party now before it’s too late. Don’t care about the future? Unaware of the future?
Or is the doom exaggerated? I have no idea
Maybe it's everyone escaping the energy costs and heading to the Southern Hemisphere for winter? I think you've suggested Thailand yourself!
(But really, it's just people discount future events. Put too much emphasis on the present)
I think the US and Japan must fear China getting control of Siberia a la Tibet. As for Europeans I think it's a fear of the wounded bear or more repulsively a view that Russia is entitled to be treated with a certain dignity that Ukraine isn't.
Paul Brand @PaulBrandITV · 12m Liz Truss says “it is fair” that her national insurance cut will benefit the richest to the tune of about £2k and do relatively little for the lowest paid. She argues there has been too much focus on the distribution of income in the past twenty years.
Hard to judge without context but I suspect most socialists would agree with her. The true disparities in this country come from wealth, not income. It is the appreciation of capital assets, principally homes but not exclusively so, that has created division in our society. This has been greatly accentuated by QE which has proven to be a tax on earnings whilst capital assets grew exponentially in nominal terms.
The fact that these gains have either been taxed not at all (houses) or very lightly (CGT -Entrepreneur Reliefs= diddly squat) whilst incomes have been penalised has allowed the rich to get much richer and kept the poor in their place. The aspirational middle classes have been squeezed out as creating capital from income so savagely taxed is almost impossible. Thatcher's dream of a shareholding, property owning democracy is dead. The death of these dreams is the Tories' biggest problems and it serves them right.
Most of us still own property, certainly over 40, hence we have less wealth inequality even than say Sweden or Germany. Average incomes however have not risen much since 2008 while City wages and CEO wages have boomed.
And if you think the left welcome Truss' proposed NI cut benefitting the highest earners most I suggest you haven't read Twitter this morning
That is not what I said and the cut in NI is a terrible idea. Sunak had already excluded the low to medium paid from it in his budget so it is almost entirely a benefit for the better paid which is the exact opposite of what is required right now given the CoL crisis.
But you are right that many over the age of 40 have at least got some modest foothold in the appreciating assets game. It is why the Tories still poll reasonably well with them but barely exist in those younger who have missed out. If the Tories want a future they need to massively increase housebuilding so that the value of property falls in real if not nominal terms and becomes more affordable to the young.
To an extent but remember most under 39s voted Labour even in 2019 when the Conservatives won a landslide victory.
It is 40 to 60 year olds who determine general elections, as long as most of them still own property the Conservatives can still win.
Under 40s almost always vote Labour and over 60s almost always vote Conservative
There were some graphs yesterday which show that isn't wholly true, even now, and in any event is a fairly recent phenomenon. No reason why today's under 40s shouldn't continue voting Labour.
Certainly since 1992 the only time most under 40s have voted Conservative was 2010. Yet the Tories have won 3 general elections since, 2 with majorities.
So while it might boost the Tory majority to win most under 40s, the Tories don't actually need the votes of most under 40s for a majority
2015's under 40s will be 2025s under 50s. Meanwhile many of those 70+ in 2015 will be dead by 2025!
So what, as I said earlier by 40 most own property at least with a mortgage and they switch to considering voting Conservative, as they did in 2019.
As long as most over 40s continue to own property it doesn't matter for the Tories if most under 40s don't, they can still win anyway as they did in 2019
You are proposing that because that has been the situation over the last few years it will continue so to be. Unfortunately a lot of property owners will still be paying mortgages after they have retired. Will they be as happy with the situation as their parents were?"
And quite frankly it's insane for a government to continue to put the interests of the non-working, the retired, above the interests of the working. That way lies economic collapse!
Trump would rather the mother die in child birth and the baby probably die too rather than allow the mother to live. How on Earth does that value "sanctity of life"?
I don’t think Trump gives a fuck about abortion. He’s just using it as a political crowbar
Summary: they are almost all fucked beyond repair and the CO intends to turn his troops into the best cycling team in the MoD because there's nothing else for them to do.
Bit of a cheek for UK chickenhawks to chortle about the poor state of Bundeswehr kit.
In short: yes but it’s looking less likely by the day. Truss has copied the Johnsonian playbook of promising all things to all people but is not as skilled a communicator. She would have been better served sticking to core principles and messages rather than the scattergun approach of the recent couple of weeks.
She is inevitably going to disappoint some people.
I see a route to a small majority. But to do so Truss needs to grow into the role, be a lucky general with the Ukraine war coming to an end and energy prices starting to come down, and bet the house on some eye-catching policies to help with cost of living and hope that they don’t send the economy out of control. Oh and improve her presentation skills. That is a big ask. Conceivable? Yes. Likely? Probably not.
There is an assumption that an end to the Ukraine was will be a quick fix for energy prices. If, as we hope, Ukraine does win doesn’t mean some quick rapprochement and the cheap energy taps coming back on. A sullen, chastened, Russia and a distrustful West will not result in a happy resumption of the status quo ante.
There is no quick end to the war for Ukraine, if the goal is to recover all the territory lost since 2014.
There is no quick end to the war for Russia, if the goal is to recover its "historical" lands.
If we want the war to end, then both countries will need to compromise. That is always how wars end.
Ultimately, this is what will happen because Ukrainians and Russians will want to stop dying and because Europe will run out of patience and money.
The financial costs of this war are being borne very unequally. It is Europe that is being impoverished -- not the USA and not China. It is European industries & businesses & governments that will be bankrupted by energy costs.
If we want the war to end quickly with a Ukrainian win, then the only sensible course is massive military intervention by NATO on the Ukrainian side.
That obviously carries huge risks, but it makes more sense than half-hearted support that is currently being offered.
Compromise not always how wars end. I'm not even sure it's *usually* how wars end. Wars also end by one side losing. That's how WW2 ended (both the Germany part and the Japan part), and how the Falklands War ended, and effectively how both US and the Russian wars in Afghanistan ended.
The practical problem with Ukraine giving up territory is that it's not obvious why Putin doesn't just take what he's got, build up the logistics as far as the border, give it a couple of years to rearm and then try again. If someone's got a way to guarantee "this much but no further" then it might be rational for both Ukraine and the other western countries to agree, but the history of such attempts isn't great.
Direct military intervention by NATO could plausibly be very expensive for NATO members because it might result in World War 3, which would be substantially worse for EU states than expensive energy prices.
Long-term strong UN border protection has worked well in Cyprus and if it included a bunch of NATO troops I don't think Russia would try to overrun them because of the obvious consequences. Finding an acceptable deal is obviously difficult, but long-term leases without prejudice to the final status might be a way forward for Donbas and Crimea. I'd really prefer to see local UN-run plebiscites for each area, but that could be a second stage. Zelensky might count on winning them, while Putin might hope that weary current residents would settle for the status quo.
The essential precondition is that both sides actually want to stop the killing rnough to even consider compromise. That's not currently the case, as Putin wants to be a new czar resoring Mother Russia and Zelensky, though not himself historically super-nationalist, is surrounded by people who see restoration of the whole of Ukraine as a holy project. The propaganda on each side that they're on the point of dramatic breakthrough looks inconsistent with reality, but it's hard to back away from that. If the Kherson offensive bogs down and a long winter sets in with little movement, that could change. I also think (and I know many here won't agree) that the west shouldn't pump up the conflict - keep supplying enough to prevent further Russian progress, but don't fuel the "never settle before Crimea is Ukrainian" stuff. Quite possibly that medium strategy is what the west is actually doing?
FWIW, and in full arm chair general on Sunday morning mode, I think that the change will come at Kherson where more than 10K trapped Russians on the west bank of the Dneiper river are going to run out of amunition and supplies and have to surrender. When that happens, and it may take a month yet, it will be impossible for even Putin to maintain the lie that he is winning and there is very likely to be regime change in the Kremlin. This will be an extrordinarily dangerous period for our new PM to navigate. I want a Ukranian victory but I am apprehensive.
Do we know how many troops (or equipment) Russia has west of that river? I've hear 25,000 quoted, but would be interested on any reliable numbers.
I have read numbers from 15-25k after the reinforcements but they won't all be caught. Some will get over the pontoons.
Yes, most of the personnel will get away, but like Dunkirk without their heavy equipment. Unlike Dunkirk that will be the bit that matters, as the troops are unlikely to sign new contracts.
Comments
I agree that it’s important, that the rate of deployment is kept up as we move towards the winter, and that the NATO leaders don’t forget that this war is existential for European security. Russia needs to be defeated militarily, and withdraw totally from Ukraine.
It is 40 to 60 year olds who determine general elections, as long as most of them still own property the Conservatives can still win.
Under 40s almost always vote Labour and over 60s almost always vote Conservative
Alhamdulilah, a strident and ill-informed Russophobe like Truss can only have a marginal effect on the conflict.
The longer the war goes on, the stronger the UKR becomes, provided they can continue to hold on, and whatever else is happening in Kherson they look capable of holding on. The toughest bit for UKR will be keeping its internal economy going. Economic aid is as important as military aid.
Wherever the frontier finally rests, it is clear that Ukraine will be solidly be in the EU and NATO, at least in defacto if not dejure terms.
To name a few, Hillary Clinton or Shara Palin, Dian Abbot, or Margret Thatcher, theses all have big fan clubs and big hate groups. its hard to think of the same position for or against comparable men.
All of the recent polls bar one YouGov have Labour above 40, are Opinium picking up too few Labour voters or are we back to 2015 where Labour voters are too engaged
Her position as being a former Remainer to Brexit backer describes about half the Parliamentary Conservative Party. And the LOTO.
Saying “what you see is what you get” is clearly a nod to her less than polished politician presentation skills. A break from the am-dram / advertising days of Blair / Cameron.
It’s clear her premiership will live or die on her plan for energy. And you don’t know what that is yet. You just have an irrational hatred of her.
I think she will be a fucking disaster.
I hate that.
I fear for the Nation, and wish for better leadership.
Truss is not the answer...
I think Ben Jennings has been best so far at caricaturing Truss. A great likeness of her appearance and projected personality, and he has already been able to show her in other guises (eg as a predatory bird) without losing this core likeness: https://twitter.com/BJennings90/status/1564581806707556354
Morten Morland is probably the next best; as always, very finely-observed idiosyncracies in his caricatures: https://twitter.com/mortenmorland/status/1563796770617950208
Chris Riddell takes a relatively safe route, capturing her appearance but not really exaggerating her face - a fairly straightforward portrait, albeit in his characteristically virtuoso draughtsmanship: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2022/sep/03/liz-truss-white-witch-of-narnia-cartoon
Christian Adams's take is recogniseable, but looks a little more well-fed than the real thing: https://twitter.com/Adamstoon1/status/1562744152655142912
Martin Rowson often seems to skirt around a likeness rather than capturing it, but in a political cartoon perhaps that is enough for his purposes; we can still tell who it is meant to be: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2022/aug/31/martin-rowson-on-two-car-crashes-cartoon
Peter Brookes is probably my favourite political cartoonist but I feel he hasn't quite figured out how to draw Truss yet: https://twitter.com/BrookesTimes/status/1566017320669126658
Steve Bell hasn't figured her out yet; his Truss looks like the child of Olive Oyl and Spong Man: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2022/jul/21/steve-bell-on-liz-trusss-campaign-to-lead-the-tory-party-cartoon
I have yet to see Gerald Scarfe's treatment.
I see Woke as = Marxism in about 1908
I refer you to the comments of @darkage who is of the Left yet has the same “paranoid” opinion of Woke as me
It is not a threat to civilisation as we know it, just a useful rallying point for some and Bogeyman for others who like to feel the barbarians are always at the gate.
The essential precondition is that both sides actually want to stop the killing rnough to even consider compromise. That's not currently the case, as Putin wants to be a new czar resoring Mother Russia and Zelensky, though not himself historically super-nationalist, is surrounded by people who see restoration of the whole of Ukraine as a holy project. The propaganda on each side that they're on the point of dramatic breakthrough looks inconsistent with reality, but it's hard to back away from that. If the Kherson offensive bogs down and a long winter sets in with little movement, that could change. I also think (and I know many here won't agree) that the west shouldn't pump up the conflict - keep supplying enough to prevent further Russian progress, but don't fuel the "never settle before Crimea is Ukrainian" stuff. Quite possibly that medium strategy is what the west is actually doing?
I should add that my son and his mates have a great deal of enthusiasm for the Brexit tackle. So far it is the only aspect of Brexit that they express any kind of enthusiasm for.
She is not what they voted for, what politics they want, or indeed the approach they want.
They voted for "Boris", she is not Boris Johnson, she is a right-wing Thatcherite tribute act. They voted against that for thirty years, even through Labour losing in landslides.
She might win a majority but it will not be through the Red Wall. The approach she has to take is the Cameron one - but she seems to have pissed off the Blue Wall as well.
There is a scenario - albeit unlikely - where they genuinely win just over 100 seats.
In short, against gold, the supply of which increases by <1% a year, Sterling now has roughly 1/3rd of the value that it had in 2008 and the Dollar roughly 50%. This is the hidden inflation that we have not properly measured over the last 15 years. It has been hidden because almost all fiat currencies have been debased by QE. If you had £1m in 2008 in cash it is worth roughly £330k today, at least in terms of the amount of gold it can buy. This has spread to many other assets, if not quite to the same extent. If you had assets in 2008 that have appreciated in this way you are in nominal terms 3x richer today. If you had cash or were dependent on wages which have not increased in real terms you are significantly poorer.
Again the weird disjunct between the online economic gloom and what I can actually see
It’s rammed. So what I can actually see is an awful lot of discretionary spending
Is this people partying before the end?
He's going to enjoy watching Truss flounder from the comfort of California.
VVP
So while it might boost the Tory majority to win most under 40s, the Tories don't actually need the votes of most under 40s for a majority
But she has supported so many different things it is hard to say she has much of an ideological backbone.
She seems to say contradictory things to different people at the same time, she has a habit of putting her foot in it and then being able to argue her way out of it so she attacks the people that asked the question instead.
People say Keir Starmer is bland and weak but Liz Truss is weird and strange in a different way. I don't fear Keir Starmer as PM because he wouldn't do anything dangerous, he is far too dull for that.
But I do fear Liz Truss being told to do something stupid for poll ratings and then just doing it. She is the PM I think most likely to invade another country.
What we really can't have right now is a PM who just makes it up as they go along. And that is what we are about to get.
But while we all wait for this to happen, the economic pain thought Europe and much of the oil and food importing would is immense, together with the huge pain in Ukraine itself.
We, the UK have recently announced that we will be trading 20,000 troupes every 4 months, great, but why did we not start in February, and why only 20,000. we could and should have opened a taring centre on day one for any Ukraine in the UK who wanted to go home and fight, just to give them the basics and then expanded that.
It became obvious that this was going to tern in to an artillery war, when the Russians pulled back from the capital to focused on the south. Why then did we not given some/many or our AS90s self propelled 155mm guns?
If we had done these things, early and in big numbers, its likely that a lt more EU nations would have copped, as they did with flight bans and so forth.
Would this deplete our army's, a bit but, we have a big alliance NATO that allows us to take some depletion, not to mention a big air force and in the UK Navy. we could and should also have gone to the second hand market, and bought up anything we could, yes be bought some ex Belgium SPGs but we could have gone to a lot of nations in South America for example and offered to pay over the odds if they would sell some now, but we did not.
The total cost of the economic war is hard to tally up, but for a start it so far cost Europ 50 billion extra to buy gas this year, and Weston company's have lost 70 billion in wright downs from there pull outs of Russia, and the worst is still to come, cold, hunger, unemployment, civil disturbance in much of the developing would.
would an extra 10 to 20 billion on weapons really have been that expensive?
And while we wate for the Ukraine army to improve, Russia can pull out of there reserves tanks, guns and so on, its not a totally bottomless pit but it is very deep, its not all great, but it does the job. a lot has to be refurbished to get it working, and that limits the rate that this kit can be sent to the front, but it seems that its about as fast as the Ukrainians can destroy it. numbers are imprecise but since the war stated the Russians might have pulled 1000 tanks and 1000 artillery poses out of reserve, meanwhile the west pats itself on the back, become we have sent 300 mostly polish tanks, 150 SPG and 150 other artolatry guns,
we are fighting this all wrong, IMHO
There seems to be a lot of fantasy around Russia's motivations, and what they would be willing to settle for, that seems not to have noticed that Russia launched an invasion which attempted to conquer an entire democratic country. The essential precondition for any lasting settlement is a decisive defeat for Russia's armed forces, so that Russia will accept that it cannot make further territorial gains by military means.
It's not Western support for Ukrainian nationalism that stands in the way of a peace settlement. It's aggressive, expansionist Russian imperialism. A peace deal might not end up with Ukraine restored to the borders that people freely voted for in the 90s, but no compromise can be reached until Russia is defeated, and they realise that they have to settle for what they can achieve diplomatically.
Chinese troops would also make both sides stay in their lane.
Cost of living indexes aren't perfect and you can always quibble with the details but they do a decent job of telling you how much your money is worth.
Sigh.
Here's another picture of a pretty lady in a tank. It has skewed my view I guess.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16900735/liz-truss-margaret-thatcher-british-warn-russia/
I don’t think this is a glitch it just feels like an awful lot of people going on holiday
🤷♂️
What’s the psychology? Party now before it’s too late. Don’t care about the future? Unaware of the future?
Or is the doom exaggerated? I have no idea
This is England and it was most certainly in the subliminal mix of what drove Brexit.
The opposition to abortion at least has a semblance of dignity - unlike you and the Woke left. It is a genuinely held belief in the sanctity of human life from conception. I disagree but I see the morality
The tens of thousands of confused kids - and it is very many - having their heads fucked and sometimes their bodies mutilated by you vile Woke scum is outwith any moral comprehension
So much was achieved in that time, minimum wage, shortest waiting times in history, peace in NI, Climate Change act, devolution, civil partnerships...
I prefer the "Labour's 23 years in power has undone all the good work of the Conservatives over the last seventy"
https://twitter.com/FTusa284/status/1509875351207526406
Summary: they are almost all fucked beyond repair and the CO intends to turn his troops into the best cycling team in the MoD because there's nothing else for them to do.
Do we take it? Do we fix? What costs do we cut to pay for it? The increase is the equivalent of 2 teachers. Do we wait for Truss's brilliant plan, find that it does not help and lose even this offer?
And just as we are pondering these difficult issues, so are many other schools business, old peoples homes, hospices, nurseries etc etc all over the country.
Meanwhile the likely next PM thinks it is "fair" at this time to give a tax cut to the better off in our society. And thinks this is what people want to hear at just this time.
As long as most over 40s continue to own property it doesn't matter for the Tories if most under 40s don't, they can still win anyway as they did in 2019
Ukraine has 15 million men of fighting age, the vast majority of whom are prepared to fight to the end, for their country’s right to exist.
Judge, "after your submission I am really none the wiser."
Advocate: "no my Lord but hopefully better informed."
I have deliberately not passed judgment on Truss as I do not know her, and until she stands at the dispatch box and announces her measurers and then takes on Starmer at PMQs most comments are purely political
It is about to become 'real' next week and she will sink or swim in as short a time as the month of September 2022
Analysis: Quick action on bills - but how much and who for?
Chris Mason
Political editor
The biggest moment of the summer’s campaign to replace Boris Johnson as Prime Minister was when Liz Truss said there would be support for people paying their energy bills, having previously rejected the idea of what she called “handouts”.
Vanishingly few people, if anyone, now seriously disputes that she is going to win.
Strikingly, Liz Truss did not dispute the Sunday Times’ suggestion this morning the intervention could be huge – costing around £100bn.
And we now know she’ll set out her plans within a week of taking office.
But we still await the information which really matters: who will get support, how much support and for how long?
And assuming by "entire" you refer to Ukraine within its pre-2014 borders, when was the last time there was a "democratic" (Yes Minister, Servant of the People, H'Angus the Monkey, Princess Leya, or whatever) election across the whole of that territory electing a single parliament or president?
* Russia will not discuss Crimea.
* Consider Sevastopol separately. A token Ukrainian naval presence there, alongside the Russian navy? I doubt it. And there is absolutely no way Kolomoisky and Zelensky will be allowed to invite the US navy in. Just not happening. An attempt would trigger WW3.
* Kherson etc. Unclear. Just about possible to imagine a Russian withdrawal.
* Donbas - i.e. the two republics that seceded in 2014 and were then undermined for eight years by Kiev-backed neo-Nazis now integrated into the Ukrainian army...could some of their territory be left in the hands of Kiev or the neo-Nazis? Possibly. But not if NATO forces drop in on the Kiev and neo-Nazi side first. Nor will they be asked in as "expert peacekeepers" satisfactory to both sides after a ceasefire between the main combatants. Remind me how Afghanistan went. They may think they're great, especially the Brits with their accents and private schools and monarchy and stuff. Much of the world thinks they're neo-colonialist scum.
(This is obviously not financial advice that should be relied upon, expert advice should be taken etc etc)
(But really, it's just people discount future events. Put too much emphasis on the present)
I think the US and Japan must fear China getting control of Siberia a la Tibet. As for Europeans I think it's a fear of the wounded bear or more repulsively a view that Russia is entitled to be treated with a certain dignity that Ukraine isn't.
And quite frankly it's insane for a government to continue to put the interests of the non-working, the retired, above the interests of the working. That way lies economic collapse!