Howdy, Stranger!

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

Can Liz Truss turn this round? – politicalbetting.com

13567

Comments

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093
    ...

    Leon said:

    I’m at Luton airport. Feel the glamour

    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.
    It must be a hangover from Covid. Can't think of anything else.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,078
    FF43 said:

    DougSeal said:

    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.
    1. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. NATO countries will probably continue to support Ukraine. They prefer Ukraine to fight Russia, instead of themselves.
    5. 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.
    6. 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
    7. 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.
    7. - no news is equally just no news - if you are waiting for iteration and a lack of supply to impact Russia's front line there really is little to report beyond - knocked their latest pontoon / temporary bridge away.
  • FF43 said:

    DougSeal said:

    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.

    DougSeal said:

    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.

    DougSeal said:

    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.
    1. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. NATO countries will probably continue to support Ukraine. They prefer Ukraine to fight Russia, instead of themselves.
    5. 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.
    6. 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
    7. My guess is that the current news blackout in Kherson is because Ukraine is taking considerable casualties, but not necessarily failing in its objectives. Pure guess however.
    Russia keeping Crimea is problematic for several reasons.

    *) It is a very strategic location, and highly valuable militarily.
    *) It is acknowledged Ukrainian territory gained by Russia via force of arms in 2014.
    *) Russia used this territory to invade Ukraine. Their keeping the territory opens a large second front Ukraine will have to defend. But the same is not true in reverse; without the Kerch bridge, it is harder to 'invade' Russia from Crimea.
    *) Crimea is marginal land; dependent on water from Ukraine. AS was shown post-2014, this is a major source of conflict between a Russian-occupied Crimea and Ukraine, and an obvious cause of future flare-ups.
    *) Morally, why the f*** should they keep their spoils?

    Basically: if Russia keeps Crimea in any 'peace' deal, they will try for Ukraine again within a decade.
  • Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Sort of sad but sort of good as well.


    I'm supposed to know who these people are, aren't I?

    Sigh.
    Members of arguably the two most influential beat combos of the Punk era, m’lud.
    Bit sad that they dress like Jeremy Clarksons less sartorial brother and are in New York.
    A bit, but I feel bondage trousers and George Cox brothel creepers would be sadder.
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651
    edited September 2022
    BigRich said:

    would an extra 10 to 20 billion on weapons really have been that expensive?

    To consider that question, ask who would pay and what they would they get for it.

    It's curious how the British elite seems to allow foreign policy to be subject to parliamentary decision according to whether it feels like it or not, with the media always of course considering whatever the position is at the moment regarding any particular area of the world to be immune to being questioned or, if the instructions say so, even to being noticed, and in any case immune to being compared (e.g. with say Syria). Is that "democracy" or "деремократия"?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,825
    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I’m at Luton airport. Feel the glamour

    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)
    A lot will have bought and paid for their trips some time ago. Some might even have been carried over from covid cancellations. New bookings will be more telling.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093
    edited September 2022

    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?

    We can still pass judgement on her campaign utterences of half-wittery. Suggesting the rescinding the 70mph motorway speed limit for a free for all was a cracker.
  • TresTres Posts: 1,536
    Leon said:

    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

    Dark Brandon has rustled your jimmies.
    Interesting.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298
    Cyclefree said:

    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.

    These are questions it wouldn't be appropriate to answer before the results are in.
    Strangely that doesn't apply to the 149 other pledges.
    Suggesting either.
    She knows what has to be done. But the selectorate will be horrified. However. The votes are in.
    She knows what has to be done, but she won't do it.
    She's keeping it all a secret for mysterious reasons.
    She is clueless as to what the answer is.
    She is in denial about the scale.
    Or. There is no consensus around the package.
    The last would be worst of all.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,825
    Dynamo said:

    DougSeal said:

    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.
    The real neo-colonialist scum are of course the Putinists that deny the existence of the Ukranian people and their right to autonomy.

    I see the defeat of Russia as inevitable, just the timing uncertain and I am a Russophile.
  • 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?

    We can still pass judgement on her campaign utterences of half-wittery. Suggesting the rescinding the 70mph motorway speed limit for a free for all was a cracker.
    Of course you can, but there is only one issue that matters and that is how to deal with the cost of living crisis

    The rest is irrelevant to most of the public
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,357

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Wow.

    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.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    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!
    It will ALWAYS be. Property owners are always willing to consider voting Tory. That does not mean mortgage holders will always vote Tory, they voted for Blair and Labour from 1997 to 2005 for instance but they have voted mostly Tory since 2010.

    As long as most over 40s therefore continue to own property the Conservatives always have a chance of winning a general election.

    As for you whinging about hard up workers, Truss has just proposed to slash National Insurance as PM which will do sod all for pensioners as they don't pay it

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,880
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    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.
    Err....
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 14,025
    edited September 2022

    FF43 said:



    All armchair and no general, but let me wade in with my random thoughts.

    1. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. NATO countries will probably continue to support Ukraine. They prefer Ukraine to fight Russia, instead of themselves.
    5. 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.
    6. 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
    7. My guess is that the current news blackout in Kherson is because Ukraine is taking considerable casualties, but not necessarily failing in its objectives. Pure guess however.
    Russia keeping Crimea is problematic for several reasons.

    *) It is a very strategic location, and highly valuable militarily.
    *) It is acknowledged Ukrainian territory gained by Russia via force of arms in 2014.
    *) Russia used this territory to invade Ukraine. Their keeping the territory opens a large second front Ukraine will have to defend. But the same is not true in reverse; without the Kerch bridge, it is harder to 'invade' Russia from Crimea.
    *) Crimea is marginal land; dependent on water from Ukraine. AS was shown post-2014, this is a major source of conflict between a Russian-occupied Crimea and Ukraine, and an obvious cause of future flare-ups.
    *) Morally, why the f*** should they keep their spoils?

    Basically: if Russia keeps Crimea in any 'peace' deal, they will try for Ukraine again within a decade.
    Maybe. Some counter-arguments are
    1. Russia is highly unlikely to agree a deal that doesn't include Crimea, which means the war drags on to the huge detriment of Ukraine. The key is to get Russia to concede everything else to keep Crimea.
    2. Crimea was one of the few places in the pre-2014 Ukraine that supported Russia outright. The referendum may have been bogus but it probably reflected most people's views. They probably don't want to be part of Ukraine.
    3. Russian occupation of Crimea [edit] gives Ukraine leverage due to the difficulty of supply. If Ukraine occupies it, Russia gets that leverage.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,308

    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?

    We can still pass judgement on her campaign utterences of half-wittery. Suggesting the rescinding the 70mph motorway speed limit for a free for all was a cracker.
    Of course you can, but there is only one issue that matters and that is how to deal with the cost of living crisis

    The rest is irrelevant to most of the public
    Totally off topic Mr G., but I hope your grandchild has arrived safely. If there has been any announcement I've missed it.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093

    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?

    We can still pass judgement on her campaign utterences of half-wittery. Suggesting the rescinding the 70mph motorway speed limit for a free for all was a cracker.
    Of course you can, but there is only one issue that matters and that is how to deal with the cost of living crisis

    The rest is irrelevant to most of the public
    That is of course the crucial issue. She needs good fortune on her side too. Without that her £100b package may still not be enough.

    But as you have said for a while, Truss' package when it comes, will be way better than the Labour alternative.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    Truss is giving every indication that (unwittingly or not) she’s simply keeping the seat warm.
    https://twitter.com/andrewrawnsley/status/1566343565990559744
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,907
    FF43 said:

    DougSeal said:

    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.
    1. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. NATO countries will probably continue to support Ukraine. They prefer Ukraine to fight Russia, instead of themselves.
    5. 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.
    6. 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
    7. 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.
    "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)."

    Whilst the rest of your post is very sensible, I think we should care about Russia.

    Immense damage to ordinary people (Russians as well as Ukrainians) is one of the reasons why we should be making maximum effort to bring this war to a close as swiftly as possible.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 14,025
    edited September 2022

    FF43 said:

    DougSeal said:

    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.
    1. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. NATO countries will probably continue to support Ukraine. They prefer Ukraine to fight Russia, instead of themselves.
    5. 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.
    6. 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
    7. 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.
    "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)."

    Whilst the rest of your post is very sensible, I think we should care about Russia.

    Immense damage to ordinary people (Russians as well as Ukrainians) is one of the reasons why we should be making maximum effort to bring this war to a close as swiftly as possible.
    Point is, this is an occupation of choice for Russia and a war of necessity for Ukraine.

    For any normal person, the deal would be: get out of Ukraine if you don't want the Sons of Russia to be killed. Putin doesn't care about the Sons of Russia, so that deal doesn't work. If Putin doesn't care enough about Russians to make that choice, when he has full responsibility, why should we?
  • 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?

    We can still pass judgement on her campaign utterences of half-wittery. Suggesting the rescinding the 70mph motorway speed limit for a free for all was a cracker.
    Of course you can, but there is only one issue that matters and that is how to deal with the cost of living crisis

    The rest is irrelevant to most of the public
    Totally off topic Mr G., but I hope your grandchild has arrived safely. If there has been any announcement I've missed it.
    Thanks OKC but no news yet

    Our next door neighbours first grandchild was due a week last Friday and has still not put in an appearance

    The way things are going to two little ones may arrive on the same day
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,798
    edited September 2022

    FF43 said:

    DougSeal said:

    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.
    1. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. NATO countries will probably continue to support Ukraine. They prefer Ukraine to fight Russia, instead of themselves.
    5. 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.
    6. 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
    7. 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.
    "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)."

    Whilst the rest of your post is very sensible, I think we should care about Russia.

    Immense damage to ordinary people (Russians as well as Ukrainians) is one of the reasons why we should be making maximum effort to bring this war to a close as swiftly as possible.
    This kind of thing just encourages future invasions.

    "An armistice would be in the best interest of Estonia/Finland/Latvia/Russia" c2040
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650
    Morning all. D day for Truss approaches, and for us all. Cost of Living and the response right now will define the next decade and more politically and economically and lives and livelihoods literally depend on it. The response needs to be comprehensive, massive and short to medium term proof with the long term planned in for energy security.
    Frankly, it needs to be of a size that makes Starmers plan look like a kid, as his parents fret about losing their home, suggesting they live in a funfair and eat toffee apples.
  • FF43 said:

    FF43 said:



    All armchair and no general, but let me wade in with my random thoughts.

    1. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. NATO countries will probably continue to support Ukraine. They prefer Ukraine to fight Russia, instead of themselves.
    5. 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.
    6. 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
    7. My guess is that the current news blackout in Kherson is because Ukraine is taking considerable casualties, but not necessarily failing in its objectives. Pure guess however.
    Russia keeping Crimea is problematic for several reasons.

    *) It is a very strategic location, and highly valuable militarily.
    *) It is acknowledged Ukrainian territory gained by Russia via force of arms in 2014.
    *) Russia used this territory to invade Ukraine. Their keeping the territory opens a large second front Ukraine will have to defend. But the same is not true in reverse; without the Kerch bridge, it is harder to 'invade' Russia from Crimea.
    *) Crimea is marginal land; dependent on water from Ukraine. AS was shown post-2014, this is a major source of conflict between a Russian-occupied Crimea and Ukraine, and an obvious cause of future flare-ups.
    *) Morally, why the f*** should they keep their spoils?

    Basically: if Russia keeps Crimea in any 'peace' deal, they will try for Ukraine again within a decade.
    Maybe. Some counter-arguments are
    1. Russia is highly unlikely to agree a deal that doesn't include Crimea, which means the war drags on to the huge detriment of Ukraine. The key is to get Russia to concede everything else to keep Crimea.
    2. Crimea was one of the few places in the pre-2014 Ukraine that supported Russia outright. The referendum may have been bogus but it probably reflected most people's views. They probably don't want to be part of Ukraine.
    3. Russian occupation of Crimea [edit] gives Ukraine leverage due to the difficulty of supply. If Ukraine occupies it, Russia gets that leverage.
    Russia does not get that leverage, because Crimea has a land border with Ukraine, and only a water border with Russia (without the Kerch Bridge). The leverage is plain and simply over water.

    The Donbass is going to be a sh*tshow for decades. The 'separatists' have run a sickening regime (cheered on by lovely people like Dempsey from the RMT's leadership), and is going to need massive investment. I'd argue it the other way: let Russia keep the Donbass to the 2021 borders, and Ukraine gets Crimea. ;)

    Most of all: I don't want to see Russia being able to claim a victory over this: and keeping Crimea would be spun as a 'victory' (albeit a pyrrhic one). Losing Crimea would be a massive warning to other states that territorial land grabs might not be worth the effort...
  • 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?

    We can still pass judgement on her campaign utterences of half-wittery. Suggesting the rescinding the 70mph motorway speed limit for a free for all was a cracker.
    Of course you can, but there is only one issue that matters and that is how to deal with the cost of living crisis

    The rest is irrelevant to most of the public
    That is of course the crucial issue. She needs good fortune on her side too. Without that her £100b package may still not be enough.

    But as you have said for a while, Truss' package when it comes, will be way better than the Labour alternative.
    You are putting words into my mouth but there is no doubt a longer term package is needed and we will see
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    Lol. A Remoaner article about the horrors of exporting to the EU after Brexit

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/04/it-was-a-brexit-export-champion-now-kent-brewery-has-one-eu-customer-left

    Includes this genius line

    “Goods exports from the UK to the EU reached £16.9bn in May, the highest level since figures started in 1997.”
  • Money starting to come for Truss, into 1.03 in one market.

    Reminder: at some point, inside information about the count may be leaked.

    Rishi is not very liquid; the price on Liz Truss is a more reliable signal.

    Betfair next prime minister
    1.04 Liz Truss 96%
    23 Rishi Sunak 4%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.03 Liz Truss 97%
    25 Rishi Sunak 4%

    1.04 gone.

    Reminder: at some point, inside information about the count may be leaked.

    Rishi is not very liquid; the price on Liz Truss is a more reliable signal.

    Betfair next prime minister
    1.03 Liz Truss 97%
    26 Rishi Sunak

    Next Conservative leader
    1.03 Liz Truss 97%
    28 Rishi Sunak
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,308
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Wow.

    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.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1566339080312406017

    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!
    It will ALWAYS be. Property owners are always willing to consider voting Tory. That does not mean mortgage holders will always vote Tory, they voted for Blair and Labour from 1997 to 2005 for instance but they have voted mostly Tory since 2010.

    As long as most over 40s therefore continue to own property the Conservatives always have a chance of winning a general election.

    As for you whinging about hard up workers, Truss has just proposed to slash National Insurance as PM which will do sod all for pensioners as they don't pay it

    My canvassing experience is now well out of date. However I always found that quite a few people prepared to consider voting whichever way… and I used to canvass for the Liberal party.

    Property owners will always consider voting whichever way affects their wider interests as the vast majority of us do. For example, I take into account health policies, because they affect me, education policies because they affect my grandchildren and environmental policies because they affect all of us.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,356
    In other news - https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2022/sep/03/lake-district-slag-heap-could-become-landmark-public-art.

    Other half has been working with Piet Oudolf and his team on his proposals and also on some of the cycling proposals. He is a very keen cyclist and earlier this week met the Guardian cycling correspondent, Laura Laker, about some articles and a book she's writing. She was pondering possible titles so I mischievously suggested "Cycle Free".....

    There is a lot of interesting stuff going on trying to use the industrial heritage and history of the Lakes (which tends to be overlooked amongst all the twee Potter memorabilia), especially on the western coast. Plus quite a lively and active arts scene.

    And now back to energy Armageddon .......
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,308

    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?

    We can still pass judgement on her campaign utterences of half-wittery. Suggesting the rescinding the 70mph motorway speed limit for a free for all was a cracker.
    Of course you can, but there is only one issue that matters and that is how to deal with the cost of living crisis

    The rest is irrelevant to most of the public
    Totally off topic Mr G., but I hope your grandchild has arrived safely. If there has been any announcement I've missed it.
    Thanks OKC but no news yet

    Our next door neighbours first grandchild was due a week last Friday and has still not put in an appearance

    The way things are going to two little ones may arrive on the same day
    Best wishes to all concerned.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,576

    nico679 said:

    Does anyone honestly think this last 12 years of Government has been anything but a disaster?

    In the sense that they failed to reverse the disaster of the previous 13 years?
    You mean when the NHS was actually working under Labour !
    This country was at ease with itself under Blair, I maintain that society has got a lot nastier since they left.

    So much was achieved in that time, minimum wage, shortest waiting times in history, peace in NI, Climate Change act, devolution, civil partnerships...
    If you spend a lot of time online, you will think the country a steaming cesspit of rage, anger, bile and hatred.

    If you go out and about in the real world, not so much.

    Online, and twitter especially, are not real life.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,825

    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?

    We can still pass judgement on her campaign utterences of half-wittery. Suggesting the rescinding the 70mph motorway speed limit for a free for all was a cracker.
    Of course you can, but there is only one issue that matters and that is how to deal with the cost of living crisis

    The rest is irrelevant to most of the public
    That is of course the crucial issue. She needs good fortune on her side too. Without that her £100b package may still not be enough.

    But as you have said for a while, Truss' package when it comes, will be way better than the Labour alternative.
    You are putting words into my mouth but there is no doubt a longer term package is needed and we will see
    I just cannot see such a package being compatible with her "no handouts" freemarketeer mock-Thatcherite statements, tax cuts and any resemblance of fiscal sanity.
  • nico679 said:

    Does anyone honestly think this last 12 years of Government has been anything but a disaster?

    In the sense that they failed to reverse the disaster of the previous 13 years?
    You mean when the NHS was actually working under Labour !
    This country was at ease with itself under Blair, I maintain that society has got a lot nastier since they left.

    So much was achieved in that time, minimum wage, shortest waiting times in history, peace in NI, Climate Change act, devolution, civil partnerships...
    If you spend a lot of time online, you will think the country a steaming cesspit of rage, anger, bile and hatred.

    If you go out and about in the real world, not so much.

    Online, and twitter especially, are not real life.
    I live in the real world, homelessness is certainly a loss worse in London than it ever was under Blair
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,308
    Cyclefree said:

    In other news - https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2022/sep/03/lake-district-slag-heap-could-become-landmark-public-art.

    Other half has been working with Piet Oudolf and his team on his proposals and also on some of the cycling proposals. He is a very keen cyclist and earlier this week met the Guardian cycling correspondent, Laura Laker, about some articles and a book she's writing. She was pondering possible titles so I mischievously suggested "Cycle Free".....

    There is a lot of interesting stuff going on trying to use the industrial heritage and history of the Lakes (which tends to be overlooked amongst all the twee Potter memorabilia), especially on the western coast. Plus quite a lively and active arts scene.

    And now back to energy Armageddon .......

    I found the Pencil Museum in Keswick very interesting. A lot of history about which I knew nothing!
  • Foxy said:

    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?

    We can still pass judgement on her campaign utterences of half-wittery. Suggesting the rescinding the 70mph motorway speed limit for a free for all was a cracker.
    Of course you can, but there is only one issue that matters and that is how to deal with the cost of living crisis

    The rest is irrelevant to most of the public
    That is of course the crucial issue. She needs good fortune on her side too. Without that her £100b package may still not be enough.

    But as you have said for a while, Truss' package when it comes, will be way better than the Labour alternative.
    You are putting words into my mouth but there is no doubt a longer term package is needed and we will see
    I just cannot see such a package being compatible with her "no handouts" freemarketeer mock-Thatcherite statements, tax cuts and any resemblance of fiscal sanity.
    There is no choice and certainly 100 billion would be welcome no matter Ideology or otherwise
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650

    nico679 said:

    Does anyone honestly think this last 12 years of Government has been anything but a disaster?

    In the sense that they failed to reverse the disaster of the previous 13 years?
    You mean when the NHS was actually working under Labour !
    This country was at ease with itself under Blair, I maintain that society has got a lot nastier since they left.

    So much was achieved in that time, minimum wage, shortest waiting times in history, peace in NI, Climate Change act, devolution, civil partnerships...
    If you spend a lot of time online, you will think the country a steaming cesspit of rage, anger, bile and hatred.

    If you go out and about in the real world, not so much.

    Online, and twitter especially, are not real life.
    I live in the real world, homelessness is certainly a loss worse in London than it ever was under Blair
    It got rather worse in Baghdad and Basra under him though.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637

    nico679 said:

    Does anyone honestly think this last 12 years of Government has been anything but a disaster?

    In the sense that they failed to reverse the disaster of the previous 13 years?
    You mean when the NHS was actually working under Labour !
    This country was at ease with itself under Blair, I maintain that society has got a lot nastier since they left.

    So much was achieved in that time, minimum wage, shortest waiting times in history, peace in NI, Climate Change act, devolution, civil partnerships...
    If you spend a lot of time online, you will think the country a steaming cesspit of rage, anger, bile and hatred.

    If you go out and about in the real world, not so much.

    Online, and twitter especially, are not real life.
    I live in the real world, homelessness is certainly a loss worse in London than it ever was under Blair
    And that’s mainly because Blair threw open the borders to Eastern Europe

    As any Londoner knows, a very large proportion of the city’s homeless and beggars are from Romania etc
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,880
    Leon said:

    Lol. A Remoaner article about the horrors of exporting to the EU after Brexit

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/04/it-was-a-brexit-export-champion-now-kent-brewery-has-one-eu-customer-left

    Includes this genius line

    “Goods exports from the UK to the EU reached £16.9bn in May, the highest level since figures started in 1997.”

    This is a point that I have been making for a while. The anecdotal evidence of problems in exports are not being matched by the figures which have been on a strong upward trend since late last year as the EU economy recovered from Covid. It may be that there is a differential effect in that larger producers are having no problems but smaller businesses are finding the new paperwork a bit much but the overall effect of not being in the SM is certainly not matching the models.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,308

    nico679 said:

    Does anyone honestly think this last 12 years of Government has been anything but a disaster?

    In the sense that they failed to reverse the disaster of the previous 13 years?
    You mean when the NHS was actually working under Labour !
    This country was at ease with itself under Blair, I maintain that society has got a lot nastier since they left.

    So much was achieved in that time, minimum wage, shortest waiting times in history, peace in NI, Climate Change act, devolution, civil partnerships...
    If you spend a lot of time online, you will think the country a steaming cesspit of rage, anger, bile and hatred.

    If you go out and about in the real world, not so much.

    Online, and twitter especially, are not real life.
    I live in the real world, homelessness is certainly a loss worse in London than it ever was under Blair
    It got rather worse in Baghdad and Basra under him though.
    Good historical reasons for not voting for parties which supported the invasion then!
  • Cyclefree said:

    In other news - https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2022/sep/03/lake-district-slag-heap-could-become-landmark-public-art.

    Other half has been working with Piet Oudolf and his team on his proposals and also on some of the cycling proposals. He is a very keen cyclist and earlier this week met the Guardian cycling correspondent, Laura Laker, about some articles and a book she's writing. She was pondering possible titles so I mischievously suggested "Cycle Free".....

    There is a lot of interesting stuff going on trying to use the industrial heritage and history of the Lakes (which tends to be overlooked amongst all the twee Potter memorabilia), especially on the western coast. Plus quite a lively and active arts scene.

    And now back to energy Armageddon .......

    I found the Pencil Museum in Keswick very interesting. A lot of history about which I knew nothing!
    I quite enjoyed the Dock Museum in Barrow (though that was 20 years ago, so it might have changed). Barrow itself seemed much better than I expected, and some of the areas just outside it are beautiful.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,907
    edited September 2022
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    DougSeal said:

    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.
    1. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. NATO countries will probably continue to support Ukraine. They prefer Ukraine to fight Russia, instead of themselves.
    5. 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.
    6. 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
    7. 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.
    "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)."

    Whilst the rest of your post is very sensible, I think we should care about Russia.

    Immense damage to ordinary people (Russians as well as Ukrainians) is one of the reasons why we should be making maximum effort to bring this war to a close as swiftly as possible.
    Point is, this is an occupation of choice for Russia and a war of necessity for Ukraine.

    For any normal person, the deal would be: get out of Ukraine if you don't want the Sons of Russia to be killed. Putin doesn't care about the Sons of Russia, so that deal doesn't work. If Putin doesn't care enough about Russians to make that choice, when he has full responsibility, why should we?
    You talked about the war taking years before you said you didn't care about Russia.

    Wars that take years affect ordinary people, ordinary Russians civilians as well as of course others.

    Many ordinary Germans starved to death in the famines at the end of WW1 (and the deaths in the defeated Ottoman Empire from hunger were even greater).

    It would be wrong to say they deserved it because of their adventurist leaders.

    So that is why we should care about what happens to Russia and Russians.
  • Cyclefree said:

    In other news - https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2022/sep/03/lake-district-slag-heap-could-become-landmark-public-art.

    Other half has been working with Piet Oudolf and his team on his proposals and also on some of the cycling proposals. He is a very keen cyclist and earlier this week met the Guardian cycling correspondent, Laura Laker, about some articles and a book she's writing. She was pondering possible titles so I mischievously suggested "Cycle Free".....

    There is a lot of interesting stuff going on trying to use the industrial heritage and history of the Lakes (which tends to be overlooked amongst all the twee Potter memorabilia), especially on the western coast. Plus quite a lively and active arts scene.

    And now back to energy Armageddon .......

    I found the Pencil Museum in Keswick very interesting. A lot of history about which I knew nothing!
    Wasn't graphite 'discovered' in the :Lake District?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 14,025
    edited September 2022

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    DougSeal said:

    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.
    1. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. NATO countries will probably continue to support Ukraine. They prefer Ukraine to fight Russia, instead of themselves.
    5. 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.
    6. 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
    7. 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.
    "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)."

    Whilst the rest of your post is very sensible, I think we should care about Russia.

    Immense damage to ordinary people (Russians as well as Ukrainians) is one of the reasons why we should be making maximum effort to bring this war to a close as swiftly as possible.
    Point is, this is an occupation of choice for Russia and a war of necessity for Ukraine.

    For any normal person, the deal would be: get out of Ukraine if you don't want the Sons of Russia to be killed. Putin doesn't care about the Sons of Russia, so that deal doesn't work. If Putin doesn't care enough about Russians to make that choice, when he has full responsibility, why should we?
    You talked about the war taking years before you said you didn't care about Russia.

    Wars that take years affect ordinary people, ordinary Russians civilians as well as of course others.

    Many ordinary Germans starved to death in the famines at the end of WW1 (and the deaths in the defeated Ottoman Empire from hunger were even greater).

    It would take a particularly unpleasant person to say they deserved it because of their adventurist leaders.
    I would be delighted if Putin cared enough about his own people to pull his troops out of Ukraine so they no longer kill, rape and pillage the inhabitants who just want a quiet life of growing sunflower seeds.

    [Edit in response to your edit]
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,317
    What's interesting about Truss is now that the voting is over she has no reason to keep telling the membership what they want to hear. Yet the rhetoric doesn't really seem to be changing.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 9,073
    Funny to see Trump denouncing Joe Biden as an "enemy of the state".

    Trump doesn't seem to have been keeping up with events. Biden is now the president of the USA. He might almost say "L'État, c'est moi".

    Is a care home for the bewildered beckoning for Trump?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Lol. A Remoaner article about the horrors of exporting to the EU after Brexit

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/04/it-was-a-brexit-export-champion-now-kent-brewery-has-one-eu-customer-left

    Includes this genius line

    “Goods exports from the UK to the EU reached £16.9bn in May, the highest level since figures started in 1997.”

    This is a point that I have been making for a while. The anecdotal evidence of problems in exports are not being matched by the figures which have been on a strong upward trend since late last year as the EU economy recovered from Covid. It may be that there is a differential effect in that larger producers are having no problems but smaller businesses are finding the new paperwork a bit much but the overall effect of not being in the SM is certainly not matching the models.

    Indeed. That article is one of the most striking examples of journalistic cognitive dissonance I’ve ever seen

    It’s like the writer felt morally obliged to write an anti Brexit piece despite making himself look ludicrous with the facts he himself presents. Quite bizarre
  • What's interesting about Truss is now that the voting is over she has no reason to keep telling the membership what they want to hear. Yet the rhetoric doesn't really seem to be changing.

    Why do you expect it to until she is confirmed as PM and addresses the HOC at the dispatch box ?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298
    edited September 2022

    What's interesting about Truss is now that the voting is over she has no reason to keep telling the membership what they want to hear. Yet the rhetoric doesn't really seem to be changing.

    Indeed.
    The most striking thing from her this morning.
    Maybe a summer of exclusively meeting Tory members has convinced her she has a finger on the pulse of the nation?
    Doesn't bode well for the rest of us.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    Maybe we don’t need to worry about declining populations. Seriously. Look at this

    Is it real? Seems real

    https://twitter.com/ronald_vanloon/status/1566319446603571200?s=21&t=TRj14wKcCwNxyQUx1uB2qg


    “Window Cleaning #Robot
    by @Fabriziobustama

    #AI #ArtificialIntelligence #MI #Robotics #Tech4All #Tech4Good #Innovation
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,576
    Leon said:

    Lol. A Remoaner article about the horrors of exporting to the EU after Brexit

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/04/it-was-a-brexit-export-champion-now-kent-brewery-has-one-eu-customer-left

    Includes this genius line

    “Goods exports from the UK to the EU reached £16.9bn in May, the highest level since figures started in 1997.”

    Such self awareness!
  • Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Lol. A Remoaner article about the horrors of exporting to the EU after Brexit

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/04/it-was-a-brexit-export-champion-now-kent-brewery-has-one-eu-customer-left

    Includes this genius line

    “Goods exports from the UK to the EU reached £16.9bn in May, the highest level since figures started in 1997.”

    This is a point that I have been making for a while. The anecdotal evidence of problems in exports are not being matched by the figures which have been on a strong upward trend since late last year as the EU economy recovered from Covid. It may be that there is a differential effect in that larger producers are having no problems but smaller businesses are finding the new paperwork a bit much but the overall effect of not being in the SM is certainly not matching the models.

    Indeed. That article is one of the most striking examples of journalistic cognitive dissonance I’ve ever seen

    It’s like the writer felt morally obliged to write an anti Brexit piece despite making himself look ludicrous with the facts he himself presents. Quite bizarre
    It is not uncommon - we see it in here regularly
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,880

    Cyclefree said:

    In other news - https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2022/sep/03/lake-district-slag-heap-could-become-landmark-public-art.

    Other half has been working with Piet Oudolf and his team on his proposals and also on some of the cycling proposals. He is a very keen cyclist and earlier this week met the Guardian cycling correspondent, Laura Laker, about some articles and a book she's writing. She was pondering possible titles so I mischievously suggested "Cycle Free".....

    There is a lot of interesting stuff going on trying to use the industrial heritage and history of the Lakes (which tends to be overlooked amongst all the twee Potter memorabilia), especially on the western coast. Plus quite a lively and active arts scene.

    And now back to energy Armageddon .......

    I found the Pencil Museum in Keswick very interesting. A lot of history about which I knew nothing!
    We were there for a week in the summer but were not drawn to that particular excitment.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650

    nico679 said:

    Does anyone honestly think this last 12 years of Government has been anything but a disaster?

    In the sense that they failed to reverse the disaster of the previous 13 years?
    You mean when the NHS was actually working under Labour !
    This country was at ease with itself under Blair, I maintain that society has got a lot nastier since they left.

    So much was achieved in that time, minimum wage, shortest waiting times in history, peace in NI, Climate Change act, devolution, civil partnerships...
    If you spend a lot of time online, you will think the country a steaming cesspit of rage, anger, bile and hatred.

    If you go out and about in the real world, not so much.

    Online, and twitter especially, are not real life.
    I live in the real world, homelessness is certainly a loss worse in London than it ever was under Blair
    It got rather worse in Baghdad and Basra under him though.
    Good historical reasons for not voting for parties which supported the invasion then!
    We are all Rifkindites now
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298

    What's interesting about Truss is now that the voting is over she has no reason to keep telling the membership what they want to hear. Yet the rhetoric doesn't really seem to be changing.

    Why do you expect it to until she is confirmed as PM and addresses the HOC at the dispatch box ?
    Why do you expect it to change then?
    There is literally no evidence for this belief.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,308
    dixiedean said:

    What's interesting about Truss is now that the voting is over she has no reason to keep telling the membership what they want to hear. Yet the rhetoric doesn't really seem to be changing.

    Indeed.
    The most striking thing from her this morning.
    Maybe a summer of exclusively meeting Tory members has convinced her she has a finger on the pulse of the nation?
    Doesn't bode well for the rest of us.
    According to our friend from Epping she has her finger on the pulses of retired homeowners!
  • ChrisChris Posts: 9,073
    Leon said:

    Maybe we don’t need to worry about declining populations. Seriously. Look at this

    Is it real? Seems real

    https://twitter.com/ronald_vanloon/status/1566319446603571200?s=21&t=TRj14wKcCwNxyQUx1uB2qg

    You reckon it seems real? To me it seems like there's a bloke on the other side of the window with a magnetic mop.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,792
    Chris said:



    Is a care home for the bewildered beckoning for Trump?



    Our Guy was looking as rough as fuck this week.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,576

    nico679 said:

    Does anyone honestly think this last 12 years of Government has been anything but a disaster?

    In the sense that they failed to reverse the disaster of the previous 13 years?
    You mean when the NHS was actually working under Labour !
    This country was at ease with itself under Blair, I maintain that society has got a lot nastier since they left.

    So much was achieved in that time, minimum wage, shortest waiting times in history, peace in NI, Climate Change act, devolution, civil partnerships...
    If you spend a lot of time online, you will think the country a steaming cesspit of rage, anger, bile and hatred.

    If you go out and about in the real world, not so much.

    Online, and twitter especially, are not real life.
    I live in the real world, homelessness is certainly a loss worse in London than it ever was under Blair
    We have had huge immigration thanks to Blair. Some of the homelessness will be related to that. Some are sad cases where drug and/alcohol dependency have wrecked their lives. I’m not sure that you can can blame the government for this.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,308
    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    In other news - https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2022/sep/03/lake-district-slag-heap-could-become-landmark-public-art.

    Other half has been working with Piet Oudolf and his team on his proposals and also on some of the cycling proposals. He is a very keen cyclist and earlier this week met the Guardian cycling correspondent, Laura Laker, about some articles and a book she's writing. She was pondering possible titles so I mischievously suggested "Cycle Free".....

    There is a lot of interesting stuff going on trying to use the industrial heritage and history of the Lakes (which tends to be overlooked amongst all the twee Potter memorabilia), especially on the western coast. Plus quite a lively and active arts scene.

    And now back to energy Armageddon .......

    I found the Pencil Museum in Keswick very interesting. A lot of history about which I knew nothing!
    We were there for a week in the summer but were not drawn to that particular excitment.
    How about the Theatre by the Lake?
  • dixiedean said:

    What's interesting about Truss is now that the voting is over she has no reason to keep telling the membership what they want to hear. Yet the rhetoric doesn't really seem to be changing.

    Why do you expect it to until she is confirmed as PM and addresses the HOC at the dispatch box ?
    Why do you expect it to change then?
    There is literally no evidence for this belief.
    Just wait until she announces the measures at the dispatch box

    If she fails on this her Premiership is over before it has begun
  • dixiedean said:

    What's interesting about Truss is now that the voting is over she has no reason to keep telling the membership what they want to hear. Yet the rhetoric doesn't really seem to be changing.

    Indeed.
    The most striking thing from her this morning.
    Maybe a summer of exclusively meeting Tory members has convinced her she has a finger on the pulse of the nation?
    Doesn't bode well for the rest of us.
    Simplest answer is that this is roughly what she actually believes and roughly how she is.

    The "it's an act to win this vote and then she will pivot to some less terrible" theory seems pretty naive. Has it ever happened before?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    Chris said:

    Leon said:

    Maybe we don’t need to worry about declining populations. Seriously. Look at this

    Is it real? Seems real

    https://twitter.com/ronald_vanloon/status/1566319446603571200?s=21&t=TRj14wKcCwNxyQUx1uB2qg

    You reckon it seems real? To me it seems like there's a bloke on the other side of the window with a magnetic mop.

    My first reaction was: must be fake

    Yet the guy who posted it posts legitimate stuff about AI and robotics so 🤷‍♂️

    Hard to tell. I’m on a plane at Luton with an iPhone…
  • DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Lol. A Remoaner article about the horrors of exporting to the EU after Brexit

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/04/it-was-a-brexit-export-champion-now-kent-brewery-has-one-eu-customer-left

    Includes this genius line

    “Goods exports from the UK to the EU reached £16.9bn in May, the highest level since figures started in 1997.”

    This is a point that I have been making for a while. The anecdotal evidence of problems in exports are not being matched by the figures which have been on a strong upward trend since late last year as the EU economy recovered from Covid. It may be that there is a differential effect in that larger producers are having no problems but smaller businesses are finding the new paperwork a bit much but the overall effect of not being in the SM is certainly not matching the models.
    It's hard to say anything too conclusive as the single market exit has coincided with extremely strong goods trade globally as consumers substituted from services to goods post Covid. The UK seems to have lagged other countries in this regard but UK exports have done okay. It is notable that the new exports index in the manufacturing PMI has been far weaker in the UK than in the Euro Area since last January, which suggests something is awry.
    The impact is likely to be more long term as the kind of firms that would have stepped up to export as part of their growth trajectory in the past don't bother, and miss out on the productivity boost that typically comes with that.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,880
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Lol. A Remoaner article about the horrors of exporting to the EU after Brexit

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/04/it-was-a-brexit-export-champion-now-kent-brewery-has-one-eu-customer-left

    Includes this genius line

    “Goods exports from the UK to the EU reached £16.9bn in May, the highest level since figures started in 1997.”

    This is a point that I have been making for a while. The anecdotal evidence of problems in exports are not being matched by the figures which have been on a strong upward trend since late last year as the EU economy recovered from Covid. It may be that there is a differential effect in that larger producers are having no problems but smaller businesses are finding the new paperwork a bit much but the overall effect of not being in the SM is certainly not matching the models.

    Indeed. That article is one of the most striking examples of journalistic cognitive dissonance I’ve ever seen

    It’s like the writer felt morally obliged to write an anti Brexit piece despite making himself look ludicrous with the facts he himself presents. Quite bizarre
    This dissonance is on both sides though. In this highly selective piece boasting about the growth of UK exports to the EU https://www.facts4eu.org/news/2022_jul_uk_exports_soar#

    we have this little gem:
    "Many more are now pivoting away from the EU and finding new markets around the world. As one company CEO told us recently:

    “I now find it’s much easier for us to sell to almost any other country in the world than to say Germany, France, Spain, or other EU countries.”

    Which is the exact opposite of the story they are trying to tell. It's positively weird.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 9,073

    nico679 said:

    Does anyone honestly think this last 12 years of Government has been anything but a disaster?

    In the sense that they failed to reverse the disaster of the previous 13 years?
    You mean when the NHS was actually working under Labour !
    This country was at ease with itself under Blair, I maintain that society has got a lot nastier since they left.

    So much was achieved in that time, minimum wage, shortest waiting times in history, peace in NI, Climate Change act, devolution, civil partnerships...
    If you spend a lot of time online, you will think the country a steaming cesspit of rage, anger, bile and hatred.

    If you go out and about in the real world, not so much.

    Online, and twitter especially, are not real life.
    I live in the real world, homelessness is certainly a loss worse in London than it ever was under Blair
    We have had huge immigration thanks to Blair. Some of the homelessness will be related to that. Some are sad cases where drug and/alcohol dependency have wrecked their lives. I’m not sure that you can can blame the government for this.
    Well, yes, we're a small crowded island. There just physically isn't enough room for the people who are here now. We're almost perpetually shoulder-to-shoulder as it is.

    Just occasionally when I go for a walk in certain parts of Greater London and don't see a soul for perhaps as long as half an hour I have my doubts.

    But then I think they couldn't say it if it wasn't true.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 7,459
    edited September 2022

    nico679 said:

    Does anyone honestly think this last 12 years of Government has been anything but a disaster?

    In the sense that they failed to reverse the disaster of the previous 13 years?
    You mean when the NHS was actually working under Labour !
    This country was at ease with itself under Blair, I maintain that society has got a lot nastier since they left.

    So much was achieved in that time, minimum wage, shortest waiting times in history, peace in NI, Climate Change act, devolution, civil partnerships...
    If you spend a lot of time online, you will think the country a steaming cesspit of rage, anger, bile and hatred.

    If you go out and about in the real world, not so much.

    Online, and twitter especially, are not real life.
    I live in the real world, homelessness is certainly a loss worse in London than it ever was under Blair
    We have had huge immigration thanks to Blair. Some of the homelessness will be related to that. Some are sad cases where drug and/alcohol dependency have wrecked their lives. I’m not sure that you can can blame the government for this.
    As discussed and referenced many times on here, the biggest proportionate increase in homelessness and other social urgency indicators was following the first round of welfare cuts, after 2013-4. Other services, including drug, alcohol, psychological health and ex-prisoner rehabilitation services also were cut during this time.
  • I see it's BDS morning on PB again. It usually signifies a distraction from some other clusterfcuk of the Brexity right, the oncoming fitting of the nation with a Truss maybe?

    I hope all the 'Brexit is fine, BELEAVE!' guys got into the swing by attending loads of Festival of Brexit events, they wouldn't have had to to queue anyway.

    Top trolling lols

    'Government’s £120,000,000 ‘Festival of Brexit’ attracts just 238,000 people

    ...He has however said the Culture Secretary, Nadine Dorries, was a fan of the project, saying she ‘absolutely loved’ an immersive group hallucination in London.'

    https://tinyurl.com/238twe8r

  • ChrisChris Posts: 9,073
    Leon said:

    Chris said:

    Leon said:

    Maybe we don’t need to worry about declining populations. Seriously. Look at this

    Is it real? Seems real

    https://twitter.com/ronald_vanloon/status/1566319446603571200?s=21&t=TRj14wKcCwNxyQUx1uB2qg

    You reckon it seems real? To me it seems like there's a bloke on the other side of the window with a magnetic mop.

    My first reaction was: must be fake

    Yet the guy who posted it posts legitimate stuff about AI and robotics so 🤷‍♂️

    Hard to tell. I’m on a plane at Luton with an iPhone…
    Don't get me wrong. I can quite believe the "guy" who posted it was a robot.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503
    edited September 2022

    nico679 said:

    Does anyone honestly think this last 12 years of Government has been anything but a disaster?

    In the sense that they failed to reverse the disaster of the previous 13 years?
    You mean when the NHS was actually working under Labour !
    This country was at ease with itself under Blair, I maintain that society has got a lot nastier since they left.

    So much was achieved in that time, minimum wage, shortest waiting times in history, peace in NI, Climate Change act, devolution, civil partnerships...
    If you spend a lot of time online, you will think the country a steaming cesspit of rage, anger, bile and hatred.

    If you go out and about in the real world, not so much.

    Online, and twitter especially, are not real life.
    I live in the real world, homelessness is certainly a loss worse in London than it ever was under Blair
    Do you mean that it’s a lot worse under Khan, than it was under Johnson? ;)
  • Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    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

    It was a very wierd speech, in content as well as in setting. The sort of thing that you’d expect to hear from Trump, rather than someone trying to bring America back together. It was the Basket of Deplorables on steroids, and is likely to get more Republicans turning out in November than Democrats.
    It is precisely what we did hear from Trump. Here he is calling Democrats fascists.
    https://twitter.com/mattsheffield/status/1565830087911432192
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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)
    Unless, of course, they said they will fix that price as a maximum and agree to reduce it should costs fall. Which some suppliers have.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,576

    nico679 said:

    Does anyone honestly think this last 12 years of Government has been anything but a disaster?

    In the sense that they failed to reverse the disaster of the previous 13 years?
    You mean when the NHS was actually working under Labour !
    This country was at ease with itself under Blair, I maintain that society has got a lot nastier since they left.

    So much was achieved in that time, minimum wage, shortest waiting times in history, peace in NI, Climate Change act, devolution, civil partnerships...
    If you spend a lot of time online, you will think the country a steaming cesspit of rage, anger, bile and hatred.

    If you go out and about in the real world, not so much.

    Online, and twitter especially, are not real life.
    I live in the real world, homelessness is certainly a loss worse in London than it ever was under Blair
    We have had huge immigration thanks to Blair. Some of the homelessness will be related to that. Some are sad cases where drug and/alcohol dependency have wrecked their lives. I’m not sure that you can can blame the government for this.
    As discussed and referenced many times on here, the biggest proportionate increase in homelesness was following the first round of welfare cuts after 2013-4. Other services, including drug, alcohol, psychological health and ex-prisoner rehabilitation services also were cut during this time.
    I’m sure that’s true, but it’s also true that we are still seeing large immigration numbers into the U.K. and there are only a finite number of beds for people. Where do the channel crossers end up?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650
    Leon said:

    Chris said:

    Leon said:

    Maybe we don’t need to worry about declining populations. Seriously. Look at this

    Is it real? Seems real

    https://twitter.com/ronald_vanloon/status/1566319446603571200?s=21&t=TRj14wKcCwNxyQUx1uB2qg

    You reckon it seems real? To me it seems like there's a bloke on the other side of the window with a magnetic mop.

    My first reaction was: must be fake

    Yet the guy who posted it posts legitimate stuff about AI and robotics so 🤷‍♂️

    Hard to tell. I’m on a plane at Luton with an iPhone…
    Thats tech for you. Partial solutions to problems that dont exist. The great mucky window miasma of 22.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Lol. A Remoaner article about the horrors of exporting to the EU after Brexit

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/04/it-was-a-brexit-export-champion-now-kent-brewery-has-one-eu-customer-left

    Includes this genius line

    “Goods exports from the UK to the EU reached £16.9bn in May, the highest level since figures started in 1997.”

    This is a point that I have been making for a while. The anecdotal evidence of problems in exports are not being matched by the figures which have been on a strong upward trend since late last year as the EU economy recovered from Covid. It may be that there is a differential effect in that larger producers are having no problems but smaller businesses are finding the new paperwork a bit much but the overall effect of not being in the SM is certainly not matching the models.
    Much of the rise in UK exports to the EU is because currently vast amounts of expensive LNG are going via the UK to the EU. It’s hard to tell what the picture is when you take out the energy situation.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Lol. A Remoaner article about the horrors of exporting to the EU after Brexit

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/04/it-was-a-brexit-export-champion-now-kent-brewery-has-one-eu-customer-left

    Includes this genius line

    “Goods exports from the UK to the EU reached £16.9bn in May, the highest level since figures started in 1997.”

    This is a point that I have been making for a while. The anecdotal evidence of problems in exports are not being matched by the figures which have been on a strong upward trend since late last year as the EU economy recovered from Covid. It may be that there is a differential effect in that larger producers are having no problems but smaller businesses are finding the new paperwork a bit much but the overall effect of not being in the SM is certainly not matching the models.

    Indeed. That article is one of the most striking examples of journalistic cognitive dissonance I’ve ever seen

    It’s like the writer felt morally obliged to write an anti Brexit piece despite making himself look ludicrous with the facts he himself presents. Quite bizarre
    This dissonance is on both sides though. In this highly selective piece boasting about the growth of UK exports to the EU https://www.facts4eu.org/news/2022_jul_uk_exports_soar#

    we have this little gem:
    "Many more are now pivoting away from the EU and finding new markets around the world. As one company CEO told us recently:

    “I now find it’s much easier for us to sell to almost any other country in the world than to say Germany, France, Spain, or other EU countries.”

    Which is the exact opposite of the story they are trying to tell. It's positively weird.
    It’s not weird when you see Brexit as a matter of religious faith - on the extremes of both sides

    Expecting balance in that light is like expecting a 16th century cardinal to say “well the Protestants do make some good points”
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    Leon said:

    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

    I submit that you are a fool, fantasist, or combination of the two.
  • Dura_Ace said:

    BigRich said:

    Why then did we not given some/many or our AS90s self propelled 155mm guns?

    This thread explains why sending British AS90s was never feasible.

    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.
    We think the Russian military is in a bad state, but what if ours is even worse?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,880

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Lol. A Remoaner article about the horrors of exporting to the EU after Brexit

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/04/it-was-a-brexit-export-champion-now-kent-brewery-has-one-eu-customer-left

    Includes this genius line

    “Goods exports from the UK to the EU reached £16.9bn in May, the highest level since figures started in 1997.”

    This is a point that I have been making for a while. The anecdotal evidence of problems in exports are not being matched by the figures which have been on a strong upward trend since late last year as the EU economy recovered from Covid. It may be that there is a differential effect in that larger producers are having no problems but smaller businesses are finding the new paperwork a bit much but the overall effect of not being in the SM is certainly not matching the models.
    It's hard to say anything too conclusive as the single market exit has coincided with extremely strong goods trade globally as consumers substituted from services to goods post Covid. The UK seems to have lagged other countries in this regard but UK exports have done okay. It is notable that the new exports index in the manufacturing PMI has been far weaker in the UK than in the Euro Area since last January, which suggests something is awry.
    The impact is likely to be more long term as the kind of firms that would have stepped up to export as part of their growth trajectory in the past don't bother, and miss out on the productivity boost that typically comes with that.
    I agree with much of that. My main point has been that there are an almost endless list of more important things than Brexit going on impacting on trade and any effect is going to be lost in the noise. The differential recovery of countries from Covid has been much more significant on their import demand than any other single thing but there has been much else.

    But what this shows is that economic models based on a presumption that our exports to the EU will be 0.5% or 1% less than they otherwise would have been which, surprise!, produce a smaller UK economy at the end of any given time period are frankly useless. We will never know if they were right or wrong.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756

    nico679 said:

    Does anyone honestly think this last 12 years of Government has been anything but a disaster?

    In the sense that they failed to reverse the disaster of the previous 13 years?
    You mean when the NHS was actually working under Labour !
    This country was at ease with itself under Blair, I maintain that society has got a lot nastier since they left.

    So much was achieved in that time, minimum wage, shortest waiting times in history, peace in NI, Climate Change act, devolution, civil partnerships...
    I think those of us who lived outside the major metropolitan areas would dispute the country was 'at ease with itself.' In particular, it's striking to think just how unpopular his agenda frequently was (particularly his silliness over Cool Britannia and his obsession with urban rather than rural services, most of which were more or less destroyed on his watch) even as people voted for him.

    The difference was, most people thought others wouldn't agree with them so generally quite muted in what they said.

    Brexit has rather changed that. It's not so much that it's created new things but caused the venting of much suppressed rage and frustration.

    Scottish nationalism you could make a similar case.
  • Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    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

    It was a very wierd speech, in content as well as in setting. The sort of thing that you’d expect to hear from Trump, rather than someone trying to bring America back together. It was the Basket of Deplorables on steroids, and is likely to get more Republicans turning out in November than Democrats.
    It is precisely what we did hear from Trump. Here he is calling Democrats fascists.
    https://twitter.com/mattsheffield/status/1565830087911432192
    Completely different, for 'reasons'.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    Ah. One plane row away from the screaming baby

    Of course
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644

    nico679 said:

    Does anyone honestly think this last 12 years of Government has been anything but a disaster?

    In the sense that they failed to reverse the disaster of the previous 13 years?
    You mean when the NHS was actually working under Labour !
    This country was at ease with itself under Blair, I maintain that society has got a lot nastier since they left.

    So much was achieved in that time, minimum wage, shortest waiting times in history, peace in NI, Climate Change act, devolution, civil partnerships...
    If you spend a lot of time online, you will think the country a steaming cesspit of rage, anger, bile and hatred.

    If you go out and about in the real world, not so much.

    Online, and twitter especially, are not real life.
    I live in the real world, homelessness is certainly a loss worse in London than it ever was under Blair
    We have had huge immigration thanks to Blair. Some of the homelessness will be related to that. Some are sad cases where drug and/alcohol dependency have wrecked their lives. I’m not sure that you can can blame the government for this.
    As discussed and referenced many times on here, the biggest proportionate increase in homelesness was following the first round of welfare cuts after 2013-4. Other services, including drug, alcohol, psychological health and ex-prisoner rehabilitation services also were cut during this time.
    I’m sure that’s true, but it’s also true that we are still seeing large immigration numbers into the U.K. and there are only a finite number of beds for people. Where do the channel crossers end up?
    The channel crossers constitute a pretty small proportion of the large immigration numbers into the UK.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,214

    Delta poll in today's Sun on Sunday:
    Labour 42
    Tories 31

    Best PM …
    Starmer 34
    Johnson 23
    Truss 11

    What am I missing when I say the “best PM” polling is all over the shop? How seriously do we take this particular one, when other firms have it neck and neck with Starmer?

    One movement which seems to have happened, as the hustings period has gone on, Liz lead over Sunak for best PM has tightened/disappeared in some of the polling.
  • What's interesting about Truss is now that the voting is over she has no reason to keep telling the membership what they want to hear. Yet the rhetoric doesn't really seem to be changing.

    Why do you expect it to until she is confirmed as PM and addresses the HOC at the dispatch box ?
    She doesn't have to confirm anything. It's just that her rhetoric has been that she won't be doing what needs to be done, and now the voting is closed she is still saying the same thing.

    If it's all one big lie to fool the selectorate, why keep saying it after the voting closes?
  • DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Lol. A Remoaner article about the horrors of exporting to the EU after Brexit

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/04/it-was-a-brexit-export-champion-now-kent-brewery-has-one-eu-customer-left

    Includes this genius line

    “Goods exports from the UK to the EU reached £16.9bn in May, the highest level since figures started in 1997.”

    This is a point that I have been making for a while. The anecdotal evidence of problems in exports are not being matched by the figures which have been on a strong upward trend since late last year as the EU economy recovered from Covid. It may be that there is a differential effect in that larger producers are having no problems but smaller businesses are finding the new paperwork a bit much but the overall effect of not being in the SM is certainly not matching the models.
    I thought that our export figures were flattered by increased exports of gas and electricity - a result of our LNG import capacity substituting for some of the lost supply of Russian gas?

    Has anyone looked at the figures excluding energy?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650
    Leon said:

    Ah. One plane row away from the screaming baby

    Of course

    Chortle
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Lol. A Remoaner article about the horrors of exporting to the EU after Brexit

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/04/it-was-a-brexit-export-champion-now-kent-brewery-has-one-eu-customer-left

    Includes this genius line

    “Goods exports from the UK to the EU reached £16.9bn in May, the highest level since figures started in 1997.”

    This is a point that I have been making for a while. The anecdotal evidence of problems in exports are not being matched by the figures which have been on a strong upward trend since late last year as the EU economy recovered from Covid. It may be that there is a differential effect in that larger producers are having no problems but smaller businesses are finding the new paperwork a bit much but the overall effect of not being in the SM is certainly not matching the models.
    I thought that our export figures were flattered by increased exports of gas and electricity - a result of our LNG import capacity substituting for some of the lost supply of Russian gas?

    Has anyone looked at the figures excluding energy?
    also, nobody should be using money as a like for like basis due to inflation and the collapsing pound. Volume is the key.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,576

    nico679 said:

    Does anyone honestly think this last 12 years of Government has been anything but a disaster?

    In the sense that they failed to reverse the disaster of the previous 13 years?
    You mean when the NHS was actually working under Labour !
    This country was at ease with itself under Blair, I maintain that society has got a lot nastier since they left.

    So much was achieved in that time, minimum wage, shortest waiting times in history, peace in NI, Climate Change act, devolution, civil partnerships...
    If you spend a lot of time online, you will think the country a steaming cesspit of rage, anger, bile and hatred.

    If you go out and about in the real world, not so much.

    Online, and twitter especially, are not real life.
    I live in the real world, homelessness is certainly a loss worse in London than it ever was under Blair
    We have had huge immigration thanks to Blair. Some of the homelessness will be related to that. Some are sad cases where drug and/alcohol dependency have wrecked their lives. I’m not sure that you can can blame the government for this.
    As discussed and referenced many times on here, the biggest proportionate increase in homelesness was following the first round of welfare cuts after 2013-4. Other services, including drug, alcohol, psychological health and ex-prisoner rehabilitation services also were cut during this time.
    I’m sure that’s true, but it’s also true that we are still seeing large immigration numbers into the U.K. and there are only a finite number of beds for people. Where do the channel crossers end up?
    The channel crossers constitute a pretty small proportion of the large immigration numbers into the UK.
    How many this year? And last year? Adding to the total.

    This is not a point about asylum, it’s about housing capacity.

    Marriage/relationship breaks down. Someone forced out the marital home. Where do they go in a land that’s full (in housing terms)? Councils don’t have the capacity.

    First it’s a mates house, then the streets.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503
    Zelensky writes a column in the Mail on Sunday today:

    I am proud to say again that during this difficult time the UK has stood shoulder to shoulder with us, as the dearest friend and closest ally. As president, I realise that the policy and actions of the Government embody the public will.

    I am impressed by the number of Ukrainian flags flying high and proudly throughout the United Kingdom to demonstrate solidarity with Ukraine and Ukrainians.

    I am deeply encouraged by the unanimity and cohesion of all political parties in the British Parliament in support of Ukraine. People in the UK should know that every day of struggle for their very existence, Ukrainians are immensely grateful to your country.

    But I also believe in the power of personal leadership. I know it has not been an easy ride for Boris Johnson as he had to deal with many internal challenges. Prioritising support for Ukraine demanded great courage and determination.


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11177097/VOLODYMYR-ZELENSKY-battles-raged-Boris-Johnson-came-Kyiv-messages-hope.html
  • Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Does anyone honestly think this last 12 years of Government has been anything but a disaster?

    In the sense that they failed to reverse the disaster of the previous 13 years?
    You mean when the NHS was actually working under Labour !
    This country was at ease with itself under Blair, I maintain that society has got a lot nastier since they left.

    So much was achieved in that time, minimum wage, shortest waiting times in history, peace in NI, Climate Change act, devolution, civil partnerships...
    If you spend a lot of time online, you will think the country a steaming cesspit of rage, anger, bile and hatred.

    If you go out and about in the real world, not so much.

    Online, and twitter especially, are not real life.
    I live in the real world, homelessness is certainly a loss worse in London than it ever was under Blair
    And that’s mainly because Blair threw open the borders to Eastern Europe

    As any Londoner knows, a very large proportion of the city’s homeless and beggars are from Romania etc
    "Luke, at that speed will you be able to pull out in time?"

    "It'll be just like Romanian Beggar's Canyon back home!"
  • Dura_Ace said:

    BigRich said:

    Why then did we not given some/many or our AS90s self propelled 155mm guns?

    This thread explains why sending British AS90s was never feasible.

    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.
    We think the Russian military is in a bad state, but what if ours is even worse?
    After decades of Tory defence cuts, what do you expect? There has long been the idea on parts of the right that all we need are some nukes and the SAS.
  • Eabhal said:

    Carnyx said:

    Jonathan said:

    What is wrong with the right? Glanced at the paper headlines, Trump doubling down calling Biden an enemy of the state and the Sunday Mail, in what has to be one of their most ironic headlines, complains that Johnson and Truss were subject to an unfair steam of criticism.

    I’ve not seen this victim mentality and willingness to double down and argue black is white before. Worrying times.

    You should see the bunch of whiners that comprise the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party. Nobody loves them and everybody hates them, so they’ve decided to eat worms.
    They'll really know they are done when people start pitying them rather than hating them. Though Mr Ross has somewhat inflicted his woes on himself by changing from end to end more often than he does as a footie referee.
    To be fair, they have been Scotland's second largest party for 6 years. This tends to really annoy people when you mention it (particularly other Labour supporters).
    But that was the Ruth Davidson Says No Party. Now defunct.

    The role of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party is that of the perennial also-ran.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650

    Delta poll in today's Sun on Sunday:
    Labour 42
    Tories 31

    Best PM …
    Starmer 34
    Johnson 23
    Truss 11

    What am I missing when I say the “best PM” polling is all over the shop? How seriously do we take this particular one, when other firms have it neck and neck with Starmer?

    One movement which seems to have happened, as the hustings period has gone on, Liz lead over Sunak for best PM has tightened/disappeared in some of the polling.
    The question here is where do the 23 Johnsons go? If to 'the new Tory' we have a dead heat, if mostly to 'the new Tory' we have pretty much what opinium showed, a few points lead for Starmer.
    Truss is not PM. When she is the numbers will rise. But by how much?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,798

    nico679 said:

    Does anyone honestly think this last 12 years of Government has been anything but a disaster?

    In the sense that they failed to reverse the disaster of the previous 13 years?
    You mean when the NHS was actually working under Labour !
    This country was at ease with itself under Blair, I maintain that society has got a lot nastier since they left.

    So much was achieved in that time, minimum wage, shortest waiting times in history, peace in NI, Climate Change act, devolution, civil partnerships...
    If you spend a lot of time online, you will think the country a steaming cesspit of rage, anger, bile and hatred.

    If you go out and about in the real world, not so much.

    Online, and twitter especially, are not real life.
    I live in the real world, homelessness is certainly a loss worse in London than it ever was under Blair
    We have had huge immigration thanks to Blair. Some of the homelessness will be related to that. Some are sad cases where drug and/alcohol dependency have wrecked their lives. I’m not sure that you can can blame the government for this.
    As discussed and referenced many times on here, the biggest proportionate increase in homelessness and other social urgency indicators was following the first round of welfare cuts, after 2013-4. Other services, including drug, alcohol, psychological health and ex-prisoner rehabilitation services also were cut during this time.
    I've done a bit of research on this through work and I couldn't find any correlation between the introduction of Universal Credit and homelessness. There was certainly an increase in rent arrears, but that's different to people actually becoming homeless.

    Indeed, I couldn't even find a relationship between economic or labour market conditions and homelessness. I think the causes of it are much deeper - what you call "other services" are the solution. The single most significant drop came with the policies brought in by Labour in the early 2000s - a major success, and where we should look now for policy intervention ideas.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,825

    Dura_Ace said:

    BigRich said:

    Why then did we not given some/many or our AS90s self propelled 155mm guns?

    This thread explains why sending British AS90s was never feasible.

    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.
    We think the Russian military is in a bad state, but what if ours is even worse?
    Perhaps towed artillery has some advantages after all...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    .
    Leon said:

    Ah. One plane row away from the screaming baby

    Of course

    Think of it like the period just after Brexit.
  • 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.

    Your son plays for Aberdeen? Well done! 😄
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 14,025

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Lol. A Remoaner article about the horrors of exporting to the EU after Brexit

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/04/it-was-a-brexit-export-champion-now-kent-brewery-has-one-eu-customer-left

    Includes this genius line

    “Goods exports from the UK to the EU reached £16.9bn in May, the highest level since figures started in 1997.”

    This is a point that I have been making for a while. The anecdotal evidence of problems in exports are not being matched by the figures which have been on a strong upward trend since late last year as the EU economy recovered from Covid. It may be that there is a differential effect in that larger producers are having no problems but smaller businesses are finding the new paperwork a bit much but the overall effect of not being in the SM is certainly not matching the models.
    It's hard to say anything too conclusive as the single market exit has coincided with extremely strong goods trade globally as consumers substituted from services to goods post Covid. The UK seems to have lagged other countries in this regard but UK exports have done okay. It is notable that the new exports index in the manufacturing PMI has been far weaker in the UK than in the Euro Area since last January, which suggests something is awry.
    The impact is likely to be more long term as the kind of firms that would have stepped up to export as part of their growth trajectory in the past don't bother, and miss out on the productivity boost that typically comes with that.
    The curious trade figure is that exports to non-EU countries have fallen faster than to the EU, in relative terms, when you might expect the opposite to be the case because of Brexit.

    Incidentally, the ONS points out the "highest level since 1997" is only because of inflation and those export figures have fallen since in nominal terms. Also monthly figures are lumpy since Brexit. The article is factual and balanced, pointing out the genuine problems now faced by small businesses to the EU, while accepting overall exports have been less affected.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,825
    Leon said:

    Ah. One plane row away from the screaming baby

    Of course

    I wonder why the baby is screaming? Perhaps it isn't too happy with its neighbour either.
This discussion has been closed.