That is hardly surprising though is it? The new 'red tape' is new. The old red tape is long standing and businesses have learned to live with it. Doesn't mean that there are no benefits to be gained.
Fair point, but when people look for those potential benefits - even when someone as intellectually impressive and ideologically committed as Jacob Rees-Mogg looks for them - they don't seem to be able to find any.
[There is one exception, which is planning law and the associated red tape, but it's politically a hugely difficult one to tackle, and a good way of losing elections.]
And ironically, that's one that's self-inflicted, nowt to do with Brussels.
But it requires massive intellectual integrity to say "hey ho, my life's work was pointless". Scientists struggle with it, and the feedback mechanisms are pretty fast and inescapable there. It's a lot to ask of politicians.
Hence the physics aphorism that wrong ideas are rejected one professorial funeral at a time.
“Make no mistake: the war in Ukraine just moved up a dangerous gear. Far from turning into the frozen conflict that could have tested the West’s staying power, Ukraine’s recent major counteroffensive has so humiliated Putin that there is every expectation he will now play even uglier than he has already.”
Ah, whatever. It’s just war with Russia. No biggie
Indeed. Its not as if we're talking about war with an actual international power like China. 🤷♂️
Russia's Potemkin military have been destroyed already. They've got no tanks left, no logistics, no air superiority, no naval superiority, no Moskva. They have nothing left and if they want to send untrained, unarmed conscripts into a meat grinder, then that's not going to change the course of the war.
Russia need to be kicked out of Ukraine, all of Ukraine including Crimea. If they don't stop, then we need to go all the way to Moscow, just as Hitler saw Berlin fall.
Consider what you are saying, and the fate of those who have tried going all the way to Moscow in the past.
Fighting Russia is always a dirty, bloody and horrible thing. We have no real idea how mobilisation might affect the wider Russian populace. It might galvanise them.
Is it too much to hope that he might set an example and return Cyprus and the chunk he's taken of Syria to their rightful owners?
Almost certainly, yes.
I think you're rather missing the point. This isn't about moral authority (of which Erdogan possesses very little indeed) but about Putin's international isolation.
I think many leaders have been isolated internationally. They need key allies not to desert them and they can brush the rest off. That is why the China relationship is so important. I think the people who support (or, more accurately, didn't condemn) him represent billions of people, don't they?
Has China supplied a single artillery round to Russia ? I think the relationship is likely to grow frostier still if the nuclear talk continues.
I'm sure Russia could use munitions from everywhere but that wasn't my point. China didn't condemn Russia at the UN, did they? I don't think so. Neither did India IIRC. And I don't think India sent them any tanks either. The issue being "international isolation" isn't complete without a great deal more of the world's population. Because surely you're not seeing this through the prism of the Anglo-American axis only.
Hence the importance of the China relationship.
Oh, in those terms I don't disagree. But it does seem that the relationship is getting significantly less friendly.
My point is that attempts to escalate beyond a certain point risk losing the acquiescence of such states.
Yes. That is the balancing act. But I tend to agree with @Leon even if he is doing a stopped clock thing.
It is difficult to see a route that doesn't involve escalation and perhaps, if not likely, tactical nuclear weapons.
Feels pretty weird writing that but I just don't see an off ramp.
Now....when Richard Sherriff said this morning (he has said it before) that we (the UK) should be on a war footing, spend a shitload more on defence, and invite Ukraine to join NATO, I see the size of any off ramp decrease rapidly. This is manifestly not to say "it's our fault" and I don't rate British army chiefs that highly at all, but I just don't see a great end to this. If both ex Dep SACEUR and @BartholomewRoberts are calling for Russia to give up Crimea, and invite Ukraine into NATO then the space for negotiation (always 100% for Ukraine to decide) diminishes somewhat.
Russia sees no opportunity to end the war in Ukraine through diplomacy – press secretary of 🇷🇺president Dmitry Peskov
Honestly, it's quite hard to see a negotiated settlement which doesn't included security guarantees for Ukraine that are more or less equivalent to NATO membership - otherwise what incentive does Ukraine have to settle ? What otherwise would prevent round three from Putin in a few years' time ?
It is hard to see where to compromise with a country committed to a war of aggression, and very evidently not bother by being seen to commit atrocities in the pursuit of that war.
Having said that, a negotiation over Crimea is entirely possible were Russia to pull out of Luhansk/Donbas.
Zelensky offered - early in the war - some kind of independent status for Crimea.
“Make no mistake: the war in Ukraine just moved up a dangerous gear. Far from turning into the frozen conflict that could have tested the West’s staying power, Ukraine’s recent major counteroffensive has so humiliated Putin that there is every expectation he will now play even uglier than he has already.”
I don't think it helps him, however. Throwing thousands of untrained men into the conflict will just mean more Russian dead.
It also increases the chances of revolt soon in Russia, just as happened in WWI.
Giving weapons to people who don't want to fight and telling them to march to their deaths tends to increase the chances that those weapons will be turned on you.
Truss’s concession that a US-UK trade deal is not on the cards is actually to be welcomed.
Brexit can’t work as a pack of lies, which was the effective strategy 2016-2022.
It should be avoided for as long as possible. The only reason that Trump was so keen on it was that he was furious about America's negative bop with Britain and wanted to sort it out. That tells you all you need to know.
As someone who has done business in the UK, France, the US and Switzerland, I can assure people that the two most regulatory heavy countries are the last two, while the UK has the fewest regulations.
Indeed, it's really odd that people think the US is a low-regulation economy. It's extremely bureaucratic (although it does vary between states).
The referenda in Ukraine is just another example of Russian overreach. The fact they are including Kherson Oblast, which they can't possibly reconquer, plays into Ukraine's hands. Ukraine can say to the West, well we already have most of this territory and so if it's ok for us to grab this, there is no different between that and reconquering Donetsk or Crimea.
Truss’s concession that a US-UK trade deal is not on the cards is actually to be welcomed.
Brexit can’t work as a pack of lies, which was the effective strategy 2016-2022.
I agree and I hope she and Macron had a cordial meeting as sensible solutions are available to both NI and the channel crossings especially as she is also seeing UVDL today as well
Truss’s concession that a US-UK trade deal is not on the cards is actually to be welcomed.
Brexit can’t work as a pack of lies, which was the effective strategy 2016-2022.
It should be avoided for as long as possible. The only reason that Trump was so keen on it was that he was furious about America's negative bop with Britain and wanted to sort it out. That tells you all you need to know.
CPTPP I have higher hopes for.
America will be forced to join CPTPP eventually, so we should get in there quick and tailor it to our liking as much as possible before they do.
Is it too much to hope that he might set an example and return Cyprus and the chunk he's taken of Syria to their rightful owners?
Almost certainly, yes.
I think you're rather missing the point. This isn't about moral authority (of which Erdogan possesses very little indeed) but about Putin's international isolation.
I think many leaders have been isolated internationally. They need key allies not to desert them and they can brush the rest off. That is why the China relationship is so important. I think the people who support (or, more accurately, didn't condemn) him represent billions of people, don't they?
Has China supplied a single artillery round to Russia ? I think the relationship is likely to grow frostier still if the nuclear talk continues.
I'm sure Russia could use munitions from everywhere but that wasn't my point. China didn't condemn Russia at the UN, did they? I don't think so. Neither did India IIRC. And I don't think India sent them any tanks either. The issue being "international isolation" isn't complete without a great deal more of the world's population. Because surely you're not seeing this through the prism of the Anglo-American axis only.
Hence the importance of the China relationship.
Oh, in those terms I don't disagree. But it does seem that the relationship is getting significantly less friendly.
My point is that attempts to escalate beyond a certain point risk losing the acquiescence of such states.
Yes. That is the balancing act. But I tend to agree with @Leon even if he is doing a stopped clock thing.
It is difficult to see a route that doesn't involve escalation and perhaps, if not likely, tactical nuclear weapons.
Feels pretty weird writing that but I just don't see an off ramp.
Now....when Richard Sherriff said this morning (he has said it before) that we (the UK) should be on a war footing, spend a shitload more on defence, and invite Ukraine to join NATO, I see the size of any off ramp decrease rapidly. This is manifestly not to say "it's our fault" and I don't rate British army chiefs that highly at all, but I just don't see a great end to this. If both ex Dep SACEUR and @BartholomewRoberts are calling for Russia to give up Crimea, and invite Ukraine into NATO then the space for negotiation (always 100% for Ukraine to decide) diminishes somewhat.
Russia sees no opportunity to end the war in Ukraine through diplomacy – press secretary of 🇷🇺president Dmitry Peskov
Honestly, it's quite hard to see a negotiated settlement which doesn't included security guarantees for Ukraine that are more or less equivalent to NATO membership - otherwise what incentive does Ukraine have to settle ? What otherwise would prevent round three from Putin in a few years' time ?
It is hard to see where to compromise with a country committed to a war of aggression, and very evidently not bother by being seen to commit atrocities in the pursuit of that war.
Having said that, a negotiation over Crimea is entirely possible were Russia to pull out of Luhansk/Donbas.
Zelensky offered - early in the war - some kind of independent status for Crimea.
He hinted at it, but has now said explicitly Ukraine should restore all of its territory. Russia missed its chance.
Ah, whatever. It’s just war with Russia. No biggie
Indeed. Its not as if we're talking about war with an actual international power like China. 🤷♂️
Russia's Potemkin military have been destroyed already. They've got no tanks left, no logistics, no air superiority, no naval superiority, no Moskva. They have nothing left and if they want to send untrained, unarmed conscripts into a meat grinder, then that's not going to change the course of the war.
Russia need to be kicked out of Ukraine, all of Ukraine including Crimea. If they don't stop, then we need to go all the way to Moscow, just as Hitler saw Berlin fall.
Consider what you are saying, and the fate of those who have tried going all the way to Moscow in the past.
Fighting Russia is always a dirty, bloody and horrible thing. We have no real idea how mobilisation might affect the wider Russian populace. It might galvanise them.
Galvanise them with what equipment?
Russia has been fought for just under 7 months and in that time they've lost their naval flagship, two thirds of their armoured vehicles and thousands of square miles in recent weeks. What exactly are they going to be equipping untrained recruits with?
Truss’s concession that a US-UK trade deal is not on the cards is actually to be welcomed.
Brexit can’t work as a pack of lies, which was the effective strategy 2016-2022.
I agree and I hope she and Macron had a cordial meeting as sensible solutions are available to both NI and the channel crossings especially as she is also seeing UVDL today as well
If Truss can reach a deal on NI and the Crossings, and tackle planning dysfunction, I will be pleased and impressed.
I’m not quite yet ruling it out.
The working time directive and bankers bonus stuff though does not suggest we are dealing with a King Solomon.
Ah, whatever. It’s just war with Russia. No biggie
Indeed. Its not as if we're talking about war with an actual international power like China. 🤷♂️
Russia's Potemkin military have been destroyed already. They've got no tanks left, no logistics, no air superiority, no naval superiority, no Moskva. They have nothing left and if they want to send untrained, unarmed conscripts into a meat grinder, then that's not going to change the course of the war.
Russia need to be kicked out of Ukraine, all of Ukraine including Crimea. If they don't stop, then we need to go all the way to Moscow, just as Hitler saw Berlin fall.
Consider what you are saying, and the fate of those who have tried going all the way to Moscow in the past.
Fighting Russia is always a dirty, bloody and horrible thing. We have no real idea how mobilisation might affect the wider Russian populace. It might galvanise them.
We have no need to go all the way to Moscow. We just need to restore Ukrainian territorial integrity. That will be enough for the fall of Putin and his replacement.
As someone who has done business in the UK, France, the US and Switzerland, I can assure people that the two most regulatory heavy countries are the last two, while the UK has the fewest regulations.
Indeed, it's really odd that people think the US is a low-regulation economy. It's extremely bureaucratic (although it does vary between states).
Quite a few Americans in business, that I know, talk of the "The Land Of The Fee".
You need a license to any kind of business. Usually multiple. When you tell them you can just open a barbers shop in the UK, the startled expressions - without a zoning permit, a permit from the licensing board for barbers.. is the UK an anarchy?
There does seem to be a dynamic where American business, when it is unregulated, really takes a country mile. Leading to hard regulation. Which then.....
Is it too much to hope that he might set an example and return Cyprus and the chunk he's taken of Syria to their rightful owners?
Almost certainly, yes.
I think you're rather missing the point. This isn't about moral authority (of which Erdogan possesses very little indeed) but about Putin's international isolation.
I think many leaders have been isolated internationally. They need key allies not to desert them and they can brush the rest off. That is why the China relationship is so important. I think the people who support (or, more accurately, didn't condemn) him represent billions of people, don't they?
Has China supplied a single artillery round to Russia ? I think the relationship is likely to grow frostier still if the nuclear talk continues.
I'm sure Russia could use munitions from everywhere but that wasn't my point. China didn't condemn Russia at the UN, did they? I don't think so. Neither did India IIRC. And I don't think India sent them any tanks either. The issue being "international isolation" isn't complete without a great deal more of the world's population. Because surely you're not seeing this through the prism of the Anglo-American axis only.
Hence the importance of the China relationship.
Oh, in those terms I don't disagree. But it does seem that the relationship is getting significantly less friendly.
My point is that attempts to escalate beyond a certain point risk losing the acquiescence of such states.
Yes. That is the balancing act. But I tend to agree with @Leon even if he is doing a stopped clock thing.
It is difficult to see a route that doesn't involve escalation and perhaps, if not likely, tactical nuclear weapons.
Feels pretty weird writing that but I just don't see an off ramp.
Now....when Richard Sherriff said this morning (he has said it before) that we (the UK) should be on a war footing, spend a shitload more on defence, and invite Ukraine to join NATO, I see the size of any off ramp decrease rapidly. This is manifestly not to say "it's our fault" and I don't rate British army chiefs that highly at all, but I just don't see a great end to this. If both ex Dep SACEUR and @BartholomewRoberts are calling for Russia to give up Crimea, and invite Ukraine into NATO then the space for negotiation (always 100% for Ukraine to decide) diminishes somewhat.
Russia sees no opportunity to end the war in Ukraine through diplomacy – press secretary of 🇷🇺president Dmitry Peskov
Honestly, it's quite hard to see a negotiated settlement which doesn't included security guarantees for Ukraine that are more or less equivalent to NATO membership - otherwise what incentive does Ukraine have to settle ? What otherwise would prevent round three from Putin in a few years' time ?
It is hard to see where to compromise with a country committed to a war of aggression, and very evidently not bother by being seen to commit atrocities in the pursuit of that war.
Having said that, a negotiation over Crimea is entirely possible were Russia to pull out of Luhansk/Donbas.
Zelensky offered - early in the war - some kind of independent status for Crimea.
And said only a couple of days back that Ukraine would recover Crimea "by diplomatic means". There's clearly still some wiggle room there. Donetsk/Luhansk I think are unnegotiable, though.
Is it too much to hope that he might set an example and return Cyprus and the chunk he's taken of Syria to their rightful owners?
Almost certainly, yes.
I think you're rather missing the point. This isn't about moral authority (of which Erdogan possesses very little indeed) but about Putin's international isolation.
I think many leaders have been isolated internationally. They need key allies not to desert them and they can brush the rest off. That is why the China relationship is so important. I think the people who support (or, more accurately, didn't condemn) him represent billions of people, don't they?
Has China supplied a single artillery round to Russia ? I think the relationship is likely to grow frostier still if the nuclear talk continues.
I'm sure Russia could use munitions from everywhere but that wasn't my point. China didn't condemn Russia at the UN, did they? I don't think so. Neither did India IIRC. And I don't think India sent them any tanks either. The issue being "international isolation" isn't complete without a great deal more of the world's population. Because surely you're not seeing this through the prism of the Anglo-American axis only.
Hence the importance of the China relationship.
Oh, in those terms I don't disagree. But it does seem that the relationship is getting significantly less friendly.
My point is that attempts to escalate beyond a certain point risk losing the acquiescence of such states.
Yes. That is the balancing act. But I tend to agree with @Leon even if he is doing a stopped clock thing.
It is difficult to see a route that doesn't involve escalation and perhaps, if not likely, tactical nuclear weapons.
Feels pretty weird writing that but I just don't see an off ramp.
Now....when Richard Sherriff said this morning (he has said it before) that we (the UK) should be on a war footing, spend a shitload more on defence, and invite Ukraine to join NATO, I see the size of any off ramp decrease rapidly. This is manifestly not to say "it's our fault" and I don't rate British army chiefs that highly at all, but I just don't see a great end to this. If both ex Dep SACEUR and @BartholomewRoberts are calling for Russia to give up Crimea, and invite Ukraine into NATO then the space for negotiation (always 100% for Ukraine to decide) diminishes somewhat.
Russia sees no opportunity to end the war in Ukraine through diplomacy – press secretary of 🇷🇺president Dmitry Peskov
Honestly, it's quite hard to see a negotiated settlement which doesn't included security guarantees for Ukraine that are more or less equivalent to NATO membership - otherwise what incentive does Ukraine have to settle ? What otherwise would prevent round three from Putin in a few years' time ?
It is hard to see where to compromise with a country committed to a war of aggression, and very evidently not bother by being seen to commit atrocities in the pursuit of that war.
Having said that, a negotiation over Crimea is entirely possible were Russia to pull out of Luhansk/Donbas.
Zelensky offered - early in the war - some kind of independent status for Crimea.
And said only a couple of days back that Ukraine would recover Crimea "by diplomatic means". There's clearly still some wiggle room there. Donetsk/Luhansk I think are unnegotiable, though.
"By diplomatic means" means "we're telling you to leave, now leave".
Diplomatic means works best when you've got the military logistics necessary to back up your requests. Ukraine does, Russia doesn't.
As someone who has done business in the UK, France, the US and Switzerland, I can assure people that the two most regulatory heavy countries are the last two, while the UK has the fewest regulations.
Indeed, it's really odd that people think the US is a low-regulation economy. It's extremely bureaucratic (although it does vary between states).
Quite a few Americans in business, that I know, talk of the "The Land Of The Fee".
You need a license to any kind of business. Usually multiple. When you tell them you can just open a barbers shop in the UK, the startled expressions - without a zoning permit, a permit from the licensing board for barbers.. is the UK an anarchy?
There does seem to be a dynamic where American business, when it is unregulated, really takes a country mile. Leading to hard regulation. Which then.....
US seems highly regulated and quite dysfunctional.
But there is also an irrepressible entrepreneurial spirit that seems missing from the UK.
The data is showing that Sunak's super 70-year high taxes are strangling the economy at the same time as yielding a fraction of what he was expecting (the latest PSBR is tomorrow).
This is before the Bank of England puts up interest rates to stem the inflation that has become rampant on Sunak's watch and under his policies. He and his chums at the treasury have also clearly been a bulwark against meaningful post brexit reform.
Under Sunak we would be looking at not recession but depression, not higher indebtedness but bankruptcy.
Absolutely. Sunak, as Truss pointed out, wanted austerity during a time of (near or actual) recession.
His main focus was on taming inflation rather than economic growth.
It was the most Thatcherite offer, but he failed to sell it to the party, the commentators, or th country.
He sold it to Tory MPs though...
I'm not sure what the solution here is but I don't think untargeted Corporation tax changes help anyone.
We desperately need to find a way for encourage business investment.
As Sarah O’Connor of the FT points out, Brits aren’t “lazy”, they’re desperately running to stand still.
It's not Corporation tax levels that discourage business investment, it's uncertainty.
In which case we've had 30+ years of uncertainty which I just don't believe. I could understand that argument from 2016 onwards but growths been almost non existent since 2008.
Rishi's plan for tax incentives for innovation and R&D was worth trying. As he said, Liz Truss is reverting to the situation that has not worked for the past decade.
Corporation tax receipts have gone up over the past decade, even as corporation tax rates were reduced. The situation was working, until the Treasury got greedy under Sunak and started trying to raise rates which is what doesn't work.
UK Onshore Corporation Tax Receipts were £41.308 billion in 2007-2008. Inflation adjusted that's £52.562 billion in 2018-2019 money.
Actual UK Onshore Corporation Tax Receipts in 2018-2019 were £52.125 billion. So down in real terms.
Is it too much to hope that he might set an example and return Cyprus and the chunk he's taken of Syria to their rightful owners?
Almost certainly, yes.
I think you're rather missing the point. This isn't about moral authority (of which Erdogan possesses very little indeed) but about Putin's international isolation.
I think many leaders have been isolated internationally. They need key allies not to desert them and they can brush the rest off. That is why the China relationship is so important. I think the people who support (or, more accurately, didn't condemn) him represent billions of people, don't they?
Has China supplied a single artillery round to Russia ? I think the relationship is likely to grow frostier still if the nuclear talk continues.
I'm sure Russia could use munitions from everywhere but that wasn't my point. China didn't condemn Russia at the UN, did they? I don't think so. Neither did India IIRC. And I don't think India sent them any tanks either. The issue being "international isolation" isn't complete without a great deal more of the world's population. Because surely you're not seeing this through the prism of the Anglo-American axis only.
Hence the importance of the China relationship.
Oh, in those terms I don't disagree. But it does seem that the relationship is getting significantly less friendly.
My point is that attempts to escalate beyond a certain point risk losing the acquiescence of such states.
Yes. That is the balancing act. But I tend to agree with @Leon even if he is doing a stopped clock thing.
It is difficult to see a route that doesn't involve escalation and perhaps, if not likely, tactical nuclear weapons.
Feels pretty weird writing that but I just don't see an off ramp.
Now....when Richard Sherriff said this morning (he has said it before) that we (the UK) should be on a war footing, spend a shitload more on defence, and invite Ukraine to join NATO, I see the size of any off ramp decrease rapidly. This is manifestly not to say "it's our fault" and I don't rate British army chiefs that highly at all, but I just don't see a great end to this. If both ex Dep SACEUR and @BartholomewRoberts are calling for Russia to give up Crimea, and invite Ukraine into NATO then the space for negotiation (always 100% for Ukraine to decide) diminishes somewhat.
Russia sees no opportunity to end the war in Ukraine through diplomacy – press secretary of 🇷🇺president Dmitry Peskov
Honestly, it's quite hard to see a negotiated settlement which doesn't included security guarantees for Ukraine that are more or less equivalent to NATO membership - otherwise what incentive does Ukraine have to settle ? What otherwise would prevent round three from Putin in a few years' time ?
It is hard to see where to compromise with a country committed to a war of aggression, and very evidently not bother by being seen to commit atrocities in the pursuit of that war.
Having said that, a negotiation over Crimea is entirely possible were Russia to pull out of Luhansk/Donbas.
Zelensky offered - early in the war - some kind of independent status for Crimea.
And said only a couple of days back that Ukraine would recover Crimea "by diplomatic means". There's clearly still some wiggle room there. Donetsk/Luhansk I think are unnegotiable, though.
"By diplomatic means" means "we're telling you to leave, now leave".
Diplomatic means works best when you've got the military logistics necessary to back up your requests. Ukraine does, Russia doesn't.
Well I think that is fairly probably how it will now end up. But it was quite clear that Zelensky views Crimea as being somewhat different to the other territories.
The data is showing that Sunak's super 70-year high taxes are strangling the economy at the same time as yielding a fraction of what he was expecting (the latest PSBR is tomorrow).
This is before the Bank of England puts up interest rates to stem the inflation that has become rampant on Sunak's watch and under his policies. He and his chums at the treasury have also clearly been a bulwark against meaningful post brexit reform.
Under Sunak we would be looking at not recession but depression, not higher indebtedness but bankruptcy.
Absolutely. Sunak, as Truss pointed out, wanted austerity during a time of (near or actual) recession.
His main focus was on taming inflation rather than economic growth.
It was the most Thatcherite offer, but he failed to sell it to the party, the commentators, or th country.
He sold it to Tory MPs though...
I'm not sure what the solution here is but I don't think untargeted Corporation tax changes help anyone.
We desperately need to find a way for encourage business investment.
As Sarah O’Connor of the FT points out, Brits aren’t “lazy”, they’re desperately running to stand still.
It's not Corporation tax levels that discourage business investment, it's uncertainty.
In which case we've had 30+ years of uncertainty which I just don't believe. I could understand that argument from 2016 onwards but growths been almost non existent since 2008.
Rishi's plan for tax incentives for innovation and R&D was worth trying. As he said, Liz Truss is reverting to the situation that has not worked for the past decade.
Corporation tax receipts have gone up over the past decade, even as corporation tax rates were reduced. The situation was working, until the Treasury got greedy under Sunak and started trying to raise rates which is what doesn't work.
That's not the question, which is whether investment has increased.
Does the Russian army need hundreds of thousands of sullen, untrained conscripts?
It's a less important factor, but also worth considering the fate of the Russian economy as the 18-65 year old males are gradually removed from it. And who will man the bot farms? Presumably the same people, but now in uniform and for less pay.
The data is showing that Sunak's super 70-year high taxes are strangling the economy at the same time as yielding a fraction of what he was expecting (the latest PSBR is tomorrow).
This is before the Bank of England puts up interest rates to stem the inflation that has become rampant on Sunak's watch and under his policies. He and his chums at the treasury have also clearly been a bulwark against meaningful post brexit reform.
Under Sunak we would be looking at not recession but depression, not higher indebtedness but bankruptcy.
Absolutely. Sunak, as Truss pointed out, wanted austerity during a time of (near or actual) recession.
His main focus was on taming inflation rather than economic growth.
It was the most Thatcherite offer, but he failed to sell it to the party, the commentators, or th country.
He sold it to Tory MPs though...
I'm not sure what the solution here is but I don't think untargeted Corporation tax changes help anyone.
We desperately need to find a way for encourage business investment.
As Sarah O’Connor of the FT points out, Brits aren’t “lazy”, they’re desperately running to stand still.
It's not Corporation tax levels that discourage business investment, it's uncertainty.
In which case we've had 30+ years of uncertainty which I just don't believe. I could understand that argument from 2016 onwards but growths been almost non existent since 2008.
Rishi's plan for tax incentives for innovation and R&D was worth trying. As he said, Liz Truss is reverting to the situation that has not worked for the past decade.
Corporation tax receipts have gone up over the past decade, even as corporation tax rates were reduced. The situation was working, until the Treasury got greedy under Sunak and started trying to raise rates which is what doesn't work.
UK Onshore Corporation Tax Receipts were £41.308 billion in 2007-2008. Inflation adjusted that's £52.562 billion in 2018-2019 money.
Actual UK Onshore Corporation Tax Receipts in 2018-2019 were £52.125 billion. So down in real terms.
Of course 2007-2008 was pre-GFC and had inflated and unreliable figures because of what was happening in the financial sector.
To be within a rounding error of that figure, even with lower rates, shows that the tax changes did work. And its worth noting that when one tax is lowered you tend to raise more money via other taxes since what wasn't taken in one tax goes elsewhere where it is taxed so the overall tax take would be higher even than 2007/08 even in real terms.
Redfield has Starmer getting a big boost to plus 4 job approval, Truss at plus 3 Truss 4 points ahead best PM 40 36
Reading this forum if is impossible for Truss to be ahead of Starmer by 40%/36% as best PM
Which is why it is wise to ignore most of the partisan bullshit, especially from the left that infects the site. The continual. doom and gloom from the thread headers doesn't help either.
Redfield has Starmer getting a big boost to plus 4 job approval, Truss at plus 3 Truss 4 points ahead best PM 40 36
Reading this forum if is impossible for Truss to be ahead of Starmer by 40%/36% as best PM
You're quite old enough to know that you can fool all of the people some of the time, Big_G...
Indeed I am but writing Truss off after 14 days is maybe a wee bit unwise
Indeed, it’s still very early days.
But so far at least, Truss’s “blitzkrieg on Kiev” strategy shows signs of running aground.
I really am looking forward to how this does develop over the coming months as she is determined to have a low tax small state government which is not only mocked on here but is not where the public are
However, when more details of the energy measures are announced, together with the tax cuts, and these start showing in voters pockets together with a reduction of upto 5% in inflation Labour may have more of a fight on their hands
Sky's presenter commented on the Labour spokespersons again quoting the 170 billion windfall tax, that actually is is only 2 billion on than the windfall tax already applied to measures so far
She indicated they need to have an answer on how they would fund the 2 year cap and to quote her, she said they do not have one at present
Peak TV ratings during Queen's funeral BBC1: 19.5m BBC2: 2m ITV: 5.3m Sky News: 934,000 BBC News channel: 831,000
Combined peak of around 28.5m viewers on main channels, final figure will be a bit higher. Excludes streaming.
Massive audience but smaller than Euro 2020 final.
How many people watched it on ITVBe? Or Babestation? Or the other channels which bizarrely showed it?
170k watched it on Sky Sports Main Event strangely.
I reckon if you add up all the little channels you get near 30 million watching on broadcast TV plus another couple of million streaming via iPlayer or equivalent on a smart TV like @Malmesbury stated.
Regarding mobilisation, Putin can declare it, indeed. But it will be a risky decision. The USSR maintained a massive infrastructure for the total mobilisation which has been mostly dismantled in post-Soviet Russia. Mobilisation is more likely to trigger political chaos
Ramp up the supplies to Ukraine, train them on more weapons and crush the mobilisation by Russia.
Russia cannot be allowed to win this war.
This is an evil time, caused by an evil (*) man.
We are approximately in a 1937 or 1938 scenario. An evil man has started a war of aggression against a neighbour, after annexing more territory a few years earlier. His words make it clear he covets the territory of other neighbouring countries as well.
It is only an approximate analogy though: Russia's nukes are a massive complicating factor that Hitler thankfully could not threaten us with. But Russia's once-stronk military is now a dangerous joke - something Hitler's was not at that time.
So what can we do? Give in, and let him take that territory (and then wonder what he'll demand next for our cowardice)? How does that 'solve' the problem in the medium and long term? And then what will we do when he takes those other territories, and other belligerent states start to use the same trick? It will show that the mere threat of nukes is enough to cause civilised states to stand down.
(*) I know at least one poster objects to the use of the word 'evil', but I think it is valid.
Err, in 2007-2008 Brown's coffers were being flooded with money from the banking industry - hardly a good baseline to use as a comparison.
In 1999-00 Corp Tax was £33.054 billion. Inflation adjust £49 billion in 2018-19 money. Within 3 billion of 2018-19 Corp tax take, 2018-2017 was the first post GFC year to beat 99-00 inflation adjusted.
As someone who has done business in the UK, France, the US and Switzerland, I can assure people that the two most regulatory heavy countries are the last two, while the UK has the fewest regulations.
Indeed, it's really odd that people think the US is a low-regulation economy. It's extremely bureaucratic (although it does vary between states).
Quite a few Americans in business, that I know, talk of the "The Land Of The Fee".
You need a license to any kind of business. Usually multiple. When you tell them you can just open a barbers shop in the UK, the startled expressions - without a zoning permit, a permit from the licensing board for barbers.. is the UK an anarchy?
There does seem to be a dynamic where American business, when it is unregulated, really takes a country mile. Leading to hard regulation. Which then.....
US seems highly regulated and quite dysfunctional.
But there is also an irrepressible entrepreneurial spirit that seems missing from the UK.
I am quite fascinated by this paradox.
They are related. A small example.
A mad billionaire builds the largest rocket in history, in a swamp, in Texas. The glee with which he blows up prototypes. Or builds a giant constellation of satellites in LEO, to provide internet access.
The existing launch providers, who are a government created monopoly try and pay their pet politicians to stop this anarchy. Except parts of the government love the product. In desperation they try - building new rockets and hiring a competent CEO.
Meanwhile the existing ISPs take government money to extend their coverage in rural ares in the US. Where a patchwork of laws has made competing with the Thieves By Statute virtually impossible.
When the government has the temerity to ask why they haven't actually added any connections for the money, the companies in question regard that as impertinent.
Still an outside chance of Tory lead by end of September. I hope so for my bet
Techne, Redfield and Comres have the Tories at mid 30s (35, 34, 35), i think if they can break through 36 they will probably get a lead with 'somone' even if not generally
Xi Jinping’s security guarantee to Kazakhstan represents a fairly unprecedented public overreach into the “Russian sphere”. Modi and Erdogan have also issued withering statements in the last week on Russia’s war.
People here keep wetting the bed saying Putin has no out except nuclear weapons. Nonsense.
All he has to do is say, “look I tried mobilisation. But we can’t win territory for our cousins in Donbas if they aren’t prepared to fight themselves. And they are all lazy cowards and I won’t risk Russian lives on those blood traitors any longer.”
That buys him time for a fudge on crimea. And in truth this mobilisation is a sham. If they couldn’t feed the initial invading hoard or give them more than a magazine of ammo and a tank of fuel, how do you think it’s going to go now that Russian logistics capacity has been so degraded and there are more mouths to feed, guns to fill with bullets and bodies to protect from heavy arms?
This is either the final roll of the dice before Putin meets his end. Or it’s a Hokey Cokey type strategy to put his left leg in so he can then take his right left out and we’ll see the continued orderly retreat.
Does the Russian army need hundreds of thousands of sullen, untrained conscripts?
Define needs. Also define useful. The Sandhurst game of SeaLion I mentioned earlier may be instructive in this....
They have vast numbers of soldiers on their various southern and eastern borders and on internal security duties (including Putin's bodyguards). A large number of recruits could be sent to those borders for 'training' on the job, whilst the current soldiers are rotated to the front.
The internal security troops are an interesting one. They might perform quite well: but using them might be a risk as well: both by reducing the internal security, and the fact they might not want to fight...
In 2018, 340,000 troops were in the internal security apparatus. It is rumoured that some have already been used in Ukraine. It'll be interesting to see how far he feels he can strip their numbers down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_Russia
Peak TV ratings during Queen's funeral BBC1: 19.5m BBC2: 2m ITV: 5.3m Sky News: 934,000 BBC News channel: 831,000
Combined peak of around 28.5m viewers on main channels, final figure will be a bit higher. Excludes streaming.
Massive audience but smaller than Euro 2020 final.
How many people watched it on ITVBe? Or Babestation? Or the other channels which bizarrely showed it?
170k watched it on Sky Sports Main Event strangely.
I reckon if you add up all the little channels you get near 30 million watching on broadcast TV plus another couple of million streaming via iPlayer or equivalent on a smart TV like @Malmesbury stated.
I've got my daughters into watching some BBC stuff via iPlayer - they regard anything you can't rewind, skip etc as functionally useless.
It's getting almost hard to void smart TVs now. When I bought mine, they didn't have a model in the size I wanted which was... dumb?
Err, in 2007-2008 Brown's coffers were being flooded with money from the banking industry - hardly a good baseline to use as a comparison.
In 1999-00 Corp Tax was £33.054 billion. Inflation adjust £49 billion in 2018-19 money. Within 3 billion of 2018-19 Corp tax take, 2018-2017 was the first post GFC year to beat 99-00 inflation adjusted.
So we're raising more money now with lower tax rates, even inflation-adjusted? So cutting tax rates has worked. 👍
Redfield has Starmer getting a big boost to plus 4 job approval, Truss at plus 3 Truss 4 points ahead best PM 40 36
Reading this forum if is impossible for Truss to be ahead of Starmer by 40%/36% as best PM
Which is why it is wise to ignore most of the partisan bullshit, especially from the left that infects the site. The continual. doom and gloom from the thread headers doesn't help either.
What sort of complaint is "partisan," do you expect the left to look at a tory PM and say I'm Labour through and through like my parents were before me, but looking at the skills PM X brings to the table I am suspending hostilities?
And do you expect that effect to be more or less marked for X = Truss?
The woman is plainly mad, doctrinaire, incompetent, inhuman and several thousand fathoms out of her depth. It is the duty of every right thinking citizen to point at her and laugh.
"'A robust view of executive power says it’s really not the job of the courts to decide what’s classified or unclassified,” said University of California Berkeley Law Professor John Yoo. … 'It’s the president who decides … —the current, incumbent, sitting president.' https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1572246067009441793
Even the right wing nuttiest lawyers seem to be getting tired of Trumpian pretendy-law.
And not just Yoo (the torture is OK guy, in case anyone has forgotten).
As someone who has done business in the UK, France, the US and Switzerland, I can assure people that the two most regulatory heavy countries are the last two, while the UK has the fewest regulations.
Indeed, it's really odd that people think the US is a low-regulation economy. It's extremely bureaucratic (although it does vary between states).
Quite a few Americans in business, that I know, talk of the "The Land Of The Fee".
You need a license to any kind of business. Usually multiple. When you tell them you can just open a barbers shop in the UK, the startled expressions - without a zoning permit, a permit from the licensing board for barbers.. is the UK an anarchy?
There does seem to be a dynamic where American business, when it is unregulated, really takes a country mile. Leading to hard regulation. Which then.....
US seems highly regulated and quite dysfunctional.
But there is also an irrepressible entrepreneurial spirit that seems missing from the UK.
I am quite fascinated by this paradox.
They are related. A small example.
A mad billionaire builds the largest rocket in history, in a swamp, in Texas. The glee with which he blows up prototypes. Or builds a giant constellation of satellites in LEO, to provide internet access.
The existing launch providers, who are a government created monopoly try and pay their pet politicians to stop this anarchy. Except parts of the government love the product. In desperation they try - building new rockets and hiring a competent CEO.
Meanwhile the existing ISPs take government money to extend their coverage in rural ares in the US. Where a patchwork of laws has made competing with the Thieves By Statute virtually impossible.
When the government has the temerity to ask why they haven't actually added any connections for the money, the companies in question regard that as impertinent.
So, this Russia thing: 1. Referenda showing the people who haven't yet been tortured and murdered want to be Russians. So if Ukraine "invades" "Russia" thats WWIII that is 2. A full mobilisation of the pride of the Rodina's menfolk. So be afraid NATO these factory workers from Smolensk are desperate to down tools and kill you. 3. If you fuck with Russia we will destroy you.
Except that none of this works. Annexed or not, the only thing Russian forces are good at in these territories when not torturing or raping is fleeing. So I assume the general conscription of every male child is to use them as reverse human shields.
So when Ukraine attacks, they will be killing Russians (who in turn would be shot by their own sides if they tried to flee). Which is WAR. These conscripted "volunteers" won't be trained or armed, so what else can they be other than targets for "NATO" to kill?
The data is showing that Sunak's super 70-year high taxes are strangling the economy at the same time as yielding a fraction of what he was expecting (the latest PSBR is tomorrow).
This is before the Bank of England puts up interest rates to stem the inflation that has become rampant on Sunak's watch and under his policies. He and his chums at the treasury have also clearly been a bulwark against meaningful post brexit reform.
Under Sunak we would be looking at not recession but depression, not higher indebtedness but bankruptcy.
Absolutely. Sunak, as Truss pointed out, wanted austerity during a time of (near or actual) recession.
His main focus was on taming inflation rather than economic growth.
It was the most Thatcherite offer, but he failed to sell it to the party, the commentators, or th country.
He sold it to Tory MPs though...
I'm not sure what the solution here is but I don't think untargeted Corporation tax changes help anyone.
We desperately need to find a way for encourage business investment.
As Sarah O’Connor of the FT points out, Brits aren’t “lazy”, they’re desperately running to stand still.
It's not Corporation tax levels that discourage business investment, it's uncertainty.
In which case we've had 30+ years of uncertainty which I just don't believe. I could understand that argument from 2016 onwards but growths been almost non existent since 2008.
Rishi's plan for tax incentives for innovation and R&D was worth trying. As he said, Liz Truss is reverting to the situation that has not worked for the past decade.
Corporation tax receipts have gone up over the past decade, even as corporation tax rates were reduced. The situation was working, until the Treasury got greedy under Sunak and started trying to raise rates which is what doesn't work.
UK Onshore Corporation Tax Receipts were £41.308 billion in 2007-2008. Inflation adjusted that's £52.562 billion in 2018-2019 money.
Actual UK Onshore Corporation Tax Receipts in 2018-2019 were £52.125 billion. So down in real terms.
Of course 2007-2008 was pre-GFC and had inflated and unreliable figures because of what was happening in the financial sector.
To be within a rounding error of that figure, even with lower rates, shows that the tax changes did work. And its worth noting that when one tax is lowered you tend to raise more money via other taxes since what wasn't taken in one tax goes elsewhere where it is taxed so the overall tax take would be higher even than 2007/08 even in real terms.
What people forget (or choose to ignore) is that tax take is a function of:
Tax rate X what is taxable.
While the rate has gone down, the latter has gone up - a lot of the loopholes and allowances have been scrapped, which is why total take is less than 0.1% down vs an inflated pre-GFC base.
Redfield has Starmer getting a big boost to plus 4 job approval, Truss at plus 3 Truss 4 points ahead best PM 40 36
Reading this forum if is impossible for Truss to be ahead of Starmer by 40%/36% as best PM
Which is why it is wise to ignore most of the partisan bullshit, especially from the left that infects the site. The continual. doom and gloom from the thread headers doesn't help either.
Don't worry after the Special Financial Statement/ Growth Plan on Friday, I am sure all posters will be saying LIZ = 💙
Err, in 2007-2008 Brown's coffers were being flooded with money from the banking industry - hardly a good baseline to use as a comparison.
In 1999-00 Corp Tax was £33.054 billion. Inflation adjust £49 billion in 2018-19 money. Within 3 billion of 2018-19 Corp tax take, 2018-2017 was the first post GFC year to beat 99-00 inflation adjusted.
I'm not quite sure what your point is. Yes, over the last thirty years there have been changes in the structure of taxation, as well as in international comparators. You can't look at one of them in isolation and conclude anything from the comparison.
So, this Russia thing: 1. Referenda showing the people who haven't yet been tortured and murdered want to be Russians. So if Ukraine "invades" "Russia" thats WWIII that is 2. A full mobilisation of the pride of the Rodina's menfolk. So be afraid NATO these factory workers from Smolensk are desperate to down tools and kill you. 3. If you fuck with Russia we will destroy you.
Except that none of this works. Annexed or not, the only thing Russian forces are good at in these territories when not torturing or raping is fleeing. So I assume the general conscription of every male child is to use them as reverse human shields.
So when Ukraine attacks, they will be killing Russians (who in turn would be shot by their own sides if they tried to flee). Which is WAR. These conscripted "volunteers" won't be trained or armed, so what else can they be other than targets for "NATO" to kill?
What we've learned over the past seven months is that Russia's army can only fight effectively against people who can't shoot back.
This mobilisation is like being threatened by an angry gerbil.
So, this Russia thing: 1. Referenda showing the people who haven't yet been tortured and murdered want to be Russians. So if Ukraine "invades" "Russia" thats WWIII that is 2. A full mobilisation of the pride of the Rodina's menfolk. So be afraid NATO these factory workers from Smolensk are desperate to down tools and kill you. 3. If you fuck with Russia we will destroy you.
Except that none of this works. Annexed or not, the only thing Russian forces are good at in these territories when not torturing or raping is fleeing. So I assume the general conscription of every male child is to use them as reverse human shields.
So when Ukraine attacks, they will be killing Russians (who in turn would be shot by their own sides if they tried to flee). Which is WAR. These conscripted "volunteers" won't be trained or armed, so what else can they be other than targets for "NATO" to kill?
What we've learned over the past seven months is that Russia's army can only fight effectively against people who can't shoot back.
This mobilisation is like being threatened by an angry gerbil.
Its like a child throwing a tantrum then threatening to hold their breath until they get what they want.
As someone who has done business in the UK, France, the US and Switzerland, I can assure people that the two most regulatory heavy countries are the last two, while the UK has the fewest regulations.
Indeed, it's really odd that people think the US is a low-regulation economy. It's extremely bureaucratic (although it does vary between states).
Quite a few Americans in business, that I know, talk of the "The Land Of The Fee".
You need a license to any kind of business. Usually multiple. When you tell them you can just open a barbers shop in the UK, the startled expressions - without a zoning permit, a permit from the licensing board for barbers.. is the UK an anarchy?
There does seem to be a dynamic where American business, when it is unregulated, really takes a country mile. Leading to hard regulation. Which then.....
US seems highly regulated and quite dysfunctional.
But there is also an irrepressible entrepreneurial spirit that seems missing from the UK.
I am quite fascinated by this paradox.
They are related. A small example.
A mad billionaire builds the largest rocket in history, in a swamp, in Texas. The glee with which he blows up prototypes. Or builds a giant constellation of satellites in LEO, to provide internet access.
The existing launch providers, who are a government created monopoly try and pay their pet politicians to stop this anarchy. Except parts of the government love the product. In desperation they try - building new rockets and hiring a competent CEO.
Meanwhile the existing ISPs take government money to extend their coverage in rural ares in the US. Where a patchwork of laws has made competing with the Thieves By Statute virtually impossible.
When the government has the temerity to ask why they haven't actually added any connections for the money, the companies in question regard that as impertinent.
This is America in microcosm....
All this is true, but doesn’t explain it?
It's layers of chaos, with layers of extreme government capture alternating. So you have
1) pirates at one level next to... 2) a layer of people who are so entwined in government that anyone would say they are part of the government, 3) next to a layer of mega corps who have paid off the system to the point they have printed themselves a license to steal money.
The pirates are a reaction to the two other layers. The other layers are reactions to the pirates. in an endless spiral.....
Does the Russian army need hundreds of thousands of sullen, untrained conscripts?
Define needs. Also define useful. The Sandhurst game of SeaLion I mentioned earlier may be instructive in this....
They have vast numbers of soldiers on their various southern and eastern borders and on internal security duties (including Putin's bodyguards). A large number of recruits could be sent to those borders for 'training' on the job, whilst the current soldiers are rotated to the front.
The internal security troops are an interesting one. They might perform quite well: but using them might be a risk as well: both by reducing the internal security, and the fact they might not want to fight...
In 2018, 340,000 troops were in the internal security apparatus. It is rumoured that some have already been used in Ukraine. It'll be interesting to see how far he feels he can strip their numbers down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_Russia
They are not very heavily armed. Where would they get the equipment to up-arm them to a real army?
Xi Jinping’s security guarantee to Kazakhstan represents a fairly unprecedented public overreach into the “Russian sphere”. Modi and Erdogan have also issued withering statements in the last week on Russia’s war.
People here keep wetting the bed saying Putin has no out except nuclear weapons. Nonsense.
All he has to do is say, “look I tried mobilisation. But we can’t win territory for our cousins in Donbas if they aren’t prepared to fight themselves. And they are all lazy cowards and I won’t risk Russian lives on those blood traitors any longer.”
That buys him time for a fudge on crimea. And in truth this mobilisation is a sham. If they couldn’t feed the initial invading hoard or give them more than a magazine of ammo and a tank of fuel, how do you think it’s going to go now that Russian logistics capacity has been so degraded and there are more mouths to feed, guns to fill with bullets and bodies to protect from heavy arms?
This is either the final roll of the dice before Putin meets his end. Or it’s a Hokey Cokey type strategy to put his left leg in so he can then take his right left out and we’ll see the continued orderly retreat.
Would agree with much of that.
There is also another trick he could play.
Hold the Referenda and then say that all the three regions have decided to stay with Ukraine and no to being incorporated with Russia. He can withdraw saying he's accepted the vote.
Peak TV ratings during Queen's funeral BBC1: 19.5m BBC2: 2m ITV: 5.3m Sky News: 934,000 BBC News channel: 831,000
Combined peak of around 28.5m viewers on main channels, final figure will be a bit higher. Excludes streaming.
Massive audience but smaller than Euro 2020 final.
How many people watched it on ITVBe? Or Babestation? Or the other channels which bizarrely showed it?
170k watched it on Sky Sports Main Event strangely.
I reckon if you add up all the little channels you get near 30 million watching on broadcast TV plus another couple of million streaming via iPlayer or equivalent on a smart TV like @Malmesbury stated.
I've got my daughters into watching some BBC stuff via iPlayer - they regard anything you can't rewind, skip etc as functionally useless.
It's getting almost hard to void smart TVs now. When I bought mine, they didn't have a model in the size I wanted which was... dumb?
We've had our latest TV (49" which is the biggest the wall could take) since October 2020. It can actually rewind normal TV as a hard drive is plugged into it but you need to have had the channel on prior.
iPlayer programme restart means we do about 50% of our "live" BBC viewing through that although the app doesn't offer proper surround sound. Yesterday's funeral sounded glorious on BBC One through the surround sound system we have so I would like to see them add that feature in the future.
I also want other channels to start offering live rewind/programme restart on their apps although I'm not holding out much hope with All 4 or the ITV Hub which are still in grainy standard definition.
Putin fashionably late as usual. He should have been on TV 20 minutes ago, they’re struggling to fill time and have just gone to adverts.
Can we watch this magnum opus in the UK or will you fill us in?
If you have a Russian satellite receiver maybe, all the European and American platforms have delisted Russian channels. I’ll do my best to offer a quick translation, if he eventually turns up.
Xi Jinping’s security guarantee to Kazakhstan represents a fairly unprecedented public overreach into the “Russian sphere”. Modi and Erdogan have also issued withering statements in the last week on Russia’s war.
People here keep wetting the bed saying Putin has no out except nuclear weapons. Nonsense.
All he has to do is say, “look I tried mobilisation. But we can’t win territory for our cousins in Donbas if they aren’t prepared to fight themselves. And they are all lazy cowards and I won’t risk Russian lives on those blood traitors any longer.”
That buys him time for a fudge on crimea. And in truth this mobilisation is a sham. If they couldn’t feed the initial invading hoard or give them more than a magazine of ammo and a tank of fuel, how do you think it’s going to go now that Russian logistics capacity has been so degraded and there are more mouths to feed, guns to fill with bullets and bodies to protect from heavy arms?
This is either the final roll of the dice before Putin meets his end. Or it’s a Hokey Cokey type strategy to put his left leg in so he can then take his right left out and we’ll see the continued orderly retreat.
Would agree with much of that.
There is also another trick he could play.
Hold the Referenda and then say that all the three regions have decided to stay with Ukraine and no to being incorporated with Russia. He can withdraw saying he's accepted the vote.
Now, I know that's unlikely but...
Now that would be amusing. Time Magazine Man of the Year, Protector of Democracy Putin.
Putin fashionably late as usual. He should have been on TV 20 minutes ago, they’re struggling to fill time and have just gone to adverts.
Can we watch this magnum opus in the UK or will you fill us in?
If you have a Russian satellite receiver maybe, all the European and American platforms have delisted Russian channels. I’ll do my best to offer a quick translation, if he eventually turns up.
If he drops his trousers, I'll understand if you say you didn't see anything.
As someone who has done business in the UK, France, the US and Switzerland, I can assure people that the two most regulatory heavy countries are the last two, while the UK has the fewest regulations.
Indeed, it's really odd that people think the US is a low-regulation economy. It's extremely bureaucratic (although it does vary between states).
Quite a few Americans in business, that I know, talk of the "The Land Of The Fee".
You need a license to any kind of business. Usually multiple. When you tell them you can just open a barbers shop in the UK, the startled expressions - without a zoning permit, a permit from the licensing board for barbers.. is the UK an anarchy?
There does seem to be a dynamic where American business, when it is unregulated, really takes a country mile. Leading to hard regulation. Which then.....
US seems highly regulated and quite dysfunctional.
But there is also an irrepressible entrepreneurial spirit that seems missing from the UK.
I am quite fascinated by this paradox.
They are related. A small example.
A mad billionaire builds the largest rocket in history, in a swamp, in Texas. The glee with which he blows up prototypes. Or builds a giant constellation of satellites in LEO, to provide internet access.
The existing launch providers, who are a government created monopoly try and pay their pet politicians to stop this anarchy. Except parts of the government love the product. In desperation they try - building new rockets and hiring a competent CEO.
Meanwhile the existing ISPs take government money to extend their coverage in rural ares in the US. Where a patchwork of laws has made competing with the Thieves By Statute virtually impossible.
When the government has the temerity to ask why they haven't actually added any connections for the money, the companies in question regard that as impertinent.
This is America in microcosm....
Elon Musk is Hank Scorpio. A lunatic, but a brilliant lunatic. SpaceX is a revolution in launcher technology, making NASA look like idiots. Starlink is a creative solution to the genuine lack of fast internet across chunks of the globe. Tesla is leading edge car production - am genuinely smitten with my Model Y.
What I love is the think a long way outside the box insanities. "why don't we just land and reuse all the stages" was impossible until it became normal. "why not build a big fat rocket out of stainless steel" is bonkers, to say nothing of "lets catch it when landing with giant robot arms called "mechazilla". Then we have "This is not a Flamethrower". The "Emission Control" stupidity on a Tesla. He is truly madly deeply insane.
Putin fashionably late as usual. He should have been on TV 20 minutes ago, they’re struggling to fill time and have just gone to adverts.
Can we watch this magnum opus in the UK or will you fill us in?
If you have a Russian satellite receiver maybe, all the European and American platforms have delisted Russian channels. I’ll do my best to offer a quick translation, if he eventually turns up.
Sky have said they'll show it live, they've been waiting and have gone back to their normal reports for now.
So, this Russia thing: 1. Referenda showing the people who haven't yet been tortured and murdered want to be Russians. So if Ukraine "invades" "Russia" thats WWIII that is 2. A full mobilisation of the pride of the Rodina's menfolk. So be afraid NATO these factory workers from Smolensk are desperate to down tools and kill you. 3. If you fuck with Russia we will destroy you.
Except that none of this works. Annexed or not, the only thing Russian forces are good at in these territories when not torturing or raping is fleeing. So I assume the general conscription of every male child is to use them as reverse human shields.
So when Ukraine attacks, they will be killing Russians (who in turn would be shot by their own sides if they tried to flee). Which is WAR. These conscripted "volunteers" won't be trained or armed, so what else can they be other than targets for "NATO" to kill?
What we've learned over the past seven months is that Russia's army can only fight effectively against people who can't shoot back.
This mobilisation is like being threatened by an angry gerbil.
Steady on, some of them were armed with viscously sharp mangos.....
Putin fashionably late as usual. He should have been on TV 20 minutes ago, they’re struggling to fill time and have just gone to adverts.
Can we watch this magnum opus in the UK or will you fill us in?
If you have a Russian satellite receiver maybe, all the European and American platforms have delisted Russian channels. I’ll do my best to offer a quick translation, if he eventually turns up.
No doubt Denys Davydov will give a summary in his 10pm youtube update. Has quickly become my required bedtime viewing.
Comments
But it requires massive intellectual integrity to say "hey ho, my life's work was pointless". Scientists struggle with it, and the feedback mechanisms are pretty fast and inescapable there. It's a lot to ask of politicians.
Hence the physics aphorism that wrong ideas are rejected one professorial funeral at a time.
Haven’t you noticed the demographic the aliens always grab for their… probing?
Putin is getting jealous…..
Brexit can’t work as a pack of lies, which was the effective strategy 2016-2022.
https://samf.substack.com/p/going-nuclear?utm_source=twitter&sd=pf
It is a massive escalation. It means the risk of the war spiralling out of control (Belorus invading Ukraine, nuclear, etc.) has grown dramatically.
But it also increases the chances of a collapse of the Putin regime.
Fighting Russia is always a dirty, bloody and horrible thing. We have no real idea how mobilisation might affect the wider Russian populace. It might galvanise them.
We're just enjoying taking the piss. Plenty of time to write her off later.
Giving weapons to people who don't want to fight and telling them to march to their deaths tends to increase the chances that those weapons will be turned on you.
CPTPP I have higher hopes for.
But so far at least, Truss’s “blitzkrieg on Kiev” strategy shows signs of running aground.
Literally.
Russia has been fought for just under 7 months and in that time they've lost their naval flagship, two thirds of their armoured vehicles and thousands of square miles in recent weeks. What exactly are they going to be equipping untrained recruits with?
So far it looks like he is doing what I predicted earlier
Once he has annexed the occupied zones (next week) he can say This is now Russia. You are invading. I will use nukes if you don’t back down
He will expect us to blink and back down
I’m not quite yet ruling it out.
The working time directive and bankers bonus stuff though does not suggest we are dealing with a King Solomon.
You need a license to any kind of business. Usually multiple. When you tell them you can just open a barbers shop in the UK, the startled expressions - without a zoning permit, a permit from the licensing board for barbers.. is the UK an anarchy?
There does seem to be a dynamic where American business, when it is unregulated, really takes a country mile. Leading to hard regulation. Which then.....
There's clearly still some wiggle room there. Donetsk/Luhansk I think are unnegotiable, though.
Russia cannot be allowed to win this war.
Is there a quick way of accessing your informative posts about the charms of Tsibili and Georgia. Son is planning a trip there later this year.
Many thanks.
Diplomatic means works best when you've got the military logistics necessary to back up your requests. Ukraine does, Russia doesn't.
But there is also an irrepressible entrepreneurial spirit that seems missing from the UK.
I am quite fascinated by this paradox.
Actual UK Onshore Corporation Tax Receipts in 2018-2019 were £52.125 billion. So down in real terms.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/853131/Disaggregated_tax_and_NICs_receipts_-_statistics_table.pdf
But it was quite clear that Zelensky views Crimea as being somewhat different to the other territories.
It’s the only UK news channel with a Youtube feed with no regional blocking. They also did a good job of shutting up the presenters.
And who will man the bot farms? Presumably the same people, but now in uniform and for less pay.
To be within a rounding error of that figure, even with lower rates, shows that the tax changes did work. And its worth noting that when one tax is lowered you tend to raise more money via other taxes since what wasn't taken in one tax goes elsewhere where it is taxed so the overall tax take would be higher even than 2007/08 even in real terms.
Is the map of West Lancashire leaning slightly to the left a visual pun?
Also, Hill Dale is a rubbish place name.
doom and gloom from the thread headers doesn't help either.
However, when more details of the energy measures are announced, together with the tax cuts, and these start showing in voters pockets together with a reduction of upto 5% in inflation Labour may have more of a fight on their hands
Sky's presenter commented on the Labour spokespersons again quoting the 170 billion windfall tax, that actually is is only 2 billion on than the windfall tax already applied to measures so far
She indicated they need to have an answer on how they would fund the 2 year cap and to quote her, she said they do not have one at present
I reckon if you add up all the little channels you get near 30 million watching on broadcast TV plus another couple of million streaming via iPlayer or equivalent on a smart TV like @Malmesbury stated.
short🧵
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1572270599535214598
We are approximately in a 1937 or 1938 scenario. An evil man has started a war of aggression against a neighbour, after annexing more territory a few years earlier. His words make it clear he covets the territory of other neighbouring countries as well.
It is only an approximate analogy though: Russia's nukes are a massive complicating factor that Hitler thankfully could not threaten us with. But Russia's once-stronk military is now a dangerous joke - something Hitler's was not at that time.
So what can we do? Give in, and let him take that territory (and then wonder what he'll demand next for our cowardice)? How does that 'solve' the problem in the medium and long term? And then what will we do when he takes those other territories, and other belligerent states start to use the same trick? It will show that the mere threat of nukes is enough to cause civilised states to stand down.
(*) I know at least one poster objects to the use of the word 'evil', but I think it is valid.
A mad billionaire builds the largest rocket in history, in a swamp, in Texas. The glee with which he blows up prototypes. Or builds a giant constellation of satellites in LEO, to provide internet access.
The existing launch providers, who are a government created monopoly try and pay their pet politicians to stop this anarchy. Except parts of the government love the product. In desperation they try - building new rockets and hiring a competent CEO.
Meanwhile the existing ISPs take government money to extend their coverage in rural ares in the US. Where a patchwork of laws has made competing with the Thieves By Statute virtually impossible.
When the government has the temerity to ask why they haven't actually added any connections for the money, the companies in question regard that as impertinent.
This is America in microcosm....
People here keep wetting the bed saying Putin has no out except nuclear weapons. Nonsense.
All he has to do is say, “look I tried mobilisation. But we can’t win territory for our cousins in Donbas if they aren’t prepared to fight themselves. And they are all lazy cowards and I won’t risk Russian lives on those blood traitors any longer.”
That buys him time for a fudge on crimea. And in truth this mobilisation is a sham. If they couldn’t feed the initial invading hoard or give them more than a magazine of ammo and a tank of fuel, how do you think it’s going to go now that Russian logistics capacity has been so degraded and there are more mouths to feed, guns to fill with bullets and bodies to protect from heavy arms?
This is either the final roll of the dice before Putin meets his end. Or it’s a Hokey Cokey type strategy to put his left leg in so he can then take his right left out and we’ll see the continued orderly retreat.
The internal security troops are an interesting one. They might perform quite well: but using them might be a risk as well: both by reducing the internal security, and the fact they might not want to fight...
In 2018, 340,000 troops were in the internal security apparatus. It is rumoured that some have already been used in Ukraine. It'll be interesting to see how far he feels he can strip their numbers down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_Russia
It's getting almost hard to void smart TVs now. When I bought mine, they didn't have a model in the size I wanted which was... dumb?
https://twitter.com/i/status/1571138036049780736
And do you expect that effect to be more or less marked for X = Truss?
The woman is plainly mad, doctrinaire, incompetent, inhuman and several thousand fathoms out of her depth. It is the duty of every right thinking citizen to point at her and laugh.
How Judge Cannon broke with conservatives in Trump documents case
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/20/how-judge-aileen-cannon-broke-with-conservatives-00057647
Will he announce SCO monitoring of the referendums?
1. Referenda showing the people who haven't yet been tortured and murdered want to be Russians. So if Ukraine "invades" "Russia" thats WWIII that is
2. A full mobilisation of the pride of the Rodina's menfolk. So be afraid NATO these factory workers from Smolensk are desperate to down tools and kill you.
3. If you fuck with Russia we will destroy you.
Except that none of this works. Annexed or not, the only thing Russian forces are good at in these territories when not torturing or raping is fleeing. So I assume the general conscription of every male child is to use them as reverse human shields.
So when Ukraine attacks, they will be killing Russians (who in turn would be shot by their own sides if they tried to flee). Which is WAR. These conscripted "volunteers" won't be trained or armed, so what else can they be other than targets for "NATO" to kill?
Tax rate X what is taxable.
While the rate has gone down, the latter has gone up - a lot of the loopholes and allowances have been scrapped, which is why total take is less than 0.1% down vs an inflated pre-GFC base.
Possibly
This mobilisation is like being threatened by an angry gerbil.
1) pirates at one level next to...
2) a layer of people who are so entwined in government that anyone would say they are part of the government,
3) next to a layer of mega corps who have paid off the system to the point they have printed themselves a license to steal money.
The pirates are a reaction to the two other layers. The other layers are reactions to the pirates. in an endless spiral.....
It's just rude.
There is also another trick he could play.
Hold the Referenda and then say that all the three regions have decided to stay with Ukraine and no to being incorporated with Russia. He can withdraw saying he's accepted the vote.
Now, I know that's unlikely but...
I was on holiday at the time and it was the first time I'd ever had Sky TV.
iPlayer programme restart means we do about 50% of our "live" BBC viewing through that although the app doesn't offer proper surround sound. Yesterday's funeral sounded glorious on BBC One through the surround sound system we have so I would like to see them add that feature in the future.
I also want other channels to start offering live rewind/programme restart on their apps although I'm not holding out much hope with All 4 or the ITV Hub which are still in grainy standard definition.
Who is advising her?
That includes the city of Zaporizhzhia itself, which had a pre-war population of 750,000 – and which is controlled Ukraine
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1572274685181558785
I’ll do my best to offer a quick translation, if he eventually turns up.
What I love is the think a long way outside the box insanities. "why don't we just land and reuse all the stages" was impossible until it became normal. "why not build a big fat rocket out of stainless steel" is bonkers, to say nothing of "lets catch it when landing with giant robot arms called "mechazilla". Then we have "This is not a Flamethrower". The "Emission Control" stupidity on a Tesla. He is truly madly deeply insane.