A carriage of the Royal train, modified especially to carry Queen Elizabeth II’s coffin, lies unused after plans for the nation to turn out to show its respects were scrapped over fears for public safety and disruption.
It's a shame that the railway isn't getting used in all this.
Yes. Having a procession through Scotland then skipping Northern England entirely to go straight to London is not a good look. I am pretty sure the Queen would not have approved.
I would certainly have gone out to stand somewhere by the ECML, but I have zero chance of getting to London.
As I understand it, the problems were
1) Slow moving train that attracts people who may never have been near a train line before. 2) 1) mean that you would have to have staff at every place that the public can approach the track. 3) Inevitably, people would start climbing fences etc 4) Accidents are then certain.
And yet both Churchill and King George VI had funeral trains, albeit not over such a long run.
If railways are too hard to police, then just use the car and follow the old A1.
They covered nearly 200 miles in Scotland - it is only twice that distance from Edinburgh to London.
Different levels of risk assessment back then - if someone went under the train, it would be their own fault. Now, it would a public enquiry. And when it came out that the risk was recognised in planning and ignored, the person ignoring it would be legally liable.
By car would have been sensible. And that is what I would have done. A rather meandering route, probably, to make sure that there were many miles of pavement which people could stand on, if they chose. Complete with a phone app detailing the route, the location of the hearse, and the estimated time to a given location...
It is a bit like organising a bike race - a rolling roadblock of outriders and a timing sheet - which strangely enough they had practice with on Deeside only a few days before as the Tour of Britain passed the gates of Balmoral.
No need for an app, really, just a list of fast/slow times.
One way or another, they've missed a trick.
Berwick, Newcastle, Durham, York, Doncaster, Nottingham, Leicester, Northampton. That's a significant population.
A lot easier to process (is that a word?) the coffin past the crowds than to process the crowd past the coffin, although I appreciate that doesn't have quite the same meaning.
A trifle unambitious. Why not follow the route of the Commonwealth Games "baton"? Surely it's what she'd have wanted. Ending up in Birmingham would be a welcome break from the stultifying embrace of tradition - an unambiguous statement of intent for the 21st century.
A deliberate tour would obviously be a bit weird, but a direct route would surely be fine.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Agreed - though starting a war of aggression is a crime.
Yes it is. This isn't a "good v evil" conflict - that is not imo the right way to view it - but it is a matter of right v wrong with the wrong all on one side.
Again, like a crime. A putative killer attacks his victim, the victim fights back. That's not "good v evil" - the victim might be a deeply flawed individual and the killer might have his good points - but it IS a fairly uncomplicated matter of right and wrong.
Evil and wrong can by synonyms and Russia in this conflict is both.
I'm not happy with calling countries evil.
Putin is evil and Russia is in the wrong - I'm ok with that.
If countries don't want to be called evil, then they shouldn't be or do evil.
The USSR was an evil Empire. Nazi Germany and Pol Pot's Cambodia were evil, and modern day China and Russia are evil too.
To go contrary to the "worst" airport stories, the best airport I've ever been to is Keflavik (KEF) which is an absolute pleasure to go through.
Whenever we fly across the Atlantic we fly with Icelandair in recent years, if you don't mind a layover they're a lot cheaper to fly with, the customer service is fantastic every time too. KEF itself is great, every time we have been it is always clean, smooth moving, great service and extremely easy to navigate.
Iceland is a beautiful country to visit on holiday anyway, but even if you're just looking to go to Canada or America, consider having a look there. It is far, far cheaper for us and much better service too flying with Icelandair and stopping at KEF than flying with Air Canada.
What a strangely successful country Iceland is. It seems to have received the best of a combined Anglo-American and Scandinavian, more Continental influence. We could learn a bit from that.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
It is a shame because 30 years ago it used to be a lovely airport to travel through. Full of interesting shops and stalls and it was easy to spend a few hours there waiting for onward connections. Then they did the big renovation and it completely lost its soul and is now a place to be endured rather than enjoyed.
Mind you at least it isn't Charles de Gaulle. Easily the worst first world airport I have been through.
Charles de Gaulle is only the worst first world airport ... because Heathrow qualifies as a third world airport with its squalor, overcrowding & crap infrastructure.
Heathrow's fine, I don't see why people hate it so much. It's biggest problem is that it's so big.
I confess I quite like airport terminals (after you have gone through departures). Like motorway service stations I guess. Sit with a coffee, have a read, people-watch, a bit of googling, have another coffee.
You will love Singapore then.
Yes Changi. Been a couple of times. I really liked Singapore but a few days is enough.
First time with the first Mrs Stocky on honeymoon. Then a few years later with the second Mrs Stocky - staying at - ahem - the same hotel.
I bought my second engagement ring from the same jeweller as the first. He remembered me and our conservation about his website and the technology behind it, years before. Then gave me a very good price.
Not in the expectation of repeat business, I hope.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Gaining little or nothing isn't enough. They need to pay reparations to Ukraine for their crime too.
For this war to end three things need to happen.
1: Russia needs to be expelled from all of Crimea, the Donbas and other territory it is occupying. 2: Russia needs to agree compensation to Ukraine for the damages it has inflicted. 3: Russia needs to sign a peace treaty recognising all of Ukraine, including Crimea and Donbas, as Ukrainian.
We'll see. I do, however, sense you straying into the sort of bellicosity I specifically said I didn't want to see. But if all of that remains on internet forums rather than in decision rooms I guess it's ok.
Perhaps it is worth thinking why you think that asking a county invading another country to completely stop invading another country and go back to the status quo ante is bellicose?
It isn't and I didn't say it was. I can spot bellicosity. Eg an earlier contribution from that particular poster - "we'll let them keep Moscow" - is the sort of thing I mean.
HYUFD is NO LONGER going to be happy with Narendra Modi
[H]ours before news of Queen Elizabeth II’s death spread, Prime Minister Narendra Modi delivered a fiery speech urging India to shed its colonial ties in a ceremony to rename a boulevard that once honored King George V.
Rajpath, formerly called Kingsway, was a “symbol of slavery” under the British Raj, he said. Instead, under the newly named Kartavya Path that leads to the iconic India Gate, “a new history has been created,” Modi beamed.
His speech last Thursday was the latest in a concerted drive to purge India of its colonial relics. It was also a clear sign that the country, once the largest of Britain’s colonies that endured two centuries of imperial rule, has moved on.
The renovated avenue now boasts a black granite statue of Indian freedom fighter Subhas Chandra Bose, in the place where a mold of King George V, Elizabeth’s grandfather, once stood.
The queen’s death provoked sympathies to a deeply respected figure from some while for a few others, it jogged memories of a bloody history under the British crown. But among most regular Indians, the news was met with an indifferent shrug.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Gaining little or nothing isn't enough. They need to pay reparations to Ukraine for their crime too.
For this war to end three things need to happen.
1: Russia needs to be expelled from all of Crimea, the Donbas and other territory it is occupying. 2: Russia needs to agree compensation to Ukraine for the damages it has inflicted. 3: Russia needs to sign a peace treaty recognising all of Ukraine, including Crimea and Donbas, as Ukrainian.
We'll see. I do, however, sense you straying into the sort of bellicosity I specifically said I didn't want to see. But if all of that remains on internet forums rather than in decision rooms I guess it's ok.
Perhaps it is worth thinking why you think that asking a county invading another country to completely stop invading another country and go back to the status quo ante is bellicose?
It isn't and I didn't say it was. I can spot bellicosity. Eg an earlier contribution from that particular poster - "we'll let them keep Moscow" - is the sort of thing I mean.
Does Charles pay inheritance tax? Or is that only for the rest of us?
He's committed to pay an effective 75% income tax rate, if you'd rather he was taxed at the normal rates everyone else pays I'm sure he'd be happy to do so.
How are you calculating 75%?
Or are you claiming the Crown Estates as "tax", which it is not.
The Sovereign Grant is, I understand, fixed at 25% of the Crown Estates revenue, which effectively makes it a 75% tax. Not literally, but effectively.
So neither literally nor effectively. The Crown Estates, like everything belonging to "the Crown" should belong to the state and if we became a republic would do so, they are not and wouldn't be private property. The Crown Estates haven't been worked for, earnt or taxed, by any private individual.
Effectively. The Crown and the state are not the same thing, but if you equate them I can see why you're disagreeing with me.
And if the republicans get their way, maybe they might expropriate the royal family's property and get away with it, but that's not where we are now.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
It is a shame because 30 years ago it used to be a lovely airport to travel through. Full of interesting shops and stalls and it was easy to spend a few hours there waiting for onward connections. Then they did the big renovation and it completely lost its soul and is now a place to be endured rather than enjoyed.
Mind you at least it isn't Charles de Gaulle. Easily the worst first world airport I have been through.
Charles de Gaulle is only the worst first world airport ... because Heathrow qualifies as a third world airport with its squalor, overcrowding & crap infrastructure.
Heathrow's fine, I don't see why people hate it so much. It's biggest problem is that it's so big.
I confess I quite like airport terminals (after you have gone through departures). Like motorway service stations I guess. Sit with a coffee, have a read, people-watch, a bit of googling, have another coffee.
You will love Singapore then.
Yes Changi. Been a couple of times. I really liked Singapore but a few days is enough.
First time with the first Mrs Stocky on honeymoon. Then a few years later with the second Mrs Stocky - staying at - ahem - the same hotel.
I bought my second engagement ring from the same jeweller as the first. He remembered me and our conservation about his website and the technology behind it, years before. Then gave me a very good price.
Not in the expectation of repeat business, I hope.
We did joke about it. He'd given me a good price on returning the first engagement ring as well. He was impressed with what I did with the wedding rings....
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
It is a shame because 30 years ago it used to be a lovely airport to travel through. Full of interesting shops and stalls and it was easy to spend a few hours there waiting for onward connections. Then they did the big renovation and it completely lost its soul and is now a place to be endured rather than enjoyed.
Mind you at least it isn't Charles de Gaulle. Easily the worst first world airport I have been through.
Charles de Gaulle is only the worst first world airport ... because Heathrow qualifies as a third world airport with its squalor, overcrowding & crap infrastructure.
Heathrow's fine, I don't see why people hate it so much. It's biggest problem is that it's so big.
I confess I quite like airport terminals (after you have gone through departures). Like motorway service stations I guess. Sit with a coffee, have a read, people-watch, a bit of googling, have another coffee.
You will love Singapore then.
Yes Changi. Been a couple of times. I really liked Singapore but a few days is enough.
First time with the first Mrs Stocky on honeymoon. Then a few years later with the second Mrs Stocky - staying at - ahem - the same hotel.
I bought my second engagement ring from the same jeweller as the first. He remembered me and our conservation about his website and the technology behind it, years before. Then gave me a very good price.
Not in the expectation of repeat business, I hope.
Charles III has seen a surge of support since his mother’s death, with most Britons praising his leadership and believing he will be a good king.
The first polling on public reactions to the death of Elizabeth II finds almost nine in ten people praising her reign as good for the country, with 87 per cent saying she will probably go down as one of Britain’s greatest monarchs.
YouGov finds that initial reactions to the King’s leadership since his mother’s death are overwhelmingly positive, while people also seem confident in his wife’s role as Queen Consort.
The polling finds 73 per cent saying the King has responded well and only 5 per cent suggesting he has handled the past few days badly. A total of 94 per cent say his first address to the nation as King on Friday was a good speech, with only 3 per cent critical.
Looks like new King Charles has got a rather bigger poll bounce than new PM Liz then, not that it matters so much for him as he has no election to fight
No, but support for the institution and its head would be relevant in ensuring its continuation.
There is a detectable pattern (or nuance) in @HYUFD posts which is to downplay Truss because his devotion to the disgraced Johnson trumps everything
It does give the impression he would prefer Starmer to win than Truss in revenge for his loss
I have noticed this for a while now and treat his posts with that in mind
Does Charles pay inheritance tax? Or is that only for the rest of us?
He's committed to pay an effective 75% income tax rate, if you'd rather he was taxed at the normal rates everyone else pays I'm sure he'd be happy to do so.
How are you calculating 75%?
Or are you claiming the Crown Estates as "tax", which it is not.
The Sovereign Grant is, I understand, fixed at 25% of the Crown Estates revenue, which effectively makes it a 75% tax. Not literally, but effectively.
The Crown Estate is not the personal property of the Monarch & its management is under the control of the government.
The Sovereign receives a payment out of the revenue of the Crown Estate as a replacement for the Civil List, which was causing political difficulties: Voting on the Monarch’s income every decade was highlighting to the general public exactly how much the Monarch was receiving from them on a regular basis. Now it never comes up, because it’s fixed as a proportion of the income of the Crown Estate.
So the Monarch (amongst many other things) gets 25% of the lease cost for every off-shore windfarm. Obviously the Monarch has done nothing to deserve that income, but that’s political fudges for you.
It belongs to the monarch but isn't part of their private estate which makes it a fudge anyway. But it certainly doesn't belong to the government, even if the government manages it and takes 75% of its revenues.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Agreed - though starting a war of aggression is a crime.
Yes it is. This isn't a "good v evil" conflict - that is not imo the right way to view it - but it is a matter of right v wrong with the wrong all on one side.
Again, like a crime. A putative killer attacks his victim, the victim fights back. That's not "good v evil" - the victim might be a deeply flawed individual and the killer might have his good points - but it IS a fairly uncomplicated matter of right and wrong.
Evil and wrong can by synonyms and Russia in this conflict is both.
I'm not happy with calling countries evil.
Putin is evil and Russia is in the wrong - I'm ok with that.
If countries don't want to be called evil, then they shouldn't be or do evil.
The USSR was an evil Empire. Nazi Germany and Pol Pot's Cambodia were evil, and modern day China and Russia are evil too.
"You are the Diet Coke of e-vil! Only one calorie - not e-vil enough!"
I stopped by the floral tribute this morning in Green Park. Accessible and moving. For those who want to go and can go you can just go in with no real queue, at least that was the case at 8.25am. I will be leaving a tribute from my family this evening.
The quantity of flowers actually make me a little sad, for the missed opportunity. All that money spent, that could perhaps have been redirected to one or more of the charities the Queen supported. People should of course be free to mark her passing in any way they wish, but that's how I feel.
No Cost of Living Crisis for florists!
I like to imagine there's some enterprising person with a handcart selling the flowers, scooting round and gathering them up and selling them again, several times per day.
HYUFD is NO LONGER going to be happy with Narendra Modi
[H]ours before news of Queen Elizabeth II’s death spread, Prime Minister Narendra Modi delivered a fiery speech urging India to shed its colonial ties in a ceremony to rename a boulevard that once honored King George V.
Rajpath, formerly called Kingsway, was a “symbol of slavery” under the British Raj, he said. Instead, under the newly named Kartavya Path that leads to the iconic India Gate, “a new history has been created,” Modi beamed.
His speech last Thursday was the latest in a concerted drive to purge India of its colonial relics. It was also a clear sign that the country, once the largest of Britain’s colonies that endured two centuries of imperial rule, has moved on.
The renovated avenue now boasts a black granite statue of Indian freedom fighter Subhas Chandra Bose, in the place where a mold of King George V, Elizabeth’s grandfather, once stood.
The queen’s death provoked sympathies to a deeply respected figure from some while for a few others, it jogged memories of a bloody history under the British crown. But among most regular Indians, the news was met with an indifferent shrug.
The Indians I work with say that they were waiting for "Modi being Modi" about the death - trying to find something to get people angry about. Mind you, they are pretty uniformly anti-Modi.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
Don’t.
Someone I know got used to doing absolutely nothing and seeing no one during covid. Like a hermit
Even when covid ended she maintained this new monastic isolation. She went from being sociable and active and keen on travel, to inertia, isolation, staying-at-home
Recently this person was diagnosed with a terminal illness and was given a few short months to live, at most. And she is now UNABLE to travel. Much as she might want to
She now bitterly regrets the ~3 years spent in self imposed confinement and it wasn’t even Covid that got her, in the end
You’re in your 60s. You can still see the world. Do it before you no longer can
That is very sound advice
We have travelled worldwide for 20 years and more, and now neither my wife or I are physically or medically capable of travelling abroad
However, we have memories stretching from the Artic to the Antarctic and all points in between that live long in our memory and gratitude that we were able to travel so extensively
Likewise. We've crossed the Arctic Circle but we've never been further south than Milford Haven in New Zealand. Been round the world twice, though. Now I can't walk more than about 50 yards, and that with a walker. I'm hopeful that I might hear good news, though, when I see a spinal surgeon later this week.
However that only underlines the advice to take your opportunity while you can!
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Agreed - though starting a war of aggression is a crime.
Yes it is. This isn't a "good v evil" conflict - that is not imo the right way to view it - but it is a matter of right v wrong with the wrong all on one side.
Again, like a crime. A putative killer attacks his victim, the victim fights back. That's not "good v evil" - the victim might be a deeply flawed individual and the killer might have his good points - but it IS a fairly uncomplicated matter of right and wrong.
Evil and wrong can by synonyms and Russia in this conflict is both.
I'm not happy with calling countries evil.
Putin is evil and Russia is in the wrong - I'm ok with that.
If countries don't want to be called evil, then they shouldn't be or do evil.
The USSR was an evil Empire. Nazi Germany and Pol Pot's Cambodia were evil, and modern day China and Russia are evil too.
But, in the absence of a skull badge on the hat, how do you tell whether you're the baddies?
KM - Have you read the Cass Review? JN - I have read a short summary. KM - asking for a break. JN - I have other duties, we are 90 minutes in and we haven't yet discussed their charitable duties. KM - if the witness would answer the question we could finish more quickly
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
Don’t.
Someone I know got used to doing absolutely nothing and seeing no one during covid. Like a hermit
Even when covid ended she maintained this new monastic isolation. She went from being sociable and active and keen on travel, to inertia, isolation, staying-at-home
Recently this person was diagnosed with a terminal illness and was given a few short months to live, at most. And she is now UNABLE to travel. Much as she might want to
She now bitterly regrets the ~3 years spent in self imposed confinement and it wasn’t even Covid that got her, in the end
You’re in your 60s. You can still see the world. Do it before you no longer can
That is very sound advice
We have travelled worldwide for 20 years and more, and now neither my wife or I are physically or medically capable of travelling abroad
However, we have memories stretching from the Artic to the Antarctic and all points in between that live long in our memory and gratitude that we were able to travel so extensively
Likewise. We've crossed the Arctic Circle but we've never been further south than Milford Haven in New Zealand. Been round the world twice, though. Now I can't walk more than about 50 yards, and that with a walker. I'm hopeful that I might hear good news, though, when I see a spinal surgeon later this week.
However that only underlines the advice to take your opportunity while you can!
Some friends of my wife did the Antarctic cruise ship thing this year. Highly recommended from the pictures they took. South Georgia is a magnificent desolation.
HYUFD is NO LONGER going to be happy with Narendra Modi
[H]ours before news of Queen Elizabeth II’s death spread, Prime Minister Narendra Modi delivered a fiery speech urging India to shed its colonial ties in a ceremony to rename a boulevard that once honored King George V.
Rajpath, formerly called Kingsway, was a “symbol of slavery” under the British Raj, he said. Instead, under the newly named Kartavya Path that leads to the iconic India Gate, “a new history has been created,” Modi beamed.
His speech last Thursday was the latest in a concerted drive to purge India of its colonial relics. It was also a clear sign that the country, once the largest of Britain’s colonies that endured two centuries of imperial rule, has moved on.
The renovated avenue now boasts a black granite statue of Indian freedom fighter Subhas Chandra Bose, in the place where a mold of King George V, Elizabeth’s grandfather, once stood.
The queen’s death provoked sympathies to a deeply respected figure from some while for a few others, it jogged memories of a bloody history under the British crown. But among most regular Indians, the news was met with an indifferent shrug.
Does Charles pay inheritance tax? Or is that only for the rest of us?
He's committed to pay an effective 75% income tax rate, if you'd rather he was taxed at the normal rates everyone else pays I'm sure he'd be happy to do so.
How are you calculating 75%?
Or are you claiming the Crown Estates as "tax", which it is not.
The Sovereign Grant is, I understand, fixed at 25% of the Crown Estates revenue, which effectively makes it a 75% tax. Not literally, but effectively.
So neither literally nor effectively. The Crown Estates, like everything belonging to "the Crown" should belong to the state and if we became a republic would do so, they are not and wouldn't be private property. The Crown Estates haven't been worked for, earnt or taxed, by any private individual.
Effectively. The Crown and the state are not the same thing, but if you equate them I can see why you're disagreeing with me.
And if the republicans get their way, maybe they might expropriate the royal family's property and get away with it, but that's not where we are now.
The Crown is part of the state.
The Crown Estate are not the royal family's private property. It isn't the private, taxed or earnt possession of the Mountbatten-Windsor family, they have it by virtue of having "the Crown", if they lose the Crown then the Estates pass to the new bearer of the Crown.
If it were the private property of an individual then post-abdication it could have remained the private property of Edward VIII post-abdication. It didn't, because it was never his personal property.
@Stocky Honestly, I found the closing episodes of Better Call Saul rather underwhelming, and nowhere near as good as the final episodes of Breaking Bad.
It wasn't terrible in the way that the endings to Game of Thrones and Dexter were, but it did have me thinking at the end "What was the point of all that?" The two main protagonists condemned themselves to a pointless and miserable existence for the remainder of their lives.
HYUFD is NO LONGER going to be happy with Narendra Modi
[H]ours before news of Queen Elizabeth II’s death spread, Prime Minister Narendra Modi delivered a fiery speech urging India to shed its colonial ties in a ceremony to rename a boulevard that once honored King George V.
Rajpath, formerly called Kingsway, was a “symbol of slavery” under the British Raj, he said. Instead, under the newly named Kartavya Path that leads to the iconic India Gate, “a new history has been created,” Modi beamed.
His speech last Thursday was the latest in a concerted drive to purge India of its colonial relics. It was also a clear sign that the country, once the largest of Britain’s colonies that endured two centuries of imperial rule, has moved on.
The renovated avenue now boasts a black granite statue of Indian freedom fighter Subhas Chandra Bose, in the place where a mold of King George V, Elizabeth’s grandfather, once stood.
The queen’s death provoked sympathies to a deeply respected figure from some while for a few others, it jogged memories of a bloody history under the British crown. But among most regular Indians, the news was met with an indifferent shrug.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Gaining little or nothing isn't enough. They need to pay reparations to Ukraine for their crime too.
For this war to end three things need to happen.
1: Russia needs to be expelled from all of Crimea, the Donbas and other territory it is occupying. 2: Russia needs to agree compensation to Ukraine for the damages it has inflicted. 3: Russia needs to sign a peace treaty recognising all of Ukraine, including Crimea and Donbas, as Ukrainian.
We'll see. I do, however, sense you straying into the sort of bellicosity I specifically said I didn't want to see. But if all of that remains on internet forums rather than in decision rooms I guess it's ok.
Perhaps it is worth thinking why you think that asking a county invading another country to completely stop invading another country and go back to the status quo ante is bellicose?
It isn't and I didn't say it was. I can spot bellicosity. Eg an earlier contribution from that particular poster - "we'll let them keep Moscow" - is the sort of thing I mean.
No, they can't keep Moscow. I'm taking that.
But you know what I mean. The tone. It's understandable, because this was and is an outrage from Putin (and therefore Russia), and so a brutal revenge rears its head, and like I say - ok on the internet but I'd hope decisions in the west (all of this assuming Russia truly is in permanent retreat now) aren't driven by that.
I stopped by the floral tribute this morning in Green Park. Accessible and moving. For those who want to go and can go you can just go in with no real queue, at least that was the case at 8.25am. I will be leaving a tribute from my family this evening.
The quantity of flowers actually make me a little sad, for the missed opportunity. All that money spent, that could perhaps have been redirected to one or more of the charities the Queen supported. People should of course be free to mark her passing in any way they wish, but that's how I feel.
No Cost of Living Crisis for florists!
I like to imagine there's some enterprising person with a handcart selling the flowers, scooting round and gathering them up and selling them again, several times per day.
Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. Profit.
I was surprised how few tat sellers there were. And nearly no flower sellers. I would have thought that every bucket-of-roses merchant within 50 miles... but no.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
Don’t.
Someone I know got used to doing absolutely nothing and seeing no one during covid. Like a hermit
Even when covid ended she maintained this new monastic isolation. She went from being sociable and active and keen on travel, to inertia, isolation, staying-at-home
Recently this person was diagnosed with a terminal illness and was given a few short months to live, at most. And she is now UNABLE to travel. Much as she might want to
She now bitterly regrets the ~3 years spent in self imposed confinement and it wasn’t even Covid that got her, in the end
You’re in your 60s. You can still see the world. Do it before you no longer can
Well it's not a Covid thing and, like I say, I have travelled a lot previously.
But, yes, there are some trips I'd like to do and if I don't do them through inertia that wouldn't be great.
This opens the door for a lament. I'm 47. I have recently become rather more acutely aware of the finity of my remaining years. What's brought this about is looking at OS maps. I've walked a lot in Britain, but there's so much more I haven't done than I have, and it seems rather too much to achieve in my remaining years of fitness. I get maybe three, four days to myself, free of parental responsibility each year. Obviously that will grow as the kids get older, but I'll be 59 by the time my youngest is 18. I long for the freedom I could have had in my 20s before kids came along. I should have been so much more focused on what I wanted to do, and done it myself. I should have spent several long weekends a year in the Highlands of Scotland reaching the inaccessible places. I should have walked up every Wainwright. I should have cycled the whole of the North of England, the whole of Ireland. I should never, ever have replied to the question 'do anything this weekend' with 'oh, not much.'
I've never felt the need (or indeed had the budget) to go everywhere in the world. If I die without seeing Rome or Ljubljana or Australia or South America, well, shrug, you can't do everything. If I never dive or bungee jump, well, so be it. But there are things I really did want to do, but they never seemed pressing, and now I'm married with kids I may never get the chance.
If you are young, care not what plans your friends or girlfriends make: if there are things you want to do, do them. You will never have more time and energy than you do now.
Does Charles pay inheritance tax? Or is that only for the rest of us?
He's committed to pay an effective 75% income tax rate, if you'd rather he was taxed at the normal rates everyone else pays I'm sure he'd be happy to do so.
How are you calculating 75%?
Or are you claiming the Crown Estates as "tax", which it is not.
The Sovereign Grant is, I understand, fixed at 25% of the Crown Estates revenue, which effectively makes it a 75% tax. Not literally, but effectively.
The Crown Estate is not the personal property of the Monarch & its management is under the control of the government.
The Sovereign receives a payment out of the revenue of the Crown Estate as a replacement for the Civil List, which was causing political difficulties: Voting on the Monarch’s income every decade was highlighting to the general public exactly how much the Monarch was receiving from them on a regular basis. Now it never comes up, because it’s fixed as a proportion of the income of the Crown Estate.
So the Monarch (amongst many other things) gets 25% of the lease cost for every off-shore windfarm. Obviously the Monarch has done nothing to deserve that income, but that’s political fudges for you.
It belongs to the monarch but isn't part of their private estate which makes it a fudge anyway. But it certainly doesn't belong to the government, even if the government manages it and takes 75% of its revenues.
It belongs to the crown. The crown is part of the state but is divided from the government due to how we separate the state, but if the crown is abolished because we become a republic, then it would remain up to Parliament to determine what happens next with things that were formerly part of the crown.
John Nicholson MP - who is making strong claims about treatment of children with gender dysphoria - admits he hasn't read the interim Cass review, only the summary. Two out of two Mermaid witnesses have now admitted to not reading it properly in Mermaids v LGB Alliance.
I cannot stress how damning this is. People who claim to have the best interests of children at heart can't even be bothered to properly engage with the evidence produced by an independent review.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
Don’t.
Someone I know got used to doing absolutely nothing and seeing no one during covid. Like a hermit
Even when covid ended she maintained this new monastic isolation. She went from being sociable and active and keen on travel, to inertia, isolation, staying-at-home
Recently this person was diagnosed with a terminal illness and was given a few short months to live, at most. And she is now UNABLE to travel. Much as she might want to
She now bitterly regrets the ~3 years spent in self imposed confinement and it wasn’t even Covid that got her, in the end
You’re in your 60s. You can still see the world. Do it before you no longer can
That is very sound advice
We have travelled worldwide for 20 years and more, and now neither my wife or I are physically or medically capable of travelling abroad
However, we have memories stretching from the Artic to the Antarctic and all points in between that live long in our memory and gratitude that we were able to travel so extensively
Likewise. We've crossed the Arctic Circle but we've never been further south than Milford Haven in New Zealand. Been round the world twice, though. Now I can't walk more than about 50 yards, and that with a walker. I'm hopeful that I might hear good news, though, when I see a spinal surgeon later this week.
However that only underlines the advice to take your opportunity while you can!
We have been fortunate enough to go round the world 6 times but of course our eldest emigrating to New Zealand played a part in that
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Agreed - though starting a war of aggression is a crime.
Yes it is. This isn't a "good v evil" conflict - that is not imo the right way to view it - but it is a matter of right v wrong with the wrong all on one side.
Again, like a crime. A putative killer attacks his victim, the victim fights back. That's not "good v evil" - the victim might be a deeply flawed individual and the killer might have his good points - but it IS a fairly uncomplicated matter of right and wrong.
Evil and wrong can by synonyms and Russia in this conflict is both.
I'm not happy with calling countries evil.
Putin is evil and Russia is in the wrong - I'm ok with that.
If countries don't want to be called evil, then they shouldn't be or do evil.
The USSR was an evil Empire. Nazi Germany and Pol Pot's Cambodia were evil, and modern day China and Russia are evil too.
But, in the absence of a skull badge on the hat, how do you tell whether you're the baddies?
Even the TV news is going to have to start putting Ukraine at the top of the headlines soon. We are entering a new stage, and it seems from various reports this morning that we could be on the verge of mass Russian surrenders in Kherson and possibly Luhansk Oblast.
This is a exciting, hopeful but also scary moment in the war and a paradigm shift. The only true parallels I can think of are the Arab Israeli conflicts in the 60s and 70s.
HYUFD is NO LONGER going to be happy with Narendra Modi
[H]ours before news of Queen Elizabeth II’s death spread, Prime Minister Narendra Modi delivered a fiery speech urging India to shed its colonial ties in a ceremony to rename a boulevard that once honored King George V.
Rajpath, formerly called Kingsway, was a “symbol of slavery” under the British Raj, he said. Instead, under the newly named Kartavya Path that leads to the iconic India Gate, “a new history has been created,” Modi beamed.
His speech last Thursday was the latest in a concerted drive to purge India of its colonial relics. It was also a clear sign that the country, once the largest of Britain’s colonies that endured two centuries of imperial rule, has moved on.
The renovated avenue now boasts a black granite statue of Indian freedom fighter Subhas Chandra Bose, in the place where a mold of King George V, Elizabeth’s grandfather, once stood.
The queen’s death provoked sympathies to a deeply respected figure from some while for a few others, it jogged memories of a bloody history under the British crown. But among most regular Indians, the news was met with an indifferent shrug.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
It is a shame because 30 years ago it used to be a lovely airport to travel through. Full of interesting shops and stalls and it was easy to spend a few hours there waiting for onward connections. Then they did the big renovation and it completely lost its soul and is now a place to be endured rather than enjoyed.
Mind you at least it isn't Charles de Gaulle. Easily the worst first world airport I have been through.
Charles de Gaulle is only the worst first world airport ... because Heathrow qualifies as a third world airport with its squalor, overcrowding & crap infrastructure.
Heathrow's fine, I don't see why people hate it so much. It's biggest problem is that it's so big.
I confess I quite like airport terminals (after you have gone through departures). Like motorway service stations I guess. Sit with a coffee, have a read, people-watch, a bit of googling, have another coffee.
You will love Singapore then.
Yes Changi. Been a couple of times. I really liked Singapore but a few days is enough.
First time with the first Mrs Stocky on honeymoon. Then a few years later with the second Mrs Stocky - staying at - ahem - the same hotel.
I bought my second engagement ring from the same jeweller as the first. He remembered me and our conservation about his website and the technology behind it, years before. Then gave me a very good price.
Not in the expectation of repeat business, I hope.
"The usual, sir?"
Reminds me of the barber code.
Long ago and far away condoms were only stocked by barbers and the code was “something for the weekend, sir?”
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Gaining little or nothing isn't enough. They need to pay reparations to Ukraine for their crime too.
For this war to end three things need to happen.
1: Russia needs to be expelled from all of Crimea, the Donbas and other territory it is occupying. 2: Russia needs to agree compensation to Ukraine for the damages it has inflicted. 3: Russia needs to sign a peace treaty recognising all of Ukraine, including Crimea and Donbas, as Ukrainian.
We'll see. I do, however, sense you straying into the sort of bellicosity I specifically said I didn't want to see. But if all of that remains on internet forums rather than in decision rooms I guess it's ok.
Perhaps it is worth thinking why you think that asking a county invading another country to completely stop invading another country and go back to the status quo ante is bellicose?
It isn't and I didn't say it was. I can spot bellicosity. Eg an earlier contribution from that particular poster - "we'll let them keep Moscow" - is the sort of thing I mean.
No, they can't keep Moscow. I'm taking that.
But you know what I mean. The tone. It's understandable, because this was and is an outrage from Putin (and therefore Russia), and so a brutal revenge rears its head, and like I say - ok on the internet but I'd hope decisions in the west (all of this assuming Russia truly is in permanent retreat now) aren't driven by that.
No, I don't know what you mean. How is it bellicose.
Moscow is their territory, in the past when countries lost wars their territory was often divided by the winners of the war - eg see what happened to Berlin post-war.
To be saying that the Russians can keep Moscow is the opposite of bellicose, it is bloody generous under the circumstances.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
Don’t.
Someone I know got used to doing absolutely nothing and seeing no one during covid. Like a hermit
Even when covid ended she maintained this new monastic isolation. She went from being sociable and active and keen on travel, to inertia, isolation, staying-at-home
Recently this person was diagnosed with a terminal illness and was given a few short months to live, at most. And she is now UNABLE to travel. Much as she might want to
She now bitterly regrets the ~3 years spent in self imposed confinement and it wasn’t even Covid that got her, in the end
You’re in your 60s. You can still see the world. Do it before you no longer can
That is very sound advice
We have travelled worldwide for 20 years and more, and now neither my wife or I are physically or medically capable of travelling abroad
However, we have memories stretching from the Artic to the Antarctic and all points in between that live long in our memory and gratitude that we were able to travel so extensively
Likewise. We've crossed the Arctic Circle but we've never been further south than Milford Haven in New Zealand. Been round the world twice, though. Now I can't walk more than about 50 yards, and that with a walker. I'm hopeful that I might hear good news, though, when I see a spinal surgeon later this week.
However that only underlines the advice to take your opportunity while you can!
Some friends of my wife did the Antarctic cruise ship thing this year. Highly recommended from the pictures they took. South Georgia is a magnificent desolation.
Antarctica is magnificent not least the landings on the ice and South Georgia is unbelievably beautiful
The end of a postwar era in France too with the passing of Jean-Luc Godard, He was a kind of emblem of postwar French culture. Some genuinely interesting films amongst the fluff, which will be miseed, his deranged turn to Maoist politics for a whlle less so.
Does Charles pay inheritance tax? Or is that only for the rest of us?
He's committed to pay an effective 75% income tax rate, if you'd rather he was taxed at the normal rates everyone else pays I'm sure he'd be happy to do so.
How are you calculating 75%?
Or are you claiming the Crown Estates as "tax", which it is not.
The Sovereign Grant is, I understand, fixed at 25% of the Crown Estates revenue, which effectively makes it a 75% tax. Not literally, but effectively.
The Crown Estate is not the personal property of the Monarch & its management is under the control of the government.
The Sovereign receives a payment out of the revenue of the Crown Estate as a replacement for the Civil List, which was causing political difficulties: Voting on the Monarch’s income every decade was highlighting to the general public exactly how much the Monarch was receiving from them on a regular basis. Now it never comes up, because it’s fixed as a proportion of the income of the Crown Estate.
So the Monarch (amongst many other things) gets 25% of the lease cost for every off-shore windfarm. Obviously the Monarch has done nothing to deserve that income, but that’s political fudges for you.
It belongs to the monarch but isn't part of their private estate which makes it a fudge anyway. But it certainly doesn't belong to the government, even if the government manages it and takes 75% of its revenues.
This is one of those carefully ambiguous fudges on which the British Constitution rests. The government agrees that the Crown Estate is the property of the Monarch & the Monarch agrees to give the government full control over it. Everybody wins & no one has to answer awkward questions like: why exactly does the Monarch own all this property anyway?
HYUFD is NO LONGER going to be happy with Narendra Modi
[H]ours before news of Queen Elizabeth II’s death spread, Prime Minister Narendra Modi delivered a fiery speech urging India to shed its colonial ties in a ceremony to rename a boulevard that once honored King George V.
Rajpath, formerly called Kingsway, was a “symbol of slavery” under the British Raj, he said. Instead, under the newly named Kartavya Path that leads to the iconic India Gate, “a new history has been created,” Modi beamed.
His speech last Thursday was the latest in a concerted drive to purge India of its colonial relics. It was also a clear sign that the country, once the largest of Britain’s colonies that endured two centuries of imperial rule, has moved on.
The renovated avenue now boasts a black granite statue of Indian freedom fighter Subhas Chandra Bose, in the place where a mold of King George V, Elizabeth’s grandfather, once stood.
The queen’s death provoked sympathies to a deeply respected figure from some while for a few others, it jogged memories of a bloody history under the British crown. But among most regular Indians, the news was met with an indifferent shrug.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
Don’t.
Someone I know got used to doing absolutely nothing and seeing no one during covid. Like a hermit
Even when covid ended she maintained this new monastic isolation. She went from being sociable and active and keen on travel, to inertia, isolation, staying-at-home
Recently this person was diagnosed with a terminal illness and was given a few short months to live, at most. And she is now UNABLE to travel. Much as she might want to
She now bitterly regrets the ~3 years spent in self imposed confinement and it wasn’t even Covid that got her, in the end
You’re in your 60s. You can still see the world. Do it before you no longer can
That is very sound advice
We have travelled worldwide for 20 years and more, and now neither my wife or I are physically or medically capable of travelling abroad
However, we have memories stretching from the Artic to the Antarctic and all points in between that live long in our memory and gratitude that we were able to travel so extensively
Likewise. We've crossed the Arctic Circle but we've never been further south than Milford Haven in New Zealand. Been round the world twice, though. Now I can't walk more than about 50 yards, and that with a walker. I'm hopeful that I might hear good news, though, when I see a spinal surgeon later this week.
However that only underlines the advice to take your opportunity while you can!
Some friends of my wife did the Antarctic cruise ship thing this year. Highly recommended from the pictures they took. South Georgia is a magnificent desolation.
Antarctica is magnificent not least the landings on the ice and South Georgia is unbelievably beautiful
Antarctica is the only continent ive not been to, and therefore the only one i've not been drunk in
John Nicholson MP - who is making strong claims about treatment of children with gender dysphoria - admits he hasn't read the interim Cass review, only the summary. Two out of two Mermaid witnesses have now admitted to not reading it properly in Mermaids v LGB Alliance.
I cannot stress how damning this is. People who claim to have the best interests of children at heart can't even be bothered to properly engage with the evidence produced by an independent review.
HYUFD is NO LONGER going to be happy with Narendra Modi
[H]ours before news of Queen Elizabeth II’s death spread, Prime Minister Narendra Modi delivered a fiery speech urging India to shed its colonial ties in a ceremony to rename a boulevard that once honored King George V.
Rajpath, formerly called Kingsway, was a “symbol of slavery” under the British Raj, he said. Instead, under the newly named Kartavya Path that leads to the iconic India Gate, “a new history has been created,” Modi beamed.
His speech last Thursday was the latest in a concerted drive to purge India of its colonial relics. It was also a clear sign that the country, once the largest of Britain’s colonies that endured two centuries of imperial rule, has moved on.
The renovated avenue now boasts a black granite statue of Indian freedom fighter Subhas Chandra Bose, in the place where a mold of King George V, Elizabeth’s grandfather, once stood.
The queen’s death provoked sympathies to a deeply respected figure from some while for a few others, it jogged memories of a bloody history under the British crown. But among most regular Indians, the news was met with an indifferent shrug.
It is inevitable and probably quite widespread within the commonwealth
People who experienced colonial rule seem to have been less bothered about it than people who did not.
Not long after independence the Indian government commissioned research into how quickly village India became aware that the British had left. They stopped once they discovered that village India didn’t know the British had been there in the first place.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
It is a shame because 30 years ago it used to be a lovely airport to travel through. Full of interesting shops and stalls and it was easy to spend a few hours there waiting for onward connections. Then they did the big renovation and it completely lost its soul and is now a place to be endured rather than enjoyed.
Mind you at least it isn't Charles de Gaulle. Easily the worst first world airport I have been through.
Charles de Gaulle is only the worst first world airport ... because Heathrow qualifies as a third world airport with its squalor, overcrowding & crap infrastructure.
Heathrow's fine, I don't see why people hate it so much. It's biggest problem is that it's so big.
I confess I quite like airport terminals (after you have gone through departures). Like motorway service stations I guess. Sit with a coffee, have a read, people-watch, a bit of googling, have another coffee.
You will love Singapore then.
Yes Changi. Been a couple of times. I really liked Singapore but a few days is enough.
First time with the first Mrs Stocky on honeymoon. Then a few years later with the second Mrs Stocky - staying at - ahem - the same hotel.
I bought my second engagement ring from the same jeweller as the first. He remembered me and our conservation about his website and the technology behind it, years before. Then gave me a very good price.
Not in the expectation of repeat business, I hope.
"The usual, sir?"
No, let's roll back a minute to @Stocky - this is rather startling. Was the second Mrs. Stocky aware that you took her to the same place you took the first Mrs. Stocky? The mind absolutely boggles. I would have thought this the sort of situation which might well cause a row.
The poor distributional aspect of a blanket price cap was always the problem. People who use more energy (ie rich people) get the most money. It would have been better and cheaper to have done something more targeted, as I and many others suggested on here. No handouts indeed!
Blanket approach, while imperfect, is easy to apply - just cap the charges as has been done. There is still an incentive to use less as the price has doubled on last year. Targetting is a lot harder. My parents do no need the winter rugby fuel allowance. Fine - how do you stop them getting it without say means testing (which has its own issues, not least people too proud to apply, or snafu's in the system).
And by the way - no one is being given money - they are simply not being billed as much as would have been the case.
I'm not a big fan of the price cap: it seems that people who live in enormous, inefficient homes are going to see minimal (is any) cost increases, while those who are poorest (and therefore live in the smallest homes, with the lowest bills) will see their bills soar.
Given that our goal has to be reduce energy demand, this means it's the poorest who are expected to cut back most, while the richest have essentially no invective.
Personally, I would announce an across the board - taxable - £600/year energy grant.
This means that the incentive for consumers to reduce demand is extremely strong, while (hopefully) making sure the poorest can heat and light their homes.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
Don’t.
Someone I know got used to doing absolutely nothing and seeing no one during covid. Like a hermit
Even when covid ended she maintained this new monastic isolation. She went from being sociable and active and keen on travel, to inertia, isolation, staying-at-home
Recently this person was diagnosed with a terminal illness and was given a few short months to live, at most. And she is now UNABLE to travel. Much as she might want to
She now bitterly regrets the ~3 years spent in self imposed confinement and it wasn’t even Covid that got her, in the end
You’re in your 60s. You can still see the world. Do it before you no longer can
That is very sound advice
We have travelled worldwide for 20 years and more, and now neither my wife or I are physically or medically capable of travelling abroad
However, we have memories stretching from the Artic to the Antarctic and all points in between that live long in our memory and gratitude that we were able to travel so extensively
Likewise. We've crossed the Arctic Circle but we've never been further south than Milford Haven in New Zealand. Been round the world twice, though. Now I can't walk more than about 50 yards, and that with a walker. I'm hopeful that I might hear good news, though, when I see a spinal surgeon later this week.
However that only underlines the advice to take your opportunity while you can!
Some friends of my wife did the Antarctic cruise ship thing this year. Highly recommended from the pictures they took. South Georgia is a magnificent desolation.
Antarctica is magnificent not least the landings on the ice and South Georgia is unbelievably beautiful
Antarctica is the only continent ive not been to, and therefore the only one i've not been drunk in
Does Charles pay inheritance tax? Or is that only for the rest of us?
He's committed to pay an effective 75% income tax rate, if you'd rather he was taxed at the normal rates everyone else pays I'm sure he'd be happy to do so.
How are you calculating 75%?
Or are you claiming the Crown Estates as "tax", which it is not.
The Sovereign Grant is, I understand, fixed at 25% of the Crown Estates revenue, which effectively makes it a 75% tax. Not literally, but effectively.
The Crown Estate is not the personal property of the Monarch & its management is under the control of the government.
The Sovereign receives a payment out of the revenue of the Crown Estate as a replacement for the Civil List, which was causing political difficulties: Voting on the Monarch’s income every decade was highlighting to the general public exactly how much the Monarch was receiving from them on a regular basis. Now it never comes up, because it’s fixed as a proportion of the income of the Crown Estate.
So the Monarch (amongst many other things) gets 25% of the lease cost for every off-shore windfarm. Obviously the Monarch has done nothing to deserve that income, but that’s political fudges for you.
It belongs to the monarch but isn't part of their private estate which makes it a fudge anyway. But it certainly doesn't belong to the government, even if the government manages it and takes 75% of its revenues.
This is one of those carefully ambiguous fudges on which the British Constitution rests. The government agrees that the Crown Estate is the property of the Monarch & the Monarch agrees to give the government full control over it. Everybody wins & no one has to answer awkward questions like: why exactly does the Monarch own all this property anyway?
Its not the property of the Monarch, its the property of the Crown. The Monarch has the property by virtue of having the Crown.
It even says so on the Crown Estates own website!
Who owns The Crown Estate? The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.
The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation - established by statute - headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners), and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of the nation's finances.
If the Monarch leaves the throne, they lose the Crown and all rights therein.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
Don’t.
Someone I know got used to doing absolutely nothing and seeing no one during covid. Like a hermit
Even when covid ended she maintained this new monastic isolation. She went from being sociable and active and keen on travel, to inertia, isolation, staying-at-home
Recently this person was diagnosed with a terminal illness and was given a few short months to live, at most. And she is now UNABLE to travel. Much as she might want to
She now bitterly regrets the ~3 years spent in self imposed confinement and it wasn’t even Covid that got her, in the end
You’re in your 60s. You can still see the world. Do it before you no longer can
Well it's not a Covid thing and, like I say, I have travelled a lot previously.
But, yes, there are some trips I'd like to do and if I don't do them through inertia that wouldn't be great.
This opens the door for a lament. I'm 47. I have recently become rather more acutely aware of the finity of my remaining years. What's brought this about is looking at OS maps. I've walked a lot in Britain, but there's so much more I haven't done than I have, and it seems rather too much to achieve in my remaining years of fitness. I get maybe three, four days to myself, free of parental responsibility each year. Obviously that will grow as the kids get older, but I'll be 59 by the time my youngest is 18. I long for the freedom I could have had in my 20s before kids came along. I should have been so much more focused on what I wanted to do, and done it myself. I should have spent several long weekends a year in the Highlands of Scotland reaching the inaccessible places. I should have walked up every Wainwright. I should have cycled the whole of the North of England, the whole of Ireland. I should never, ever have replied to the question 'do anything this weekend' with 'oh, not much.'
I've never felt the need (or indeed had the budget) to go everywhere in the world. If I die without seeing Rome or Ljubljana or Australia or South America, well, shrug, you can't do everything. If I never dive or bungee jump, well, so be it. But there are things I really did want to do, but they never seemed pressing, and now I'm married with kids I may never get the chance.
If you are young, care not what plans your friends or girlfriends make: if there are things you want to do, do them. You will never have more time and energy than you do now.
I'm turning 47 in a couple of months and echo these sentiments!
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
Don’t.
Someone I know got used to doing absolutely nothing and seeing no one during covid. Like a hermit
Even when covid ended she maintained this new monastic isolation. She went from being sociable and active and keen on travel, to inertia, isolation, staying-at-home
Recently this person was diagnosed with a terminal illness and was given a few short months to live, at most. And she is now UNABLE to travel. Much as she might want to
She now bitterly regrets the ~3 years spent in self imposed confinement and it wasn’t even Covid that got her, in the end
You’re in your 60s. You can still see the world. Do it before you no longer can
That is very sound advice
We have travelled worldwide for 20 years and more, and now neither my wife or I are physically or medically capable of travelling abroad
However, we have memories stretching from the Artic to the Antarctic and all points in between that live long in our memory and gratitude that we were able to travel so extensively
Likewise. We've crossed the Arctic Circle but we've never been further south than Milford Haven in New Zealand. Been round the world twice, though. Now I can't walk more than about 50 yards, and that with a walker. I'm hopeful that I might hear good news, though, when I see a spinal surgeon later this week.
However that only underlines the advice to take your opportunity while you can!
Some friends of my wife did the Antarctic cruise ship thing this year. Highly recommended from the pictures they took. South Georgia is a magnificent desolation.
Antarctica is magnificent not least the landings on the ice and South Georgia is unbelievably beautiful
Antarctica is the only continent ive not been to, and therefore the only one i've not been drunk in
You would be drunk in awe at the spectacle
I intend it to be my last great adventure, although the small adventures will go on forever
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
Don’t.
Someone I know got used to doing absolutely nothing and seeing no one during covid. Like a hermit
Even when covid ended she maintained this new monastic isolation. She went from being sociable and active and keen on travel, to inertia, isolation, staying-at-home
Recently this person was diagnosed with a terminal illness and was given a few short months to live, at most. And she is now UNABLE to travel. Much as she might want to
She now bitterly regrets the ~3 years spent in self imposed confinement and it wasn’t even Covid that got her, in the end
You’re in your 60s. You can still see the world. Do it before you no longer can
Well it's not a Covid thing and, like I say, I have travelled a lot previously.
But, yes, there are some trips I'd like to do and if I don't do them through inertia that wouldn't be great.
This opens the door for a lament. I'm 47. I have recently become rather more acutely aware of the finity of my remaining years. What's brought this about is looking at OS maps. I've walked a lot in Britain, but there's so much more I haven't done than I have, and it seems rather too much to achieve in my remaining years of fitness. I get maybe three, four days to myself, free of parental responsibility each year. Obviously that will grow as the kids get older, but I'll be 59 by the time my youngest is 18. I long for the freedom I could have had in my 20s before kids came along. I should have been so much more focused on what I wanted to do, and done it myself. I should have spent several long weekends a year in the Highlands of Scotland reaching the inaccessible places. I should have walked up every Wainwright. I should have cycled the whole of the North of England, the whole of Ireland. I should never, ever have replied to the question 'do anything this weekend' with 'oh, not much.'
I've never felt the need (or indeed had the budget) to go everywhere in the world. If I die without seeing Rome or Ljubljana or Australia or South America, well, shrug, you can't do everything. If I never dive or bungee jump, well, so be it. But there are things I really did want to do, but they never seemed pressing, and now I'm married with kids I may never get the chance.
If you are young, care not what plans your friends or girlfriends make: if there are things you want to do, do them. You will never have more time and energy than you do now.
I'm turning 47 in a couple of months and echo these sentiments!
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
Don’t.
Someone I know got used to doing absolutely nothing and seeing no one during covid. Like a hermit
Even when covid ended she maintained this new monastic isolation. She went from being sociable and active and keen on travel, to inertia, isolation, staying-at-home
Recently this person was diagnosed with a terminal illness and was given a few short months to live, at most. And she is now UNABLE to travel. Much as she might want to
She now bitterly regrets the ~3 years spent in self imposed confinement and it wasn’t even Covid that got her, in the end
You’re in your 60s. You can still see the world. Do it before you no longer can
Well it's not a Covid thing and, like I say, I have travelled a lot previously.
But, yes, there are some trips I'd like to do and if I don't do them through inertia that wouldn't be great.
This opens the door for a lament. I'm 47. I have recently become rather more acutely aware of the finity of my remaining years. What's brought this about is looking at OS maps. I've walked a lot in Britain, but there's so much more I haven't done than I have, and it seems rather too much to achieve in my remaining years of fitness. I get maybe three, four days to myself, free of parental responsibility each year. Obviously that will grow as the kids get older, but I'll be 59 by the time my youngest is 18. I long for the freedom I could have had in my 20s before kids came along. I should have been so much more focused on what I wanted to do, and done it myself. I should have spent several long weekends a year in the Highlands of Scotland reaching the inaccessible places. I should have walked up every Wainwright. I should have cycled the whole of the North of England, the whole of Ireland. I should never, ever have replied to the question 'do anything this weekend' with 'oh, not much.'
I've never felt the need (or indeed had the budget) to go everywhere in the world. If I die without seeing Rome or Ljubljana or Australia or South America, well, shrug, you can't do everything. If I never dive or bungee jump, well, so be it. But there are things I really did want to do, but they never seemed pressing, and now I'm married with kids I may never get the chance.
If you are young, care not what plans your friends or girlfriends make: if there are things you want to do, do them. You will never have more time and energy than you do now.
It is, always, later than you think
Gotta say you are missing a bit of the wider world
Rome is tremendous, a top ten must-see city (but avoid the summer)
Ljubljana you can skip. Pleasant but unexceptional
Australia is absolutely essential for its insane fauna. Everything else, the Barrier Reef, the Kimberley Coast, the endless Outback, the Queensland rainforests, the glorious Northern Territory, even Uluru, you can sort of find somewhere else, in some form
But NOTHING is like your first glimpse of a real live kangaroo in the wild. Under the gum trees. Staring at you. And then there's the wombats, koalas, wallabies, dingos, quolls, bilbys. pademelons, sugar gliders. platypi and the Ruffous Bettong. It is the nearest you can get to a different planet but equally as full of life
If you possibly can, go to Australia at least once and see a tree kangaroo fall out of a eucalypt
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Gaining little or nothing isn't enough. They need to pay reparations to Ukraine for their crime too.
For this war to end three things need to happen.
1: Russia needs to be expelled from all of Crimea, the Donbas and other territory it is occupying. 2: Russia needs to agree compensation to Ukraine for the damages it has inflicted. 3: Russia needs to sign a peace treaty recognising all of Ukraine, including Crimea and Donbas, as Ukrainian.
We'll see. I do, however, sense you straying into the sort of bellicosity I specifically said I didn't want to see. But if all of that remains on internet forums rather than in decision rooms I guess it's ok.
Perhaps it is worth thinking why you think that asking a county invading another country to completely stop invading another country and go back to the status quo ante is bellicose?
It isn't and I didn't say it was. I can spot bellicosity. Eg an earlier contribution from that particular poster - "we'll let them keep Moscow" - is the sort of thing I mean.
No, they can't keep Moscow. I'm taking that.
But you know what I mean. The tone. It's understandable, because this was and is an outrage from Putin (and therefore Russia), and so a brutal revenge rears its head, and like I say - ok on the internet but I'd hope decisions in the west (all of this assuming Russia truly is in permanent retreat now) aren't driven by that.
No, I don't know what you mean. How is it bellicose.
Moscow is their territory, in the past when countries lost wars their territory was often divided by the winners of the war - eg see what happened to Berlin post-war.
To be saying that the Russians can keep Moscow is the opposite of bellicose, it is bloody generous under the circumstances.
Any wanking on by civilian dweebs on the internet about hypothetical military victories and dividing of the spoils comes under 'bellicose'. Sorry, them's the rules.
The poor distributional aspect of a blanket price cap was always the problem. People who use more energy (ie rich people) get the most money. It would have been better and cheaper to have done something more targeted, as I and many others suggested on here. No handouts indeed!
Blanket approach, while imperfect, is easy to apply - just cap the charges as has been done. There is still an incentive to use less as the price has doubled on last year. Targetting is a lot harder. My parents do no need the winter rugby fuel allowance. Fine - how do you stop them getting it without say means testing (which has its own issues, not least people too proud to apply, or snafu's in the system).
And by the way - no one is being given money - they are simply not being billed as much as would have been the case.
I'm not a big fan of the price cap: it seems that people who live in enormous, inefficient homes are going to see minimal (is any) cost increases, while those who are poorest (and therefore live in the smallest homes, with the lowest bills) will see their bills soar.
Given that our goal has to be reduce energy demand, this means it's the poorest who are expected to cut back most, while the richest have essentially no invective.
Personally, I would announce an across the board - taxable - £600/year energy grant.
This means that the incentive for consumers to reduce demand is extremely strong, while (hopefully) making sure the poorest can heat and light their homes.
You do realise forecasts for the 2023 price caps were £5k-6k per year? What proportion of households could cope with that if the state support was a £600 taxable grant? How would the energy suppliers cope with the unpaid bills?
And those in the biggest houses will see bills more than double from what they were paying in 2021. The "cap" is not a "cap", if they use more they pay more.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
It is a shame because 30 years ago it used to be a lovely airport to travel through. Full of interesting shops and stalls and it was easy to spend a few hours there waiting for onward connections. Then they did the big renovation and it completely lost its soul and is now a place to be endured rather than enjoyed.
Mind you at least it isn't Charles de Gaulle. Easily the worst first world airport I have been through.
Charles de Gaulle is only the worst first world airport ... because Heathrow qualifies as a third world airport with its squalor, overcrowding & crap infrastructure.
JFK says hi.
LAX laughs in the face of JFK and Heathrow.
Seriously, though, London Heathrow isn't even in the bottom 50 airports in the world.
I presume that YBard ran into a bunch of remainer skiers at Heathrow, and this has colored his judgement.
Nah, JFK is definitely worse than LAX. Heathrow isn't bad at all IMO, T5 could be organised better without the T5B/C annexes but it's still better than most hub airports I've been to in Europe. I think at the moment it's bad because the airport management played it badly and are now playing catch up in a very tight labour market with rock bottom salaries.
I've waited five hours in a queue at immigration at LAX. That may color my judgement
I would also note that at LAX, one now has to get a 10 minute bus ride to a windswept parking lot to get an Uber or cab. And frequently the first two buses are full, so you're waiting 10, 15 minutes to even get on the bus.
There's also no Airtrain at LAX to get you between the terminals.
So, with respect, I think LAX has JFK beat.
That said... My worst US airport experience was actually at Miami, where my wife and I missed a four hour connection due to queues at immigration that stretched a hundred meters beyond the immigration hall. And they lost our luggage.
The poor distributional aspect of a blanket price cap was always the problem. People who use more energy (ie rich people) get the most money. It would have been better and cheaper to have done something more targeted, as I and many others suggested on here. No handouts indeed!
Blanket approach, while imperfect, is easy to apply - just cap the charges as has been done. There is still an incentive to use less as the price has doubled on last year. Targetting is a lot harder. My parents do no need the winter rugby fuel allowance. Fine - how do you stop them getting it without say means testing (which has its own issues, not least people too proud to apply, or snafu's in the system).
And by the way - no one is being given money - they are simply not being billed as much as would have been the case.
I'm not a big fan of the price cap: it seems that people who live in enormous, inefficient homes are going to see minimal (is any) cost increases, while those who are poorest (and therefore live in the smallest homes, with the lowest bills) will see their bills soar.
Given that our goal has to be reduce energy demand, this means it's the poorest who are expected to cut back most, while the richest have essentially no invective.
Personally, I would announce an across the board - taxable - £600/year energy grant.
This means that the incentive for consumers to reduce demand is extremely strong, while (hopefully) making sure the poorest can heat and light their homes.
Why do you think enormous, inefficient homes aren't going to see cost increases? They'll see the biggest cost increases.
The cap is based on average usage. Use more, pay more.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
Don’t.
Someone I know got used to doing absolutely nothing and seeing no one during covid. Like a hermit
Even when covid ended she maintained this new monastic isolation. She went from being sociable and active and keen on travel, to inertia, isolation, staying-at-home
Recently this person was diagnosed with a terminal illness and was given a few short months to live, at most. And she is now UNABLE to travel. Much as she might want to
She now bitterly regrets the ~3 years spent in self imposed confinement and it wasn’t even Covid that got her, in the end
You’re in your 60s. You can still see the world. Do it before you no longer can
That is very sound advice
We have travelled worldwide for 20 years and more, and now neither my wife or I are physically or medically capable of travelling abroad
However, we have memories stretching from the Artic to the Antarctic and all points in between that live long in our memory and gratitude that we were able to travel so extensively
Likewise. We've crossed the Arctic Circle but we've never been further south than Milford Haven in New Zealand. Been round the world twice, though. Now I can't walk more than about 50 yards, and that with a walker. I'm hopeful that I might hear good news, though, when I see a spinal surgeon later this week.
However that only underlines the advice to take your opportunity while you can!
W have been fortunate enough to go round the world 6 times but of course our eldest emigrating to New Zealand played a part in that
South America and Antarctica are the two places I regret not visiting. We've been to Thailand several times since we've got grandchildren there, and some of the neighbouring countries. On one occasion our son was given the use of a house in Hawaii for a couple of weeks, so we came home via Hawaii and Canada.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
Don’t.
Someone I know got used to doing absolutely nothing and seeing no one during covid. Like a hermit
Even when covid ended she maintained this new monastic isolation. She went from being sociable and active and keen on travel, to inertia, isolation, staying-at-home
Recently this person was diagnosed with a terminal illness and was given a few short months to live, at most. And she is now UNABLE to travel. Much as she might want to
She now bitterly regrets the ~3 years spent in self imposed confinement and it wasn’t even Covid that got her, in the end
You’re in your 60s. You can still see the world. Do it before you no longer can
That is very sound advice
We have travelled worldwide for 20 years and more, and now neither my wife or I are physically or medically capable of travelling abroad
However, we have memories stretching from the Artic to the Antarctic and all points in between that live long in our memory and gratitude that we were able to travel so extensively
Likewise. We've crossed the Arctic Circle but we've never been further south than Milford Haven in New Zealand. Been round the world twice, though. Now I can't walk more than about 50 yards, and that with a walker. I'm hopeful that I might hear good news, though, when I see a spinal surgeon later this week.
However that only underlines the advice to take your opportunity while you can!
Some friends of my wife did the Antarctic cruise ship thing this year. Highly recommended from the pictures they took. South Georgia is a magnificent desolation.
Antarctica is magnificent not least the landings on the ice and South Georgia is unbelievably beautiful
Antarctica is the only continent ive not been to, and therefore the only one i've not been drunk in
It is perhaps the greatest destination of all. And yes, I drank cognac on the Antarctic ice-shelf. Tho it is probably the one continent where you don't need to drink, as everything is so brilliantly dreamlike it feels like you are drunk all the time anyway
The poor distributional aspect of a blanket price cap was always the problem. People who use more energy (ie rich people) get the most money. It would have been better and cheaper to have done something more targeted, as I and many others suggested on here. No handouts indeed!
Blanket approach, while imperfect, is easy to apply - just cap the charges as has been done. There is still an incentive to use less as the price has doubled on last year. Targetting is a lot harder. My parents do no need the winter rugby fuel allowance. Fine - how do you stop them getting it without say means testing (which has its own issues, not least people too proud to apply, or snafu's in the system).
And by the way - no one is being given money - they are simply not being billed as much as would have been the case.
I'm not a big fan of the price cap: it seems that people who live in enormous, inefficient homes are going to see minimal (is any) cost increases, while those who are poorest (and therefore live in the smallest homes, with the lowest bills) will see their bills soar.
Given that our goal has to be reduce energy demand, this means it's the poorest who are expected to cut back most, while the richest have essentially no invective.
Personally, I would announce an across the board - taxable - £600/year energy grant.
This means that the incentive for consumers to reduce demand is extremely strong, while (hopefully) making sure the poorest can heat and light their homes.
Thats not how it works. The low end, poorer users will be very well insulated (excuse the pun)
The poor distributional aspect of a blanket price cap was always the problem. People who use more energy (ie rich people) get the most money. It would have been better and cheaper to have done something more targeted, as I and many others suggested on here. No handouts indeed!
Blanket approach, while imperfect, is easy to apply - just cap the charges as has been done. There is still an incentive to use less as the price has doubled on last year. Targetting is a lot harder. My parents do no need the winter rugby fuel allowance. Fine - how do you stop them getting it without say means testing (which has its own issues, not least people too proud to apply, or snafu's in the system).
And by the way - no one is being given money - they are simply not being billed as much as would have been the case.
I'm not a big fan of the price cap: it seems that people who live in enormous, inefficient homes are going to see minimal (is any) cost increases, while those who are poorest (and therefore live in the smallest homes, with the lowest bills) will see their bills soar.
Given that our goal has to be reduce energy demand, this means it's the poorest who are expected to cut back most, while the richest have essentially no invective.
Personally, I would announce an across the board - taxable - £600/year energy grant.
This means that the incentive for consumers to reduce demand is extremely strong, while (hopefully) making sure the poorest can heat and light their homes.
You do realise forecasts for the 2023 price caps were £5k-6k per year? What proportion of households could cope with that if the state support was a £600 taxable grant? How would the energy suppliers cope with the unpaid bills?
And those in the biggest houses will see bills more than double from what they were paying in 2021. The "cap" is not a "cap", if they use more they pay more.
Yes, while I see @rcs1000 's point, his suggestion doesn't work unless the amount were much higher. And given it's likely to be the basis for the businesses plan, how might that then work ?
The other point is that should prices drop further on a Russian defeat, the cost to the government comes down too with the arrangements adopted.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
It is a shame because 30 years ago it used to be a lovely airport to travel through. Full of interesting shops and stalls and it was easy to spend a few hours there waiting for onward connections. Then they did the big renovation and it completely lost its soul and is now a place to be endured rather than enjoyed.
Mind you at least it isn't Charles de Gaulle. Easily the worst first world airport I have been through.
Charles de Gaulle is only the worst first world airport ... because Heathrow qualifies as a third world airport with its squalor, overcrowding & crap infrastructure.
JFK says hi.
LAX laughs in the face of JFK and Heathrow.
Seriously, though, London Heathrow isn't even in the bottom 50 airports in the world.
I presume that YBard ran into a bunch of remainer skiers at Heathrow, and this has colored his judgement.
Nah, JFK is definitely worse than LAX. Heathrow isn't bad at all IMO, T5 could be organised better without the T5B/C annexes but it's still better than most hub airports I've been to in Europe. I think at the moment it's bad because the airport management played it badly and are now playing catch up in a very tight labour market with rock bottom salaries.
I've waited five hours in a queue at immigration at LAX. That may color my judgement
I would also note that at LAX, one now has to get a 10 minute bus ride to a windswept parking lot to get an Uber or cab. And frequently the first two buses are full, so you're waiting 10, 15 minutes to even get on the bus.
There's also no Airtrain at LAX to get you between the terminals.
So, with respect, I think LAX has JFK beat.
That said... My worst US airport experience was actually at Miami, where my wife and I missed a four hour connection due to queues at immigration that stretched a hundred meters beyond the immigration hall. And they lost our luggage.
American airports are the worst, Asian airports are the best, European airports all points between: is a pretty good rule of thumb
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
It is a shame because 30 years ago it used to be a lovely airport to travel through. Full of interesting shops and stalls and it was easy to spend a few hours there waiting for onward connections. Then they did the big renovation and it completely lost its soul and is now a place to be endured rather than enjoyed.
Mind you at least it isn't Charles de Gaulle. Easily the worst first world airport I have been through.
Charles de Gaulle is only the worst first world airport ... because Heathrow qualifies as a third world airport with its squalor, overcrowding & crap infrastructure.
JFK says hi.
LAX laughs in the face of JFK and Heathrow.
Seriously, though, London Heathrow isn't even in the bottom 50 airports in the world.
I presume that YBard ran into a bunch of remainer skiers at Heathrow, and this has colored his judgement.
Nah, JFK is definitely worse than LAX. Heathrow isn't bad at all IMO, T5 could be organised better without the T5B/C annexes but it's still better than most hub airports I've been to in Europe. I think at the moment it's bad because the airport management played it badly and are now playing catch up in a very tight labour market with rock bottom salaries.
I've waited five hours in a queue at immigration at LAX. That may color my judgement
I would also note that at LAX, one now has to get a 10 minute bus ride to a windswept parking lot to get an Uber or cab. And frequently the first two buses are full, so you're waiting 10, 15 minutes to even get on the bus.
There's also no Airtrain at LAX to get you between the terminals.
So, with respect, I think LAX has JFK beat.
That said... My worst US airport experience was actually at Miami, where my wife and I missed a four hour connection due to queues at immigration that stretched a hundred meters beyond the immigration hall. And they lost our luggage.
My worst airport experience was flying out of Nevis after Hurricane Hugo. Better than not flying out, though.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Gaining little or nothing isn't enough. They need to pay reparations to Ukraine for their crime too.
For this war to end three things need to happen.
1: Russia needs to be expelled from all of Crimea, the Donbas and other territory it is occupying. 2: Russia needs to agree compensation to Ukraine for the damages it has inflicted. 3: Russia needs to sign a peace treaty recognising all of Ukraine, including Crimea and Donbas, as Ukrainian.
We'll see. I do, however, sense you straying into the sort of bellicosity I specifically said I didn't want to see. But if all of that remains on internet forums rather than in decision rooms I guess it's ok.
Perhaps it is worth thinking why you think that asking a county invading another country to completely stop invading another country and go back to the status quo ante is bellicose?
It isn't and I didn't say it was. I can spot bellicosity. Eg an earlier contribution from that particular poster - "we'll let them keep Moscow" - is the sort of thing I mean.
No, they can't keep Moscow. I'm taking that.
But you know what I mean. The tone. It's understandable, because this was and is an outrage from Putin (and therefore Russia), and so a brutal revenge rears its head, and like I say - ok on the internet but I'd hope decisions in the west (all of this assuming Russia truly is in permanent retreat now) aren't driven by that.
No, I don't know what you mean. How is it bellicose.
Moscow is their territory, in the past when countries lost wars their territory was often divided by the winners of the war - eg see what happened to Berlin post-war.
To be saying that the Russians can keep Moscow is the opposite of bellicose, it is bloody generous under the circumstances.
Any wanking on by civilian dweebs on the internet about hypothetical military victories and dividing of the spoils comes under 'bellicose'. Sorry, them's the rules.
The real issue is that anything other than a Ukrainian defeat is unacceptable to the Greater Russian Nationalists. They will be starting Revanche Club within ten minutes of any treaty signing.
The poor distributional aspect of a blanket price cap was always the problem. People who use more energy (ie rich people) get the most money. It would have been better and cheaper to have done something more targeted, as I and many others suggested on here. No handouts indeed!
Blanket approach, while imperfect, is easy to apply - just cap the charges as has been done. There is still an incentive to use less as the price has doubled on last year. Targetting is a lot harder. My parents do no need the winter rugby fuel allowance. Fine - how do you stop them getting it without say means testing (which has its own issues, not least people too proud to apply, or snafu's in the system).
And by the way - no one is being given money - they are simply not being billed as much as would have been the case.
I'm not a big fan of the price cap: it seems that people who live in enormous, inefficient homes are going to see minimal (is any) cost increases, while those who are poorest (and therefore live in the smallest homes, with the lowest bills) will see their bills soar.
Given that our goal has to be reduce energy demand, this means it's the poorest who are expected to cut back most, while the richest have essentially no invective.
Personally, I would announce an across the board - taxable - £600/year energy grant.
This means that the incentive for consumers to reduce demand is extremely strong, while (hopefully) making sure the poorest can heat and light their homes.
You do realise forecasts for the 2023 price caps were £5k-6k per year? What proportion of households could cope with that if the state support was a £600 taxable grant? How would the energy suppliers cope with the unpaid bills?
And those in the biggest houses will see bills more than double from what they were paying in 2021. The "cap" is not a "cap", if they use more they pay more.
Yes, while I see @rcs1000 's point, his suggestion doesn't work unless the amount were much higher. And given it's likely to be the basis for the businesses plan, how might that then work ?
The other point is that should prices drop further on a Russian defeat, the cost to the government comes down too with the arrangements adopted.
Based on recent performance the government will probably have given the energy suppliers a free bet if the prices go down, and it will not be the govt that benefits.....
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
Don’t.
Someone I know got used to doing absolutely nothing and seeing no one during covid. Like a hermit
Even when covid ended she maintained this new monastic isolation. She went from being sociable and active and keen on travel, to inertia, isolation, staying-at-home
Recently this person was diagnosed with a terminal illness and was given a few short months to live, at most. And she is now UNABLE to travel. Much as she might want to
She now bitterly regrets the ~3 years spent in self imposed confinement and it wasn’t even Covid that got her, in the end
You’re in your 60s. You can still see the world. Do it before you no longer can
Well it's not a Covid thing and, like I say, I have travelled a lot previously.
But, yes, there are some trips I'd like to do and if I don't do them through inertia that wouldn't be great.
This opens the door for a lament. I'm 47. I have recently become rather more acutely aware of the finity of my remaining years. What's brought this about is looking at OS maps. I've walked a lot in Britain, but there's so much more I haven't done than I have, and it seems rather too much to achieve in my remaining years of fitness. I get maybe three, four days to myself, free of parental responsibility each year. Obviously that will grow as the kids get older, but I'll be 59 by the time my youngest is 18. I long for the freedom I could have had in my 20s before kids came along. I should have been so much more focused on what I wanted to do, and done it myself. I should have spent several long weekends a year in the Highlands of Scotland reaching the inaccessible places. I should have walked up every Wainwright. I should have cycled the whole of the North of England, the whole of Ireland. I should never, ever have replied to the question 'do anything this weekend' with 'oh, not much.'
I've never felt the need (or indeed had the budget) to go everywhere in the world. If I die without seeing Rome or Ljubljana or Australia or South America, well, shrug, you can't do everything. If I never dive or bungee jump, well, so be it. But there are things I really did want to do, but they never seemed pressing, and now I'm married with kids I may never get the chance.
If you are young, care not what plans your friends or girlfriends make: if there are things you want to do, do them. You will never have more time and energy than you do now.
It is, always, later than you think
Gotta say you are missing a bit of the wider world
Rome is tremendous, a top ten must-see city (but avoid the summer)
Ljubljana you can skip. Pleasant but unexceptional
Australia is absolutely essential for its insane fauna. Everything else, the Barrier Reef, the Kimberley Coast, the endless Outback, the Queensland rainforests, the glorious Northern Territory, even Uluru, you can sort of find somewhere else, in some form
But NOTHING is like your first glimpse of a real live kangaroo in the wild. Under the gum trees. Staring at you. And then there's the wombats, koalas, wallabies, dingos, quolls, bilbys. pademelons, sugar gliders. platypi and the Ruffous Bettong. It is the nearest you can get to a different planet but equally as full of life
If you possibly can, go to Australia at least once and see a tree kangaroo fall out of a eucalypt
I mean, I have left the UK. I've been to a few of the world's big must see places, like Paris and New York. And if the weekend after next you plonked me in Rome I'm sure I'd have a very lovely time. But it is the experiences in these islands my heart yearns for - I think because I might so easily have done them when I had the time.
I might yet get to Australia. My sister-in-law's partner is Australian; they have a small baby, and are thinking of moving there. They are assuming we will visit regularly. And I'd very much like to see a kangaroo and all the other fellas. But, what, £10,000 and 24 hours travelling to get a family of five to Australia? Realistically we can only do it once, if at all. Whereas the Cuillins? You can get there with a tankful of petrol. I ought to have done that already. Why haven't I? So many years of fitting in with other people's plans when I might have made my own.
The poor distributional aspect of a blanket price cap was always the problem. People who use more energy (ie rich people) get the most money. It would have been better and cheaper to have done something more targeted, as I and many others suggested on here. No handouts indeed!
Blanket approach, while imperfect, is easy to apply - just cap the charges as has been done. There is still an incentive to use less as the price has doubled on last year. Targetting is a lot harder. My parents do no need the winter rugby fuel allowance. Fine - how do you stop them getting it without say means testing (which has its own issues, not least people too proud to apply, or snafu's in the system).
And by the way - no one is being given money - they are simply not being billed as much as would have been the case.
I'm not a big fan of the price cap: it seems that people who live in enormous, inefficient homes are going to see minimal (is any) cost increases, while those who are poorest (and therefore live in the smallest homes, with the lowest bills) will see their bills soar.
Given that our goal has to be reduce energy demand, this means it's the poorest who are expected to cut back most, while the richest have essentially no invective.
Personally, I would announce an across the board - taxable - £600/year energy grant.
This means that the incentive for consumers to reduce demand is extremely strong, while (hopefully) making sure the poorest can heat and light their homes.
It's a unit price cap, people who use more will pay over £2500. That number isn't an actual cap, it's just what people can expect to pay if they have average energy use.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
Don’t.
Someone I know got used to doing absolutely nothing and seeing no one during covid. Like a hermit
Even when covid ended she maintained this new monastic isolation. She went from being sociable and active and keen on travel, to inertia, isolation, staying-at-home
Recently this person was diagnosed with a terminal illness and was given a few short months to live, at most. And she is now UNABLE to travel. Much as she might want to
She now bitterly regrets the ~3 years spent in self imposed confinement and it wasn’t even Covid that got her, in the end
You’re in your 60s. You can still see the world. Do it before you no longer can
Well it's not a Covid thing and, like I say, I have travelled a lot previously.
But, yes, there are some trips I'd like to do and if I don't do them through inertia that wouldn't be great.
This opens the door for a lament. I'm 47. I have recently become rather more acutely aware of the finity of my remaining years. What's brought this about is looking at OS maps. I've walked a lot in Britain, but there's so much more I haven't done than I have, and it seems rather too much to achieve in my remaining years of fitness. I get maybe three, four days to myself, free of parental responsibility each year. Obviously that will grow as the kids get older, but I'll be 59 by the time my youngest is 18. I long for the freedom I could have had in my 20s before kids came along. I should have been so much more focused on what I wanted to do, and done it myself. I should have spent several long weekends a year in the Highlands of Scotland reaching the inaccessible places. I should have walked up every Wainwright. I should have cycled the whole of the North of England, the whole of Ireland. I should never, ever have replied to the question 'do anything this weekend' with 'oh, not much.'
I've never felt the need (or indeed had the budget) to go everywhere in the world. If I die without seeing Rome or Ljubljana or Australia or South America, well, shrug, you can't do everything. If I never dive or bungee jump, well, so be it. But there are things I really did want to do, but they never seemed pressing, and now I'm married with kids I may never get the chance.
If you are young, care not what plans your friends or girlfriends make: if there are things you want to do, do them. You will never have more time and energy than you do now.
It is, always, later than you think
Gotta say you are missing a bit of the wider world
Rome is tremendous, a top ten must-see city (but avoid the summer)
Ljubljana you can skip. Pleasant but unexceptional
Australia is absolutely essential for its insane fauna. Everything else, the Barrier Reef, the Kimberley Coast, the endless Outback, the Queensland rainforests, the glorious Northern Territory, even Uluru, you can sort of find somewhere else, in some form
But NOTHING is like your first glimpse of a real live kangaroo in the wild. Under the gum trees. Staring at you. And then there's the wombats, koalas, wallabies, dingos, quolls, bilbys. pademelons, sugar gliders. platypi and the Ruffous Bettong. It is the nearest you can get to a different planet but equally as full of life
If you possibly can, go to Australia at least once and see a tree kangaroo fall out of a eucalypt
I mean, I have left the UK. I've been to a few of the world's big must see places, like Paris and New York. And if the weekend after next you plonked me in Rome I'm sure I'd have a very lovely time. But it is the experiences in these islands my heart yearns for - I think because I might so easily have done them when I had the time.
I might yet get to Australia. My sister-in-law's partner is Australian; they have a small baby, and are thinking of moving there. They are assuming we will visit regularly. And I'd very much like to see a kangaroo and all the other fellas. But, what, £10,000 and 24 hours travelling to get a family of five to Australia? Realistically we can only do it once, if at all. Whereas the Cuillins? You can get there with a tankful of petrol. I ought to have done that already. Why haven't I? So many years of fitting in with other people's plans when I might have made my own.
To be fair we did most of our travelling when it was just us two again!
The poor distributional aspect of a blanket price cap was always the problem. People who use more energy (ie rich people) get the most money. It would have been better and cheaper to have done something more targeted, as I and many others suggested on here. No handouts indeed!
Blanket approach, while imperfect, is easy to apply - just cap the charges as has been done. There is still an incentive to use less as the price has doubled on last year. Targetting is a lot harder. My parents do no need the winter rugby fuel allowance. Fine - how do you stop them getting it without say means testing (which has its own issues, not least people too proud to apply, or snafu's in the system).
And by the way - no one is being given money - they are simply not being billed as much as would have been the case.
I'm not a big fan of the price cap: it seems that people who live in enormous, inefficient homes are going to see minimal (is any) cost increases, while those who are poorest (and therefore live in the smallest homes, with the lowest bills) will see their bills soar.
Given that our goal has to be reduce energy demand, this means it's the poorest who are expected to cut back most, while the richest have essentially no invective.
Personally, I would announce an across the board - taxable - £600/year energy grant.
This means that the incentive for consumers to reduce demand is extremely strong, while (hopefully) making sure the poorest can heat and light their homes.
Thats not how it works. The low end, poorer users will be very well insulated (excuse the pun)
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
Don’t.
Someone I know got used to doing absolutely nothing and seeing no one during covid. Like a hermit
Even when covid ended she maintained this new monastic isolation. She went from being sociable and active and keen on travel, to inertia, isolation, staying-at-home
Recently this person was diagnosed with a terminal illness and was given a few short months to live, at most. And she is now UNABLE to travel. Much as she might want to
She now bitterly regrets the ~3 years spent in self imposed confinement and it wasn’t even Covid that got her, in the end
You’re in your 60s. You can still see the world. Do it before you no longer can
Well it's not a Covid thing and, like I say, I have travelled a lot previously.
But, yes, there are some trips I'd like to do and if I don't do them through inertia that wouldn't be great.
This opens the door for a lament. I'm 47. I have recently become rather more acutely aware of the finity of my remaining years. What's brought this about is looking at OS maps. I've walked a lot in Britain, but there's so much more I haven't done than I have, and it seems rather too much to achieve in my remaining years of fitness. I get maybe three, four days to myself, free of parental responsibility each year. Obviously that will grow as the kids get older, but I'll be 59 by the time my youngest is 18. I long for the freedom I could have had in my 20s before kids came along. I should have been so much more focused on what I wanted to do, and done it myself. I should have spent several long weekends a year in the Highlands of Scotland reaching the inaccessible places. I should have walked up every Wainwright. I should have cycled the whole of the North of England, the whole of Ireland. I should never, ever have replied to the question 'do anything this weekend' with 'oh, not much.'
I've never felt the need (or indeed had the budget) to go everywhere in the world. If I die without seeing Rome or Ljubljana or Australia or South America, well, shrug, you can't do everything. If I never dive or bungee jump, well, so be it. But there are things I really did want to do, but they never seemed pressing, and now I'm married with kids I may never get the chance.
If you are young, care not what plans your friends or girlfriends make: if there are things you want to do, do them. You will never have more time and energy than you do now.
It is, always, later than you think
Gotta say you are missing a bit of the wider world
Rome is tremendous, a top ten must-see city (but avoid the summer)
Ljubljana you can skip. Pleasant but unexceptional
Australia is absolutely essential for its insane fauna. Everything else, the Barrier Reef, the Kimberley Coast, the endless Outback, the Queensland rainforests, the glorious Northern Territory, even Uluru, you can sort of find somewhere else, in some form
But NOTHING is like your first glimpse of a real live kangaroo in the wild. Under the gum trees. Staring at you. And then there's the wombats, koalas, wallabies, dingos, quolls, bilbys. pademelons, sugar gliders. platypi and the Ruffous Bettong. It is the nearest you can get to a different planet but equally as full of life
If you possibly can, go to Australia at least once and see a tree kangaroo fall out of a eucalypt
I mean, I have left the UK. I've been to a few of the world's big must see places, like Paris and New York. And if the weekend after next you plonked me in Rome I'm sure I'd have a very lovely time. But it is the experiences in these islands my heart yearns for - I think because I might so easily have done them when I had the time.
I might yet get to Australia. My sister-in-law's partner is Australian; they have a small baby, and are thinking of moving there. They are assuming we will visit regularly. And I'd very much like to see a kangaroo and all the other fellas. But, what, £10,000 and 24 hours travelling to get a family of five to Australia? Realistically we can only do it once, if at all. Whereas the Cuillins? You can get there with a tankful of petrol. I ought to have done that already. Why haven't I? So many years of fitting in with other people's plans when I might have made my own.
I hear you. On the other hand, you have almost certainly been an infinitely better father than me. My kids tell me they've forgiven me for being Not There so much, but I feel a fair amount of guilt, and I am sure I have done them harm. And yet I have seen the world in my selfishness (and my job, to be fair)
Something has to give, doesn't it?
However, your despair is foolish. You say you'll be done parenting at 59 - well 59 is nothing. I'm in my late 50s and just spent 3 months doing non stop travel from America to Armenia and back. And it was brilliant
Vow to yourself that you will do all this when you are 59, and do it
And don't spend £10k taking the entire family to Oz, it's really not worth it. You need to see it alone, or at most in a couple, so you can really get out there to the remote places. Remoteness is the point of Oz. The Atherton Tablelands! Kakadu! Coober Pedy! Arnhemland!
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
Don’t.
Someone I know got used to doing absolutely nothing and seeing no one during covid. Like a hermit
Even when covid ended she maintained this new monastic isolation. She went from being sociable and active and keen on travel, to inertia, isolation, staying-at-home
Recently this person was diagnosed with a terminal illness and was given a few short months to live, at most. And she is now UNABLE to travel. Much as she might want to
She now bitterly regrets the ~3 years spent in self imposed confinement and it wasn’t even Covid that got her, in the end
You’re in your 60s. You can still see the world. Do it before you no longer can
Well it's not a Covid thing and, like I say, I have travelled a lot previously.
But, yes, there are some trips I'd like to do and if I don't do them through inertia that wouldn't be great.
This opens the door for a lament. I'm 47. I have recently become rather more acutely aware of the finity of my remaining years. What's brought this about is looking at OS maps. I've walked a lot in Britain, but there's so much more I haven't done than I have, and it seems rather too much to achieve in my remaining years of fitness. I get maybe three, four days to myself, free of parental responsibility each year. Obviously that will grow as the kids get older, but I'll be 59 by the time my youngest is 18. I long for the freedom I could have had in my 20s before kids came along. I should have been so much more focused on what I wanted to do, and done it myself. I should have spent several long weekends a year in the Highlands of Scotland reaching the inaccessible places. I should have walked up every Wainwright. I should have cycled the whole of the North of England, the whole of Ireland. I should never, ever have replied to the question 'do anything this weekend' with 'oh, not much.'
I've never felt the need (or indeed had the budget) to go everywhere in the world. If I die without seeing Rome or Ljubljana or Australia or South America, well, shrug, you can't do everything. If I never dive or bungee jump, well, so be it. But there are things I really did want to do, but they never seemed pressing, and now I'm married with kids I may never get the chance.
If you are young, care not what plans your friends or girlfriends make: if there are things you want to do, do them. You will never have more time and energy than you do now.
It is, always, later than you think
Gotta say you are missing a bit of the wider world
Rome is tremendous, a top ten must-see city (but avoid the summer)
Ljubljana you can skip. Pleasant but unexceptional
Australia is absolutely essential for its insane fauna. Everything else, the Barrier Reef, the Kimberley Coast, the endless Outback, the Queensland rainforests, the glorious Northern Territory, even Uluru, you can sort of find somewhere else, in some form
But NOTHING is like your first glimpse of a real live kangaroo in the wild. Under the gum trees. Staring at you. And then there's the wombats, koalas, wallabies, dingos, quolls, bilbys. pademelons, sugar gliders. platypi and the Ruffous Bettong. It is the nearest you can get to a different planet but equally as full of life
If you possibly can, go to Australia at least once and see a tree kangaroo fall out of a eucalypt
I mean, I have left the UK. I've been to a few of the world's big must see places, like Paris and New York. And if the weekend after next you plonked me in Rome I'm sure I'd have a very lovely time. But it is the experiences in these islands my heart yearns for - I think because I might so easily have done them when I had the time.
I might yet get to Australia. My sister-in-law's partner is Australian; they have a small baby, and are thinking of moving there. They are assuming we will visit regularly. And I'd very much like to see a kangaroo and all the other fellas. But, what, £10,000 and 24 hours travelling to get a family of five to Australia? Realistically we can only do it once, if at all. Whereas the Cuillins? You can get there with a tankful of petrol. I ought to have done that already. Why haven't I? So many years of fitting in with other people's plans when I might have made my own.
I hear you. On the other hand, you have almost certainly been an infinitely better father than me. My kids tell me they've forgiven me for being Not There so much, but I feel a fair amount of guilt, and I am sure I have done them harm. And yet I have seen the world in my selfishness (and my job, to be fair)
Something has to give, doesn't it?
However, your despair is foolish. You say you'll be done parenting at 59 - well 59 is nothing. I'm in my late 50s and just spent 3 months doing non stop travel from America to Armenia and back. And it was brilliant
Vow to yourself that you will do all this when you are 59, and do it
And don't spend £10k taking the entire family to Oz, it's really not worth it. You need to see it alone, or at most in a couple, so you can really get out there to the remote places. Remoteness is the point of Oz. The Atherton Tablelands! Kakadu! Coober Pedy! Arnhemland!
I am going to print this post off and keep it in my wallet as a reminder to myself.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Gaining little or nothing isn't enough. They need to pay reparations to Ukraine for their crime too.
For this war to end three things need to happen.
1: Russia needs to be expelled from all of Crimea, the Donbas and other territory it is occupying. 2: Russia needs to agree compensation to Ukraine for the damages it has inflicted. 3: Russia needs to sign a peace treaty recognising all of Ukraine, including Crimea and Donbas, as Ukrainian.
We'll see. I do, however, sense you straying into the sort of bellicosity I specifically said I didn't want to see. But if all of that remains on internet forums rather than in decision rooms I guess it's ok.
Perhaps it is worth thinking why you think that asking a county invading another country to completely stop invading another country and go back to the status quo ante is bellicose?
It isn't and I didn't say it was. I can spot bellicosity. Eg an earlier contribution from that particular poster - "we'll let them keep Moscow" - is the sort of thing I mean.
No, they can't keep Moscow. I'm taking that.
But you know what I mean. The tone. It's understandable, because this was and is an outrage from Putin (and therefore Russia), and so a brutal revenge rears its head, and like I say - ok on the internet but I'd hope decisions in the west (all of this assuming Russia truly is in permanent retreat now) aren't driven by that.
No, I don't know what you mean. How is it bellicose.
Moscow is their territory, in the past when countries lost wars their territory was often divided by the winners of the war - eg see what happened to Berlin post-war.
To be saying that the Russians can keep Moscow is the opposite of bellicose, it is bloody generous under the circumstances.
Man on the internet says he's being generous to allow the Russians to keep Moscow.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
Don’t.
Someone I know got used to doing absolutely nothing and seeing no one during covid. Like a hermit
Even when covid ended she maintained this new monastic isolation. She went from being sociable and active and keen on travel, to inertia, isolation, staying-at-home
Recently this person was diagnosed with a terminal illness and was given a few short months to live, at most. And she is now UNABLE to travel. Much as she might want to
She now bitterly regrets the ~3 years spent in self imposed confinement and it wasn’t even Covid that got her, in the end
You’re in your 60s. You can still see the world. Do it before you no longer can
Well it's not a Covid thing and, like I say, I have travelled a lot previously.
But, yes, there are some trips I'd like to do and if I don't do them through inertia that wouldn't be great.
This opens the door for a lament. I'm 47. I have recently become rather more acutely aware of the finity of my remaining years. What's brought this about is looking at OS maps. I've walked a lot in Britain, but there's so much more I haven't done than I have, and it seems rather too much to achieve in my remaining years of fitness. I get maybe three, four days to myself, free of parental responsibility each year. Obviously that will grow as the kids get older, but I'll be 59 by the time my youngest is 18. I long for the freedom I could have had in my 20s before kids came along. I should have been so much more focused on what I wanted to do, and done it myself. I should have spent several long weekends a year in the Highlands of Scotland reaching the inaccessible places. I should have walked up every Wainwright. I should have cycled the whole of the North of England, the whole of Ireland. I should never, ever have replied to the question 'do anything this weekend' with 'oh, not much.'
I've never felt the need (or indeed had the budget) to go everywhere in the world. If I die without seeing Rome or Ljubljana or Australia or South America, well, shrug, you can't do everything. If I never dive or bungee jump, well, so be it. But there are things I really did want to do, but they never seemed pressing, and now I'm married with kids I may never get the chance.
If you are young, care not what plans your friends or girlfriends make: if there are things you want to do, do them. You will never have more time and energy than you do now.
It is, always, later than you think
Gotta say you are missing a bit of the wider world
Rome is tremendous, a top ten must-see city (but avoid the summer)
Ljubljana you can skip. Pleasant but unexceptional
Australia is absolutely essential for its insane fauna. Everything else, the Barrier Reef, the Kimberley Coast, the endless Outback, the Queensland rainforests, the glorious Northern Territory, even Uluru, you can sort of find somewhere else, in some form
But NOTHING is like your first glimpse of a real live kangaroo in the wild. Under the gum trees. Staring at you. And then there's the wombats, koalas, wallabies, dingos, quolls, bilbys. pademelons, sugar gliders. platypi and the Ruffous Bettong. It is the nearest you can get to a different planet but equally as full of life
If you possibly can, go to Australia at least once and see a tree kangaroo fall out of a eucalypt
I mean, I have left the UK. I've been to a few of the world's big must see places, like Paris and New York. And if the weekend after next you plonked me in Rome I'm sure I'd have a very lovely time. But it is the experiences in these islands my heart yearns for - I think because I might so easily have done them when I had the time.
I might yet get to Australia. My sister-in-law's partner is Australian; they have a small baby, and are thinking of moving there. They are assuming we will visit regularly. And I'd very much like to see a kangaroo and all the other fellas. But, what, £10,000 and 24 hours travelling to get a family of five to Australia? Realistically we can only do it once, if at all. Whereas the Cuillins? You can get there with a tankful of petrol. I ought to have done that already. Why haven't I? So many years of fitting in with other people's plans when I might have made my own.
I hear you. On the other hand, you have almost certainly been an infinitely better father than me. My kids tell me they've forgiven me for being Not There so much, but I feel a fair amount of guilt, and I am sure I have done them harm. And yet I have seen the world in my selfishness (and my job, to be fair)
Something has to give, doesn't it?
However, your despair is foolish. You say you'll be done parenting at 59 - well 59 is nothing. I'm in my late 50s and just spent 3 months doing non stop travel from America to Armenia and back. And it was brilliant
Vow to yourself that you will do all this when you are 59, and do it
And don't spend £10k taking the entire family to Oz, it's really not worth it. You need to see it alone, or at most in a couple, so you can really get out there to the remote places. Remoteness is the point of Oz. The Atherton Tablelands! Kakadu! Coober Pedy! Arnhemland!
Keep fit as well. Exercise every week - and not just walking. Something that needs dexterity, stretching and flexibility. I took up rowing again, for this reason.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
Don’t.
Someone I know got used to doing absolutely nothing and seeing no one during covid. Like a hermit
Even when covid ended she maintained this new monastic isolation. She went from being sociable and active and keen on travel, to inertia, isolation, staying-at-home
Recently this person was diagnosed with a terminal illness and was given a few short months to live, at most. And she is now UNABLE to travel. Much as she might want to
She now bitterly regrets the ~3 years spent in self imposed confinement and it wasn’t even Covid that got her, in the end
You’re in your 60s. You can still see the world. Do it before you no longer can
Well it's not a Covid thing and, like I say, I have travelled a lot previously.
But, yes, there are some trips I'd like to do and if I don't do them through inertia that wouldn't be great.
This opens the door for a lament. I'm 47. I have recently become rather more acutely aware of the finity of my remaining years. What's brought this about is looking at OS maps. I've walked a lot in Britain, but there's so much more I haven't done than I have, and it seems rather too much to achieve in my remaining years of fitness. I get maybe three, four days to myself, free of parental responsibility each year. Obviously that will grow as the kids get older, but I'll be 59 by the time my youngest is 18. I long for the freedom I could have had in my 20s before kids came along. I should have been so much more focused on what I wanted to do, and done it myself. I should have spent several long weekends a year in the Highlands of Scotland reaching the inaccessible places. I should have walked up every Wainwright. I should have cycled the whole of the North of England, the whole of Ireland. I should never, ever have replied to the question 'do anything this weekend' with 'oh, not much.'
I've never felt the need (or indeed had the budget) to go everywhere in the world. If I die without seeing Rome or Ljubljana or Australia or South America, well, shrug, you can't do everything. If I never dive or bungee jump, well, so be it. But there are things I really did want to do, but they never seemed pressing, and now I'm married with kids I may never get the chance.
If you are young, care not what plans your friends or girlfriends make: if there are things you want to do, do them. You will never have more time and energy than you do now.
I'm turning 47 in a couple of months and echo these sentiments!
I'm rather older, and now beginning to panic. 😊
I’m 39 and am literally having my first day out on a weekday in September in 11 years, celebrating my first tutoring commission.
Btw if anyone or their family does need any tutoring in History, Politics, Religious Studies or English Literature feel free to send me a VM.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Gaining little or nothing isn't enough. They need to pay reparations to Ukraine for their crime too.
For this war to end three things need to happen.
1: Russia needs to be expelled from all of Crimea, the Donbas and other territory it is occupying. 2: Russia needs to agree compensation to Ukraine for the damages it has inflicted. 3: Russia needs to sign a peace treaty recognising all of Ukraine, including Crimea and Donbas, as Ukrainian.
We'll see. I do, however, sense you straying into the sort of bellicosity I specifically said I didn't want to see. But if all of that remains on internet forums rather than in decision rooms I guess it's ok.
Perhaps it is worth thinking why you think that asking a county invading another country to completely stop invading another country and go back to the status quo ante is bellicose?
It isn't and I didn't say it was. I can spot bellicosity. Eg an earlier contribution from that particular poster - "we'll let them keep Moscow" - is the sort of thing I mean.
No, they can't keep Moscow. I'm taking that.
But you know what I mean. The tone. It's understandable, because this was and is an outrage from Putin (and therefore Russia), and so a brutal revenge rears its head, and like I say - ok on the internet but I'd hope decisions in the west (all of this assuming Russia truly is in permanent retreat now) aren't driven by that.
No, I don't know what you mean. How is it bellicose.
Moscow is their territory, in the past when countries lost wars their territory was often divided by the winners of the war - eg see what happened to Berlin post-war.
To be saying that the Russians can keep Moscow is the opposite of bellicose, it is bloody generous under the circumstances.
Man on the internet says he's being generous to allow the Russians to keep Moscow.
Just listen to yourself.
Says a man on the Internet who thinks the Ukrainians shouldn’t be allowed to keep any part of their own country.
On topic, I don't believe in a hereditary monarchy but I probably wouldn't choose right now to say so. It feels slightly disrespectful to someone who gave her life to the service of the country.
That doesn't mean I think she was perfect. She made mistakes. But there's a time and place.
However, I want to defend the right of others to express their viewpoint. Arresting them for doing so is disgraceful. But we saw this sort of itch to head into a police state during lockdown and over Sarah Everard.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Gaining little or nothing isn't enough. They need to pay reparations to Ukraine for their crime too.
For this war to end three things need to happen.
1: Russia needs to be expelled from all of Crimea, the Donbas and other territory it is occupying. 2: Russia needs to agree compensation to Ukraine for the damages it has inflicted. 3: Russia needs to sign a peace treaty recognising all of Ukraine, including Crimea and Donbas, as Ukrainian.
We'll see. I do, however, sense you straying into the sort of bellicosity I specifically said I didn't want to see. But if all of that remains on internet forums rather than in decision rooms I guess it's ok.
Perhaps it is worth thinking why you think that asking a county invading another country to completely stop invading another country and go back to the status quo ante is bellicose?
It isn't and I didn't say it was. I can spot bellicosity. Eg an earlier contribution from that particular poster - "we'll let them keep Moscow" - is the sort of thing I mean.
No, they can't keep Moscow. I'm taking that.
But you know what I mean. The tone. It's understandable, because this was and is an outrage from Putin (and therefore Russia), and so a brutal revenge rears its head, and like I say - ok on the internet but I'd hope decisions in the west (all of this assuming Russia truly is in permanent retreat now) aren't driven by that.
No, I don't know what you mean. How is it bellicose.
Moscow is their territory, in the past when countries lost wars their territory was often divided by the winners of the war - eg see what happened to Berlin post-war.
To be saying that the Russians can keep Moscow is the opposite of bellicose, it is bloody generous under the circumstances.
Man on the internet says he's being generous to allow the Russians to keep Moscow.
Just listen to yourself.
You have a problem with people on the internet having opinions?
Yes Russia keeping Moscow is extremely generous. You objecting to that makes me think maybe we should have Ukraine annex some Russian territory once all this is over to help secure the peace.
What do you think Russia's price should be for starting and losing a war of aggression?
The poor distributional aspect of a blanket price cap was always the problem. People who use more energy (ie rich people) get the most money. It would have been better and cheaper to have done something more targeted, as I and many others suggested on here. No handouts indeed!
Blanket approach, while imperfect, is easy to apply - just cap the charges as has been done. There is still an incentive to use less as the price has doubled on last year. Targetting is a lot harder. My parents do no need the winter rugby fuel allowance. Fine - how do you stop them getting it without say means testing (which has its own issues, not least people too proud to apply, or snafu's in the system).
And by the way - no one is being given money - they are simply not being billed as much as would have been the case.
I'm not a big fan of the price cap: it seems that people who live in enormous, inefficient homes are going to see minimal (is any) cost increases, while those who are poorest (and therefore live in the smallest homes, with the lowest bills) will see their bills soar.
Given that our goal has to be reduce energy demand, this means it's the poorest who are expected to cut back most, while the richest have essentially no invective.
Personally, I would announce an across the board - taxable - £600/year energy grant.
This means that the incentive for consumers to reduce demand is extremely strong, while (hopefully) making sure the poorest can heat and light their homes.
Thats not how it works. The low end, poorer users will be very well insulated (excuse the pun)
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
Don’t.
Someone I know got used to doing absolutely nothing and seeing no one during covid. Like a hermit
Even when covid ended she maintained this new monastic isolation. She went from being sociable and active and keen on travel, to inertia, isolation, staying-at-home
Recently this person was diagnosed with a terminal illness and was given a few short months to live, at most. And she is now UNABLE to travel. Much as she might want to
She now bitterly regrets the ~3 years spent in self imposed confinement and it wasn’t even Covid that got her, in the end
You’re in your 60s. You can still see the world. Do it before you no longer can
Well it's not a Covid thing and, like I say, I have travelled a lot previously.
But, yes, there are some trips I'd like to do and if I don't do them through inertia that wouldn't be great.
This opens the door for a lament. I'm 47. I have recently become rather more acutely aware of the finity of my remaining years. What's brought this about is looking at OS maps. I've walked a lot in Britain, but there's so much more I haven't done than I have, and it seems rather too much to achieve in my remaining years of fitness. I get maybe three, four days to myself, free of parental responsibility each year. Obviously that will grow as the kids get older, but I'll be 59 by the time my youngest is 18. I long for the freedom I could have had in my 20s before kids came along. I should have been so much more focused on what I wanted to do, and done it myself. I should have spent several long weekends a year in the Highlands of Scotland reaching the inaccessible places. I should have walked up every Wainwright. I should have cycled the whole of the North of England, the whole of Ireland. I should never, ever have replied to the question 'do anything this weekend' with 'oh, not much.'
I've never felt the need (or indeed had the budget) to go everywhere in the world. If I die without seeing Rome or Ljubljana or Australia or South America, well, shrug, you can't do everything. If I never dive or bungee jump, well, so be it. But there are things I really did want to do, but they never seemed pressing, and now I'm married with kids I may never get the chance.
If you are young, care not what plans your friends or girlfriends make: if there are things you want to do, do them. You will never have more time and energy than you do now.
It is, always, later than you think
Gotta say you are missing a bit of the wider world
Rome is tremendous, a top ten must-see city (but avoid the summer)
Ljubljana you can skip. Pleasant but unexceptional
Australia is absolutely essential for its insane fauna. Everything else, the Barrier Reef, the Kimberley Coast, the endless Outback, the Queensland rainforests, the glorious Northern Territory, even Uluru, you can sort of find somewhere else, in some form
But NOTHING is like your first glimpse of a real live kangaroo in the wild. Under the gum trees. Staring at you. And then there's the wombats, koalas, wallabies, dingos, quolls, bilbys. pademelons, sugar gliders. platypi and the Ruffous Bettong. It is the nearest you can get to a different planet but equally as full of life
If you possibly can, go to Australia at least once and see a tree kangaroo fall out of a eucalypt
I mean, I have left the UK. I've been to a few of the world's big must see places, like Paris and New York. And if the weekend after next you plonked me in Rome I'm sure I'd have a very lovely time. But it is the experiences in these islands my heart yearns for - I think because I might so easily have done them when I had the time.
I might yet get to Australia. My sister-in-law's partner is Australian; they have a small baby, and are thinking of moving there. They are assuming we will visit regularly. And I'd very much like to see a kangaroo and all the other fellas. But, what, £10,000 and 24 hours travelling to get a family of five to Australia? Realistically we can only do it once, if at all. Whereas the Cuillins? You can get there with a tankful of petrol. I ought to have done that already. Why haven't I? So many years of fitting in with other people's plans when I might have made my own.
The trick to extensive travel is to live overseas and use that as a springboard for adventures. Im fortunate that as a result, I don’t particularly need to go back to Southern Africa, Asia, or Australasia again, even though time and money allowing that would be great and there are one or two small holes in the map there for me. Sri Lanka and a couple more Stans in Asia, Madagascar in Southern Africa, the pacific islands. I could live my whole life without ever going back to China or Russia.
While Ive done snippets, what I really want to do is an updated version of the old Grand Tour but that’s a thankless dream with small children. Overland through Roman and renaissance Italy to Greece, and then further back in time to Egypt, Jordan and the very beginning in Turkey. And if I was feeling really adventurous Ethiopia. Then a barmy army tour in the Caribbean to relax after all that. Followed by a long USA road trip. I’ve done 90% of the places with undrinkable tap water that appeal to me but have seen surprisingly little of the OECD.
King Charles' bounce should give us pause for thought when looking at best PM ratings. You often have to be in the chair to be viewed as being capable of being in it.
On topic, I don't believe in a hereditary monarchy but I probably wouldn't choose right now to say so. It feels slightly disrespectful to someone who gave her life to the service of the country.
That doesn't mean I think she was perfect. She made mistakes. But there's a time and place.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
Don’t.
Someone I know got used to doing absolutely nothing and seeing no one during covid. Like a hermit
Even when covid ended she maintained this new monastic isolation. She went from being sociable and active and keen on travel, to inertia, isolation, staying-at-home
Recently this person was diagnosed with a terminal illness and was given a few short months to live, at most. And she is now UNABLE to travel. Much as she might want to
She now bitterly regrets the ~3 years spent in self imposed confinement and it wasn’t even Covid that got her, in the end
You’re in your 60s. You can still see the world. Do it before you no longer can
Well it's not a Covid thing and, like I say, I have travelled a lot previously.
But, yes, there are some trips I'd like to do and if I don't do them through inertia that wouldn't be great.
This opens the door for a lament. I'm 47. I have recently become rather more acutely aware of the finity of my remaining years. What's brought this about is looking at OS maps. I've walked a lot in Britain, but there's so much more I haven't done than I have, and it seems rather too much to achieve in my remaining years of fitness. I get maybe three, four days to myself, free of parental responsibility each year. Obviously that will grow as the kids get older, but I'll be 59 by the time my youngest is 18. I long for the freedom I could have had in my 20s before kids came along. I should have been so much more focused on what I wanted to do, and done it myself. I should have spent several long weekends a year in the Highlands of Scotland reaching the inaccessible places. I should have walked up every Wainwright. I should have cycled the whole of the North of England, the whole of Ireland. I should never, ever have replied to the question 'do anything this weekend' with 'oh, not much.'
I've never felt the need (or indeed had the budget) to go everywhere in the world. If I die without seeing Rome or Ljubljana or Australia or South America, well, shrug, you can't do everything. If I never dive or bungee jump, well, so be it. But there are things I really did want to do, but they never seemed pressing, and now I'm married with kids I may never get the chance.
If you are young, care not what plans your friends or girlfriends make: if there are things you want to do, do them. You will never have more time and energy than you do now.
It is, always, later than you think
Gotta say you are missing a bit of the wider world
Rome is tremendous, a top ten must-see city (but avoid the summer)
Ljubljana you can skip. Pleasant but unexceptional
Australia is absolutely essential for its insane fauna. Everything else, the Barrier Reef, the Kimberley Coast, the endless Outback, the Queensland rainforests, the glorious Northern Territory, even Uluru, you can sort of find somewhere else, in some form
But NOTHING is like your first glimpse of a real live kangaroo in the wild. Under the gum trees. Staring at you. And then there's the wombats, koalas, wallabies, dingos, quolls, bilbys. pademelons, sugar gliders. platypi and the Ruffous Bettong. It is the nearest you can get to a different planet but equally as full of life
If you possibly can, go to Australia at least once and see a tree kangaroo fall out of a eucalypt
I mean, I have left the UK. I've been to a few of the world's big must see places, like Paris and New York. And if the weekend after next you plonked me in Rome I'm sure I'd have a very lovely time. But it is the experiences in these islands my heart yearns for - I think because I might so easily have done them when I had the time.
I might yet get to Australia. My sister-in-law's partner is Australian; they have a small baby, and are thinking of moving there. They are assuming we will visit regularly. And I'd very much like to see a kangaroo and all the other fellas. But, what, £10,000 and 24 hours travelling to get a family of five to Australia? Realistically we can only do it once, if at all. Whereas the Cuillins? You can get there with a tankful of petrol. I ought to have done that already. Why haven't I? So many years of fitting in with other people's plans when I might have made my own.
I hear you. On the other hand, you have almost certainly been an infinitely better father than me. My kids tell me they've forgiven me for being Not There so much, but I feel a fair amount of guilt, and I am sure I have done them harm. And yet I have seen the world in my selfishness (and my job, to be fair)
Something has to give, doesn't it?
However, your despair is foolish. You say you'll be done parenting at 59 - well 59 is nothing. I'm in my late 50s and just spent 3 months doing non stop travel from America to Armenia and back. And it was brilliant
Vow to yourself that you will do all this when you are 59, and do it
And don't spend £10k taking the entire family to Oz, it's really not worth it. You need to see it alone, or at most in a couple, so you can really get out there to the remote places. Remoteness is the point of Oz. The Atherton Tablelands! Kakadu! Coober Pedy! Arnhemland!
Keep fit as well. Exercise every week - and not just walking. Something that needs dexterity, stretching and flexibility. I took up rowing again, for this reason.
Yes, that's vital. If you're going to enjoy your later years, you need to be in good nick. Proper food, sensible exercise
Swimming is great. Or join a gym (but don't overdo it)
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Gaining little or nothing isn't enough. They need to pay reparations to Ukraine for their crime too.
For this war to end three things need to happen.
1: Russia needs to be expelled from all of Crimea, the Donbas and other territory it is occupying. 2: Russia needs to agree compensation to Ukraine for the damages it has inflicted. 3: Russia needs to sign a peace treaty recognising all of Ukraine, including Crimea and Donbas, as Ukrainian.
We'll see. I do, however, sense you straying into the sort of bellicosity I specifically said I didn't want to see. But if all of that remains on internet forums rather than in decision rooms I guess it's ok.
Perhaps it is worth thinking why you think that asking a county invading another country to completely stop invading another country and go back to the status quo ante is bellicose?
Precisely.
The way some apologists are acting, you'd think we were suggesting that the tanks should be rolling down the streets of Moscow and the first born child of every Russian family should be sacrificed in homage.
Leaving the country that has been invaded, paying reparations for the invasion, and promising not to invade again, is not bellicosity.
I am fine with being labelled bellicose about Ukraine. This is because I am quite hard core in my demands for the Ukrainian/China border.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Gaining little or nothing isn't enough. They need to pay reparations to Ukraine for their crime too.
For this war to end three things need to happen.
1: Russia needs to be expelled from all of Crimea, the Donbas and other territory it is occupying. 2: Russia needs to agree compensation to Ukraine for the damages it has inflicted. 3: Russia needs to sign a peace treaty recognising all of Ukraine, including Crimea and Donbas, as Ukrainian.
We'll see. I do, however, sense you straying into the sort of bellicosity I specifically said I didn't want to see. But if all of that remains on internet forums rather than in decision rooms I guess it's ok.
Perhaps it is worth thinking why you think that asking a county invading another country to completely stop invading another country and go back to the status quo ante is bellicose?
It isn't and I didn't say it was. I can spot bellicosity. Eg an earlier contribution from that particular poster - "we'll let them keep Moscow" - is the sort of thing I mean.
No, they can't keep Moscow. I'm taking that.
But you know what I mean. The tone. It's understandable, because this was and is an outrage from Putin (and therefore Russia), and so a brutal revenge rears its head, and like I say - ok on the internet but I'd hope decisions in the west (all of this assuming Russia truly is in permanent retreat now) aren't driven by that.
No, I don't know what you mean. How is it bellicose.
Moscow is their territory, in the past when countries lost wars their territory was often divided by the winners of the war - eg see what happened to Berlin post-war.
To be saying that the Russians can keep Moscow is the opposite of bellicose, it is bloody generous under the circumstances.
Man on the internet says he's being generous to allow the Russians to keep Moscow.
Just listen to yourself.
You have a problem with people on the internet having opinions?
Yes Russia keeping Moscow is extremely generous. You objecting to that makes me think maybe we should have Ukraine annex some Russian territory once all this is over to help secure the peace.
What do you think Russia's price should be for starting and losing a war of aggression?
Would be hilarious if the Ukrainians took the entire Black Sea Coast including Rostov.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
From what I hear Schiphol is fine if you are an important KLM customer but otherwise it's a complete mare if it's your starting point...
It is a shame because 30 years ago it used to be a lovely airport to travel through. Full of interesting shops and stalls and it was easy to spend a few hours there waiting for onward connections. Then they did the big renovation and it completely lost its soul and is now a place to be endured rather than enjoyed.
Mind you at least it isn't Charles de Gaulle. Easily the worst first world airport I have been through.
Charles de Gaulle is only the worst first world airport ... because Heathrow qualifies as a third world airport with its squalor, overcrowding & crap infrastructure.
Heathrow's fine, I don't see why people hate it so much. It's biggest problem is that it's so big.
I confess I quite like airport terminals (after you have gone through departures). Like motorway service stations I guess. Sit with a coffee, have a read, people-watch, a bit of googling, have another coffee.
You will love Singapore then.
Yes Changi. Been a couple of times. I really liked Singapore but a few days is enough.
First time with the first Mrs Stocky on honeymoon. Then a few years later with the second Mrs Stocky - staying at - ahem - the same hotel.
I bought my second engagement ring from the same jeweller as the first. He remembered me and our conservation about his website and the technology behind it, years before. Then gave me a very good price.
Not in the expectation of repeat business, I hope.
We did joke about it. He'd given me a good price on returning the first engagement ring as well. He was impressed with what I did with the wedding rings....
You are far better off buying jewellery at auction . Shops/dealers mark up is 300pc to 400pc
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Gaining little or nothing isn't enough. They need to pay reparations to Ukraine for their crime too.
For this war to end three things need to happen.
1: Russia needs to be expelled from all of Crimea, the Donbas and other territory it is occupying. 2: Russia needs to agree compensation to Ukraine for the damages it has inflicted. 3: Russia needs to sign a peace treaty recognising all of Ukraine, including Crimea and Donbas, as Ukrainian.
We'll see. I do, however, sense you straying into the sort of bellicosity I specifically said I didn't want to see. But if all of that remains on internet forums rather than in decision rooms I guess it's ok.
Perhaps it is worth thinking why you think that asking a county invading another country to completely stop invading another country and go back to the status quo ante is bellicose?
It isn't and I didn't say it was. I can spot bellicosity. Eg an earlier contribution from that particular poster - "we'll let them keep Moscow" - is the sort of thing I mean.
No, they can't keep Moscow. I'm taking that.
But you know what I mean. The tone. It's understandable, because this was and is an outrage from Putin (and therefore Russia), and so a brutal revenge rears its head, and like I say - ok on the internet but I'd hope decisions in the west (all of this assuming Russia truly is in permanent retreat now) aren't driven by that.
No, I don't know what you mean. How is it bellicose.
Moscow is their territory, in the past when countries lost wars their territory was often divided by the winners of the war - eg see what happened to Berlin post-war.
To be saying that the Russians can keep Moscow is the opposite of bellicose, it is bloody generous under the circumstances.
Man on the internet says he's being generous to allow the Russians to keep Moscow.
Just listen to yourself.
You have a problem with people on the internet having opinions?
Yes Russia keeping Moscow is extremely generous. You objecting to that makes me think maybe we should have Ukraine annex some Russian territory once all this is over to help secure the peace.
What do you think Russia's price should be for starting and losing a war of aggression?
Would be hilarious if the Ukrainians took the entire Black Sea Coast including Rostov.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Gaining little or nothing isn't enough. They need to pay reparations to Ukraine for their crime too.
For this war to end three things need to happen.
1: Russia needs to be expelled from all of Crimea, the Donbas and other territory it is occupying. 2: Russia needs to agree compensation to Ukraine for the damages it has inflicted. 3: Russia needs to sign a peace treaty recognising all of Ukraine, including Crimea and Donbas, as Ukrainian.
We'll see. I do, however, sense you straying into the sort of bellicosity I specifically said I didn't want to see. But if all of that remains on internet forums rather than in decision rooms I guess it's ok.
Perhaps it is worth thinking why you think that asking a county invading another country to completely stop invading another country and go back to the status quo ante is bellicose?
Precisely.
The way some apologists are acting, you'd think we were suggesting that the tanks should be rolling down the streets of Moscow and the first born child of every Russian family should be sacrificed in homage.
Leaving the country that has been invaded, paying reparations for the invasion, and promising not to invade again, is not bellicosity.
I am fine with being labelled bellicose about Ukraine. This is because I am quite hard core in my demands for the Ukrainian/China border.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Gaining little or nothing isn't enough. They need to pay reparations to Ukraine for their crime too.
For this war to end three things need to happen.
1: Russia needs to be expelled from all of Crimea, the Donbas and other territory it is occupying. 2: Russia needs to agree compensation to Ukraine for the damages it has inflicted. 3: Russia needs to sign a peace treaty recognising all of Ukraine, including Crimea and Donbas, as Ukrainian.
We'll see. I do, however, sense you straying into the sort of bellicosity I specifically said I didn't want to see. But if all of that remains on internet forums rather than in decision rooms I guess it's ok.
Perhaps it is worth thinking why you think that asking a county invading another country to completely stop invading another country and go back to the status quo ante is bellicose?
It isn't and I didn't say it was. I can spot bellicosity. Eg an earlier contribution from that particular poster - "we'll let them keep Moscow" - is the sort of thing I mean.
No, they can't keep Moscow. I'm taking that.
But you know what I mean. The tone. It's understandable, because this was and is an outrage from Putin (and therefore Russia), and so a brutal revenge rears its head, and like I say - ok on the internet but I'd hope decisions in the west (all of this assuming Russia truly is in permanent retreat now) aren't driven by that.
No, I don't know what you mean. How is it bellicose.
Moscow is their territory, in the past when countries lost wars their territory was often divided by the winners of the war - eg see what happened to Berlin post-war.
To be saying that the Russians can keep Moscow is the opposite of bellicose, it is bloody generous under the circumstances.
Man on the internet says he's being generous to allow the Russians to keep Moscow.
Just listen to yourself.
You have a problem with people on the internet having opinions?
Yes Russia keeping Moscow is extremely generous. You objecting to that makes me think maybe we should have Ukraine annex some Russian territory once all this is over to help secure the peace.
What do you think Russia's price should be for starting and losing a war of aggression?
Would be hilarious if the Ukrainians took the entire Black Sea Coast including Rostov.
Morally wrong and illegal, but hilarious.
Ukrainian Irredentism....
But given the elapse of time, we’d be talking about a real crime ‘ere.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Gaining little or nothing isn't enough. They need to pay reparations to Ukraine for their crime too.
For this war to end three things need to happen.
1: Russia needs to be expelled from all of Crimea, the Donbas and other territory it is occupying. 2: Russia needs to agree compensation to Ukraine for the damages it has inflicted. 3: Russia needs to sign a peace treaty recognising all of Ukraine, including Crimea and Donbas, as Ukrainian.
We'll see. I do, however, sense you straying into the sort of bellicosity I specifically said I didn't want to see. But if all of that remains on internet forums rather than in decision rooms I guess it's ok.
Perhaps it is worth thinking why you think that asking a county invading another country to completely stop invading another country and go back to the status quo ante is bellicose?
It isn't and I didn't say it was. I can spot bellicosity. Eg an earlier contribution from that particular poster - "we'll let them keep Moscow" - is the sort of thing I mean.
No, they can't keep Moscow. I'm taking that.
But you know what I mean. The tone. It's understandable, because this was and is an outrage from Putin (and therefore Russia), and so a brutal revenge rears its head, and like I say - ok on the internet but I'd hope decisions in the west (all of this assuming Russia truly is in permanent retreat now) aren't driven by that.
No, I don't know what you mean. How is it bellicose.
Moscow is their territory, in the past when countries lost wars their territory was often divided by the winners of the war - eg see what happened to Berlin post-war.
To be saying that the Russians can keep Moscow is the opposite of bellicose, it is bloody generous under the circumstances.
Man on the internet says he's being generous to allow the Russians to keep Moscow.
Just listen to yourself.
You have a problem with people on the internet having opinions?
Yes Russia keeping Moscow is extremely generous. You objecting to that makes me think maybe we should have Ukraine annex some Russian territory once all this is over to help secure the peace.
What do you think Russia's price should be for starting and losing a war of aggression?
Would be hilarious if the Ukrainians took the entire Black Sea Coast including Rostov.
Morally wrong and illegal, but hilarious.
Would it be illegal? Given they're the defenders in this was not the aggressor state.
If that's in the peace treaty it could be morally right and legal, but I don't expect it as people are still far too generous to Russia.
Generousity is as laughably irrelevant as what's right or just. The only issue is what they can take and hold by force. If the Ukrainians can get to Moscow and hold it without perishing in a nuclear firestrom then fucking good luck to them.
In reality if they put one boot over the border then Biden will pull the plug.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Gaining little or nothing isn't enough. They need to pay reparations to Ukraine for their crime too.
For this war to end three things need to happen.
1: Russia needs to be expelled from all of Crimea, the Donbas and other territory it is occupying. 2: Russia needs to agree compensation to Ukraine for the damages it has inflicted. 3: Russia needs to sign a peace treaty recognising all of Ukraine, including Crimea and Donbas, as Ukrainian.
We'll see. I do, however, sense you straying into the sort of bellicosity I specifically said I didn't want to see. But if all of that remains on internet forums rather than in decision rooms I guess it's ok.
Perhaps it is worth thinking why you think that asking a county invading another country to completely stop invading another country and go back to the status quo ante is bellicose?
It isn't and I didn't say it was. I can spot bellicosity. Eg an earlier contribution from that particular poster - "we'll let them keep Moscow" - is the sort of thing I mean.
No, they can't keep Moscow. I'm taking that.
But you know what I mean. The tone. It's understandable, because this was and is an outrage from Putin (and therefore Russia), and so a brutal revenge rears its head, and like I say - ok on the internet but I'd hope decisions in the west (all of this assuming Russia truly is in permanent retreat now) aren't driven by that.
No, I don't know what you mean. How is it bellicose.
Moscow is their territory, in the past when countries lost wars their territory was often divided by the winners of the war - eg see what happened to Berlin post-war.
To be saying that the Russians can keep Moscow is the opposite of bellicose, it is bloody generous under the circumstances.
Man on the internet says he's being generous to allow the Russians to keep Moscow.
Just listen to yourself.
You have a problem with people on the internet having opinions?
Yes Russia keeping Moscow is extremely generous. You objecting to that makes me think maybe we should have Ukraine annex some Russian territory once all this is over to help secure the peace.
What do you think Russia's price should be for starting and losing a war of aggression?
Would be hilarious if the Ukrainians took the entire Black Sea Coast including Rostov.
Morally wrong and illegal, but hilarious.
Would it be illegal? Given they're the defenders in this was not the aggressor state.
If that's in the peace treaty it could be morally right and legal, but I don't expect it as people are still far too generous to Russia.
I don’t think it would be illegal to invade Russia under these circumstances but it would be illegal to annex part of it, aggressor or no.
If Russia loses, all the people on Left and Right in the West that demanded a "compromise" that "accepts Russia's legitimate interests" will shift to accusing the West of having sucked Putin into a deliberate trap to crush Moscow
None of these people will rethink their positions
Prediction: this will also be the position of the Putin regime, or whatever more extreme despotism succeeds it, and that of most of the Russian population along with it. They think they're entitled to conquer and subjugate their neighbours at will, and when the plan goes wrong it's the fault of everyone but themselves. They're irredeemable.
Even if the Putin regime falls and is replaced by a more hard line government, that government is unlikely to last very long.
There is a growing sense of collapse on the Russian side. Rumours of an army mutiny are growing, and the reports that Kadyrov is sending forces "to support" the regime (not clear where but even, possibly, Moscow) suggests we may, just possibly, already be in some kind of end game. It appears that Kherson may fall even as early as this week, and the collapse of Russian forces in the Donbas seems to be accelerating, with UAF units getting close to Luhansk. Putin is said to be in Sochi, but as with the Czar in Pskov, that is no guarantee that he is safer there than in the capital.
Any new regime in Russia will need to deal with significant internal headwinds, and not least the Kadyrovtsi. The renewal of the Azerbaijani assault on Armenia is also yet another sign that the authority of Putin is draining away.
Personally, those who told me that, irrespective of morality or our own fundamental interests, the West should come to terms with Putin, now look more than just "wrong". The Baltic and Poland have been warning about Putin for 20 years. They were right and now the views of the front line states should count for a lot more than the discredited position of "compromise" with the rapist regime. Putin is likely to fall eventually, and that is a good thing, because irrespective of the short term, Russia has to change and it can not change with him still in the Kremlin. "Clinging hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse" is the perennial mistake of Western statecraft when dealing with Moscow and it fails every time.
For many people in countries that border Russia, the top pressing interest is in 'removing the threat', and this can be achieved through the 'defeat of Russia', even though that means 'embracing the chaos' that follows.
But the end game of what you are describing is the disintegration of Russia in to multiple statelets, run by a collection of warlords and dubious 'businessmen'; who inherit collections of nuclear weapons and other significant military infrastructure; who have no interest in constitutional democracy, and who 'work with' powers like China and Iran, and with a population who 'blame the west' for the second disintegration of the former Russian State and the chaos and poverty that ensues.
I've got no real embarrassment about looking at the situation and concluding that there may just be some merit in 'clinging to nurse'. We need to remember what happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi in Libya.
So what is your actual policy proposal ? That we force Ukraine to accept Russian territorial seizures, and just live with the enormous damage they have wreaked ?
All those complaining that those backing Ukraine 'have no endgame' don't seem to have any problem with their own equally uncertain, and far less justified position.
From all I have seen and read, I would go with the long term position of the west towards Russia as the 'least worst/only viable option' - IE Putin gets an 'off ramp' and there is some kind of 'deal' that secures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within the EU orbit, as well as the independence of Russia in relation to China, and some restoration of trade with Russia.
This puts me in a total minority and will evoke many Hitler comparisons but it is a product of doing my best to think objectively about the situation, despite initially being in the 'beat back Russia' camp at the start of the campaign.
If you want to just 'embrace chaos' then you should reflect on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or indeed in the Soviet union in the early 1990s which ultimately led to the arrival of Putin on the scene. You are taking a massive risk. If it works it will be because you were lucky.
You're not addressing the arguments, just a phrase.
As I've pointed out, Applebaum isn't arguing that we depose Putin, or even seek to encourage such a thing. She saying, and I agree with her, that Putin's survival or otherwise simply isn't in our gift. The consequences of a defeat of his invasion are something Russia will decide.
If you're arguing that the west should treat a defeated Russia with a degree of magnanimity, then I wouldn't disagree. But what are you actually arguing for, rather than against ?
@Nigelb The manner of his 'defeat', if this is to occur (which is not certain) will impact on whether his regime 'survives' or not. So I would disagree with Applebaums characterisation of the situation, in this respect.
I am cautioning against the rhetoric of 'beating back Putin' to the point where the regime collapses. This is taking unnecessary risks of nuclear escalation, and/or a failed state. This is my objection to the 'embrace the chaos' thinking going on.
In the end, it is the west who are determining the outcome of the war in Ukraine because the hard reality is without western aid Ukraine would not be succeeding. They are doing a great job and I support them, but they turned things round by persuading the west to back them significantly.
I don't think we can meddle with succession and agree with Applebaum on that point. There is a succession problem already with Putin's regime, which will apply irrespective of what happens because of Putins age/health. However, observing from a long distance, there is a successor in Dmitry Medvedev who was well regarded by European leaders when he was president from 2008-2012.
It may just be a case of better the devil you know.
I don't think the west can finetune the outcome really. Not to the extent of choosing between granular types of Russian defeats. And even if they could I'm not sure how useful it would be since it's highly uncertain how Putin will react and how others in Russia will react to Putin's reaction.
This. It's a delusion to think that we can meaningfully influence internal Russian politics, except to the extent that we defend our interests and values and reward them for moves towards better international behaviour.
Russians are responsible for Russian choices. Not the West. The West is responsible for our reactions to those choices, and in this instance that has to be clear that (1) there is no reward for aggression, and, (2) we are not going to meddle in internal Russian affairs.
Yes the 'aggression brings no gain' outcome is imo the key here. I've never really looked at this as a war. For me it presents more accurately as a crime with a perp and a victim.
What I wouldn't want to see, however, is bellicosity of the "right, we'll teach these Russian bastards" sort. Fact is, if Putin ends up gaining little or nothing having gone all-in on this "operation" that is in practice a terrible defeat.
So let's get there and then see what happens.
Gaining little or nothing isn't enough. They need to pay reparations to Ukraine for their crime too.
For this war to end three things need to happen.
1: Russia needs to be expelled from all of Crimea, the Donbas and other territory it is occupying. 2: Russia needs to agree compensation to Ukraine for the damages it has inflicted. 3: Russia needs to sign a peace treaty recognising all of Ukraine, including Crimea and Donbas, as Ukrainian.
We'll see. I do, however, sense you straying into the sort of bellicosity I specifically said I didn't want to see. But if all of that remains on internet forums rather than in decision rooms I guess it's ok.
Perhaps it is worth thinking why you think that asking a county invading another country to completely stop invading another country and go back to the status quo ante is bellicose?
Precisely.
The way some apologists are acting, you'd think we were suggesting that the tanks should be rolling down the streets of Moscow and the first born child of every Russian family should be sacrificed in homage.
Leaving the country that has been invaded, paying reparations for the invasion, and promising not to invade again, is not bellicosity.
I am fine with being labelled bellicose about Ukraine. This is because I am quite hard core in my demands for the Ukrainian/China border.
Totally off topic, but younger son, who is trying to return from an exhibition in Amsterdam, has done so by sea because of the massive queues at security at the airport! So it's not just Heathrow! So he's now on his way to Heathrow to fly back home to Bangkok. Wonder what the situation will be when he gets to Heathrow.
I do keep hearing about air travel chaos. I'm meant to be starting serious foreign travel again, after a long break, and it's not encouraging me. Maybe best to just stay put for now.
I’ve gone through LGW without incident several times now….
Think I'm just looking for excuses - got used to staying still and the world revolving around me rather than the other way around.
Don’t.
Someone I know got used to doing absolutely nothing and seeing no one during covid. Like a hermit
Even when covid ended she maintained this new monastic isolation. She went from being sociable and active and keen on travel, to inertia, isolation, staying-at-home
Recently this person was diagnosed with a terminal illness and was given a few short months to live, at most. And she is now UNABLE to travel. Much as she might want to
She now bitterly regrets the ~3 years spent in self imposed confinement and it wasn’t even Covid that got her, in the end
You’re in your 60s. You can still see the world. Do it before you no longer can
Well it's not a Covid thing and, like I say, I have travelled a lot previously.
But, yes, there are some trips I'd like to do and if I don't do them through inertia that wouldn't be great.
This opens the door for a lament. I'm 47. I have recently become rather more acutely aware of the finity of my remaining years. What's brought this about is looking at OS maps. I've walked a lot in Britain, but there's so much more I haven't done than I have, and it seems rather too much to achieve in my remaining years of fitness. I get maybe three, four days to myself, free of parental responsibility each year. Obviously that will grow as the kids get older, but I'll be 59 by the time my youngest is 18. I long for the freedom I could have had in my 20s before kids came along. I should have been so much more focused on what I wanted to do, and done it myself. I should have spent several long weekends a year in the Highlands of Scotland reaching the inaccessible places. I should have walked up every Wainwright. I should have cycled the whole of the North of England, the whole of Ireland. I should never, ever have replied to the question 'do anything this weekend' with 'oh, not much.'
I've never felt the need (or indeed had the budget) to go everywhere in the world. If I die without seeing Rome or Ljubljana or Australia or South America, well, shrug, you can't do everything. If I never dive or bungee jump, well, so be it. But there are things I really did want to do, but they never seemed pressing, and now I'm married with kids I may never get the chance.
If you are young, care not what plans your friends or girlfriends make: if there are things you want to do, do them. You will never have more time and energy than you do now.
It is, always, later than you think
Gotta say you are missing a bit of the wider world
Rome is tremendous, a top ten must-see city (but avoid the summer)
Ljubljana you can skip. Pleasant but unexceptional
Australia is absolutely essential for its insane fauna. Everything else, the Barrier Reef, the Kimberley Coast, the endless Outback, the Queensland rainforests, the glorious Northern Territory, even Uluru, you can sort of find somewhere else, in some form
But NOTHING is like your first glimpse of a real live kangaroo in the wild. Under the gum trees. Staring at you. And then there's the wombats, koalas, wallabies, dingos, quolls, bilbys. pademelons, sugar gliders. platypi and the Ruffous Bettong. It is the nearest you can get to a different planet but equally as full of life
If you possibly can, go to Australia at least once and see a tree kangaroo fall out of a eucalypt
I mean, I have left the UK. I've been to a few of the world's big must see places, like Paris and New York. And if the weekend after next you plonked me in Rome I'm sure I'd have a very lovely time. But it is the experiences in these islands my heart yearns for - I think because I might so easily have done them when I had the time.
I might yet get to Australia. My sister-in-law's partner is Australian; they have a small baby, and are thinking of moving there. They are assuming we will visit regularly. And I'd very much like to see a kangaroo and all the other fellas. But, what, £10,000 and 24 hours travelling to get a family of five to Australia? Realistically we can only do it once, if at all. Whereas the Cuillins? You can get there with a tankful of petrol. I ought to have done that already. Why haven't I? So many years of fitting in with other people's plans when I might have made my own.
I hear you. On the other hand, you have almost certainly been an infinitely better father than me. My kids tell me they've forgiven me for being Not There so much, but I feel a fair amount of guilt, and I am sure I have done them harm. And yet I have seen the world in my selfishness (and my job, to be fair)
Something has to give, doesn't it?
However, your despair is foolish. You say you'll be done parenting at 59 - well 59 is nothing. I'm in my late 50s and just spent 3 months doing non stop travel from America to Armenia and back. And it was brilliant
Vow to yourself that you will do all this when you are 59, and do it
And don't spend £10k taking the entire family to Oz, it's really not worth it. You need to see it alone, or at most in a couple, so you can really get out there to the remote places. Remoteness is the point of Oz. The Atherton Tablelands! Kakadu! Coober Pedy! Arnhemland!
I have been fortunate to have a personal situation whereby I can do a lot of travelling by myself ; I've been up to Scotland a couple of times and also across northern Europe on various self indulgent train rides.
What I realised is something that I knew already from my backpacking in South East Asia two decades ago, even though there are some quite good memories, It all becomes pretty pointless and mundane very quickly.
I only get some kind of meaning and purpose and enjoyment out of life where I am helping other people in some way, this is not really achieved through travelling somewhere by myself.
NOTE - This is just my own 'lived experience'/ opinion, I'm not commenting on other people.
Comments
The USSR was an evil Empire. Nazi Germany and Pol Pot's Cambodia were evil, and modern day China and Russia are evil too.
[H]ours before news of Queen Elizabeth II’s death spread, Prime Minister Narendra Modi delivered a fiery speech urging India to shed its colonial ties in a ceremony to rename a boulevard that once honored King George V.
Rajpath, formerly called Kingsway, was a “symbol of slavery” under the British Raj, he said. Instead, under the newly named Kartavya Path that leads to the iconic India Gate, “a new history has been created,” Modi beamed.
His speech last Thursday was the latest in a concerted drive to purge India of its colonial relics. It was also a clear sign that the country, once the largest of Britain’s colonies that endured two centuries of imperial rule, has moved on.
The renovated avenue now boasts a black granite statue of Indian freedom fighter Subhas Chandra Bose, in the place where a mold of King George V, Elizabeth’s grandfather, once stood.
The queen’s death provoked sympathies to a deeply respected figure from some while for a few others, it jogged memories of a bloody history under the British crown. But among most regular Indians, the news was met with an indifferent shrug.
https://apnews.com/article/queen-elizabeth-ii-king-charles-iii-new-delhi-government-and-politics-75998b34449dbbf771a5adfc6831c478
And if the republicans get their way, maybe they might expropriate the royal family's property and get away with it, but that's not where we are now.
It does give the impression he would prefer Starmer to win than Truss in revenge for his loss
I have noticed this for a while now and treat his posts with that in mind
Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. Profit.
Now I can't walk more than about 50 yards, and that with a walker. I'm hopeful that I might hear good news, though, when I see a spinal surgeon later this week.
However that only underlines the advice to take your opportunity while you can!
KM - Have you read the Cass Review?
JN - I have read a short summary.
KM - asking for a break.
JN - I have other duties, we are 90 minutes in and we haven't yet discussed their charitable duties.
KM - if the witness would answer the question we could finish more quickly
https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1569632412338102272
The Crown Estate are not the royal family's private property. It isn't the private, taxed or earnt possession of the Mountbatten-Windsor family, they have it by virtue of having "the Crown", if they lose the Crown then the Estates pass to the new bearer of the Crown.
If it were the private property of an individual then post-abdication it could have remained the private property of Edward VIII post-abdication. It didn't, because it was never his personal property.
There was no redemption, just misery. Erecting a statue to a Nazi who fought against his countrymen, in place of George V, seems ... perverse.
I'm 47. I have recently become rather more acutely aware of the finity of my remaining years. What's brought this about is looking at OS maps. I've walked a lot in Britain, but there's so much more I haven't done than I have, and it seems rather too much to achieve in my remaining years of fitness. I get maybe three, four days to myself, free of parental responsibility each year. Obviously that will grow as the kids get older, but I'll be 59 by the time my youngest is 18.
I long for the freedom I could have had in my 20s before kids came along. I should have been so much more focused on what I wanted to do, and done it myself. I should have spent several long weekends a year in the Highlands of Scotland reaching the inaccessible places. I should have walked up every Wainwright. I should have cycled the whole of the North of England, the whole of Ireland.
I should never, ever have replied to the question 'do anything this weekend' with 'oh, not much.'
I've never felt the need (or indeed had the budget) to go everywhere in the world. If I die without seeing Rome or Ljubljana or Australia or South America, well, shrug, you can't do everything. If I never dive or bungee jump, well, so be it. But there are things I really did want to do, but they never seemed pressing, and now I'm married with kids I may never get the chance.
If you are young, care not what plans your friends or girlfriends make: if there are things you want to do, do them. You will never have more time and energy than you do now.
Its not private property. Never has been.
I cannot stress how damning this is. People who claim to have the best interests of children at heart can't even be bothered to properly engage with the evidence produced by an independent review.
https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1569632630722957312
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/13/revealed-how-uk-targeted-american-civil-rights-leader-stokely-carmichael-covert
Nobody comes out of this very well, though there were elements of restraint in the British approach.
This is a exciting, hopeful but also scary moment in the war and a paradigm shift. The only true parallels I can think of are the Arab Israeli conflicts in the 60s and 70s.
Long ago and far away condoms were only stocked by barbers and the code was “something for the weekend, sir?”
Moscow is their territory, in the past when countries lost wars their territory was often divided by the winners of the war - eg see what happened to Berlin post-war.
To be saying that the Russians can keep Moscow is the opposite of bellicose, it is bloody generous under the circumstances.
The mind absolutely boggles. I would have thought this the sort of situation which might well cause a row.
Given that our goal has to be reduce energy demand, this means it's the poorest who are expected to cut back most, while the richest have essentially no invective.
Personally, I would announce an across the board - taxable - £600/year energy grant.
This means that the incentive for consumers to reduce demand is extremely strong, while (hopefully) making sure the poorest can heat and light their homes.
It even says so on the Crown Estates own website!
Who owns The Crown Estate?
The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.
The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation - established by statute - headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners), and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of the nation's finances.
If the Monarch leaves the throne, they lose the Crown and all rights therein.
Gotta say you are missing a bit of the wider world
Rome is tremendous, a top ten must-see city (but avoid the summer)
Ljubljana you can skip. Pleasant but unexceptional
Australia is absolutely essential for its insane fauna. Everything else, the Barrier Reef, the Kimberley Coast, the endless Outback, the Queensland rainforests, the glorious Northern Territory, even Uluru, you can sort of find somewhere else, in some form
But NOTHING is like your first glimpse of a real live kangaroo in the wild. Under the gum trees. Staring at you. And then there's the wombats, koalas, wallabies, dingos, quolls, bilbys. pademelons, sugar gliders. platypi and the Ruffous Bettong. It is the nearest you can get to a different planet but equally as full of life
If you possibly can, go to Australia at least once and see a tree kangaroo fall out of a eucalypt
And those in the biggest houses will see bills more than double from what they were paying in 2021. The "cap" is not a "cap", if they use more they pay more.
I would also note that at LAX, one now has to get a 10 minute bus ride to a windswept parking lot to get an Uber or cab. And frequently the first two buses are full, so you're waiting 10, 15 minutes to even get on the bus.
There's also no Airtrain at LAX to get you between the terminals.
So, with respect, I think LAX has JFK beat.
That said... My worst US airport experience was actually at Miami, where my wife and I missed a four hour connection due to queues at immigration that stretched a hundred meters beyond the immigration hall. And they lost our luggage.
The cap is based on average usage. Use more, pay more.
It is perhaps the greatest destination of all. And yes, I drank cognac on the Antarctic ice-shelf. Tho it is probably the one continent where you don't need to drink, as everything is so brilliantly dreamlike it feels like you are drunk all the time anyway
I was late for a work meeting this morning, organised by a republican colleague. Enjoyed them having to accept my excuse!
And given it's likely to be the basis for the businesses plan, how might that then work ?
The other point is that should prices drop further on a Russian defeat, the cost to the government comes down too with the arrangements adopted.
Better than not flying out, though.
"We was robbed by NATO, init?"
https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2022/sep/13/jean-luc-godard-dead-breathless-bardot-french-new-wave
I might yet get to Australia. My sister-in-law's partner is Australian; they have a small baby, and are thinking of moving there. They are assuming we will visit regularly. And I'd very much like to see a kangaroo and all the other fellas. But, what, £10,000 and 24 hours travelling to get a family of five to Australia? Realistically we can only do it once, if at all. Whereas the Cuillins? You can get there with a tankful of petrol. I ought to have done that already. Why haven't I? So many years of fitting in with other people's plans when I might have made my own.
Something has to give, doesn't it?
However, your despair is foolish. You say you'll be done parenting at 59 - well 59 is nothing. I'm in my late 50s and just spent 3 months doing non stop travel from America to Armenia and back. And it was brilliant
Vow to yourself that you will do all this when you are 59, and do it
And don't spend £10k taking the entire family to Oz, it's really not worth it. You need to see it alone, or at most in a couple, so you can really get out there to the remote places. Remoteness is the point of Oz. The Atherton Tablelands! Kakadu! Coober Pedy! Arnhemland!
Just listen to yourself.
Btw if anyone or their family does need any tutoring in History, Politics, Religious Studies or English Literature feel free to send me a VM.
Germany gets trenchant and justified criticism, but France's effort is truly pathetic
That doesn't mean I think she was perfect. She made mistakes. But there's a time and place.
However, I want to defend the right of others to express their viewpoint. Arresting them for doing so is disgraceful. But we saw this sort of itch to head into a police state during lockdown and over Sarah Everard.
Yes Russia keeping Moscow is extremely generous. You objecting to that makes me think maybe we should have Ukraine annex some Russian territory once all this is over to help secure the peace.
What do you think Russia's price should be for starting and losing a war of aggression?
While Ive done snippets, what I really want to do is an updated version of the old Grand Tour but that’s a thankless dream with small children. Overland through Roman and renaissance Italy to Greece, and then further back in time to Egypt, Jordan and the very beginning in Turkey. And if I was feeling really adventurous Ethiopia. Then a barmy army tour in the Caribbean to relax after all that. Followed by a long USA road trip. I’ve done 90% of the places with undrinkable tap water that appeal to me but have seen surprisingly little of the OECD.
Swimming is great. Or join a gym (but don't overdo it)
Morally wrong and illegal, but hilarious.
France has given LESS THAN LUXEMBOURG
Shops/dealers mark up is 300pc to 400pc
If that's in the peace treaty it could be morally right and legal, but I don't expect it as people are still far too generous to Russia.
In reality if they put one boot over the border then Biden will pull the plug.
Exhibit A - the West Bank.
I have been fortunate to have a personal situation whereby I can do a lot of travelling by myself ; I've been up to Scotland a couple of times and also across northern Europe on various self indulgent train rides.
What I realised is something that I knew already from my backpacking in South East Asia two decades ago, even though there are some quite good memories, It all becomes pretty pointless and mundane very quickly.
I only get some kind of meaning and purpose and enjoyment out of life where I am helping other people in some way, this is not really achieved through travelling somewhere by myself.
NOTE - This is just my own 'lived experience'/ opinion, I'm not commenting on other people.