You forget that Putin is now desperate. Cornered by his own terrible blunders. He is one big defeat away from being sodomised by a bayonet like Gadaffi
That’s why he’s gone full fat mobilisation (the “partial” shit was a lie so he wouldn’t freak out his own people). Proper mobilisation is the act of a seriously paranoid and frightened man
He knows he can’t train them up in time to turn the tide of battle this year. And he’s running out of weapons
What he can do is probably stop the Ukrainian advance by sheer weight of numbers and also make the enemy think again
This is where a tactical nuke comes in handy. Drop one and say to the west: I’ll drop more unless you stop arming Kyiv
It’s a massively risky move. For the world and for him. But it could work in the short medium term and save his sorry ass - for now
If I was Putin, I’d do it. Because all options are grim now
However it does depend on him having a military willing to obey this instruction. A moot point
He could do it because he's irrational. But really think about the implications. As @williamglenn pointed out. The US could sink the Black Sea Fleet. They could conventionally bomb major cities. Every Russian citizen overseas could be detained. No one would do business. No allies of any kind. The Chinese could invade Siberia. Japanese too. Turkey? Eastern Europe? It would be a declaration of War on the entire world. No one would think any more they couldn't take them conventionally. The magic spell has gone. The alternative from there would be nuclear conflagration. I don't believe there aren't enough sensible folk in Russia to permit that.
The key would be very swiftly trying to take out their nuclear capability. Not easy.
Yes. But an escalation to a tactical nuke has such horrendous implications for Russia. There would be no next step other than all out. Which is why I find it implausible. Though not impossible.
There isnt a thread on the site that even tries to see anything the Govt does in a good light. It's been doom and gloom since Boris and only the death of her Majesty has obscured the gloomy threads. The site doesn't even try to be even handed, especially Cyclefree who just wants to find something she can put the boot into..... the Govt isn't great but it's not as bad as its portrayed as. Just think of the potential future Ministers in Labour and..... chunder.
Tell you what. When the Government does do something worth writing about why don't you write a thread header about it and then we can tell you all the ways it is shit.
Many of the institutions in this country are seriously flawed or completely broken. We know this and can see it every day but we are not experts and so don't know exactly how or why this is the case or what can be done to fix it. Cyclefree, along with others, does great service on this site by explaining how and why these things are broken and suggesting ways in which they might be fixed, or at least improved.
It is telling that you attack her for being against the party you have political sympathies for when more often than not the issues are much older than one or two Governments and the solutions she suggests are not political but practical and structural.
This site, and most of its contributors, is far more even handed than you deserve.
Well said. @squareroot2 is the most miserable poster on this site. Always negative. Never posts anything constructive. He must live a dreadful life to be so miserable and for which I feel very sorry for him.
I have challenged him multiple times to write a thread header if he is unhappy with what he reads, but never does. Just whines at those who do put the effort in.
Stalker alert.
Why don't you just go away and annoy someone else. I don't want to write a thread and nothing u can say willi induce me to do so. It is interesting that those who write the most negative and ctiticsl comments on here accuse me if being negative. Risible It's perfectly reasonable to call out people who.post continously negative comments on here. They shoukd look.in the mirror.
£115mn loss in a year, it seems their off the pitch performance is matching their on the pitch one.
The report doesn't mention Financial Fair Play regulations, but how can that state of affairs possibly line up with FFP rules? Or have they just become even more discredited and meaningless?
Sadly Cyclefree is NOT available to answer your inquiry, as she is currently up to both elbows in soap suds.
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: house prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
Now that is interesting, if, or because it is, so startling. Bit shit for savers still though. At least in the 1980s one could save up for a deposit with some real interest.
£115mn loss in a year, it seems their off the pitch performance is matching their on the pitch one.
The report doesn't mention Financial Fair Play regulations, but how can that state of affairs possibly line up with FFP rules? Or have they just become even more discredited and meaningless?
Sadly Cyclefree is NOT available to answer your inquiry, as she is currently up to both elbows in soap suds.
Considering the subject matter, I'd more expect a response from @DavidL anyway.
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
Probably great news if you’re currently a young renter with a decent job and a large deposit. May take a few years for affordability to start to come down again, but then you’ll probably have the economic wind in your sails, like your parents and grandparents did.
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
At this point in time everything is So Fucking Grim I am reminded of the Jeffrey Barnard joke that so many people are in black despair, and thinking of suicide by jumping off Beachy Head, we might as well hire a bus and drive that off the cliff with everyone on board
You forget that Putin is now desperate. Cornered by his own terrible blunders. He is one big defeat away from being sodomised by a bayonet like Gadaffi
That’s why he’s gone full fat mobilisation (the “partial” shit was a lie so he wouldn’t freak out his own people). Proper mobilisation is the act of a seriously paranoid and frightened man
He knows he can’t train them up in time to turn the tide of battle this year. And he’s running out of weapons
What he can do is probably stop the Ukrainian advance by sheer weight of numbers and also make the enemy think again
This is where a tactical nuke comes in handy. Drop one and say to the west: I’ll drop more unless you stop arming Kyiv
It’s a massively risky move. For the world and for him. But it could work in the short medium term and save his sorry ass - for now
If I was Putin, I’d do it. Because all options are grim now
However it does depend on him having a military willing to obey this instruction. A moot point
He could do it because he's irrational. But really think about the implications. As @williamglenn pointed out. The US could sink the Black Sea Fleet. They could conventionally bomb major cities. Every Russian citizen overseas could be detained. No one would do business. No allies of any kind. The Chinese could invade Siberia. Japanese too. Turkey? Eastern Europe? It would be a declaration of War on the entire world. No one would think any more they couldn't take them conventionally. The magic spell has gone. The alternative from there would be nuclear conflagration. I don't believe there aren't enough sensible folk in Russia to permit that.
The key would be very swiftly trying to take out their nuclear capability. Not easy.
If they are actually stupid enough to do a first strike then the response would have to be immediate and overwhelming to the point that they don't attempt a second.
Its not going to happen, but in the event it did the world would live on but Russia wouldn't.
Massive counterforce strike. Countervalue strikes completely pointless. If successful the lingering issue might be they've got a lot of truck launched shit hidden away, would need aerial dominance and constant patrol flights up until they are beaten
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
At this point in time everything is So Fucking Grim I am reminded of the Jeffrey Barnard joke that so many people are in black despair, and thinking of suicide by jumping off Beachy Head, we might as well hire a bus and drive that off the cliff with everyone on board
"But who will drive?"
Klaus Schwab can't stop cracking one off at it all
A number of consistent stories on social media that Russia is actually pushing forward with something more like full mobilisation in the rural and ethnic minority areas while going gently on Moscow and St Petersburg. Confirmed by the Russian I interviewed earlier today who told me he didn't expect to be called up as he is in Moscow and has a long term injury.
A form of ethnic cleansing? White Russians like other ethno-nationalists around Europe fear being outbred by minorities in their borders. Sending the young menfolk in to be slaughtered in Ukraine is a handy way of stemming the tide while achieving geopolitical and domestic political aims.
The republics of the South and Far East need to wake up to what's being done and seize back their independence. If Chechnya has another go it might find it has more support from outside than last time. There may never be a better opportunity.
£115mn loss in a year, it seems their off the pitch performance is matching their on the pitch one.
The report doesn't mention Financial Fair Play regulations, but how can that state of affairs possibly line up with FFP rules? Or have they just become even more discredited and meaningless?
Sadly Cyclefree is NOT available to answer your inquiry, as she is currently up to both elbows in soap suds.
Considering the subject matter, I'd more expect a response from @DavidL anyway.
Not to disparage DavidL's expertise in the slightest, when I think of definitely disfunctional and potentially problematic corporate/organizational behavior, I think of Cyclefree.
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
With respect that is rubbish because it is only looking at one side of the balance sheet. Yes, people have higher multiples of indebtedness than they had in the 80s when interest rates were much higher. Yes this means that they are more highly geared relative to their salaries than they were in the 80s and therefore more vulnerable to interest rate changes. But no, the affordability of mortgages are not just reflected by these things but also by the nominal level of earnings. At the moment nominal wages are increasing by at least 7% pa, and that number is likely to go up to 10%. This will, over time, significantly reduce the cost of the mortgage. I saw this with my parents in the 1970s and we are now likely to see a repeat.
If you had a £300k mortgage a year ago in real terms you now owe £270k. Next year you will owe £243K. Whether these windfalls are "real" depends on the value of the asset over that time. But they mean that those with substantial debts are gaining substantially from a burst of inflation, even if their cashflow is diminished somewhat in the short term.
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
At this point in time everything is So Fucking Grim I am reminded of the Jeffrey Barnard joke that so many people are in black despair, and thinking of suicide by jumping off Beachy Head, we might as well hire a bus and drive that off the cliff with everyone on board
"But who will drive?"
It wasn't so long ago you were fearing the apocalypse due to omicron. This is a good piece on why nuclear use is unlikely.
£115mn loss in a year, it seems their off the pitch performance is matching their on the pitch one.
The report doesn't mention Financial Fair Play regulations, but how can that state of affairs possibly line up with FFP rules? Or have they just become even more discredited and meaningless?
Sadly Cyclefree is NOT available to answer your inquiry, as she is currently up to both elbows in soap suds.
Considering the subject matter, I'd more expect a response from @DavidL anyway.
Not to disparage DavidL's expertise in the slightest, when I think of definitely disfunctional and potentially problematic corporate/organizational behavior, I think of Cyclefree.
A number of consistent stories on social media that Russia is actually pushing forward with something more like full mobilisation in the rural and ethnic minority areas while going gently on Moscow and St Petersburg. Confirmed by the Russian I interviewed earlier today who told me he didn't expect to be called up as he is in Moscow and has a long term injury.
A form of ethnic cleansing? White Russians like other ethno-nationalists around Europe fear being outbred by minorities in their borders. Sending the young menfolk in to be slaughtered in Ukraine is a handy way of stemming the tide while achieving geopolitical and domestic political aims.
The republics of the South and Far East need to wake up to what's being done and seize back their independence. If Chechnya has another go it might find it has more support from outside than last time. There may never be a better opportunity.
£115mn loss in a year, it seems their off the pitch performance is matching their on the pitch one.
The report doesn't mention Financial Fair Play regulations, but how can that state of affairs possibly line up with FFP rules? Or have they just become even more discredited and meaningless?
Sadly Cyclefree is NOT available to answer your inquiry, as she is currently up to both elbows in soap suds.
Considering the subject matter, I'd more expect a response from @DavidL anyway.
Not to disparage DavidL's expertise in the slightest, when I think of definitely disfunctional and potentially problematic corporate/organizational behavior, I think of Cyclefree.
What, the Things are Really Bad and here are 76 jumbled bullet points to prove it approach?
And a link to my 43 bullet point post saying the same thing last year.
There isnt a thread on the site that even tries to see anything the Govt does in a good light. It's been doom and gloom since Boris and only the death of her Majesty has obscured the gloomy threads. The site doesn't even try to be even handed, especially Cyclefree who just wants to find something she can put the boot into..... the Govt isn't great but it's not as bad as its portrayed as. Just think of the potential future Ministers in Labour and..... chunder.
Tell you what. When the Government does do something worth writing about why don't you write a thread header about it and then we can tell you all the ways it is shit.
Many of the institutions in this country are seriously flawed or completely broken. We know this and can see it every day but we are not experts and so don't know exactly how or why this is the case or what can be done to fix it. Cyclefree, along with others, does great service on this site by explaining how and why these things are broken and suggesting ways in which they might be fixed, or at least improved.
It is telling that you attack her for being against the party you have political sympathies for when more often than not the issues are much older than one or two Governments and the solutions she suggests are not political but practical and structural.
This site, and most of its contributors, is far more even handed than you deserve.
Well said. @squareroot2 is the most miserable poster on this site. Always negative. Never posts anything constructive. He must live a dreadful life to be so miserable and for which I feel very sorry for him.
I have challenged him multiple times to write a thread header if he is unhappy with what he reads, but never does. Just whines at those who do put the effort in.
Stalker alert.
Why don't you just go away and annoy someone else. I don't want to write a thread and nothing u can say willi induce me to do so. It is interesting that those who write the most negative and ctiticsl comments on here accuse me if being negative. Risible It's perfectly reasonable to call out people who.post continously negative comments on here. They shoukd look.in the mirror.
A number of consistent stories on social media that Russia is actually pushing forward with something more like full mobilisation in the rural and ethnic minority areas while going gently on Moscow and St Petersburg. Confirmed by the Russian I interviewed earlier today who told me he didn't expect to be called up as he is in Moscow and has a long term injury.
A form of ethnic cleansing? White Russians like other ethno-nationalists around Europe fear being outbred by minorities in their borders. Sending the young menfolk in to be slaughtered in Ukraine is a handy way of stemming the tide while achieving geopolitical and domestic political aims.
The republics of the South and Far East need to wake up to what's being done and seize back their independence. If Chechnya has another go it might find it has more support from outside than last time. There may never be a better opportunity.
Russia is a Muscovite Empire. So long as Moscow remains stable and happy, the rest of the country can burn in hell. Even in the Soviet Era, shops in Moscow could be packed with food for the locals, while there were empty shelves in any other town or city. Moscow is a parasite on the rest of Russia, the best possible thing for Russian people in most of the country, would be the end of Russia as a unified state.
There isnt a thread on the site that even tries to see anything the Govt does in a good light. It's been doom and gloom since Boris and only the death of her Majesty has obscured the gloomy threads. The site doesn't even try to be even handed, especially Cyclefree who just wants to find something she can put the boot into..... the Govt isn't great but it's not as bad as its portrayed as. Just think of the potential future Ministers in Labour and..... chunder.
Tell you what. When the Government does do something worth writing about why don't you write a thread header about it and then we can tell you all the ways it is shit.
Many of the institutions in this country are seriously flawed or completely broken. We know this and can see it every day but we are not experts and so don't know exactly how or why this is the case or what can be done to fix it. Cyclefree, along with others, does great service on this site by explaining how and why these things are broken and suggesting ways in which they might be fixed, or at least improved.
It is telling that you attack her for being against the party you have political sympathies for when more often than not the issues are much older than one or two Governments and the solutions she suggests are not political but practical and structural.
This site, and most of its contributors, is far more even handed than you deserve.
Well said. @squareroot2 is the most miserable poster on this site. Always negative. Never posts anything constructive. He must live a dreadful life to be so miserable and for which I feel very sorry for him.
I have challenged him multiple times to write a thread header if he is unhappy with what he reads, but never does. Just whines at those who do put the effort in.
Stalker alert.
Why don't you just go away and annoy someone else. I don't want to write a thread and nothing u can say willi induce me to do so. It is interesting that those who write the most negative and ctiticsl comments on here accuse me if being negative. Risible It's perfectly reasonable to call out people who.post continously negative comments on here. They shoukd look.in the mirror.
Nope I will carry on calling you out just as many others have done tonight. I don't make negative posts so you are completely wrong on that point aren't you?
If you can't write something positive on anything why don't you go away instead.
A number of consistent stories on social media that Russia is actually pushing forward with something more like full mobilisation in the rural and ethnic minority areas while going gently on Moscow and St Petersburg. Confirmed by the Russian I interviewed earlier today who told me he didn't expect to be called up as he is in Moscow and has a long term injury.
A form of ethnic cleansing? White Russians like other ethno-nationalists around Europe fear being outbred by minorities in their borders. Sending the young menfolk in to be slaughtered in Ukraine is a handy way of stemming the tide while achieving geopolitical and domestic political aims.
The republics of the South and Far East need to wake up to what's being done and seize back their independence. If Chechnya has another go it might find it has more support from outside than last time. There may never be a better opportunity.
Indeed. If you're a young man in Yakutia or Dagestan you're thinking: Why the Fuck should I die for Putin?
But this is obviously the risk of Full Mobilisation, and Putin must know this, which makes me think he is much more frightened and paranoid then we realise. Which is not good
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
How the fuck is the war ‘nearly lost’ for Russia?
They are recruiting 1m men to fight. They have a massive war chest from oil and gas sales
He’s putting the Russian economy on a total war footing. It’s complete mobilization. And he has an nenormous arsenal of nukes
He cannot vanquish all Ukraine as things stand but if he drops one tactical nuke on, say, snake island or Odessa or wherever, then that completely changes the game
I have been listening to people who know more than me. A useful analogy for ground warfare is scissors, paper, stone. Tanks beat artillery, artillery beats infantry, infantry beats tanks.
It must all work in concert like an orchestra for a successful offensive. Which means strong command and control, efficient logistics, autonomous decision making capability of fighting units and high morale.
Russia now lacks tanks and artillery, running out of precision weapons and even soviet stocks of shell. And they don’t have air superiority to make up for it. To a degree masses of infantry can make a difference but only a very highly motivated and trained one, that runs towards advancing tanks rather than away. It was lacking the orchestral ingredients from the beginning, though made much worse by Ukraine’s ruthless focus on causing troop attrition, and damage to command & control and logistics.
This should then be set against the battle map. Russia can only move the necessary materiel around by rail, given weak logistics capability (not enough off road trucks/drivers, forklift and pallet system etc…). And Ukraine is ruthlessly targeting rail junctions. The map is such that a proper Russian offensive to take all of Donbas is now practically impossible. It’s Kherson formation is trapped north of the Dnipro. And it’s Crimea land bridge is utterly vulnerable to an attack on the junction city of Melitopol.
The raised troops won’t make the difference. What of a low yield nuke? What do you suppose the reaction would be? From within Russia, from Russian trading partners. From the US (sanctions and militarily). And from the inhabitants of Ukraine. If success is judged by Russia securing the long term annexation of territory and a stronger Russia thereafter, it’s hard to think of a more counterproductive move than using a nuke.
Putin know he’s lost this war. His words and actions this week are about managing his right flank domestically and little more.
"Domestically" will mean something different this time next week, after the four regions are annexed. Will the US supply HIMARS for launching missiles inside (and at targets inside) what the Russian government says is Russia? Right now it seems the answer is yes, although it's possible that may change. If it is yes, the diplomatic situation between Russia and the US will certainly change, to put it mildly. That would be an inevitable consequence of the US decision. And then some. A new stage begins.
Who are Putin's "right flank"? Presumably that means hawks, and proper military or other silovik hawks rather than civilians who rant on about Eurasia. Are they all nuts who don't know they've lost too? Gotta wonder how Russia has actually stayed in one piece if the sharp end of the state is run by such incompetents who can't face reality. I don't mean that flippantly. If Russia were going to break up, it would already have done so.
A number of consistent stories on social media that Russia is actually pushing forward with something more like full mobilisation in the rural and ethnic minority areas while going gently on Moscow and St Petersburg. Confirmed by the Russian I interviewed earlier today who told me he didn't expect to be called up as he is in Moscow and has a long term injury.
A form of ethnic cleansing? White Russians like other ethno-nationalists around Europe fear being outbred by minorities in their borders. Sending the young menfolk in to be slaughtered in Ukraine is a handy way of stemming the tide while achieving geopolitical and domestic political aims.
The republics of the South and Far East need to wake up to what's being done and seize back their independence. If Chechnya has another go it might find it has more support from outside than last time. There may never be a better opportunity.
Indeed. If you're a young man in Yakutia or Dagestan you're thinking: Why the Fuck should I die for Putin?
But this is obviously the risk of Full Mobilisation, and Putin must know this, which makes me think he is much more frightened and paranoid then we realise. Which is not good
Sadly if you're a young man in Yakutia, you probably don't even understand why you're being sent to die.
£115mn loss in a year, it seems their off the pitch performance is matching their on the pitch one.
The report doesn't mention Financial Fair Play regulations, but how can that state of affairs possibly line up with FFP rules? Or have they just become even more discredited and meaningless?
Sadly Cyclefree is NOT available to answer your inquiry, as she is currently up to both elbows in soap suds.
Considering the subject matter, I'd more expect a response from @DavidL anyway.
The loss is reflective of the fact that they bought a lot of players this summer and the way that those capital costs are depreciated. In the mean time, in a season where they won (again) the square root of f all, revenues increased to a fairly mindblowing £583m. The transfer out of players like Pogba for nothing obviously didn't help either. but the business is extremely sound. The Glazers cause me no end of grief but the fact is they have made the thick end of £1bn from the purchase of Man U and it is not going to get any less on the back of this.
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
How the fuck is the war ‘nearly lost’ for Russia?
They are recruiting 1m men to fight. They have a massive war chest from oil and gas sales
He’s putting the Russian economy on a total war footing. It’s complete mobilization. And he has an nenormous arsenal of nukes
He cannot vanquish all Ukraine as things stand but if he drops one tactical nuke on, say, snake island or Odessa or wherever, then that completely changes the game
I have been listening to people who know more than me. A useful analogy for ground warfare is scissors, paper, stone. Tanks beat artillery, artillery beats infantry, infantry beats tanks.
It must all work in concert like an orchestra for a successful offensive. Which means strong command and control, efficient logistics, autonomous decision making capability of fighting units and high morale.
Russia now lacks tanks and artillery, running out of precision weapons and even soviet stocks of shell. And they don’t have air superiority to make up for it. To a degree masses of infantry can make a difference but only a very highly motivated and trained one, that runs towards advancing tanks rather than away. It was lacking the orchestral ingredients from the beginning, though made much worse by Ukraine’s ruthless focus on causing troop attrition, and damage to command & control and logistics.
This should then be set against the battle map. Russia can only move the necessary materiel around by rail, given weak logistics capability (not enough off road trucks/drivers, forklift and pallet system etc…). And Ukraine is ruthlessly targeting rail junctions. The map is such that a proper Russian offensive to take all of Donbas is now practically impossible. It’s Kherson formation is trapped north of the Dnipro. And it’s Crimea land bridge is utterly vulnerable to an attack on the junction city of Melitopol.
The raised troops won’t make the difference. What of a low yield nuke? What do you suppose the reaction would be? From within Russia, from Russian trading partners. From the US (sanctions and militarily). And from the inhabitants of Ukraine. If success is judged by Russia securing the long term annexation of territory and a stronger Russia thereafter, it’s hard to think of a more counterproductive move than using a nuke.
Putin know he’s lost this war. His words and actions this week are about managing his right flank domestically and little more.
"Domestically" will mean something different this time next week, after the four regions are annexed. Will the US supply HIMARS for launching missiles inside (and at targets inside) what the Russian government says is Russia? Right now it seems the answer is yes, although it's possible that may change. If it is yes, the diplomatic situation between Russia and the US will certainly change, to put it mildly. That would be an inevitable consequence of the US decision. And then some. A new stage begins.
Who are Putin's "right flank"? Presumably that means hawks, and proper military or other silovik hawks rather than civilians who rant on about Eurasia. Are they all nuts who don't know they've lost too? Gotta wonder how Russia has actually stayed in one piece if the sharp end of the state is run by such incompetents who can't face reality. I don't mean that flippantly. If Russia were going to break up, it would already have done so.
LOL if you think that anyone is going to consider the annexation legitimate or "domestic" Russian territory.
Russia/the Soviet Union has broken up once before already. Putin seems to want to return to Soviet days, well I wouldn't rule out history repeating itself, first as tragedy and second as farce.
@RALee85 "Russian President Vladimir Putin is himself giving directions directly to generals in the field, two sources familiar with US and western intelligence said"
It's a well known fact that Presidents micromanaging military men always ends well.
I may be mistaken but I sense a hint of irony in your reply.
What are the worst examples of Presidents micromanaging generals would you say? There must be some absolute horror story examples.
Well, it may not be the most egregious of examples but in WW2 Churchill's micromanagement did not always work out spectacularly well. The wound my Dad picked up at Tobruk is a little testimony, very close to home.
Tobruk was pretty much indefensible at the time and Auchinleck knew it but the big man said it must be defended so......
{Antwerp has entered the chat. The Dardanelles has entered the chat. Norway has entered the chat…}
Churchill had a long history of military strategic ideas. I’m trying to think of one that worked….
A big Churchill problem was that he could not read a relief map so was forever sending troops to be mountaineers: Dardanelles; Dieppe; Italy to name but three. Also he had no understanding of logistics. The Americans eventually got tired of bailing us out and by the end of the war were talking almost exclusively to Uncle Joe.
The Dardanelles actually nearly worked. Twice.
The good thing about Churchill is that he was down on attrition and big on innovation, from tanks to code-breaking. A lot of the infrastructure for our defence had been put in place under the much-maligned Chamberlain.
Chamberlain is something of a hero of mine. He knew exactly what he was doing. He knew exactly what Hitler was. And he sold his reputation to buy Britain another 12 months. And boy did he use it.
I presume that the idea that he bought time his own expense is expanded upon somewhere? (If so, I'd appreciate a link). I don't really buy it though.
Essentially -
1) British re-armament started before Hitler came to power 2) Yes, you read that right 3) It was kicked off by the laying down of the pocket battleships by the government previous to Hitler. 4) When Hitler came to power, British re-armament got into high gear. 5) By 1936, the problem was finding things to spend money on, not money to spend. 6) This is because weapons are not easily substituted for, say, potato production. 7) British re-aramament was in depth. That is, we built factories for the bits to build factories to build weapons. 8) The timeline was known. Hitler would be ready for war sometime in late 1942, early 1943. 9) This was known from the planned naval expansion, which wasn't possible to hide. 10) The plan was for Britain to reach peak strength in 1942 (early). Lots of Battleships. Lots of Carriers. An airforce of heavy bombers armed with 20mm cannon, flying a 300mph, with 2000hp engines. All fighter to have 2000hp engines, 400mph, all 20 mm cannon armament. The standard anti-tank gun was to be, by then, the 17lbr. etc etc 11) Hitler started kicking the war off early - whether he believed Schacht about the collapsing German financial situation, or he was so used to following 6 by then... its's your choice really. 12) So the UK had large number of cheap and nasty weapons, which were early products of the build up - the Fairey Battle, for example. A cheap way to get bomber squadrons started. 1 pilot, 1 navigator, 1 gunner. Ready as the nucleus of a crew for a B1/39 Standard Heavy Bomber, later.
So if war had started in 1938, Britain was in a poor position. Because we were still building out the infrastructure to make weapons, and the plan was to move to mass production of the very latestweapons later. Aircraft in particular were changing fast. A vast fleet of 1937 fighters would be useless by 1939....
So the more time we had to pivot to the production phase of re-armament, early, the better.
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
Interesting to see the figures, but it does match my thoughts from the other day that house prices are up because people could afford to spend around 40% of income on it. Lower interest rates, greater affordability, higher prices.
Interest rates could be brutal by next year, though still negative in real terms. We need inflation matching pay-rises to escape the trap.
You forget that Putin is now desperate. Cornered by his own terrible blunders. He is one big defeat away from being sodomised by a bayonet like Gadaffi
That’s why he’s gone full fat mobilisation (the “partial” shit was a lie so he wouldn’t freak out his own people). Proper mobilisation is the act of a seriously paranoid and frightened man
He knows he can’t train them up in time to turn the tide of battle this year. And he’s running out of weapons
What he can do is probably stop the Ukrainian advance by sheer weight of numbers and also make the enemy think again
This is where a tactical nuke comes in handy. Drop one and say to the west: I’ll drop more unless you stop arming Kyiv
It’s a massively risky move. For the world and for him. But it could work in the short medium term and save his sorry ass - for now
If I was Putin, I’d do it. Because all options are grim now
However it does depend on him having a military willing to obey this instruction. A moot point
"If I was Putin. I'd do it".
No you wouldn't because you consider consequences. I know this because during Lockdown 1 you hunkered down in Penarth as you feared the consequences of remaining in the smoke with the great unwashed
One person avoiding getting ill, though, even with a fatal disease, is different from their giving up a chance to do this:
£115mn loss in a year, it seems their off the pitch performance is matching their on the pitch one.
The report doesn't mention Financial Fair Play regulations, but how can that state of affairs possibly line up with FFP rules? Or have they just become even more discredited and meaningless?
Sadly Cyclefree is NOT available to answer your inquiry, as she is currently up to both elbows in soap suds.
Considering the subject matter, I'd more expect a response from @DavidL anyway.
Not to disparage DavidL's expertise in the slightest, when I think of definitely disfunctional and potentially problematic corporate/organizational behavior, I think of Cyclefree.
I agree. But there is nothing dysfunctional of a business which increases sales by 18% when they are playing boring rubbish. If they started to win things again with the new players (very big if of course) profits will go through the roof.
£115mn loss in a year, it seems their off the pitch performance is matching their on the pitch one.
The report doesn't mention Financial Fair Play regulations, but how can that state of affairs possibly line up with FFP rules? Or have they just become even more discredited and meaningless?
Sadly Cyclefree is NOT available to answer your inquiry, as she is currently up to both elbows in soap suds.
Considering the subject matter, I'd more expect a response from @DavidL anyway.
The loss is reflective of the fact that they bought a lot of players this summer and the way that those capital costs are depreciated. In the mean time, in a season where they won (again) the square root of f all, revenues increased to a fairly mindblowing £583m. The transfer out of players like Pogba for nothing obviously didn't help either. but the business is extremely sound. The Glazers cause me no end of grief but the fact is they have made the thick end of £1bn from the purchase of Man U and it is not going to get any less on the back of this.
Isn't the bulk of the rise in the revenues though just the global rise of all Premier League club revenues, rather than anything driven by the Glazers? Liverpool haven't done their results yet, but I believe forecasts are for the figure to be above £600mn which would I believe be the first time Liverpool have been ahead of United in revenues in the Premier League era? If not that, then in many years.
United now being half a billion in debt seems like a remarkably high figure, or don't you think so?
A number of consistent stories on social media that Russia is actually pushing forward with something more like full mobilisation in the rural and ethnic minority areas while going gently on Moscow and St Petersburg. Confirmed by the Russian I interviewed earlier today who told me he didn't expect to be called up as he is in Moscow and has a long term injury.
A form of ethnic cleansing? White Russians like other ethno-nationalists around Europe fear being outbred by minorities in their borders. Sending the young menfolk in to be slaughtered in Ukraine is a handy way of stemming the tide while achieving geopolitical and domestic political aims.
The republics of the South and Far East need to wake up to what's being done and seize back their independence. If Chechnya has another go it might find it has more support from outside than last time. There may never be a better opportunity.
Indeed. If you're a young man in Yakutia or Dagestan you're thinking: Why the Fuck should I die for Putin?
But this is obviously the risk of Full Mobilisation, and Putin must know this, which makes me think he is much more frightened and paranoid then we realise. Which is not good
He is definitely frightened because everything he has touched in last 12 months has turned to absolute shit and he knows it. As do the elite around him.
He has pulled off one of the greatest military disasters in decades if not hundreds of years.
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
With respect that is rubbish because it is only looking at one side of the balance sheet. Yes, people have higher multiples of indebtedness than they had in the 80s when interest rates were much higher. Yes this means that they are more highly geared relative to their salaries than they were in the 80s and therefore more vulnerable to interest rate changes. But no, the affordability of mortgages are not just reflected by these things but also by the nominal level of earnings. At the moment nominal wages are increasing by at least 7% pa, and that number is likely to go up to 10%. This will, over time, significantly reduce the cost of the mortgage. I saw this with my parents in the 1970s and we are now likely to see a repeat.
If you had a £300k mortgage a year ago in real terms you now owe £270k. Next year you will owe £243K. Whether these windfalls are "real" depends on the value of the asset over that time. But they mean that those with substantial debts are gaining substantially from a burst of inflation, even if their cashflow is diminished somewhat in the short term.
Yes, if 1. you keep your job and 2. your wages increase in line with, not base rate, but actual inflation. Not things which automatically happen for everyone in recessions.
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
How the fuck is the war ‘nearly lost’ for Russia?
They are recruiting 1m men to fight. They have a massive war chest from oil and gas sales
He’s putting the Russian economy on a total war footing. It’s complete mobilization. And he has an nenormous arsenal of nukes
He cannot vanquish all Ukraine as things stand but if he drops one tactical nuke on, say, snake island or Odessa or wherever, then that completely changes the game
I have been listening to people who know more than me. A useful analogy for ground warfare is scissors, paper, stone. Tanks beat artillery, artillery beats infantry, infantry beats tanks.
It must all work in concert like an orchestra for a successful offensive. Which means strong command and control, efficient logistics, autonomous decision making capability of fighting units and high morale.
Russia now lacks tanks and artillery, running out of precision weapons and even soviet stocks of shell. And they don’t have air superiority to make up for it. To a degree masses of infantry can make a difference but only a very highly motivated and trained one, that runs towards advancing tanks rather than away. It was lacking the orchestral ingredients from the beginning, though made much worse by Ukraine’s ruthless focus on causing troop attrition, and damage to command & control and logistics.
This should then be set against the battle map. Russia can only move the necessary materiel around by rail, given weak logistics capability (not enough off road trucks/drivers, forklift and pallet system etc…). And Ukraine is ruthlessly targeting rail junctions. The map is such that a proper Russian offensive to take all of Donbas is now practically impossible. It’s Kherson formation is trapped north of the Dnipro. And it’s Crimea land bridge is utterly vulnerable to an attack on the junction city of Melitopol.
The raised troops won’t make the difference. What of a low yield nuke? What do you suppose the reaction would be? From within Russia, from Russian trading partners. From the US (sanctions and militarily). And from the inhabitants of Ukraine. If success is judged by Russia securing the long term annexation of territory and a stronger Russia thereafter, it’s hard to think of a more counterproductive move than using a nuke.
Putin know he’s lost this war. His words and actions this week are about managing his right flank domestically and little more.
"Domestically" will mean something different this time next week, after the four regions are annexed. Will the US supply HIMARS for launching missiles inside (and at targets inside) what the Russian government says is Russia? Right now it seems the answer is yes, although it's possible that may change. If it is yes, the diplomatic situation between Russia and the US will certainly change, to put it mildly. That would be an inevitable consequence of the US decision. And then some. A new stage begins.
So by that piece of bully's logic NATO could just accept Ukraine membership tomorrow and then claim any Russian attack on Ukrainian soil is an attack on NATO, and trigger article 5.
You'll say NATO would never do that because it would be an escalation putting the whole alliance at risk. Right - because we're not stupid. And Russia annexing territory that doesn't belong to it is a massive escalation which puts its leadership's own survival at risk.
Ukraine will continue to hit areas of its own country that have been illegally invaded with everything it can get its hands on, including HIMARS, and the only escalation will have come from Moscow.
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
With respect that is rubbish because it is only looking at one side of the balance sheet. Yes, people have higher multiples of indebtedness than they had in the 80s when interest rates were much higher. Yes this means that they are more highly geared relative to their salaries than they were in the 80s and therefore more vulnerable to interest rate changes. But no, the affordability of mortgages are not just reflected by these things but also by the nominal level of earnings. At the moment nominal wages are increasing by at least 7% pa, and that number is likely to go up to 10%. This will, over time, significantly reduce the cost of the mortgage. I saw this with my parents in the 1970s and we are now likely to see a repeat.
If you had a £300k mortgage a year ago in real terms you now owe £270k. Next year you will owe £243K. Whether these windfalls are "real" depends on the value of the asset over that time. But they mean that those with substantial debts are gaining substantially from a burst of inflation, even if their cashflow is diminished somewhat in the short term.
Only if people get parishes near inflation. Many are not.
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
With respect that is rubbish because it is only looking at one side of the balance sheet. Yes, people have higher multiples of indebtedness than they had in the 80s when interest rates were much higher. Yes this means that they are more highly geared relative to their salaries than they were in the 80s and therefore more vulnerable to interest rate changes. But no, the affordability of mortgages are not just reflected by these things but also by the nominal level of earnings. At the moment nominal wages are increasing by at least 7% pa, and that number is likely to go up to 10%. This will, over time, significantly reduce the cost of the mortgage. I saw this with my parents in the 1970s and we are now likely to see a repeat.
If you had a £300k mortgage a year ago in real terms you now owe £270k. Next year you will owe £243K. Whether these windfalls are "real" depends on the value of the asset over that time. But they mean that those with substantial debts are gaining substantially from a burst of inflation, even if their cashflow is diminished somewhat in the short term.
Yes, if 1. you keep your job and 2. your wages increase in line with, not base rate, but actual inflation. Not things which automatically happen for everyone in recessions.
No, but it does for the vast majority even in severe recessions and this is looking a shallow one at the moment. Those with more fixed incomes, such as pensioners, struggle with inflation much more than those in work but they rarely have mortgages to worry about.
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
Interesting to see the figures, but it does match my thoughts from the other day that house prices are up because people could afford to spend around 40% of income on it. Lower interest rates, greater affordability, higher prices.
Interest rates could be brutal by next year, though still negative in real terms. We need inflation matching pay-rises to escape the trap.
Though that then chases the pain to someone or somewhen else.
What's the optimal political outcome of Trussonimics? Continual good times, I guess, but that seems unlikely. If she extends feel good to 2024, she might win and then the mother of all hangovers happens on her second watch.
A number of consistent stories on social media that Russia is actually pushing forward with something more like full mobilisation in the rural and ethnic minority areas while going gently on Moscow and St Petersburg. Confirmed by the Russian I interviewed earlier today who told me he didn't expect to be called up as he is in Moscow and has a long term injury.
A form of ethnic cleansing? White Russians like other ethno-nationalists around Europe fear being outbred by minorities in their borders. Sending the young menfolk in to be slaughtered in Ukraine is a handy way of stemming the tide while achieving geopolitical and domestic political aims.
The republics of the South and Far East need to wake up to what's being done and seize back their independence. If Chechnya has another go it might find it has more support from outside than last time. There may never be a better opportunity.
Russia is a Muscovite Empire. So long as Moscow remains stable and happy, the rest of the country can burn in hell. Even in the Soviet Era, shops in Moscow could be packed with food for the locals, while there were empty shelves in any other town or city. Moscow is a parasite on the rest of Russia, the best possible thing for Russian people in most of the country, would be the end of Russia as a unified state.
This is an ignorant comment, sorry
I went to Moscow during the commie era. Did you?
Moscow was not "stable and happy", nor did it have shops "packed with food for the locals"
There were empty shelves in Moscow as everywhere across the USSR. There WERE a few well stocked shops for people with hard currency - valyuta - and Party membership cards - but they were rare and also scattered across the Soviet Empire. Thus ensuring loyalty from the Nomenklatura from Minsk to Vladisvostok
£115mn loss in a year, it seems their off the pitch performance is matching their on the pitch one.
The report doesn't mention Financial Fair Play regulations, but how can that state of affairs possibly line up with FFP rules? Or have they just become even more discredited and meaningless?
Sadly Cyclefree is NOT available to answer your inquiry, as she is currently up to both elbows in soap suds.
Considering the subject matter, I'd more expect a response from @DavidL anyway.
The loss is reflective of the fact that they bought a lot of players this summer and the way that those capital costs are depreciated. In the mean time, in a season where they won (again) the square root of f all, revenues increased to a fairly mindblowing £583m. The transfer out of players like Pogba for nothing obviously didn't help either. but the business is extremely sound. The Glazers cause me no end of grief but the fact is they have made the thick end of £1bn from the purchase of Man U and it is not going to get any less on the back of this.
Isn't the bulk of the rise in the revenues though just the global rise of all Premier League club revenues, rather than anything driven by the Glazers? Liverpool haven't done their results yet, but I believe forecasts are for the figure to be above £600mn which would I believe be the first time Liverpool have been ahead of United in revenues in the Premier League era? If not that, then in many years.
United now being half a billion in debt seems like a remarkably high figure, or don't you think so?
The Glazers have vastly improved the off field performance of the club and monetised the huge fan base to an almost shameful extent. Liverpool have matched United by getting to the far reaches of the CHampions league, a competition Man U didn't even qualify for this year. I would be surprised if that was worth less than £100m to them.
And £500m is not that big a problem for a club with lots of off balance sheet assets (a large squad) and such income. This is a serious business with a somewhat disappointing product actually on the pitch right now. Hopefully that is going to improve.
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
With respect that is rubbish because it is only looking at one side of the balance sheet. Yes, people have higher multiples of indebtedness than they had in the 80s when interest rates were much higher. Yes this means that they are more highly geared relative to their salaries than they were in the 80s and therefore more vulnerable to interest rate changes. But no, the affordability of mortgages are not just reflected by these things but also by the nominal level of earnings. At the moment nominal wages are increasing by at least 7% pa, and that number is likely to go up to 10%. This will, over time, significantly reduce the cost of the mortgage. I saw this with my parents in the 1970s and we are now likely to see a repeat.
If you had a £300k mortgage a year ago in real terms you now owe £270k. Next year you will owe £243K. Whether these windfalls are "real" depends on the value of the asset over that time. But they mean that those with substantial debts are gaining substantially from a burst of inflation, even if their cashflow is diminished somewhat in the short term.
Yes, if 1. you keep your job and 2. your wages increase in line with, not base rate, but actual inflation. Not things which automatically happen for everyone in recessions.
No, but it does for the vast majority even in severe recessions and this is looking a shallow one at the moment. Those with more fixed incomes, such as pensioners, struggle with inflation much more than those in work but they rarely have mortgages to worry about.
The "vast majority" doesn't include the Public Sector. My TA's are on minimum wage. Not many are having wages rise in line with inflation.
A number of consistent stories on social media that Russia is actually pushing forward with something more like full mobilisation in the rural and ethnic minority areas while going gently on Moscow and St Petersburg. Confirmed by the Russian I interviewed earlier today who told me he didn't expect to be called up as he is in Moscow and has a long term injury.
A form of ethnic cleansing? White Russians like other ethno-nationalists around Europe fear being outbred by minorities in their borders. Sending the young menfolk in to be slaughtered in Ukraine is a handy way of stemming the tide while achieving geopolitical and domestic political aims.
The republics of the South and Far East need to wake up to what's being done and seize back their independence. If Chechnya has another go it might find it has more support from outside than last time. There may never be a better opportunity.
Indeed. If you're a young man in Yakutia or Dagestan you're thinking: Why the Fuck should I die for Putin?
But this is obviously the risk of Full Mobilisation, and Putin must know this, which makes me think he is much more frightened and paranoid then we realise. Which is not good
He is definitely frightened because everything he has touched in last 12 months has turned to absolute shit and he knows it. As do the elite around him.
He has pulled off one of the greatest military disasters in decades if not hundreds of years.
And there is more to come.
Yes, I'm worried about Putin because he is losing, calamitously, not because he is winning
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
Interesting to see the figures, but it does match my thoughts from the other day that house prices are up because people could afford to spend around 40% of income on it. Lower interest rates, greater affordability, higher prices.
Interest rates could be brutal by next year, though still negative in real terms. We need inflation matching pay-rises to escape the trap.
Though that then chases the pain to someone or somewhen else.
What's the optimal political outcome of Trussonimics? Continual good times, I guess, but that seems unlikely. If she extends feel good to 2024, she might win and then the mother of all hangovers happens on her second watch.
Optimal outcome:
High inflation is matched by equivalent wage growth and without a significant recession, debt falls proportionately relative to income as a result. House prices fall moderately, which combined with high wage growth leads to a significant correction to the better for house price to earnings ratios but doesn't lead to significant negative equity.
Russia loses the war, leading to commodity prices falling back down leading to inflation coming back down to a moderate, gentle rate with incomes then rising in real terms from a base where debt has been deflated and house price to earnings ratios are more realistic, without major negative equity.
I've never owned a dishwasher. Washing up by hand is a domestic task I find thoroughly pleasurable.
Put that on the tinder and the world will beat a path to your door...
I believe it is suboptimal environmental practice, as a modern dishwasher uses less water
This depends on how people do their manual dishwashing or use their dishwasher. For example, I know that my Dad always pre-rinses dishes before putting them in the dishwasher. And a lot of the comparisons with manual dishwashing appear to assume that someone washing dishes has the tap on continuously.
But I don't think that either approach, if implemented sensibly, uses so much water that it is problematic.
Some years back they did a test of a professional manual dishwasher from a restaurant vs a machine. The professional dishwasher was marginally more efficient - but this was a long while back. The people running the study said that, even then, unless you were top notch, the machine would beat you. That was a decade ago, IIRC.
I've belatedly gone for the smart meter, having held out for the guaranteed V2 then had other priorities for a while. With the bill rises, I am right on the statto trail at the moment.
Dishwasher vs washing may be a difference on water use, but I wash a decent amount with one bowlful, and it's also direct gas use (for the hot water) Vs indirect electricity use (for the kettle in the dishwasher) - I reckon energy wise it looks like about 10p of gas water heating for the hand wash and about 30p of heating element use for the dishwasher, but the dishwasher load is perhaps double what I manage per bowl.
But I'm on the page that hand washing is lower energy cost currently
A number of consistent stories on social media that Russia is actually pushing forward with something more like full mobilisation in the rural and ethnic minority areas while going gently on Moscow and St Petersburg. Confirmed by the Russian I interviewed earlier today who told me he didn't expect to be called up as he is in Moscow and has a long term injury.
A form of ethnic cleansing? White Russians like other ethno-nationalists around Europe fear being outbred by minorities in their borders. Sending the young menfolk in to be slaughtered in Ukraine is a handy way of stemming the tide while achieving geopolitical and domestic political aims.
The republics of the South and Far East need to wake up to what's being done and seize back their independence. If Chechnya has another go it might find it has more support from outside than last time. There may never be a better opportunity.
Russia is a Muscovite Empire. So long as Moscow remains stable and happy, the rest of the country can burn in hell. Even in the Soviet Era, shops in Moscow could be packed with food for the locals, while there were empty shelves in any other town or city. Moscow is a parasite on the rest of Russia, the best possible thing for Russian people in most of the country, would be the end of Russia as a unified state.
This is an ignorant comment, sorry
I went to Moscow during the commie era. Did you?
Moscow was not "stable and happy", nor did it have shops "packed with food for the locals"
There were empty shelves in Moscow as everywhere across the USSR. There WERE a few well stocked shops for people with hard currency - valyuta - and Party membership cards - but they were rare and also scattered across the Soviet Empire. Thus ensuring loyalty from the Nomenklatura from Minsk to Vladisvostok
Are you saying that Moscow wasn't stable and happy relative to the UK or relative to the rest of Russia. Relative to the rest of Russia, Moscow absolutely was prioritised.
Apropos of nothing, I thought I’d share some information around covid and cancer from a cancer symposium today. When covid hit the oncology deoartment at our local hospital had hard choices to make. They introduced six categories of cancer patient depending on how their likely progression would play out. The bottom three categories, those likely to die within a year, or with limited potential for complete cure, were pretty much written off to allow treatment for the top three to go ahead. Quite stark. Like battlefield triage saving those you can, and ignoring those too hard to try. But slightly chilling to hear it confirmed as policy from a clinicians mouth.
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
With respect that is rubbish because it is only looking at one side of the balance sheet. Yes, people have higher multiples of indebtedness than they had in the 80s when interest rates were much higher. Yes this means that they are more highly geared relative to their salaries than they were in the 80s and therefore more vulnerable to interest rate changes. But no, the affordability of mortgages are not just reflected by these things but also by the nominal level of earnings. At the moment nominal wages are increasing by at least 7% pa, and that number is likely to go up to 10%. This will, over time, significantly reduce the cost of the mortgage. I saw this with my parents in the 1970s and we are now likely to see a repeat.
If you had a £300k mortgage a year ago in real terms you now owe £270k. Next year you will owe £243K. Whether these windfalls are "real" depends on the value of the asset over that time. But they mean that those with substantial debts are gaining substantially from a burst of inflation, even if their cashflow is diminished somewhat in the short term.
Yes, if 1. you keep your job and 2. your wages increase in line with, not base rate, but actual inflation. Not things which automatically happen for everyone in recessions.
No, but it does for the vast majority even in severe recessions and this is looking a shallow one at the moment. Those with more fixed incomes, such as pensioners, struggle with inflation much more than those in work but they rarely have mortgages to worry about.
The "vast majority" doesn't include the Public Sector. My TA's are on minimum wage. Not many are having wages rise in line with inflation.
In recent years the minimum wage or living wage has risen considerably faster than inflation catching more and more in its grasp by eliminating differentials. And those on it will not have large mortgages or, in most cases, any mortgages at all.
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
With respect that is rubbish because it is only looking at one side of the balance sheet. Yes, people have higher multiples of indebtedness than they had in the 80s when interest rates were much higher. Yes this means that they are more highly geared relative to their salaries than they were in the 80s and therefore more vulnerable to interest rate changes. But no, the affordability of mortgages are not just reflected by these things but also by the nominal level of earnings. At the moment nominal wages are increasing by at least 7% pa, and that number is likely to go up to 10%. This will, over time, significantly reduce the cost of the mortgage. I saw this with my parents in the 1970s and we are now likely to see a repeat.
If you had a £300k mortgage a year ago in real terms you now owe £270k. Next year you will owe £243K. Whether these windfalls are "real" depends on the value of the asset over that time. But they mean that those with substantial debts are gaining substantially from a burst of inflation, even if their cashflow is diminished somewhat in the short term.
Yes, if 1. you keep your job and 2. your wages increase in line with, not base rate, but actual inflation. Not things which automatically happen for everyone in recessions.
No, but it does for the vast majority even in severe recessions and this is looking a shallow one at the moment. Those with more fixed incomes, such as pensioners, struggle with inflation much more than those in work but they rarely have mortgages to worry about.
The "vast majority" doesn't include the Public Sector. My TA's are on minimum wage. Not many are having wages rise in line with inflation.
I appreciate any job on minimum wage is not a great place to be but wouldn't we expect the minimum wage to rise with inflation?
Or is abandoning that link another great Truss idea for growing the economy?
A number of consistent stories on social media that Russia is actually pushing forward with something more like full mobilisation in the rural and ethnic minority areas while going gently on Moscow and St Petersburg. Confirmed by the Russian I interviewed earlier today who told me he didn't expect to be called up as he is in Moscow and has a long term injury.
A form of ethnic cleansing? White Russians like other ethno-nationalists around Europe fear being outbred by minorities in their borders. Sending the young menfolk in to be slaughtered in Ukraine is a handy way of stemming the tide while achieving geopolitical and domestic political aims.
The republics of the South and Far East need to wake up to what's being done and seize back their independence. If Chechnya has another go it might find it has more support from outside than last time. There may never be a better opportunity.
Indeed. If you're a young man in Yakutia or Dagestan you're thinking: Why the Fuck should I die for Putin?
But this is obviously the risk of Full Mobilisation, and Putin must know this, which makes me think he is much more frightened and paranoid then we realise. Which is not good
He is definitely frightened because everything he has touched in last 12 months has turned to absolute shit and he knows it. As do the elite around him.
He has pulled off one of the greatest military disasters in decades if not hundreds of years.
And there is more to come.
Yes, I'm worried about Putin because he is losing, calamitously, not because he is winning
FWIW, as a wild prediction, I think he will use a tactical nuke in desperation to try and scare the West away from Ukraine and then a NATO rain of absolute airforce fire will wipe out so much of the command structure, senior officers locations and general staff and comms in the field that the elite will remove him from office before it gets worse.
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
Interesting to see the figures, but it does match my thoughts from the other day that house prices are up because people could afford to spend around 40% of income on it. Lower interest rates, greater affordability, higher prices.
Interest rates could be brutal by next year, though still negative in real terms. We need inflation matching pay-rises to escape the trap.
Though that then chases the pain to someone or somewhen else.
What's the optimal political outcome of Trussonimics? Continual good times, I guess, but that seems unlikely. If she extends feel good to 2024, she might win and then the mother of all hangovers happens on her second watch.
Optimal outcome:
High inflation is matched by equivalent wage growth and without a significant recession, debt falls proportionately relative to income as a result. House prices fall moderately, which combined with high wage growth leads to a significant correction to the better for house price to earnings ratios but doesn't lead to significant negative equity.
Russia loses the war, leading to commodity prices falling back down leading to inflation coming back down to a moderate, gentle rate with incomes then rising in real terms from a base where debt has been deflated and house price to earnings ratios are more realistic, without major negative equity.
Lower house prices but higher interest rates makes for no better affordability. Not really any advantage to people. Apart from savers, of course, and then only if interest rates are higher than inflation. We have had real terms negative interest rates since the GFC.
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
With respect that is rubbish because it is only looking at one side of the balance sheet. Yes, people have higher multiples of indebtedness than they had in the 80s when interest rates were much higher. Yes this means that they are more highly geared relative to their salaries than they were in the 80s and therefore more vulnerable to interest rate changes. But no, the affordability of mortgages are not just reflected by these things but also by the nominal level of earnings. At the moment nominal wages are increasing by at least 7% pa, and that number is likely to go up to 10%. This will, over time, significantly reduce the cost of the mortgage. I saw this with my parents in the 1970s and we are now likely to see a repeat.
If you had a £300k mortgage a year ago in real terms you now owe £270k. Next year you will owe £243K. Whether these windfalls are "real" depends on the value of the asset over that time. But they mean that those with substantial debts are gaining substantially from a burst of inflation, even if their cashflow is diminished somewhat in the short term.
Yes, if 1. you keep your job and 2. your wages increase in line with, not base rate, but actual inflation. Not things which automatically happen for everyone in recessions.
No, but it does for the vast majority even in severe recessions and this is looking a shallow one at the moment. Those with more fixed incomes, such as pensioners, struggle with inflation much more than those in work but they rarely have mortgages to worry about.
The "vast majority" doesn't include the Public Sector. My TA's are on minimum wage. Not many are having wages rise in line with inflation.
In recent years the minimum wage or living wage has risen considerably faster than inflation catching more and more in its grasp by eliminating differentials. And those on it will not have large mortgages or, in most cases, any mortgages at all.
Houses are affordable up here on minimum wage. Certainly if you're a couple. I realise this isn't at all typical for the UK.
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
Interesting to see the figures, but it does match my thoughts from the other day that house prices are up because people could afford to spend around 40% of income on it. Lower interest rates, greater affordability, higher prices.
Interest rates could be brutal by next year, though still negative in real terms. We need inflation matching pay-rises to escape the trap.
Though that then chases the pain to someone or somewhen else.
What's the optimal political outcome of Trussonimics? Continual good times, I guess, but that seems unlikely. If she extends feel good to 2024, she might win and then the mother of all hangovers happens on her second watch.
Optimal outcome:
High inflation is matched by equivalent wage growth and without a significant recession, debt falls proportionately relative to income as a result. House prices fall moderately, which combined with high wage growth leads to a significant correction to the better for house price to earnings ratios but doesn't lead to significant negative equity.
Russia loses the war, leading to commodity prices falling back down leading to inflation coming back down to a moderate, gentle rate with incomes then rising in real terms from a base where debt has been deflated and house price to earnings ratios are more realistic, without major negative equity.
Lower house prices but higher interest rates makes for no better affordability. Not really any advantage to people. Apart from savers, of course, and then only if interest rates are higher than inflation. We have had real terms negative interest rates since the GFC.
It makes getting a deposit more affordable, that's the primary advantage of lower house-price to earnings ratios. Getting a deposit has been the hardest part for a lot of prospective home buyers in recent years.
Getting a 10% deposit at an 8x ratio is like saving for a 20% at a 4x ratio.
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
With respect that is rubbish because it is only looking at one side of the balance sheet. Yes, people have higher multiples of indebtedness than they had in the 80s when interest rates were much higher. Yes this means that they are more highly geared relative to their salaries than they were in the 80s and therefore more vulnerable to interest rate changes. But no, the affordability of mortgages are not just reflected by these things but also by the nominal level of earnings. At the moment nominal wages are increasing by at least 7% pa, and that number is likely to go up to 10%. This will, over time, significantly reduce the cost of the mortgage. I saw this with my parents in the 1970s and we are now likely to see a repeat.
If you had a £300k mortgage a year ago in real terms you now owe £270k. Next year you will owe £243K. Whether these windfalls are "real" depends on the value of the asset over that time. But they mean that those with substantial debts are gaining substantially from a burst of inflation, even if their cashflow is diminished somewhat in the short term.
Only if people get parishes near inflation. Many are not.
That would be something to worry about. The speed of this inflation burst has caught out many including unions and wage negotiators. Next year they will be playing catch up and the consequences for public sector finances in particular are going to be severe. It is the main reason I am somewhat anxious about the government policy we are going to get told about tomorrow. We are on the trapeze with no safety net and its a long way down.
@RALee85 "Russian President Vladimir Putin is himself giving directions directly to generals in the field, two sources familiar with US and western intelligence said"
It's a well known fact that Presidents micromanaging military men always ends well.
I may be mistaken but I sense a hint of irony in your reply.
What are the worst examples of Presidents micromanaging generals would you say? There must be some absolute horror story examples.
Well, it may not be the most egregious of examples but in WW2 Churchill's micromanagement did not always work out spectacularly well. The wound my Dad picked up at Tobruk is a little testimony, very close to home.
Tobruk was pretty much indefensible at the time and Auchinleck knew it but the big man said it must be defended so......
{Antwerp has entered the chat. The Dardanelles has entered the chat. Norway has entered the chat…}
Churchill had a long history of military strategic ideas. I’m trying to think of one that worked….
A big Churchill problem was that he could not read a relief map so was forever sending troops to be mountaineers: Dardanelles; Dieppe; Italy to name but three. Also he had no understanding of logistics. The Americans eventually got tired of bailing us out and by the end of the war were talking almost exclusively to Uncle Joe.
The Dardanelles actually nearly worked. Twice.
The good thing about Churchill is that he was down on attrition and big on innovation, from tanks to code-breaking. A lot of the infrastructure for our defence had been put in place under the much-maligned Chamberlain.
Chamberlain is something of a hero of mine. He knew exactly what he was doing. He knew exactly what Hitler was. And he sold his reputation to buy Britain another 12 months. And boy did he use it.
I presume that the idea that he bought time his own expense is expanded upon somewhere? (If so, I'd appreciate a link). I don't really buy it though.
Essentially -
1) British re-armament started before Hitler came to power 2) Yes, you read that right 3) It was kicked off by the laying down of the pocket battleships by the government previous to Hitler. 4) When Hitler came to power, British re-armament got into high gear. 5) By 1936, the problem was finding things to spend money on, not money to spend. 6) This is because weapons are not easily substituted for, say, potato production. 7) British re-aramament was in depth. That is, we built factories for the bits to build factories to build weapons. 8) The timeline was known. Hitler would be ready for war sometime in late 1942, early 1943. 9) This was known from the planned naval expansion, which wasn't possible to hide. 10) The plan was for Britain to reach peak strength in 1942 (early). Lots of Battleships. Lots of Carriers. An airforce of heavy bombers armed with 20mm cannon, flying a 300mph, with 2000hp engines. All fighter to have 2000hp engines, 400mph, all 20 mm cannon armament. The standard anti-tank gun was to be, by then, the 17lbr. etc etc 11) Hitler started kicking the war off early - whether he believed Schacht about the collapsing German financial situation, or he was so used to following 6 by then... its's your choice really. 12) So the UK had large number of cheap and nasty weapons, which were early products of the build up - the Fairey Battle, for example. A cheap way to get bomber squadrons started. 1 pilot, 1 navigator, 1 gunner. Ready as the nucleus of a crew for a B1/39 Standard Heavy Bomber, later.
So if war had started in 1938, Britain was in a poor position. Because we were still building out the infrastructure to make weapons, and the plan was to move to mass production of the very latestweapons later. Aircraft in particular were changing fast. A vast fleet of 1937 fighters would be useless by 1939....
So the more time we had to pivot to the production phase of re-armament, early, the better.
So the thesis runs.....
What do you make of his nemesis, Leo Amery ?
Context - the depth of rearmament was not fully understood, even by politicians in the know. All they saw was a lack of weapons and believed the inflated boasts of Hitler. As did everyone.
These may have cowed Chamberlin inn-938 but as AJP Taylor put it “Hitler exaggerated his strength. So exaggerated precautions were taken against him.”
Minimum wage went up 6.6% in April. This is a real terms pay cut. It may well go up more next year, but that would be playing catch up. It's a pay cut.
A number of consistent stories on social media that Russia is actually pushing forward with something more like full mobilisation in the rural and ethnic minority areas while going gently on Moscow and St Petersburg. Confirmed by the Russian I interviewed earlier today who told me he didn't expect to be called up as he is in Moscow and has a long term injury.
A form of ethnic cleansing? White Russians like other ethno-nationalists around Europe fear being outbred by minorities in their borders. Sending the young menfolk in to be slaughtered in Ukraine is a handy way of stemming the tide while achieving geopolitical and domestic political aims.
The republics of the South and Far East need to wake up to what's being done and seize back their independence. If Chechnya has another go it might find it has more support from outside than last time. There may never be a better opportunity.
Indeed. If you're a young man in Yakutia or Dagestan you're thinking: Why the Fuck should I die for Putin?
But this is obviously the risk of Full Mobilisation, and Putin must know this, which makes me think he is much more frightened and paranoid then we realise. Which is not good
He is definitely frightened because everything he has touched in last 12 months has turned to absolute shit and he knows it. As do the elite around him.
He has pulled off one of the greatest military disasters in decades if not hundreds of years.
And there is more to come.
Yes, I'm worried about Putin because he is losing, calamitously, not because he is winning
FWIW, as a wild prediction, I think he will use a tactical nuke in desperation to try and scare the West away from Ukraine and then a NATO rain of absolute airforce fire will wipe out so much of the command structure, senior officers locations and general staff and comms in the field that the elite will remove him from office before it gets worse.
Might be my normalcy bias but I can’t see Russia using the first nuclear weapon in war since 1945. I still believe there are enough sensible people involved in the chain of command.
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
Interesting to see the figures, but it does match my thoughts from the other day that house prices are up because people could afford to spend around 40% of income on it. Lower interest rates, greater affordability, higher prices.
Interest rates could be brutal by next year, though still negative in real terms. We need inflation matching pay-rises to escape the trap.
Though that then chases the pain to someone or somewhen else.
What's the optimal political outcome of Trussonimics? Continual good times, I guess, but that seems unlikely. If she extends feel good to 2024, she might win and then the mother of all hangovers happens on her second watch.
Optimal outcome:
High inflation is matched by equivalent wage growth and without a significant recession, debt falls proportionately relative to income as a result. House prices fall moderately, which combined with high wage growth leads to a significant correction to the better for house price to earnings ratios but doesn't lead to significant negative equity.
Russia loses the war, leading to commodity prices falling back down leading to inflation coming back down to a moderate, gentle rate with incomes then rising in real terms from a base where debt has been deflated and house price to earnings ratios are more realistic, without major negative equity.
Yes this could all happen. Just like I could potentially roll 10 sixes in a row.
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
Interesting to see the figures, but it does match my thoughts from the other day that house prices are up because people could afford to spend around 40% of income on it. Lower interest rates, greater affordability, higher prices.
Interest rates could be brutal by next year, though still negative in real terms. We need inflation matching pay-rises to escape the trap.
Though that then chases the pain to someone or somewhen else.
What's the optimal political outcome of Trussonimics? Continual good times, I guess, but that seems unlikely. If she extends feel good to 2024, she might win and then the mother of all hangovers happens on her second watch.
Optimal outcome:
High inflation is matched by equivalent wage growth and without a significant recession, debt falls proportionately relative to income as a result. House prices fall moderately, which combined with high wage growth leads to a significant correction to the better for house price to earnings ratios but doesn't lead to significant negative equity.
Russia loses the war, leading to commodity prices falling back down leading to inflation coming back down to a moderate, gentle rate with incomes then rising in real terms from a base where debt has been deflated and house price to earnings ratios are more realistic, without major negative equity.
Yes this could all happen. Just like I could potentially roll 10 sixes in a row.
Well the question was what is optimal, I did not say that I expect it.
However some of this (eg Russia losing) is looking quite probable.
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
Interesting to see the figures, but it does match my thoughts from the other day that house prices are up because people could afford to spend around 40% of income on it. Lower interest rates, greater affordability, higher prices.
Interest rates could be brutal by next year, though still negative in real terms. We need inflation matching pay-rises to escape the trap.
Though that then chases the pain to someone or somewhen else.
What's the optimal political outcome of Trussonimics? Continual good times, I guess, but that seems unlikely. If she extends feel good to 2024, she might win and then the mother of all hangovers happens on her second watch.
Optimal outcome:
High inflation is matched by equivalent wage growth and without a significant recession, debt falls proportionately relative to income as a result. House prices fall moderately, which combined with high wage growth leads to a significant correction to the better for house price to earnings ratios but doesn't lead to significant negative equity.
Russia loses the war, leading to commodity prices falling back down leading to inflation coming back down to a moderate, gentle rate with incomes then rising in real terms from a base where debt has been deflated and house price to earnings ratios are more realistic, without major negative equity.
Yes this could all happen. Just like I could potentially roll 10 sixes in a row.
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
Interesting to see the figures, but it does match my thoughts from the other day that house prices are up because people could afford to spend around 40% of income on it. Lower interest rates, greater affordability, higher prices.
Interest rates could be brutal by next year, though still negative in real terms. We need inflation matching pay-rises to escape the trap.
Though that then chases the pain to someone or somewhen else.
What's the optimal political outcome of Trussonimics? Continual good times, I guess, but that seems unlikely. If she extends feel good to 2024, she might win and then the mother of all hangovers happens on her second watch.
Optimal outcome:
High inflation is matched by equivalent wage growth and without a significant recession, debt falls proportionately relative to income as a result. House prices fall moderately, which combined with high wage growth leads to a significant correction to the better for house price to earnings ratios but doesn't lead to significant negative equity.
Russia loses the war, leading to commodity prices falling back down leading to inflation coming back down to a moderate, gentle rate with incomes then rising in real terms from a base where debt has been deflated and house price to earnings ratios are more realistic, without major negative equity.
Lower house prices but higher interest rates makes for no better affordability. Not really any advantage to people. Apart from savers, of course, and then only if interest rates are higher than inflation. We have had real terms negative interest rates since the GFC.
It makes getting a deposit more affordable, that's the primary advantage of lower house-price to earnings ratios. Getting a deposit has been the hardest part for a lot of prospective home buyers in recent years.
Getting a 10% deposit at an 8x ratio is like saving for a 20% at a 4x ratio.
It wasn't like that in 1992 when I bought my first house. In a negative equity stricken market mortgage valuations are cautiously low, and deposits required bigger. I remember it very well.
Inflation and negative equity is not the miracle cure you imagine. I remember the reality of it.
You forget that Putin is now desperate. Cornered by his own terrible blunders. He is one big defeat away from being sodomised by a bayonet like Gadaffi
That’s why he’s gone full fat mobilisation (the “partial” shit was a lie so he wouldn’t freak out his own people). Proper mobilisation is the act of a seriously paranoid and frightened man
He knows he can’t train them up in time to turn the tide of battle this year. And he’s running out of weapons
What he can do is probably stop the Ukrainian advance by sheer weight of numbers and also make the enemy think again
This is where a tactical nuke comes in handy. Drop one and say to the west: I’ll drop more unless you stop arming Kyiv
It’s a massively risky move. For the world and for him. But it could work in the short medium term and save his sorry ass - for now
If I was Putin, I’d do it. Because all options are grim now
However it does depend on him having a military willing to obey this instruction. A moot point
"If I was Putin. I'd do it".
No you wouldn't because you consider consequences. I know this because during Lockdown 1 you hunkered down in Penarth as you feared the consequences of remaining in the smoke with the great unwashed
One person avoiding getting ill, though, even with a fatal disease, is different from their giving up a chance to do this:
Is that you escaping over the Finnish border? Good luck!
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
Interesting to see the figures, but it does match my thoughts from the other day that house prices are up because people could afford to spend around 40% of income on it. Lower interest rates, greater affordability, higher prices.
Interest rates could be brutal by next year, though still negative in real terms. We need inflation matching pay-rises to escape the trap.
Though that then chases the pain to someone or somewhen else.
What's the optimal political outcome of Trussonimics? Continual good times, I guess, but that seems unlikely. If she extends feel good to 2024, she might win and then the mother of all hangovers happens on her second watch.
Optimal outcome:
High inflation is matched by equivalent wage growth and without a significant recession, debt falls proportionately relative to income as a result. House prices fall moderately, which combined with high wage growth leads to a significant correction to the better for house price to earnings ratios but doesn't lead to significant negative equity.
Russia loses the war, leading to commodity prices falling back down leading to inflation coming back down to a moderate, gentle rate with incomes then rising in real terms from a base where debt has been deflated and house price to earnings ratios are more realistic, without major negative equity.
Lower house prices but higher interest rates makes for no better affordability. Not really any advantage to people. Apart from savers, of course, and then only if interest rates are higher than inflation. We have had real terms negative interest rates since the GFC.
It makes getting a deposit more affordable, that's the primary advantage of lower house-price to earnings ratios. Getting a deposit has been the hardest part for a lot of prospective home buyers in recent years.
Getting a 10% deposit at an 8x ratio is like saving for a 20% at a 4x ratio.
It wasn't like that in 1992 when I bought my first house. In a negative equity stricken market mortgage valuations are cautiously low, and deposits required bigger. I remember it very well.
Inflation and negative equity is not the miracle cure you imagine. I remember the reality of it.
But not many years after then, deposits required were low as were price to earnings multiples.
Yes its rough for a year or two, but ride out those years and sanity can be restored.
A number of consistent stories on social media that Russia is actually pushing forward with something more like full mobilisation in the rural and ethnic minority areas while going gently on Moscow and St Petersburg. Confirmed by the Russian I interviewed earlier today who told me he didn't expect to be called up as he is in Moscow and has a long term injury.
A form of ethnic cleansing? White Russians like other ethno-nationalists around Europe fear being outbred by minorities in their borders. Sending the young menfolk in to be slaughtered in Ukraine is a handy way of stemming the tide while achieving geopolitical and domestic political aims.
The republics of the South and Far East need to wake up to what's being done and seize back their independence. If Chechnya has another go it might find it has more support from outside than last time. There may never be a better opportunity.
Indeed. If you're a young man in Yakutia or Dagestan you're thinking: Why the Fuck should I die for Putin?
But this is obviously the risk of Full Mobilisation, and Putin must know this, which makes me think he is much more frightened and paranoid then we realise. Which is not good
He is definitely frightened because everything he has touched in last 12 months has turned to absolute shit and he knows it. As do the elite around him.
He has pulled off one of the greatest military disasters in decades if not hundreds of years.
And there is more to come.
Yes, I'm worried about Putin because he is losing, calamitously, not because he is winning
FWIW, as a wild prediction, I think he will use a tactical nuke in desperation to try and scare the West away from Ukraine and then a NATO rain of absolute airforce fire will wipe out so much of the command structure, senior officers locations and general staff and comms in the field that the elite will remove him from office before it gets worse.
Might be my normalcy bias but I can’t see Russia using the first nuclear weapon in war since 1945. I still believe there are enough sensible people involved in the chain of command.
It would be an idiotic thing to do. After all the US never used nukes in Vietnam at the height of the cold war, North Korea hasn't ever got close to actually using them and that's been run by a true madman, and - perhaps most notably - Nazi Germany didn't use chemical weapons against Allied troops during WW2 even in the latter stages because of the taboo that had settled over them since WW1.
Putin and nukes feels a bit like Hitler and nerve gas. Widely anticipated but - hopefully - never actually resorted to even in extremis.
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
Interesting to see the figures, but it does match my thoughts from the other day that house prices are up because people could afford to spend around 40% of income on it. Lower interest rates, greater affordability, higher prices.
Interest rates could be brutal by next year, though still negative in real terms. We need inflation matching pay-rises to escape the trap.
Though that then chases the pain to someone or somewhen else.
What's the optimal political outcome of Trussonimics? Continual good times, I guess, but that seems unlikely. If she extends feel good to 2024, she might win and then the mother of all hangovers happens on her second watch.
Optimal outcome:
High inflation is matched by equivalent wage growth and without a significant recession, debt falls proportionately relative to income as a result. House prices fall moderately, which combined with high wage growth leads to a significant correction to the better for house price to earnings ratios but doesn't lead to significant negative equity.
Russia loses the war, leading to commodity prices falling back down leading to inflation coming back down to a moderate, gentle rate with incomes then rising in real terms from a base where debt has been deflated and house price to earnings ratios are more realistic, without major negative equity.
Lower house prices but higher interest rates makes for no better affordability. Not really any advantage to people. Apart from savers, of course, and then only if interest rates are higher than inflation. We have had real terms negative interest rates since the GFC.
It makes getting a deposit more affordable, that's the primary advantage of lower house-price to earnings ratios. Getting a deposit has been the hardest part for a lot of prospective home buyers in recent years.
Getting a 10% deposit at an 8x ratio is like saving for a 20% at a 4x ratio.
It wasn't like that in 1992 when I bought my first house. In a negative equity stricken market mortgage valuations are cautiously low, and deposits required bigger. I remember it very well.
Inflation and negative equity is not the miracle cure you imagine. I remember the reality of it.
But not many years after then, deposits required were low as were price to earnings multiples.
Yes its rough for a year or two, but ride out those years and sanity can be restored.
Yes, and how was the Tory government thanked in 1997?
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
Interesting to see the figures, but it does match my thoughts from the other day that house prices are up because people could afford to spend around 40% of income on it. Lower interest rates, greater affordability, higher prices.
Interest rates could be brutal by next year, though still negative in real terms. We need inflation matching pay-rises to escape the trap.
Though that then chases the pain to someone or somewhen else.
What's the optimal political outcome of Trussonimics? Continual good times, I guess, but that seems unlikely. If she extends feel good to 2024, she might win and then the mother of all hangovers happens on her second watch.
Optimal outcome:
High inflation is matched by equivalent wage growth and without a significant recession, debt falls proportionately relative to income as a result. House prices fall moderately, which combined with high wage growth leads to a significant correction to the better for house price to earnings ratios but doesn't lead to significant negative equity.
Russia loses the war, leading to commodity prices falling back down leading to inflation coming back down to a moderate, gentle rate with incomes then rising in real terms from a base where debt has been deflated and house price to earnings ratios are more realistic, without major negative equity.
Yes this could all happen. Just like I could potentially roll 10 sixes in a row.
Well the question was what is optimal, I did not say that I expect it.
However some of this (eg Russia losing) is looking quite probable.
I prefer the optimal outcome to the opposite, which is global thermonuclear war.
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
Interesting to see the figures, but it does match my thoughts from the other day that house prices are up because people could afford to spend around 40% of income on it. Lower interest rates, greater affordability, higher prices.
Interest rates could be brutal by next year, though still negative in real terms. We need inflation matching pay-rises to escape the trap.
Though that then chases the pain to someone or somewhen else.
What's the optimal political outcome of Trussonimics? Continual good times, I guess, but that seems unlikely. If she extends feel good to 2024, she might win and then the mother of all hangovers happens on her second watch.
Optimal outcome:
High inflation is matched by equivalent wage growth and without a significant recession, debt falls proportionately relative to income as a result. House prices fall moderately, which combined with high wage growth leads to a significant correction to the better for house price to earnings ratios but doesn't lead to significant negative equity.
Russia loses the war, leading to commodity prices falling back down leading to inflation coming back down to a moderate, gentle rate with incomes then rising in real terms from a base where debt has been deflated and house price to earnings ratios are more realistic, without major negative equity.
Lower house prices but higher interest rates makes for no better affordability. Not really any advantage to people. Apart from savers, of course, and then only if interest rates are higher than inflation. We have had real terms negative interest rates since the GFC.
It makes getting a deposit more affordable, that's the primary advantage of lower house-price to earnings ratios. Getting a deposit has been the hardest part for a lot of prospective home buyers in recent years.
Getting a 10% deposit at an 8x ratio is like saving for a 20% at a 4x ratio.
It wasn't like that in 1992 when I bought my first house. In a negative equity stricken market mortgage valuations are cautiously low, and deposits required bigger. I remember it very well.
Inflation and negative equity is not the miracle cure you imagine. I remember the reality of it.
What we really need with property prices is for prices to continue to rise in nominal terms (avoiding negative equity) but falling in real terms (improving affordability). A higher rate of inflation does make that desirable outcome more feasible. It is one of the potential upsides.
A number of consistent stories on social media that Russia is actually pushing forward with something more like full mobilisation in the rural and ethnic minority areas while going gently on Moscow and St Petersburg. Confirmed by the Russian I interviewed earlier today who told me he didn't expect to be called up as he is in Moscow and has a long term injury.
A form of ethnic cleansing? White Russians like other ethno-nationalists around Europe fear being outbred by minorities in their borders. Sending the young menfolk in to be slaughtered in Ukraine is a handy way of stemming the tide while achieving geopolitical and domestic political aims.
The republics of the South and Far East need to wake up to what's being done and seize back their independence. If Chechnya has another go it might find it has more support from outside than last time. There may never be a better opportunity.
Indeed. If you're a young man in Yakutia or Dagestan you're thinking: Why the Fuck should I die for Putin?
But this is obviously the risk of Full Mobilisation, and Putin must know this, which makes me think he is much more frightened and paranoid then we realise. Which is not good
He is definitely frightened because everything he has touched in last 12 months has turned to absolute shit and he knows it. As do the elite around him.
He has pulled off one of the greatest military disasters in decades if not hundreds of years.
And there is more to come.
Yes, I'm worried about Putin because he is losing, calamitously, not because he is winning
FWIW, as a wild prediction, I think he will use a tactical nuke in desperation to try and scare the West away from Ukraine and then a NATO rain of absolute airforce fire will wipe out so much of the command structure, senior officers locations and general staff and comms in the field that the elite will remove him from office before it gets worse.
Might be my normalcy bias but I can’t see Russia using the first nuclear weapon in war since 1945. I still believe there are enough sensible people involved in the chain of command.
It would be an idiotic thing to do. After all the US never used nukes in Vietnam at the height of the cold war, North Korea hasn't ever got close to actually using them and that's been run by a true madman, and - perhaps most notably - Nazi Germany didn't use chemical weapons against Allied troops during WW2 even in the latter stages because of the taboo that had settled over them since WW1.
Putin and nukes feels a bit like Hitler and nerve gas. Widely anticipated but - hopefully - never actually resorted to even in extremis.
The Germans did use gas fighting the Soviet occupied cave system in Kerch in 1942.
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
How the fuck is the war ‘nearly lost’ for Russia?
They are recruiting 1m men to fight. They have a massive war chest from oil and gas sales
He’s putting the Russian economy on a total war footing. It’s complete mobilization. And he has an nenormous arsenal of nukes
He cannot vanquish all Ukraine as things stand but if he drops one tactical nuke on, say, snake island or Odessa or wherever, then that completely changes the game
I have been listening to people who know more than me. A useful analogy for ground warfare is scissors, paper, stone. Tanks beat artillery, artillery beats infantry, infantry beats tanks.
It must all work in concert like an orchestra for a successful offensive. Which means strong command and control, efficient logistics, autonomous decision making capability of fighting units and high morale.
Russia now lacks tanks and artillery, running out of precision weapons and even soviet stocks of shell. And they don’t have air superiority to make up for it. To a degree masses of infantry can make a difference but only a very highly motivated and trained one, that runs towards advancing tanks rather than away. It was lacking the orchestral ingredients from the beginning, though made much worse by Ukraine’s ruthless focus on causing troop attrition, and damage to command & control and logistics.
This should then be set against the battle map. Russia can only move the necessary materiel around by rail, given weak logistics capability (not enough off road trucks/drivers, forklift and pallet system etc…). And Ukraine is ruthlessly targeting rail junctions. The map is such that a proper Russian offensive to take all of Donbas is now practically impossible. It’s Kherson formation is trapped north of the Dnipro. And it’s Crimea land bridge is utterly vulnerable to an attack on the junction city of Melitopol.
The raised troops won’t make the difference. What of a low yield nuke? What do you suppose the reaction would be? From within Russia, from Russian trading partners. From the US (sanctions and militarily). And from the inhabitants of Ukraine. If success is judged by Russia securing the long term annexation of territory and a stronger Russia thereafter, it’s hard to think of a more counterproductive move than using a nuke.
Putin know he’s lost this war. His words and actions this week are about managing his right flank domestically and little more.
"Domestically" will mean something different this time next week, after the four regions are annexed. Will the US supply HIMARS for launching missiles inside (and at targets inside) what the Russian government says is Russia? Right now it seems the answer is yes, although it's possible that may change. If it is yes, the diplomatic situation between Russia and the US will certainly change, to put it mildly. That would be an inevitable consequence of the US decision. And then some. A new stage begins.
Who are Putin's "right flank"? Presumably that means hawks, and proper military or other silovik hawks rather than civilians who rant on about Eurasia. Are they all nuts who don't know they've lost too? Gotta wonder how Russia has actually stayed in one piece if the sharp end of the state is run by such incompetents who can't face reality. I don't mean that flippantly. If Russia were going to break up, it would already have done so.
LOL if you think that anyone is going to consider the annexation legitimate or "domestic" Russian territory.
Russia/the Soviet Union has broken up once before already. Putin seems to want to return to Soviet days, well I wouldn't rule out history repeating itself, first as tragedy and second as farce.
Whether any other power says it considers the annexations legitimate is irrelevant. What other powers do, especially the US, will be highly relevant. The planned referendums haven't had as much coverage in the Heil as the "partial mobilisation" but if the US supplies HIMARS weapons for use in what Russia says is Russia after the formal annexations (which is what the referendums are about) then US-Russian relations will change dramatically. Many diplomats will have to pack their bags. You can say of course that you only care about facts on the ground. Fine. The situation on the ground will change, because otherwise there would be no effing point in the annexations.
The US didn't consider the annexations of the Baltic states legitimate either, but they recognised them de facto.
Your second para suggests you know little about the history of nationalities policy in the USSR. None of what were the 15 republics that constituted the USSR has broken up except for Moldova. Russia has not broken up once before. Somebody else here seemed to assume recently that the Soviet politburo consisted mainly of Muscovites. But the USSR wasn't Russia. Quite a few strong leaders - aka mafia bosses - from non-Russian republics sat on the Soviet politburo, such as Heydar Aliyev and Nursultan Nazarbayev for example.
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
With respect that is rubbish because it is only looking at one side of the balance sheet. Yes, people have higher multiples of indebtedness than they had in the 80s when interest rates were much higher. Yes this means that they are more highly geared relative to their salaries than they were in the 80s and therefore more vulnerable to interest rate changes. But no, the affordability of mortgages are not just reflected by these things but also by the nominal level of earnings. At the moment nominal wages are increasing by at least 7% pa, and that number is likely to go up to 10%. This will, over time, significantly reduce the cost of the mortgage. I saw this with my parents in the 1970s and we are now likely to see a repeat.
If you had a £300k mortgage a year ago in real terms you now owe £270k. Next year you will owe £243K. Whether these windfalls are "real" depends on the value of the asset over that time. But they mean that those with substantial debts are gaining substantially from a burst of inflation, even if their cashflow is diminished somewhat in the short term.
Yes, if 1. you keep your job and 2. your wages increase in line with, not base rate, but actual inflation. Not things which automatically happen for everyone in recessions.
No, but it does for the vast majority even in severe recessions and this is looking a shallow one at the moment. Those with more fixed incomes, such as pensioners, struggle with inflation much more than those in work but they rarely have mortgages to worry about.
The "vast majority" doesn't include the Public Sector. My TA's are on minimum wage. Not many are having wages rise in line with inflation.
I appreciate any job on minimum wage is not a great place to be but wouldn't we expect the minimum wage to rise with inflation?
Or is abandoning that link another great Truss idea for growing the economy?
It’s not a problem. Bankers on minimum wage will be able to make up the shortfall with unlimited bonuses.
Sinn Fein has called for preparations for an Irish reunification referendum after a census showed Catholics outnumber Protestants in Northern Ireland for the first time in the country’s history.
During partition in 1921, Northern Ireland’s borders were drawn to ensure a Protestant majority. Unionists are traditionally Protestant, while historically nationalists are mostly Catholic.
However, in the census, taken last year, a total of 45.7 per cent of the 1.9 million population identified as Catholic, compared to 43.5 per cent who were Protestant.
There was also a drop in the number of people in Northern Ireland who saw themselves as British and an increase in those identifying as Irish compared to the last census in 2011.
The 2011 census recorded 48 per cent of the population as Protestant or raised Protestant, and 45 per cent as Catholic.
Sinn Fein’s Michelle O’Neill, Northern Ireland’s First Minister designate, said the change was “historic”.
A number of consistent stories on social media that Russia is actually pushing forward with something more like full mobilisation in the rural and ethnic minority areas while going gently on Moscow and St Petersburg. Confirmed by the Russian I interviewed earlier today who told me he didn't expect to be called up as he is in Moscow and has a long term injury.
A form of ethnic cleansing? White Russians like other ethno-nationalists around Europe fear being outbred by minorities in their borders. Sending the young menfolk in to be slaughtered in Ukraine is a handy way of stemming the tide while achieving geopolitical and domestic political aims.
The republics of the South and Far East need to wake up to what's being done and seize back their independence. If Chechnya has another go it might find it has more support from outside than last time. There may never be a better opportunity.
Indeed. If you're a young man in Yakutia or Dagestan you're thinking: Why the Fuck should I die for Putin?
But this is obviously the risk of Full Mobilisation, and Putin must know this, which makes me think he is much more frightened and paranoid then we realise. Which is not good
He is definitely frightened because everything he has touched in last 12 months has turned to absolute shit and he knows it. As do the elite around him.
He has pulled off one of the greatest military disasters in decades if not hundreds of years.
And there is more to come.
Yes, I'm worried about Putin because he is losing, calamitously, not because he is winning
FWIW, as a wild prediction, I think he will use a tactical nuke in desperation to try and scare the West away from Ukraine and then a NATO rain of absolute airforce fire will wipe out so much of the command structure, senior officers locations and general staff and comms in the field that the elite will remove him from office before it gets worse.
Might be my normalcy bias but I can’t see Russia using the first nuclear weapon in war since 1945. I still believe there are enough sensible people involved in the chain of command.
One of my closest friends used to run the situation room for Middle East and Afghanistan at NATO headquarters outside Brussels. British military planners are taught that the Russians see the use of tactical nukes as nothing more than a heavier form of artillery on their side whilst being aware of their potential to paralyse and disorient NATO and the West. Or at least the politicians in the West. One of the main jobs of the NATO planners and senior leaders in the event of the Russians using nukes on the battlefield is to put it into perspective for Western political leaders and stop them doing something stupid.
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
How the fuck is the war ‘nearly lost’ for Russia?
They are recruiting 1m men to fight. They have a massive war chest from oil and gas sales
He’s putting the Russian economy on a total war footing. It’s complete mobilization. And he has an nenormous arsenal of nukes
He cannot vanquish all Ukraine as things stand but if he drops one tactical nuke on, say, snake island or Odessa or wherever, then that completely changes the game
I have been listening to people who know more than me. A useful analogy for ground warfare is scissors, paper, stone. Tanks beat artillery, artillery beats infantry, infantry beats tanks.
It must all work in concert like an orchestra for a successful offensive. Which means strong command and control, efficient logistics, autonomous decision making capability of fighting units and high morale.
Russia now lacks tanks and artillery, running out of precision weapons and even soviet stocks of shell. And they don’t have air superiority to make up for it. To a degree masses of infantry can make a difference but only a very highly motivated and trained one, that runs towards advancing tanks rather than away. It was lacking the orchestral ingredients from the beginning, though made much worse by Ukraine’s ruthless focus on causing troop attrition, and damage to command & control and logistics.
This should then be set against the battle map. Russia can only move the necessary materiel around by rail, given weak logistics capability (not enough off road trucks/drivers, forklift and pallet system etc…). And Ukraine is ruthlessly targeting rail junctions. The map is such that a proper Russian offensive to take all of Donbas is now practically impossible. It’s Kherson formation is trapped north of the Dnipro. And it’s Crimea land bridge is utterly vulnerable to an attack on the junction city of Melitopol.
The raised troops won’t make the difference. What of a low yield nuke? What do you suppose the reaction would be? From within Russia, from Russian trading partners. From the US (sanctions and militarily). And from the inhabitants of Ukraine. If success is judged by Russia securing the long term annexation of territory and a stronger Russia thereafter, it’s hard to think of a more counterproductive move than using a nuke.
Putin know he’s lost this war. His words and actions this week are about managing his right flank domestically and little more.
"Domestically" will mean something different this time next week, after the four regions are annexed. Will the US supply HIMARS for launching missiles inside (and at targets inside) what the Russian government says is Russia? Right now it seems the answer is yes, although it's possible that may change. If it is yes, the diplomatic situation between Russia and the US will certainly change, to put it mildly. That would be an inevitable consequence of the US decision. And then some. A new stage begins.
Who are Putin's "right flank"? Presumably that means hawks, and proper military or other silovik hawks rather than civilians who rant on about Eurasia. Are they all nuts who don't know they've lost too? Gotta wonder how Russia has actually stayed in one piece if the sharp end of the state is run by such incompetents who can't face reality. I don't mean that flippantly. If Russia were going to break up, it would already have done so.
LOL if you think that anyone is going to consider the annexation legitimate or "domestic" Russian territory.
Russia/the Soviet Union has broken up once before already. Putin seems to want to return to Soviet days, well I wouldn't rule out history repeating itself, first as tragedy and second as farce.
Whether any other power says it considers the annexations legitimate is irrelevant. What other powers do, especially the US, will be highly relevant. The planned referendums haven't had as much coverage in the Heil as the "partial mobilisation" but if the US supplies HIMARS weapons for use in what Russia says is Russia after the formal annexations (which is what the referendums are about) then US-Russian relations will change dramatically. Many diplomats will have to pack their bags.
The US didn't consider the annexations of the Baltic states legitimate either, but they recognised them de facto.
Your second para suggests you know little about the history of nationalities policy in the USSR. None of what were the 15 republics that constituted the USSR has broken up except for Moldova. Russia has not broken up once before. Somebody else here seemed to assume recently that the Soviet politburo consisted mainly of Muscovites. But the USSR wasn't Russia. Quite a few strong leaders aka mafia bosses from non-Russian republics sat on the Soviet politburo, such as Heydar Aliyev and Nursultan Nazarbayev for example.
If America wandered 150 miles into Mexico and said "It's ours now cuz nuclear weapons" - wouldn't Mexico be amongst those asking their friend Russia to tell America to fuck off home?
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
How the fuck is the war ‘nearly lost’ for Russia?
They are recruiting 1m men to fight. They have a massive war chest from oil and gas sales
He’s putting the Russian economy on a total war footing. It’s complete mobilization. And he has an nenormous arsenal of nukes
He cannot vanquish all Ukraine as things stand but if he drops one tactical nuke on, say, snake island or Odessa or wherever, then that completely changes the game
I have been listening to people who know more than me. A useful analogy for ground warfare is scissors, paper, stone. Tanks beat artillery, artillery beats infantry, infantry beats tanks.
It must all work in concert like an orchestra for a successful offensive. Which means strong command and control, efficient logistics, autonomous decision making capability of fighting units and high morale.
Russia now lacks tanks and artillery, running out of precision weapons and even soviet stocks of shell. And they don’t have air superiority to make up for it. To a degree masses of infantry can make a difference but only a very highly motivated and trained one, that runs towards advancing tanks rather than away. It was lacking the orchestral ingredients from the beginning, though made much worse by Ukraine’s ruthless focus on causing troop attrition, and damage to command & control and logistics.
This should then be set against the battle map. Russia can only move the necessary materiel around by rail, given weak logistics capability (not enough off road trucks/drivers, forklift and pallet system etc…). And Ukraine is ruthlessly targeting rail junctions. The map is such that a proper Russian offensive to take all of Donbas is now practically impossible. It’s Kherson formation is trapped north of the Dnipro. And it’s Crimea land bridge is utterly vulnerable to an attack on the junction city of Melitopol.
The raised troops won’t make the difference. What of a low yield nuke? What do you suppose the reaction would be? From within Russia, from Russian trading partners. From the US (sanctions and militarily). And from the inhabitants of Ukraine. If success is judged by Russia securing the long term annexation of territory and a stronger Russia thereafter, it’s hard to think of a more counterproductive move than using a nuke.
Putin know he’s lost this war. His words and actions this week are about managing his right flank domestically and little more.
"Domestically" will mean something different this time next week, after the four regions are annexed. Will the US supply HIMARS for launching missiles inside (and at targets inside) what the Russian government says is Russia? Right now it seems the answer is yes, although it's possible that may change. If it is yes, the diplomatic situation between Russia and the US will certainly change, to put it mildly. That would be an inevitable consequence of the US decision. And then some. A new stage begins.
Who are Putin's "right flank"? Presumably that means hawks, and proper military or other silovik hawks rather than civilians who rant on about Eurasia. Are they all nuts who don't know they've lost too? Gotta wonder how Russia has actually stayed in one piece if the sharp end of the state is run by such incompetents who can't face reality. I don't mean that flippantly. If Russia were going to break up, it would already have done so.
LOL if you think that anyone is going to consider the annexation legitimate or "domestic" Russian territory.
Russia/the Soviet Union has broken up once before already. Putin seems to want to return to Soviet days, well I wouldn't rule out history repeating itself, first as tragedy and second as farce.
Whether any other power says it considers the annexations legitimate is irrelevant. What other powers do, especially the US, will be highly relevant. The planned referendums haven't had as much coverage in the Heil as the "partial mobilisation" but if the US supplies HIMARS weapons for use in what Russia says is Russia after the formal annexations (which is what the referendums are about) then US-Russian relations will change dramatically. Many diplomats will have to pack their bags.
The US didn't consider the annexations of the Baltic states legitimate either, but they recognised them de facto.
Your second para suggests you know little about the history of nationalities policy in the USSR. None of what were the 15 republics that constituted the USSR has broken up except for Moldova. Russia has not broken up once before. Somebody else here seemed to assume recently that the Soviet politburo consisted mainly of Muscovites. But the USSR wasn't Russia. Quite a few strong leaders aka mafia bosses from non-Russian republics sat on the Soviet politburo, such as Heydar Aliyev and Nursultan Nazarbayev for example.
The USSR, sorry Russia, hasn't de facto annexed any lands at the moment its invaded them and started a war it is losing - badly.
Vlad unilaterally saying he is annexing the land changes nothing.
Sinn Fein has called for preparations for an Irish reunification referendum after a census showed Catholics outnumber Protestants in Northern Ireland for the first time in the country’s history.
During partition in 1921, Northern Ireland’s borders were drawn to ensure a Protestant majority. Unionists are traditionally Protestant, while historically nationalists are mostly Catholic.
However, in the census, taken last year, a total of 45.7 per cent of the 1.9 million population identified as Catholic, compared to 43.5 per cent who were Protestant.
There was also a drop in the number of people in Northern Ireland who saw themselves as British and an increase in those identifying as Irish compared to the last census in 2011.
The 2011 census recorded 48 per cent of the population as Protestant or raised Protestant, and 45 per cent as Catholic.
Sinn Fein’s Michelle O’Neill, Northern Ireland’s First Minister designate, said the change was “historic”.
A number of consistent stories on social media that Russia is actually pushing forward with something more like full mobilisation in the rural and ethnic minority areas while going gently on Moscow and St Petersburg. Confirmed by the Russian I interviewed earlier today who told me he didn't expect to be called up as he is in Moscow and has a long term injury.
A form of ethnic cleansing? White Russians like other ethno-nationalists around Europe fear being outbred by minorities in their borders. Sending the young menfolk in to be slaughtered in Ukraine is a handy way of stemming the tide while achieving geopolitical and domestic political aims.
The republics of the South and Far East need to wake up to what's being done and seize back their independence. If Chechnya has another go it might find it has more support from outside than last time. There may never be a better opportunity.
Indeed. If you're a young man in Yakutia or Dagestan you're thinking: Why the Fuck should I die for Putin?
But this is obviously the risk of Full Mobilisation, and Putin must know this, which makes me think he is much more frightened and paranoid then we realise. Which is not good
He is definitely frightened because everything he has touched in last 12 months has turned to absolute shit and he knows it. As do the elite around him.
He has pulled off one of the greatest military disasters in decades if not hundreds of years.
And there is more to come.
Yes, I'm worried about Putin because he is losing, calamitously, not because he is winning
FWIW, as a wild prediction, I think he will use a tactical nuke in desperation to try and scare the West away from Ukraine and then a NATO rain of absolute airforce fire will wipe out so much of the command structure, senior officers locations and general staff and comms in the field that the elite will remove him from office before it gets worse.
Might be my normalcy bias but I can’t see Russia using the first nuclear weapon in war since 1945. I still believe there are enough sensible people involved in the chain of command.
It would be an idiotic thing to do. After all the US never used nukes in Vietnam at the height of the cold war, North Korea hasn't ever got close to actually using them and that's been run by a true madman, and - perhaps most notably - Nazi Germany didn't use chemical weapons against Allied troops during WW2 even in the latter stages because of the taboo that had settled over them since WW1.
Putin and nukes feels a bit like Hitler and nerve gas. Widely anticipated but - hopefully - never actually resorted to even in extremis.
Rather funny when you have North Korea telling Russia "you're giving nukes a bad name, man..."
A number of consistent stories on social media that Russia is actually pushing forward with something more like full mobilisation in the rural and ethnic minority areas while going gently on Moscow and St Petersburg. Confirmed by the Russian I interviewed earlier today who told me he didn't expect to be called up as he is in Moscow and has a long term injury.
A form of ethnic cleansing? White Russians like other ethno-nationalists around Europe fear being outbred by minorities in their borders. Sending the young menfolk in to be slaughtered in Ukraine is a handy way of stemming the tide while achieving geopolitical and domestic political aims.
The republics of the South and Far East need to wake up to what's being done and seize back their independence. If Chechnya has another go it might find it has more support from outside than last time. There may never be a better opportunity.
Indeed. If you're a young man in Yakutia or Dagestan you're thinking: Why the Fuck should I die for Putin?
But this is obviously the risk of Full Mobilisation, and Putin must know this, which makes me think he is much more frightened and paranoid then we realise. Which is not good
He is definitely frightened because everything he has touched in last 12 months has turned to absolute shit and he knows it. As do the elite around him.
He has pulled off one of the greatest military disasters in decades if not hundreds of years.
And there is more to come.
Yes, I'm worried about Putin because he is losing, calamitously, not because he is winning
FWIW, as a wild prediction, I think he will use a tactical nuke in desperation to try and scare the West away from Ukraine and then a NATO rain of absolute airforce fire will wipe out so much of the command structure, senior officers locations and general staff and comms in the field that the elite will remove him from office before it gets worse.
Might be my normalcy bias but I can’t see Russia using the first nuclear weapon in war since 1945. I still believe there are enough sensible people involved in the chain of command.
It would be an idiotic thing to do. After all the US never used nukes in Vietnam at the height of the cold war, North Korea hasn't ever got close to actually using them and that's been run by a true madman, and - perhaps most notably - Nazi Germany didn't use chemical weapons against Allied troops during WW2 even in the latter stages because of the taboo that had settled over them since WW1.
Putin and nukes feels a bit like Hitler and nerve gas. Widely anticipated but - hopefully - never actually resorted to even in extremis.
The Germans did use gas fighting the Soviet occupied cave system in Kerch in 1942.
And against the Poles during the Warsaw uprising in 1944
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
How the fuck is the war ‘nearly lost’ for Russia?
They are recruiting 1m men to fight. They have a massive war chest from oil and gas sales
He’s putting the Russian economy on a total war footing. It’s complete mobilization. And he has an nenormous arsenal of nukes
He cannot vanquish all Ukraine as things stand but if he drops one tactical nuke on, say, snake island or Odessa or wherever, then that completely changes the game
I have been listening to people who know more than me. A useful analogy for ground warfare is scissors, paper, stone. Tanks beat artillery, artillery beats infantry, infantry beats tanks.
It must all work in concert like an orchestra for a successful offensive. Which means strong command and control, efficient logistics, autonomous decision making capability of fighting units and high morale.
Russia now lacks tanks and artillery, running out of precision weapons and even soviet stocks of shell. And they don’t have air superiority to make up for it. To a degree masses of infantry can make a difference but only a very highly motivated and trained one, that runs towards advancing tanks rather than away. It was lacking the orchestral ingredients from the beginning, though made much worse by Ukraine’s ruthless focus on causing troop attrition, and damage to command & control and logistics.
This should then be set against the battle map. Russia can only move the necessary materiel around by rail, given weak logistics capability (not enough off road trucks/drivers, forklift and pallet system etc…). And Ukraine is ruthlessly targeting rail junctions. The map is such that a proper Russian offensive to take all of Donbas is now practically impossible. It’s Kherson formation is trapped north of the Dnipro. And it’s Crimea land bridge is utterly vulnerable to an attack on the junction city of Melitopol.
The raised troops won’t make the difference. What of a low yield nuke? What do you suppose the reaction would be? From within Russia, from Russian trading partners. From the US (sanctions and militarily). And from the inhabitants of Ukraine. If success is judged by Russia securing the long term annexation of territory and a stronger Russia thereafter, it’s hard to think of a more counterproductive move than using a nuke.
Putin know he’s lost this war. His words and actions this week are about managing his right flank domestically and little more.
"Domestically" will mean something different this time next week, after the four regions are annexed. Will the US supply HIMARS for launching missiles inside (and at targets inside) what the Russian government says is Russia? Right now it seems the answer is yes, although it's possible that may change. If it is yes, the diplomatic situation between Russia and the US will certainly change, to put it mildly. That would be an inevitable consequence of the US decision. And then some. A new stage begins.
So by that piece of bully's logic NATO could just accept Ukraine membership tomorrow and then claim any Russian attack on Ukrainian soil is an attack on NATO, and trigger article 5.
You'll say NATO would never do that because it would be an escalation putting the whole alliance at risk. Right - because we're not stupid. And Russia annexing territory that doesn't belong to it is a massive escalation which puts its leadership's own survival at risk.
Ukraine will continue to hit areas of its own country that have been illegally invaded with everything it can get its hands on, including HIMARS, and the only escalation will have come from Moscow.
I had to read it a second time as I couldn't quite believe it was stating what it was.
I think it is the calculation Putin may well have made since it is crazy enough, it seems like it would be a repeat of his 2014 move in Crimea which Ukraine was in no position to resist and no one else willing to do anything about, but quite aside from being even more blatant and ridiculous, it really is the same idea as Putin claiming all Ukraine as Russian territory (which he more or less has anyway) and claiming any retaliation is an escalation.
It would basically be a claim that nations are able to unilaterally change their borders and anyone who disputes them is 'provoking' the one making the claim, rather than the expansion being the provocation. Never mind NATO, no nation on the planet would ever rest easy again.
Sinn Fein has called for preparations for an Irish reunification referendum after a census showed Catholics outnumber Protestants in Northern Ireland for the first time in the country’s history.
During partition in 1921, Northern Ireland’s borders were drawn to ensure a Protestant majority. Unionists are traditionally Protestant, while historically nationalists are mostly Catholic.
However, in the census, taken last year, a total of 45.7 per cent of the 1.9 million population identified as Catholic, compared to 43.5 per cent who were Protestant.
There was also a drop in the number of people in Northern Ireland who saw themselves as British and an increase in those identifying as Irish compared to the last census in 2011.
The 2011 census recorded 48 per cent of the population as Protestant or raised Protestant, and 45 per cent as Catholic.
Sinn Fein’s Michelle O’Neill, Northern Ireland’s First Minister designate, said the change was “historic”.
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
How the fuck is the war ‘nearly lost’ for Russia?
They are recruiting 1m men to fight. They have a massive war chest from oil and gas sales
He’s putting the Russian economy on a total war footing. It’s complete mobilization. And he has an nenormous arsenal of nukes
He cannot vanquish all Ukraine as things stand but if he drops one tactical nuke on, say, snake island or Odessa or wherever, then that completely changes the game
I have been listening to people who know more than me. A useful analogy for ground warfare is scissors, paper, stone. Tanks beat artillery, artillery beats infantry, infantry beats tanks.
It must all work in concert like an orchestra for a successful offensive. Which means strong command and control, efficient logistics, autonomous decision making capability of fighting units and high morale.
Russia now lacks tanks and artillery, running out of precision weapons and even soviet stocks of shell. And they don’t have air superiority to make up for it. To a degree masses of infantry can make a difference but only a very highly motivated and trained one, that runs towards advancing tanks rather than away. It was lacking the orchestral ingredients from the beginning, though made much worse by Ukraine’s ruthless focus on causing troop attrition, and damage to command & control and logistics.
This should then be set against the battle map. Russia can only move the necessary materiel around by rail, given weak logistics capability (not enough off road trucks/drivers, forklift and pallet system etc…). And Ukraine is ruthlessly targeting rail junctions. The map is such that a proper Russian offensive to take all of Donbas is now practically impossible. It’s Kherson formation is trapped north of the Dnipro. And it’s Crimea land bridge is utterly vulnerable to an attack on the junction city of Melitopol.
The raised troops won’t make the difference. What of a low yield nuke? What do you suppose the reaction would be? From within Russia, from Russian trading partners. From the US (sanctions and militarily). And from the inhabitants of Ukraine. If success is judged by Russia securing the long term annexation of territory and a stronger Russia thereafter, it’s hard to think of a more counterproductive move than using a nuke.
Putin know he’s lost this war. His words and actions this week are about managing his right flank domestically and little more.
"Domestically" will mean something different this time next week, after the four regions are annexed. Will the US supply HIMARS for launching missiles inside (and at targets inside) what the Russian government says is Russia? Right now it seems the answer is yes, although it's possible that may change. If it is yes, the diplomatic situation between Russia and the US will certainly change, to put it mildly. That would be an inevitable consequence of the US decision. And then some. A new stage begins.
Who are Putin's "right flank"? Presumably that means hawks, and proper military or other silovik hawks rather than civilians who rant on about Eurasia. Are they all nuts who don't know they've lost too? Gotta wonder how Russia has actually stayed in one piece if the sharp end of the state is run by such incompetents who can't face reality. I don't mean that flippantly. If Russia were going to break up, it would already have done so.
LOL if you think that anyone is going to consider the annexation legitimate or "domestic" Russian territory.
Russia/the Soviet Union has broken up once before already. Putin seems to want to return to Soviet days, well I wouldn't rule out history repeating itself, first as tragedy and second as farce.
Whether any other power says it considers the annexations legitimate is irrelevant. What other powers do, especially the US, will be highly relevant. The planned referendums haven't had as much coverage in the Heil as the "partial mobilisation" but if the US supplies HIMARS weapons for use in what Russia says is Russia after the formal annexations (which is what the referendums are about) then US-Russian relations will change dramatically. Many diplomats will have to pack their bags. You can say of course that you only care about facts on the ground. Fine. The situation on the ground will change, because otherwise there would be no effing point in the annexations.
The US didn't consider the annexations of the Baltic states legitimate either, but they recognised them de facto.
Your second para suggests you know little about the history of nationalities policy in the USSR. None of what were the 15 republics that constituted the USSR has broken up except for Moldova. Russia has not broken up once before. Somebody else here seemed to assume recently that the Soviet politburo consisted mainly of Muscovites. But the USSR wasn't Russia. Quite a few strong leaders - aka mafia bosses - from non-Russian republics sat on the Soviet politburo, such as Heydar Aliyev and Nursultan Nazarbayev for example.
FWIW Putin himself is not a Muscovite. But Moscow, Russia, the USSR, Putin - they all mean the same thing for many Tories.
My phone has been buzzing all afternoon Re NIC cut from pleased one-time Tories on course to sit out the next election.
Sometimes pb is amazingly perceptive at predicting what will happen. And sometimes it gets into such strong group think it can’t spot the bigger trend. When it comes to Truss I think it’s the latter.
The govt energy measures have already succeeded in knocking 5pts off peak headline inflation forecasts, which puts a dent in index linked govt spending and general inflation expectations. And they mean it when they say they want to position the economy for fast catch-up growth out of this recession. It will be kitchen sink stuff to get growth by any means. There’s nothing they can do about the Fed induced dollar strength without taking control of monetary policy. But the Fed will surely pivot long before the next Uk election.
Meanwhile Truss looks likely to take a practical approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol, sucking the final Brexit poison out for the benefit of Remainia Tories. And boundary changes to come.
I am reminded right now of the Coalition mid term polls, when many assumed we’d be looking at a Miliband/Balls govt of some form. Talk of a Truss exit in 2023 utterly bemuses me, unless these anonymous informed voices have inside info unavailable to mere plebs like me. Right now the base case should be a 2015 result +- 10 seats or so either way.
Now, you could argue that's not Truss's fault. But the electorate won't care.
We already saw from one poster their energy bill will be lower than last year. And commodity prices are way down from the peak almost across the board. By the way anyone who thinks there’s no impact on gas prices from Putin falling out a window and Russia scaling down the war isn’t thinking straight. Medium term diversification of supply will still happen. But if there’s cheap gas on tap, then europe will still buy it.
And wholesale gas prices are in any case about a half of the peak. Germany drove them temporarily sky high by filling up their strategic reserve at all cost. And there was lots of panic buying / speculative froth / trading profit in the price.
Truss / Kwarteng are gambling their plan will mean growth going into the election gives the feel good factor after a tough period during the war. And I reckon the odds are pretty good they’ll win that gamble. Especially since the war is now already basically lost for Russia, it’s just the how and when left to be determined.
How the fuck is the war ‘nearly lost’ for Russia?
They are recruiting 1m men to fight. They have a massive war chest from oil and gas sales
He’s putting the Russian economy on a total war footing. It’s complete mobilization. And he has an nenormous arsenal of nukes
He cannot vanquish all Ukraine as things stand but if he drops one tactical nuke on, say, snake island or Odessa or wherever, then that completely changes the game
I have been listening to people who know more than me. A useful analogy for ground warfare is scissors, paper, stone. Tanks beat artillery, artillery beats infantry, infantry beats tanks.
It must all work in concert like an orchestra for a successful offensive. Which means strong command and control, efficient logistics, autonomous decision making capability of fighting units and high morale.
Russia now lacks tanks and artillery, running out of precision weapons and even soviet stocks of shell. And they don’t have air superiority to make up for it. To a degree masses of infantry can make a difference but only a very highly motivated and trained one, that runs towards advancing tanks rather than away. It was lacking the orchestral ingredients from the beginning, though made much worse by Ukraine’s ruthless focus on causing troop attrition, and damage to command & control and logistics.
This should then be set against the battle map. Russia can only move the necessary materiel around by rail, given weak logistics capability (not enough off road trucks/drivers, forklift and pallet system etc…). And Ukraine is ruthlessly targeting rail junctions. The map is such that a proper Russian offensive to take all of Donbas is now practically impossible. It’s Kherson formation is trapped north of the Dnipro. And it’s Crimea land bridge is utterly vulnerable to an attack on the junction city of Melitopol.
The raised troops won’t make the difference. What of a low yield nuke? What do you suppose the reaction would be? From within Russia, from Russian trading partners. From the US (sanctions and militarily). And from the inhabitants of Ukraine. If success is judged by Russia securing the long term annexation of territory and a stronger Russia thereafter, it’s hard to think of a more counterproductive move than using a nuke.
Putin know he’s lost this war. His words and actions this week are about managing his right flank domestically and little more.
"Domestically" will mean something different this time next week, after the four regions are annexed. Will the US supply HIMARS for launching missiles inside (and at targets inside) what the Russian government says is Russia? Right now it seems the answer is yes, although it's possible that may change. If it is yes, the diplomatic situation between Russia and the US will certainly change, to put it mildly. That would be an inevitable consequence of the US decision. And then some. A new stage begins.
Who are Putin's "right flank"? Presumably that means hawks, and proper military or other silovik hawks rather than civilians who rant on about Eurasia. Are they all nuts who don't know they've lost too? Gotta wonder how Russia has actually stayed in one piece if the sharp end of the state is run by such incompetents who can't face reality. I don't mean that flippantly. If Russia were going to break up, it would already have done so.
LOL if you think that anyone is going to consider the annexation legitimate or "domestic" Russian territory.
Russia/the Soviet Union has broken up once before already. Putin seems to want to return to Soviet days, well I wouldn't rule out history repeating itself, first as tragedy and second as farce.
Whether any other power says it considers the annexations legitimate is irrelevant. What other powers do, especially the US, will be highly relevant. The planned referendums haven't had as much coverage in the Heil as the "partial mobilisation" but if the US supplies HIMARS weapons for use in what Russia says is Russia after the formal annexations (which is what the referendums are about) then US-Russian relations will change dramatically. Many diplomats will have to pack their bags. You can say of course that you only care about facts on the ground. Fine. The situation on the ground will change, because otherwise there would be no effing point in the annexations.
The US didn't consider the annexations of the Baltic states legitimate either, but they recognised them de facto.
Your second para suggests you know little about the history of nationalities policy in the USSR. None of what were the 15 republics that constituted the USSR has broken up except for Moldova. Russia has not broken up once before. Somebody else here seemed to assume recently that the Soviet politburo consisted mainly of Muscovites. But the USSR wasn't Russia. Quite a few strong leaders aka mafia bosses from non-Russian republics sat on the Soviet politburo, such as Heydar Aliyev and Nursultan Nazarbayev for example.
Annexation after fraudulent referendums make no difference. Those Oblast remain Ukranian, under occupation and legitimate targets to attack. Indeed Ukranian attacks on Belogrod inside what everyone agrees is Russia have happened a number of times.
Annexation makes no difference apart from magnifying Russian ineptness and military humiliation.
Sinn Fein has called for preparations for an Irish reunification referendum after a census showed Catholics outnumber Protestants in Northern Ireland for the first time in the country’s history.
During partition in 1921, Northern Ireland’s borders were drawn to ensure a Protestant majority. Unionists are traditionally Protestant, while historically nationalists are mostly Catholic.
However, in the census, taken last year, a total of 45.7 per cent of the 1.9 million population identified as Catholic, compared to 43.5 per cent who were Protestant.
There was also a drop in the number of people in Northern Ireland who saw themselves as British and an increase in those identifying as Irish compared to the last census in 2011.
The 2011 census recorded 48 per cent of the population as Protestant or raised Protestant, and 45 per cent as Catholic.
Sinn Fein’s Michelle O’Neill, Northern Ireland’s First Minister designate, said the change was “historic”.
Time to share my second favourite ever opening to a PB thread header.
Much like getting your girlfriend pregnant on a pull out sofa there’s a deep sense of irony that the Conservative & Unionist Party, aided and abetted by the DUP, have via Brexit done more to weaken Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom than the IRA.
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
Interesting to see the figures, but it does match my thoughts from the other day that house prices are up because people could afford to spend around 40% of income on it. Lower interest rates, greater affordability, higher prices.
Interest rates could be brutal by next year, though still negative in real terms. We need inflation matching pay-rises to escape the trap.
Though that then chases the pain to someone or somewhen else.
What's the optimal political outcome of Trussonimics? Continual good times, I guess, but that seems unlikely. If she extends feel good to 2024, she might win and then the mother of all hangovers happens on her second watch.
Optimal outcome:
High inflation is matched by equivalent wage growth and without a significant recession, debt falls proportionately relative to income as a result. House prices fall moderately, which combined with high wage growth leads to a significant correction to the better for house price to earnings ratios but doesn't lead to significant negative equity.
Russia loses the war, leading to commodity prices falling back down leading to inflation coming back down to a moderate, gentle rate with incomes then rising in real terms from a base where debt has been deflated and house price to earnings ratios are more realistic, without major negative equity.
Lower house prices but higher interest rates makes for no better affordability. Not really any advantage to people. Apart from savers, of course, and then only if interest rates are higher than inflation. We have had real terms negative interest rates since the GFC.
It makes getting a deposit more affordable, that's the primary advantage of lower house-price to earnings ratios. Getting a deposit has been the hardest part for a lot of prospective home buyers in recent years.
Getting a 10% deposit at an 8x ratio is like saving for a 20% at a 4x ratio.
It wasn't like that in 1992 when I bought my first house. In a negative equity stricken market mortgage valuations are cautiously low, and deposits required bigger. I remember it very well.
Inflation and negative equity is not the miracle cure you imagine. I remember the reality of it.
What we really need with property prices is for prices to continue to rise in nominal terms (avoiding negative equity) but falling in real terms (improving affordability). A higher rate of inflation does make that desirable outcome more feasible. It is one of the potential upsides.
Isn't the catch that high inflation requires higher nominal interest rates, which fairly rapidly does bad things to mortgage affordability?
It's a bit Thatcherite oversimplification, but aren't something-for-nothings always compensated by nothing-for-somethings somewhere/somewhen else?
And the long house price boom has been the acme of something-for-nothing.
A number of consistent stories on social media that Russia is actually pushing forward with something more like full mobilisation in the rural and ethnic minority areas while going gently on Moscow and St Petersburg. Confirmed by the Russian I interviewed earlier today who told me he didn't expect to be called up as he is in Moscow and has a long term injury.
A form of ethnic cleansing? White Russians like other ethno-nationalists around Europe fear being outbred by minorities in their borders. Sending the young menfolk in to be slaughtered in Ukraine is a handy way of stemming the tide while achieving geopolitical and domestic political aims.
The republics of the South and Far East need to wake up to what's being done and seize back their independence. If Chechnya has another go it might find it has more support from outside than last time. There may never be a better opportunity.
Indeed. If you're a young man in Yakutia or Dagestan you're thinking: Why the Fuck should I die for Putin?
But this is obviously the risk of Full Mobilisation, and Putin must know this, which makes me think he is much more frightened and paranoid then we realise. Which is not good
He is definitely frightened because everything he has touched in last 12 months has turned to absolute shit and he knows it. As do the elite around him.
He has pulled off one of the greatest military disasters in decades if not hundreds of years.
And there is more to come.
Yes, I'm worried about Putin because he is losing, calamitously, not because he is winning
FWIW, as a wild prediction, I think he will use a tactical nuke in desperation to try and scare the West away from Ukraine and then a NATO rain of absolute airforce fire will wipe out so much of the command structure, senior officers locations and general staff and comms in the field that the elite will remove him from office before it gets worse.
I don't know how many conventional cruise missiles NATO has, but a big chunk of them would be heading towards Russia. There wouldn't be much oil and gas travelling west for a few years. No tanks, aircraft, warships or socks being manufactured in Russia for a while either.
Sinn Fein has called for preparations for an Irish reunification referendum after a census showed Catholics outnumber Protestants in Northern Ireland for the first time in the country’s history.
During partition in 1921, Northern Ireland’s borders were drawn to ensure a Protestant majority. Unionists are traditionally Protestant, while historically nationalists are mostly Catholic.
However, in the census, taken last year, a total of 45.7 per cent of the 1.9 million population identified as Catholic, compared to 43.5 per cent who were Protestant.
There was also a drop in the number of people in Northern Ireland who saw themselves as British and an increase in those identifying as Irish compared to the last census in 2011.
The 2011 census recorded 48 per cent of the population as Protestant or raised Protestant, and 45 per cent as Catholic.
Sinn Fein’s Michelle O’Neill, Northern Ireland’s First Minister designate, said the change was “historic”.
A number of consistent stories on social media that Russia is actually pushing forward with something more like full mobilisation in the rural and ethnic minority areas while going gently on Moscow and St Petersburg. Confirmed by the Russian I interviewed earlier today who told me he didn't expect to be called up as he is in Moscow and has a long term injury.
A form of ethnic cleansing? White Russians like other ethno-nationalists around Europe fear being outbred by minorities in their borders. Sending the young menfolk in to be slaughtered in Ukraine is a handy way of stemming the tide while achieving geopolitical and domestic political aims.
The republics of the South and Far East need to wake up to what's being done and seize back their independence. If Chechnya has another go it might find it has more support from outside than last time. There may never be a better opportunity.
Indeed. If you're a young man in Yakutia or Dagestan you're thinking: Why the Fuck should I die for Putin?
But this is obviously the risk of Full Mobilisation, and Putin must know this, which makes me think he is much more frightened and paranoid then we realise. Which is not good
He is definitely frightened because everything he has touched in last 12 months has turned to absolute shit and he knows it. As do the elite around him.
He has pulled off one of the greatest military disasters in decades if not hundreds of years.
And there is more to come.
Yes, I'm worried about Putin because he is losing, calamitously, not because he is winning
FWIW, as a wild prediction, I think he will use a tactical nuke in desperation to try and scare the West away from Ukraine and then a NATO rain of absolute airforce fire will wipe out so much of the command structure, senior officers locations and general staff and comms in the field that the elite will remove him from office before it gets worse.
Might be my normalcy bias but I can’t see Russia using the first nuclear weapon in war since 1945. I still believe there are enough sensible people involved in the chain of command.
One of my closest friends used to run the situation room for Middle East and Afghanistan at NATO headquarters outside Brussels. British military planners are taught that the Russians see the use of tactical nukes as nothing more than a heavier form of artillery on their side whilst being aware of their potential to paralyse and disorient NATO and the West. Or at least the politicians in the West. One of the main jobs of the NATO planners and senior leaders in the event of the Russians using nukes on the battlefield is to put it into perspective for Western political leaders and stop them doing something stupid.
Just clarifying, but is the perspective that use of small nukes should be downplayed and no big deal made of it?
Sinn Fein has called for preparations for an Irish reunification referendum after a census showed Catholics outnumber Protestants in Northern Ireland for the first time in the country’s history.
During partition in 1921, Northern Ireland’s borders were drawn to ensure a Protestant majority. Unionists are traditionally Protestant, while historically nationalists are mostly Catholic.
However, in the census, taken last year, a total of 45.7 per cent of the 1.9 million population identified as Catholic, compared to 43.5 per cent who were Protestant.
There was also a drop in the number of people in Northern Ireland who saw themselves as British and an increase in those identifying as Irish compared to the last census in 2011.
The 2011 census recorded 48 per cent of the population as Protestant or raised Protestant, and 45 per cent as Catholic.
Sinn Fein’s Michelle O’Neill, Northern Ireland’s First Minister designate, said the change was “historic”.
Would solve many problems, but not great for NI residents who don’t want a United Ireland.
While the current situation presumably not great for the NI residents who do want it. The issue seems insoluble whilst there are such start divisions.
Strange though that they put the info on those who see themselves as British only or Irish only further down the article (31.9%-29.1%, with Norther Irish only at 19.8% and some mixed).
I'd like NI to stay, and I think people employ some pretty stupid arguments around inevitability or desirability of unification (such as how islands should be unified as a matter of course, despite many examples of this not being the case or getting by just fine), but the direction of travel seems pretty clear and it doesn't seem particularly likely that the government can do anything to reverse it. Sinn Feinn appear to have transformed themselves and their image far more effectively than the unionists.
It says a vote is required to be ordered if it 'appears likely' a majority would go for unity, but naturally how that is decided is unclear, so a head in the sand approach will naturally be taken even if things switch decisively in unity's favour.
Sinn Fein has called for preparations for an Irish reunification referendum after a census showed Catholics outnumber Protestants in Northern Ireland for the first time in the country’s history.
During partition in 1921, Northern Ireland’s borders were drawn to ensure a Protestant majority. Unionists are traditionally Protestant, while historically nationalists are mostly Catholic.
However, in the census, taken last year, a total of 45.7 per cent of the 1.9 million population identified as Catholic, compared to 43.5 per cent who were Protestant.
There was also a drop in the number of people in Northern Ireland who saw themselves as British and an increase in those identifying as Irish compared to the last census in 2011.
The 2011 census recorded 48 per cent of the population as Protestant or raised Protestant, and 45 per cent as Catholic.
Sinn Fein’s Michelle O’Neill, Northern Ireland’s First Minister designate, said the change was “historic”.
OK - you know those people who suddenly flip. Well I've had that sort of day and am at that point where I need to be kept away from sharp objects.
Not only has Santander fucked up my day so that tomorrow I have to go to a branch and see if there is someone there with an IQ in double fingers who can CLOSE MY ACCOUNT. But I also have to go to Banhams who have managed to make me some spare keys that don't open the front door.
And now my dishwasher has decided not to drain. So that'll be another expense and another wasted day.
The error code is F13.
F - fucking - 13.
That just about sums up life, these days.
Re: keys, maybe try using some sandpaper on them? That works sometimes.
That might get her summonsed for assault.
Oh sorry, did you mean use it on the keys?
What I find so immensely frustrating is that if I had done my job as incompetently as these bozos I'd have been out on my arse years ago. We put up with the second and third rate when really we should be giving these companies boots up their arses all day every day so that they DO THEIR FUCKING JOB instead of apologising all the time for their shit service.
Is this too much to ask?
And yes I've done the impeller thing and checked filters and all the other stuff but I am not going to spend the evening bailing water out of my spiteful dishwasher with a spoon.
I have to book a flight to Chicago and a hotel and that'll probably be another hour of misery and then I have to do some actual fee-paying work.
The only good thing that has happened to me this week is that my newly acquired American editor told me that I was a great communicator and writer and only made marginal edits to my article. And it's just as well she didn't speak to me today because the communication might have been rather too Anglo-Saxon even for her.
What is the fucking point of any of this anyway?
The reason we put up with it is because dealing with the public sector makes them seem almost competent. Spoken as on who has spent almost a week trying to persuade a council whose area I no longer live in that I dont actually owe them any money and the £2000 debt they are claiming and passed throught to an enforcement agency who were threatening to seize goods was bollocks
My experience as an executor was that the public sector was usually rather more efficient than the commercial sector. They did not, for instance, suddenly admit that there waqs another £11K owing when I noticed that the insurance policy seemed inconsistent with the sums already provided ...
This council has form....they took me to court in year x for non payment of council tax even though I told them I had paid and provided photo copies of receipts no less than 6 times. I went to court showed the receipts case dismissed.
The following year they took me to court for not paying my council tax in year x once again despite me pointing out they had already taken me to court for it and lost.
“Hearing rumours that there will be a big announcement about rolling out British Summertime all year round tomorrow. With the cost of energy, sources tell me that it’s a “done deal”.”
Comments
There would be no next step other than all out.
Which is why I find it implausible. Though not impossible.
Why don't you just go away and annoy someone else. I don't want to write a thread and nothing u can say willi induce me to do so.
It is interesting that those who write the most negative and ctiticsl comments on here accuse me if being negative. Risible It's perfectly reasonable to call out people who.post continously negative comments on here. They shoukd look.in the mirror.
https://news.sky.com/story/interest-rates-are-high-enough-to-dampen-demand-and-cause-real-financial-pain-for-millions-of-households-12703187
Tldr; in “affordability” terms, things are gonna get very messy for those with large mortgages.
Implication: House prices will fall. Negative equity. Bankruptcies.
"But who will drive?"
A form of ethnic cleansing? White Russians like other ethno-nationalists around Europe fear being outbred by minorities in their borders. Sending the young menfolk in to be slaughtered in Ukraine is a handy way of stemming the tide while achieving geopolitical and domestic political aims.
The republics of the South and Far East need to wake up to what's being done and seize back their independence. If Chechnya has another go it might find it has more support from outside than last time. There may never be a better opportunity.
If you had a £300k mortgage a year ago in real terms you now owe £270k. Next year you will owe £243K. Whether these windfalls are "real" depends on the value of the asset over that time. But they mean that those with substantial debts are gaining substantially from a burst of inflation, even if their cashflow is diminished somewhat in the short term.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojlCO8yyYXQ
The economy could be a rocky road but I'm sure it will bounce back.
j/k
And a link to my 43 bullet point post saying the same thing last year.
If you can't write something positive on anything why don't you go away instead.
That's the state of NHS waiting lists for you.
Bit of politics, yes indeed madam.
But this is obviously the risk of Full Mobilisation, and Putin must know this, which makes me think he is much more frightened and paranoid then we realise. Which is not good
Who are Putin's "right flank"? Presumably that means hawks, and proper military or other silovik hawks rather than civilians who rant on about Eurasia. Are they all nuts who don't know they've lost too? Gotta wonder how Russia has actually stayed in one piece if the sharp end of the state is run by such incompetents who can't face reality. I don't mean that flippantly. If Russia were going to break up, it would already have done so.
Russia/the Soviet Union has broken up once before already. Putin seems to want to return to Soviet days, well I wouldn't rule out history repeating itself, first as tragedy and second as farce.
Interest rates could be brutal by next year, though still negative in real terms. We need inflation matching pay-rises to escape the trap.
United now being half a billion in debt seems like a remarkably high figure, or don't you think so?
He has pulled off one of the greatest military disasters in decades if not hundreds of years.
And there is more to come.
You'll say NATO would never do that because it would be an escalation putting the whole alliance at risk. Right - because we're not stupid. And Russia annexing territory that doesn't belong to it is a massive escalation which puts its leadership's own survival at risk.
Ukraine will continue to hit areas of its own country that have been illegally invaded with everything it can get its hands on, including HIMARS, and the only escalation will have come from Moscow.
That makes no sense.
What's the optimal political outcome of Trussonimics? Continual good times, I guess, but that seems unlikely. If she extends feel good to 2024, she might win and then the mother of all hangovers happens on her second watch.
I went to Moscow during the commie era. Did you?
Moscow was not "stable and happy", nor did it have shops "packed with food for the locals"
There were empty shelves in Moscow as everywhere across the USSR. There WERE a few well stocked shops for people with hard currency - valyuta - and Party membership cards - but they were rare and also scattered across the Soviet Empire. Thus ensuring loyalty from the Nomenklatura from Minsk to Vladisvostok
And £500m is not that big a problem for a club with lots of off balance sheet assets (a large squad) and such income. This is a serious business with a somewhat disappointing product actually on the pitch right now. Hopefully that is going to improve.
High inflation is matched by equivalent wage growth and without a significant recession, debt falls proportionately relative to income as a result. House prices fall moderately, which combined with high wage growth leads to a significant correction to the better for house price to earnings ratios but doesn't lead to significant negative equity.
Russia loses the war, leading to commodity prices falling back down leading to inflation coming back down to a moderate, gentle rate with incomes then rising in real terms from a base where debt has been deflated and house price to earnings ratios are more realistic, without major negative equity.
Dishwasher vs washing may be a difference on water use, but I wash a decent amount with one bowlful, and it's also direct gas use (for the hot water) Vs indirect electricity use (for the kettle in the dishwasher) - I reckon energy wise it looks like about 10p of gas water heating for the hand wash and about 30p of heating element use for the dishwasher, but the dishwasher load is perhaps double what I manage per bowl.
But I'm on the page that hand washing is lower energy cost currently
This👇on which of Kwasi Kwarteng's audiences he must address tomorrow matters most.
(From: https://news.sky.com/story/the-week-the-truss-government-changed-direction-five-things-to-watch-out-for-in-fridays-mini-budget-sam-coates-12702794) https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1573054444119666688/photo/1
Quite stark. Like battlefield triage saving those you can, and ignoring those too hard to try. But slightly chilling to hear it confirmed as policy from a clinicians mouth.
Or is abandoning that link another great Truss idea for growing the economy?
I realise this isn't at all typical for the UK.
Getting a 10% deposit at an 8x ratio is like saving for a 20% at a 4x ratio.
These may have cowed Chamberlin inn-938 but as AJP Taylor put it “Hitler exaggerated his strength. So exaggerated precautions were taken against him.”
This is a real terms pay cut.
It may well go up more next year, but that would be playing catch up.
It's a pay cut.
However some of this (eg Russia losing) is looking quite probable.
Inflation and negative equity is not the miracle cure you imagine. I remember the reality of it.
Yes its rough for a year or two, but ride out those years and sanity can be restored.
Putin and nukes feels a bit like Hitler and nerve gas. Widely anticipated but - hopefully - never actually resorted to even in extremis.
The US didn't consider the annexations of the Baltic states legitimate either, but they recognised them de facto.
Your second para suggests you know little about the history of nationalities policy in the USSR. None of what were the 15 republics that constituted the USSR has broken up except for Moldova. Russia has not broken up once before. Somebody else here seemed to assume recently that the Soviet politburo consisted mainly of Muscovites. But the USSR wasn't Russia. Quite a few strong leaders - aka mafia bosses - from non-Russian republics sat on the Soviet politburo, such as Heydar Aliyev and Nursultan Nazarbayev for example.
Sinn Fein has called for preparations for an Irish reunification referendum after a census showed Catholics outnumber Protestants in Northern Ireland for the first time in the country’s history.
During partition in 1921, Northern Ireland’s borders were drawn to ensure a Protestant majority. Unionists are traditionally Protestant, while historically nationalists are mostly Catholic.
However, in the census, taken last year, a total of 45.7 per cent of the 1.9 million population identified as Catholic, compared to 43.5 per cent who were Protestant.
There was also a drop in the number of people in Northern Ireland who saw themselves as British and an increase in those identifying as Irish compared to the last census in 2011.
The 2011 census recorded 48 per cent of the population as Protestant or raised Protestant, and 45 per cent as Catholic.
Sinn Fein’s Michelle O’Neill, Northern Ireland’s First Minister designate, said the change was “historic”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/09/22/catholics-outnumber-protestants-northern-ireland-first-time/
Vlad unilaterally saying he is annexing the land changes nothing.
I think it is the calculation Putin may well have made since it is crazy enough, it seems like it would be a repeat of his 2014 move in Crimea which Ukraine was in no position to resist and no one else willing to do anything about, but quite aside from being even more blatant and ridiculous, it really is the same idea as Putin claiming all Ukraine as Russian territory (which he more or less has anyway) and claiming any retaliation is an escalation.
It would basically be a claim that nations are able to unilaterally change their borders and anyone who disputes them is 'provoking' the one making the claim, rather than the expansion being the provocation. Never mind NATO, no nation on the planet would ever rest easy again.
https://twitter.com/politicsjoe_uk/status/1572994899430998016
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/08/30/he-that-troubleth-his-own-house-shall-inherit-the-wind-and-the-fool-shall-be-servant-to-the-wise-of-heart/
Annexation makes no difference apart from magnifying Russian ineptness and military humiliation.
Much like getting your girlfriend pregnant on a pull out sofa there’s a deep sense of irony that the Conservative & Unionist Party, aided and abetted by the DUP, have via Brexit done more to weaken Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom than the IRA.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/02/07/how-do-you-solve-a-solution-like-the-northern-ireland-protocol/
It's a bit Thatcherite oversimplification, but aren't something-for-nothings always compensated by nothing-for-somethings somewhere/somewhen else?
And the long house price boom has been the acme of something-for-nothing.
Say hello to the Stone Age again, Russia.
Strange though that they put the info on those who see themselves as British only or Irish only further down the article (31.9%-29.1%, with Norther Irish only at 19.8% and some mixed).
I'd like NI to stay, and I think people employ some pretty stupid arguments around inevitability or desirability of unification (such as how islands should be unified as a matter of course, despite many examples of this not being the case or getting by just fine), but the direction of travel seems pretty clear and it doesn't seem particularly likely that the government can do anything to reverse it. Sinn Feinn appear to have transformed themselves and their image far more effectively than the unionists.
It says a vote is required to be ordered if it 'appears likely' a majority would go for unity, but naturally how that is decided is unclear, so a head in the sand approach will naturally be taken even if things switch decisively in unity's favour.
The following year they took me to court for not paying my council tax in year x once again despite me pointing out they had already taken me to court for it and lost.
“Hearing rumours that there will be a big announcement about rolling out British Summertime all year round tomorrow. With the cost of energy, sources tell me that it’s a “done deal”.”