“U.S. citizens should not travel to Russia and those residing or travelling in Russia should depart Russia immediately while limited commercial travel options remain.”"
Its always Private Fraser levels of doom from you, almost no matter what the issue. The point is not that Putin is a thuggish and tyrannical murderer, of course he is, but that is also why he is losing the war, and he will lose everything in fairly short shrift. The fact that the Yanks are warning their citizens in Russia is a bit of psych against Putin, so calm down, change your undies and pour yourself a refreshing glass of Chilean, without actually needing to go there. Despite the risk of nuclear naughtiness, it is probable that by mid-next year we will be toasting the downfall of Sauron and looking forward to a much better world.
The nutters in Downing St will be taken down soon enough.
If Murdoch, Trump and Tucker Carlson are also out of the way it might even be a very good year.
Nah, you'll be dead in about two weeks, from radiation poisoning across the Baltics
Tell you what, we could have a bet on it
£50 says you'll be dead by October 12th? Deal?
But I want you to put the money in escrow
Money is so vulgar, what about sharing a bottle of good champagne? If you are prepared to come to Tallinn to drink it, that is- Otherwise, I stand you a good whisky in the NLC, assuming flights have restarted by Christmas.
If Moscow was minded to blow up some gas pipelines, why not attack Norwegian pipes to western Europe? Thus increasing European energy hunger but keeping open the tantalising hope of energy from Russia?
I fear we are close to a terrible, terrible war
Putin doesn't have any choice but to escalate.
But his forces are not in a good way right now, and if NATO comes into the war then they will look even worse.
To win Putin has to force the West to back down and cease providing Ukraine with ammunition. He has to scare us enough that we'd sacrifice Ukraine to save ourselves (in the short term).
If we call his bluff then a defeat at the hands of NATO is more survivable, as less humiliating, than being defeated by Ukraine alone.
So I think he has to force the conflict to a point of crisis where the West has to choose between direct conflict with Russia, or sacrificing Ukraine.
yes i think putin wants direct conflict with the west now
Yes, that is my sense. He will take it to the absolute brink, because the alternative is defeat and probably death for him
And he won't especially care if it goes over the edge into a minor nuke strike
Chances of a nuclear weapon blowing up in the next ten weeks are now about 50%?
The Telegraph podcast on Ukraine has been discussing Russian nukes a lot. They had a former NATO NBC commander who was pretty confident NATO could and would prevent any attempt by Russia to launch a tactical nuclear weapon by destroying any launcher as soon as it moved into position.
He was more worried about one of the Ukrainian nuclear plants being targeted. Russia landed a precision missile just a few hundred metres from one of the nuclear plant reactors recently, which he thought was a clear warning of that possibility.
Doesn't Russia have deployable tactical nukes that don't need a "launcher"? By this I mean, they have nuke artillery shells which can be fired from "regular", well, artillery?
"On the border with Kazakhstan, the Russians, who are waiting for their turn to cross the border, live in tents, cook food on braziers. Russia these days is experiencing a real biblical exodus - the Russians are fleeing from the Kremlin pharaoh, who wants to destroy them all."
I admit, it would be a radical escalation. Putin nukes the traitors inside Russia at the border crossing. Shows NATO he's prepared to go nuclear without actually attacking a NATO ally. Shows the men trying to flee that they will die one way or another. Etc.
Whatever Putin will do will be done very soon, he's on a clock and he knows it.
I don’t mean to be alarmist, but I suspect we’re about to see the world’s 3rd nuclear bomb attack.
I just stocked up on conserved food. Dunno why. Can’t see strawberry jam, corned beef and tinned mackerel being much use in a nuclear winter, but it’s just human nature: you gotta do something.
A couple of jars of lutefisk would mean you have your own WMDs for the post apocalyptic aftermath…
I think you’re confusing the mild (but weirdly slimy) Christmas ’lutfisk’ with the explosive stench of Norrland’s ’surströmming’, traditionally consumed in late August, when more southern Swedes are enjoying langoustines (on west coast) or crayfish (inland).
I mean, this is ridiculous. If these MPs are refusing to go to conference, yet are allowing this government to stand, they are just petty self serving *****. If they think things are so bad they should leave the party or VoNC the government.
It's clear the financial markets have lost confidence in this government. The Opposition should probably table a No Confidence motion to test whether the Commons still has confidence in the government.
That would involve any of them turning up for some work.....
Who benefits from this? Is it really Russia? Quite the puzzle
VDL and Borrell making a statement at 4 on this apparaently
I feel like A Conspiratorial Loon but if I had to hazard a guess I'd say the Yanks did this, not Jonny Moscow
The pipeline is a crucial choke-point for Putin, he can apply pressure, or allow gas deliveries, as he desires. If the pipeline is destroyed he loses all leverage - after the initial shock. How does he gain from that?
The destruction of the pipeline means that continental Europe, especially Germany, is more likely to stay loyal to NATO and the western/Ukrainian cause, because there is no longer any choice in the matter
Cui bono? The USA
It also looks like it is reinforcing what is being said in back channel discussions:
"Threatening to use nukes has lost you Nordstream 1 and 2. Use nukes - and every bit of your hydrocarbons kit will get the same treatment. Now, fuck off out of every bit of Ukraine, before we get really pissed off at you and some more of your playthings accidentally break....."
Seems sensible to me as it prevents Germany getting gas directly from Russia. This ties Germany closer to the hawks - Poland and the US. It's a win for Ukraine.
Overnight it dismantles about a decade of German energy policy. Hard to see the Russians doing that.
A faction of German politics wanting to end the reliance on Russia?
The mistake in all this is assuming countries , political parties and governments are monoliths.
Even Putin runs a coalition - hence the last moment recasting of his announcement.
An act of sabotage on this scale can really only have been done by a Government and the only two realistic candidates would be the USA (probably with NATO knowledge and consent) and Russia (who I doubt Russia would have the expertise.)
But what's the politics behind it. I just don't understand.
The sabotage could have been done with a remote piloted underwater vehicle placing some devices on the pipeline.
That would once have required major technology. Now it is off the shelf.
The question is whether it was done from a surface vessel (lots of people, including sub national groups could do that), or from a submarine “mother vessel”
The US and the Russians definitely have such submarines. Other navies have some capability to carry ROVs on their subs and operate them like that.
It seems likely, though, that whoever blew the pipelines also nobbled the compressor station on land at Portovaya. So it's probably not Sweden.
If Moscow was minded to blow up some gas pipelines, why not attack Norwegian pipes to western Europe? Thus increasing European energy hunger but keeping open the tantalising hope of energy from Russia?
I fear we are close to a terrible, terrible war
Putin doesn't have any choice but to escalate.
But his forces are not in a good way right now, and if NATO comes into the war then they will look even worse.
To win Putin has to force the West to back down and cease providing Ukraine with ammunition. He has to scare us enough that we'd sacrifice Ukraine to save ourselves (in the short term).
If we call his bluff then a defeat at the hands of NATO is more survivable, as less humiliating, than being defeated by Ukraine alone.
So I think he has to force the conflict to a point of crisis where the West has to choose between direct conflict with Russia, or sacrificing Ukraine.
yes i think putin wants direct conflict with the west now
Yes, that is my sense. He will take it to the absolute brink, because the alternative is defeat and probably death for him
And he won't especially care if it goes over the edge into a minor nuke strike
Chances of a nuclear weapon blowing up in the next ten weeks are now about 50%?
The Telegraph podcast on Ukraine has been discussing Russian nukes a lot. They had a former NATO NBC commander who was pretty confident NATO could and would prevent any attempt by Russia to launch a tactical nuclear weapon by destroying any launcher as soon as it moved into position.
He was more worried about one of the Ukrainian nuclear plants being targeted. Russia landed a precision missile just a few hundred metres from one of the nuclear plant reactors recently, which he thought was a clear warning of that possibility.
Doesn’t NATO taking out a rocket launcher bring NATO directly into the conflict?
I am still skeptical that Putin is ready to escalate to nuclear weapons use on the battlefield. But I do think he could use a demonstration explosion to hammer home a point, maybe over the Black Sea?
If Tory MPs don't trust this government, they can't just elect a new Tory PM, it isn't viable. Why should the public trust the selectorate - MPs or members?
“LIVE: Pound falls further after Bank of England's emergency move”
The pound is now above where it was when the BoE made their statement - and has been for half an hour or so.
Its hard to work out how the pound and the FTSE are virtually unchanged on the day
It isn't hard if you factor in this is not happening in a vacuum.
News you won't hear from the commentariat today includes....
JP Morgan predicts US recession is 'imminent' (Bloomberg). US 30-year Mortgage rate breaches 6.50%, highest since 2008 (Bloomberg).
The commentariat wants you to believe this is just the UK, because they want Truss gone. It clearly isn't, to anyone that's paying attention.
There's no context here, either because these reporters have an axe to grind, or because they simply do not understand context.
All the quotes starting yesterday night from financial analysts about the UK bonds issue creating contagion for other developed-market gilt purchases must be purely imaginary, then.
They're not, because if they were the IMF and Yellen wouldn't be focusing on the UK in particular, in their comments.
Ed Conway @EdConwaySky · 4m 🚨NEW🚨 On the @bankofengland intervention: Am told the BoE were responding to a “run dynamic” on pension funds - a wholesale equivalent of the run which destroyed Northern Rock. Had they not intervened, there would have been mass insolvencies of pension funds by THIS AFTERNOON.
If Tory MPs don't trust this government, they can't just elect a new Tory PM, it isn't viable. Why should the public trust the selectorate - MPs or members?
If Moscow was minded to blow up some gas pipelines, why not attack Norwegian pipes to western Europe? Thus increasing European energy hunger but keeping open the tantalising hope of energy from Russia?
I fear we are close to a terrible, terrible war
Putin doesn't have any choice but to escalate.
But his forces are not in a good way right now, and if NATO comes into the war then they will look even worse.
To win Putin has to force the West to back down and cease providing Ukraine with ammunition. He has to scare us enough that we'd sacrifice Ukraine to save ourselves (in the short term).
If we call his bluff then a defeat at the hands of NATO is more survivable, as less humiliating, than being defeated by Ukraine alone.
So I think he has to force the conflict to a point of crisis where the West has to choose between direct conflict with Russia, or sacrificing Ukraine.
yes i think putin wants direct conflict with the west now
Yes, that is my sense. He will take it to the absolute brink, because the alternative is defeat and probably death for him
And he won't especially care if it goes over the edge into a minor nuke strike
Chances of a nuclear weapon blowing up in the next ten weeks are now about 50%?
The Telegraph podcast on Ukraine has been discussing Russian nukes a lot. They had a former NATO NBC commander who was pretty confident NATO could and would prevent any attempt by Russia to launch a tactical nuclear weapon by destroying any launcher as soon as it moved into position.
He was more worried about one of the Ukrainian nuclear plants being targeted. Russia landed a precision missile just a few hundred metres from one of the nuclear plant reactors recently, which he thought was a clear warning of that possibility.
Doesn't Russia have deployable tactical nukes that don't need a "launcher"? By this I mean, they have nuke artillery shells which can be fired from "regular", well, artillery?
Genuine question....
Yes. Russia has tactical nukes deplorable from artillery, aircraft and Iskander missile launchers.
The guy on the podcast dismissed the aircraft nukes on the basis that the Russian airforce dare not fly over Ukrainian-held territory. The nuclear artillery shells were dismissed on the basis of range IIRC. Thus leaving the missiles.
Course he could be wrong, but I thought it was worth a listen.
If Tory MPs don't trust this government, they can't just elect a new Tory PM, it isn't viable. Why should the public trust the selectorate - MPs or members?
has to be a general election surely
How do you get one without a vote of No Confidence that 50 Tory MPs vote for.
To do that you need 50 Tory MPs willing to move to Labour / Lib Dems and be allowed to stand for that party in the General Election.
Simply put - it isn't going to happen because Turkey's don't vote for Christmas...
Ed Conway @EdConwaySky · 4m 🚨NEW🚨 On the @bankofengland intervention: Am told the BoE were responding to a “run dynamic” on pension funds - a wholesale equivalent of the run which destroyed Northern Rock. Had they not intervened, there would have been mass insolvencies of pension funds by THIS AFTERNOON.
devastating..Truss has to go on TV this evening and resign
Spare a thought for the new Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch on board HMS Queen Elizabeth in New York Harbour as she delivers a keynote speech today telling an "audience of US investors why the UK is the best place in the world to invest". https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1575101253557755904
Another Tory MP, a member of the government, said: "Liz has a pretty quick choice to make: either she bullets her chancellor and changes course or she could lose her premiership within a month." https://www.ft.com/content/a46e53bb-e23d-4450-a70e-05f71d2e57ef
Ed Conway @EdConwaySky · 4m 🚨NEW🚨 On the @bankofengland intervention: Am told the BoE were responding to a “run dynamic” on pension funds - a wholesale equivalent of the run which destroyed Northern Rock. Had they not intervened, there would have been mass insolvencies of pension funds by THIS AFTERNOON.
I still find the pathway to majority for Labour difficult - the SNP hold onto Scotland so tightly I don't see them making gains there. Wales looks like it will be Con free under current polling, and Labour will gain those over anyone else. And I can imagine some Red Wall seats coming "back" to Labour. I just don't know if there are enough competitive seats in the home counties, south and rurally? Maybe the LDs do well enough to win seats / prevent the Tories winning them? Maybe this economic ruin is so bad Tories just won't vote?
I agree. To get a majority (326) they need to win 124 seats + every seat they won last time - 124+202.
In the top 124 target seats are 17 SNP seats, where they will struggle to impact. Plus there will be some losses to someone though maybe only a few. So for a majority you have to look down to target 145 or thereabouts. But several of those also are SNP so difficult. So look to target 153 and consider how likely it is that Labour will win Rochford and Southend East, which they may need to do to get 326 seats. Swing needed: 13.31%.
I still don't put that as a 32% chance. Though no-one can accuse the Tories of not trying to give Labour a thumping majority, but the valiant Tory effort may not be enough.
Right now holding Rochford is highly optimistic. If they don't sort this quickly it will be between total extinction and 100 seats. They might easily get destroyed by a split and new centre right or populist right alternative
I agree this is possible, but not yet a 32% chance.
“LIVE: Pound falls further after Bank of England's emergency move”
The pound is now above where it was when the BoE made their statement - and has been for half an hour or so.
Its hard to work out how the pound and the FTSE are virtually unchanged on the day
It isn't hard if you factor in this is not happening in a vacuum.
News you won't hear from the commentariat today includes....
JP Morgan predicts US recession is 'imminent' (Bloomberg). US 30-year Mortgage rate breaches 6.50%, highest since 2008 (Bloomberg).
The commentariat wants you to believe this is just the UK, because they want Truss gone. It clearly isn't, to anyone that's paying attention.
There's no context here, either because these reporters have an axe to grind, or because they simply do not understand context.
All the quotes starting yesterday night from financial analysts about the UK bonds issue creating contagion for other developed-market gilt purchases must be purely imaginary, then.
They're not, because if they were the IMF and Yellen wouldn't be focusing on the UK in particular in their comments.
They are focusing on the UK because the UK's solution is to break out of the low growth high tax Western Convoy System.
Truss and Kwarteng do not want to sit in the corner and take their recession like good little boys and girls. The rest do not want the UK breakout because it might raise questions about the way they run their own economies.
That is what this is about. Like with the IMF interference. It isn't economic it is political.
Another Tory MP, a member of the government, said: "Liz has a pretty quick choice to make: either she bullets her chancellor and changes course or she could lose her premiership within a month." https://www.ft.com/content/a46e53bb-e23d-4450-a70e-05f71d2e57ef
A month - by the looks of things we don't have a month...
And Liz can't remove her Chancellor because she is at AS responsible for these polices - see last Sunday's Sunday Times...
If Moscow was minded to blow up some gas pipelines, why not attack Norwegian pipes to western Europe? Thus increasing European energy hunger but keeping open the tantalising hope of energy from Russia?
I fear we are close to a terrible, terrible war
Putin doesn't have any choice but to escalate.
But his forces are not in a good way right now, and if NATO comes into the war then they will look even worse.
To win Putin has to force the West to back down and cease providing Ukraine with ammunition. He has to scare us enough that we'd sacrifice Ukraine to save ourselves (in the short term).
If we call his bluff then a defeat at the hands of NATO is more survivable, as less humiliating, than being defeated by Ukraine alone.
So I think he has to force the conflict to a point of crisis where the West has to choose between direct conflict with Russia, or sacrificing Ukraine.
yes i think putin wants direct conflict with the west now
Yes, that is my sense. He will take it to the absolute brink, because the alternative is defeat and probably death for him
And he won't especially care if it goes over the edge into a minor nuke strike
Chances of a nuclear weapon blowing up in the next ten weeks are now about 50%?
The Telegraph podcast on Ukraine has been discussing Russian nukes a lot. They had a former NATO NBC commander who was pretty confident NATO could and would prevent any attempt by Russia to launch a tactical nuclear weapon by destroying any launcher as soon as it moved into position.
He was more worried about one of the Ukrainian nuclear plants being targeted. Russia landed a precision missile just a few hundred metres from one of the nuclear plant reactors recently, which he thought was a clear warning of that possibility.
Doesn't Russia have deployable tactical nukes that don't need a "launcher"? By this I mean, they have nuke artillery shells which can be fired from "regular", well, artillery?
Genuine question....
Yes. Russia has tactical nukes deplorable from artillery, aircraft and Iskander missile launchers.
The guy on the podcast dismissed the aircraft nukes on the basis that the Russian airforce dare not fly over Ukrainian-held territory. The nuclear artillery shells were dismissed on the basis of range IIRC. Thus leaving the missiles.
Course he could be wrong, but I thought it was worth a listen.
There's always the option of loading a warhead into the back of an anonymous truck and leaving it behind retreating Russian forces I suppose. A welcoming present, if you like, for advancing UKR forces.
If Moscow was minded to blow up some gas pipelines, why not attack Norwegian pipes to western Europe? Thus increasing European energy hunger but keeping open the tantalising hope of energy from Russia?
I fear we are close to a terrible, terrible war
Putin doesn't have any choice but to escalate.
But his forces are not in a good way right now, and if NATO comes into the war then they will look even worse.
To win Putin has to force the West to back down and cease providing Ukraine with ammunition. He has to scare us enough that we'd sacrifice Ukraine to save ourselves (in the short term).
If we call his bluff then a defeat at the hands of NATO is more survivable, as less humiliating, than being defeated by Ukraine alone.
So I think he has to force the conflict to a point of crisis where the West has to choose between direct conflict with Russia, or sacrificing Ukraine.
yes i think putin wants direct conflict with the west now
Yes, that is my sense. He will take it to the absolute brink, because the alternative is defeat and probably death for him
And he won't especially care if it goes over the edge into a minor nuke strike
Chances of a nuclear weapon blowing up in the next ten weeks are now about 50%?
The Telegraph podcast on Ukraine has been discussing Russian nukes a lot. They had a former NATO NBC commander who was pretty confident NATO could and would prevent any attempt by Russia to launch a tactical nuclear weapon by destroying any launcher as soon as it moved into position.
He was more worried about one of the Ukrainian nuclear plants being targeted. Russia landed a precision missile just a few hundred metres from one of the nuclear plant reactors recently, which he thought was a clear warning of that possibility.
Doesn’t NATO taking out a rocket launcher bring NATO directly into the conflict?
I am still skeptical that Putin is ready to escalate to nuclear weapons use on the battlefield. But I do think he could use a demonstration explosion to hammer home a point, maybe over the Black Sea?
The main reason to keep NATO not directly involved in the conflict is to avoid a nuclear escalation. If Russia has passed that point of decision already then it's not worth staying out of the conflict for the form of it if you can take preemptive action to prevent use of tactical nuclear weapons.
Another Tory MP, a member of the government, said: "Liz has a pretty quick choice to make: either she bullets her chancellor and changes course or she could lose her premiership within a month." https://www.ft.com/content/a46e53bb-e23d-4450-a70e-05f71d2e57ef
If Moscow was minded to blow up some gas pipelines, why not attack Norwegian pipes to western Europe? Thus increasing European energy hunger but keeping open the tantalising hope of energy from Russia?
I fear we are close to a terrible, terrible war
Putin doesn't have any choice but to escalate.
But his forces are not in a good way right now, and if NATO comes into the war then they will look even worse.
To win Putin has to force the West to back down and cease providing Ukraine with ammunition. He has to scare us enough that we'd sacrifice Ukraine to save ourselves (in the short term).
If we call his bluff then a defeat at the hands of NATO is more survivable, as less humiliating, than being defeated by Ukraine alone.
So I think he has to force the conflict to a point of crisis where the West has to choose between direct conflict with Russia, or sacrificing Ukraine.
yes i think putin wants direct conflict with the west now
Yes, that is my sense. He will take it to the absolute brink, because the alternative is defeat and probably death for him
And he won't especially care if it goes over the edge into a minor nuke strike
Chances of a nuclear weapon blowing up in the next ten weeks are now about 50%?
We may just be in the endgame for his regime - he sends people to the front, they don't see the point, they see lots of people dying, they turn against the government. The army collapses, none of their 'allies' want to deal with them anymore, the whole thing just turns in to the chaos that Russians have always feared, the place breaks up in to new states with varying different armies in control. The person that takes over is a proper hardman promising security backed by nuclear weapons. Maybe they actually do go and nuke Ukraine, just for the hell of it. People look back nostalgically at the 'renaissance' of the Putin era.
It’s been entertaining hosting the troll for the last few weeks, but I do think it’s now time to pull the plug.
You want to cancel him? Isn't that what repressive regimes do?
PB is an internet forum, not a country.
The People's Republic of PB ! Or probably more likely with its particular mix of views, the Kingdom of PB. We could issue our own passports, like the "Wanstonia" squat and sequence of streets in West London during the 1970's.
Nordstream seems a pretty Russian operation to me but what would I know? For a few reasons:
- the Gazprom legal one (the tamest and reassuring) - Because this is a perfect warning shot to Europe about the vulnerability of its other pipelines, and fairly cost free given it seems likely NS1 and 2 will never again see the light of day - Gazprom “coincidentally” just cut of Ukraine transit pipeline - bridge burning and a poison pill for any future post-Putin Russian rapprochement - They’ve been loitering suspiciously around subsea pipelines and cables for years. It’s definitely in their list of “things we could do” - They won’t care if they’re caught, whilst it would be massively risky for the US if their involvement were ever revealed
Spare a thought for the new Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch on board HMS Queen Elizabeth in New York Harbour as she delivers a keynote speech today telling an "audience of US investors why the UK is the best place in the world to invest". https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1575101253557755904
I still find the pathway to majority for Labour difficult - the SNP hold onto Scotland so tightly I don't see them making gains there. Wales looks like it will be Con free under current polling, and Labour will gain those over anyone else. And I can imagine some Red Wall seats coming "back" to Labour. I just don't know if there are enough competitive seats in the home counties, south and rurally? Maybe the LDs do well enough to win seats / prevent the Tories winning them? Maybe this economic ruin is so bad Tories just won't vote?
I agree. To get a majority (326) they need to win 124 seats + every seat they won last time - 124+202.
In the top 124 target seats are 17 SNP seats, where they will struggle to impact. Plus there will be some losses to someone though maybe only a few. So for a majority you have to look down to target 145 or thereabouts. But several of those also are SNP so difficult. So look to target 153 and consider how likely it is that Labour will win Rochford and Southend East, which they may need to do to get 326 seats. Swing needed: 13.31%.
I still don't put that as a 32% chance. Though no-one can accuse the Tories of not trying to give Labour a thumping majority, but the valiant Tory effort may not be enough.
Right now holding Rochford is highly optimistic. If they don't sort this quickly it will be between total extinction and 100 seats. They might easily get destroyed by a split and new centre right or populist right alternative
I agree this is possible, but not yet a 32% chance.
I don't see a way back for them nor where they get 20,000 votes 'anywhere' right now. There will be a Redfield tomorrow, i expect it to be jaw dropping
If Tory MPs don't trust this government, they can't just elect a new Tory PM, it isn't viable. Why should the public trust the selectorate - MPs or members?
has to be a general election surely
How do you get one without a vote of No Confidence that 50 Tory MPs vote for.
To do that you need 50 Tory MPs willing to move to Labour / Lib Dems and be allowed to stand for that party in the General Election.
Simply put - it isn't going to happen because Turkey's don't vote for Christmas...
They could abstain? Or quit? I'm sure enough of them could afford to retire / go to cushy jobs?
Or Truss could call a GE if the backbenchers are too chicken to VoNC her but are sending letters to the 22 committee.
It just seems absurd that the Conservatives will have gone through 3 PMs in less than a year without the electorate having a say. Maybe even His Majesty would feel a need to intervene - His government is failing, after all. And his name is Charles...
If Moscow was minded to blow up some gas pipelines, why not attack Norwegian pipes to western Europe? Thus increasing European energy hunger but keeping open the tantalising hope of energy from Russia?
I fear we are close to a terrible, terrible war
Putin doesn't have any choice but to escalate.
But his forces are not in a good way right now, and if NATO comes into the war then they will look even worse.
To win Putin has to force the West to back down and cease providing Ukraine with ammunition. He has to scare us enough that we'd sacrifice Ukraine to save ourselves (in the short term).
If we call his bluff then a defeat at the hands of NATO is more survivable, as less humiliating, than being defeated by Ukraine alone.
So I think he has to force the conflict to a point of crisis where the West has to choose between direct conflict with Russia, or sacrificing Ukraine.
yes i think putin wants direct conflict with the west now
Given how poorly his forces have performed against NATO cast-offs, how well does he think they would perform against F35s, F22s, and Reaper drones?
It would be an appalling mismatch - the Kerch bridge would go, as would Russia's ability to resupply Ukraine.
Spare a thought for the new Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch on board HMS Queen Elizabeth in New York Harbour as she delivers a keynote speech today telling an "audience of US investors why the UK is the best place in the world to invest". https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1575101253557755904
Bored with your job? Every day the same? Lacking a challenge?
Come and invest in the UK, where you never know what the day will bring!
Spare a thought for the new Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch on board HMS Queen Elizabeth in New York Harbour as she delivers a keynote speech today telling an "audience of US investors why the UK is the best place in the world to invest". https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1575101253557755904
Not a bad place for US investors to buy up assets on the cheap at the moment, to be fair. Weak pound, tumbling shares... expect fire sales.
At a minimum, Liz has to fire Kwasi, and she should probably hire Tom Scholar while she is at it
Firing Kwasi so soon would be admitting she was fundamentally wrong. There is no way she can do that without admitting her project is a failure, at which point she either will have to resign herself or be a PM with zero authority.
GE is really the only option for her, and should be the only position of sensible Tory MPs.
Another Tory MP, a member of the government, said: "Liz has a pretty quick choice to make: either she bullets her chancellor and changes course or she could lose her premiership within a month." https://www.ft.com/content/a46e53bb-e23d-4450-a70e-05f71d2e57ef
Any names mentioned...? no...?
Faking quotes is career ending for journalists.
Do you think it credible that there are no tory MPs saying these things?
If Tory MPs don't trust this government, they can't just elect a new Tory PM, it isn't viable. Why should the public trust the selectorate - MPs or members?
Probably a stupid question, but is the Russian border really that impervious? Look at this Google grab of a location a few hundred metres from the Latvia/Russia border. It doesn't appear very heavily fortified.
Would it be possible to breach the border on foot if one is willing to abandon one's vehicle?
Spare a thought for the new Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch on board HMS Queen Elizabeth in New York Harbour as she delivers a keynote speech today telling an "audience of US investors why the UK is the best place in the world to invest". https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1575101253557755904
You'd get a great view of HMS Queen Elizabeth from the Staten Island ferry today.
If Moscow was minded to blow up some gas pipelines, why not attack Norwegian pipes to western Europe? Thus increasing European energy hunger but keeping open the tantalising hope of energy from Russia?
I fear we are close to a terrible, terrible war
Putin doesn't have any choice but to escalate.
But his forces are not in a good way right now, and if NATO comes into the war then they will look even worse.
To win Putin has to force the West to back down and cease providing Ukraine with ammunition. He has to scare us enough that we'd sacrifice Ukraine to save ourselves (in the short term).
If we call his bluff then a defeat at the hands of NATO is more survivable, as less humiliating, than being defeated by Ukraine alone.
So I think he has to force the conflict to a point of crisis where the West has to choose between direct conflict with Russia, or sacrificing Ukraine.
yes i think putin wants direct conflict with the west now
Yes, that is my sense. He will take it to the absolute brink, because the alternative is defeat and probably death for him
And he won't especially care if it goes over the edge into a minor nuke strike
Chances of a nuclear weapon blowing up in the next ten weeks are now about 50%?
Probably a stupid question, but is the Russian border really that impervious? Look at this Google grab of a location a few hundred metres from the Latvia/Russia border. It doesn't appear very heavily fortified.
Would it be possible to breach the border on foot if one is willing to abandon one's vehicle?
If Moscow was minded to blow up some gas pipelines, why not attack Norwegian pipes to western Europe? Thus increasing European energy hunger but keeping open the tantalising hope of energy from Russia?
I fear we are close to a terrible, terrible war
Putin doesn't have any choice but to escalate.
But his forces are not in a good way right now, and if NATO comes into the war then they will look even worse.
To win Putin has to force the West to back down and cease providing Ukraine with ammunition. He has to scare us enough that we'd sacrifice Ukraine to save ourselves (in the short term).
If we call his bluff then a defeat at the hands of NATO is more survivable, as less humiliating, than being defeated by Ukraine alone.
So I think he has to force the conflict to a point of crisis where the West has to choose between direct conflict with Russia, or sacrificing Ukraine.
yes i think putin wants direct conflict with the west now
Yes, that is my sense. He will take it to the absolute brink, because the alternative is defeat and probably death for him
And he won't especially care if it goes over the edge into a minor nuke strike
Chances of a nuclear weapon blowing up in the next ten weeks are now about 50%?
Wow. What was Dan Hannan thinking? Okay, he may not have actually blamed the crash on Labour, but his words can certainly be interpreted that way, and it's given Sir Keir the perfect excuse to accuse the Tories as treating the crisis as a jolly jape. Liz needs him bound and gagged.
Another Tory MP, a member of the government, said: "Liz has a pretty quick choice to make: either she bullets her chancellor and changes course or she could lose her premiership within a month." https://www.ft.com/content/a46e53bb-e23d-4450-a70e-05f71d2e57ef
Any names mentioned...? no...?
Faking quotes is career ending for journalists.
Do you think it credible that there are no tory MPs saying these things?
Its only career ending if there's a name attached and you misquote. No name? could be anybody, cannot be checked (won't name my source....).
I think there are plenty of tory MPs who are worried, but to talk about their own government to a left wing journalist in the snarky Femi Sorry way we see on the internet?
Some good commentators talking about how the last three weeks is a story of hubris. IMHO the real story of hubris fis the last three years. The 2019 result was seen by some as a vindication of right-wing conservatism. In reality it was nothing of the sort. https://twitter.com/gabrielmilland/status/1575133705047261185
At a minimum, Liz has to fire Kwasi, and she should probably hire Tom Scholar while she is at it
Yes, Kwasi has to go. He was rather obscure anyway so I doubt anyone will shed a tear, and Liz can just blame her appointing him on a mad moment.
Problem is he knows that everything in the budget was signed off by Liz.
The reality is both of them need to go - even just removing Kwasi raises serious questions about her suitable to select and manage people...
But how does a party have the legitimacy to govern if it installs a leader, who then wrecks the economy, and replaces them in the space of 2 months? They either need to cede to a Unity government, which Labour would be insane to join, or they should fall apart as a party, and current Tory MPs need to leave the party, become indies and vote down this gov / vote for a GE. It would be insanity to just do another leadership election right now and accept a new Tory PM and new cabinet.
At a minimum, Liz has to fire Kwasi, and she should probably hire Tom Scholar while she is at it
Yes, Kwasi has to go. He was rather obscure anyway so I doubt anyone will shed a tear, and Liz can just blame her appointing him on a mad moment.
Problem is he knows that everything in the budget was signed off by Liz.
The reality is both of them need to go - even just removing Kwasi raises serious questions about her suitable to select and manage people...
I wouldn't rule out a mental health breakdown. Perhaps she can't hack it? I certainly couldn't, but I would have listened more to the people around me before starting on this track.
It is impossible to imagine Thatcher hunkering down for 5 days the way that Truss has.
Another Tory MP, a member of the government, said: "Liz has a pretty quick choice to make: either she bullets her chancellor and changes course or she could lose her premiership within a month." https://www.ft.com/content/a46e53bb-e23d-4450-a70e-05f71d2e57ef
Any names mentioned...? no...?
Faking quotes is career ending for journalists.
Do you think it credible that there are no tory MPs saying these things?
Journo might somehow have accessed a Tory Whatsapp group? Knows what is being said, but can't publish?
If Moscow was minded to blow up some gas pipelines, why not attack Norwegian pipes to western Europe? Thus increasing European energy hunger but keeping open the tantalising hope of energy from Russia?
I fear we are close to a terrible, terrible war
Putin doesn't have any choice but to escalate.
But his forces are not in a good way right now, and if NATO comes into the war then they will look even worse.
To win Putin has to force the West to back down and cease providing Ukraine with ammunition. He has to scare us enough that we'd sacrifice Ukraine to save ourselves (in the short term).
If we call his bluff then a defeat at the hands of NATO is more survivable, as less humiliating, than being defeated by Ukraine alone.
So I think he has to force the conflict to a point of crisis where the West has to choose between direct conflict with Russia, or sacrificing Ukraine.
yes i think putin wants direct conflict with the west now
Yes, that is my sense. He will take it to the absolute brink, because the alternative is defeat and probably death for him
And he won't especially care if it goes over the edge into a minor nuke strike
Chances of a nuclear weapon blowing up in the next ten weeks are now about 50%?
I'd put it at within 10 or so days
Would you now.
Yes. Got a problem with that?
Well yes, I'd rather there wasn't a nuclear attack in the next fortnight, as you ask
At a minimum, Liz has to fire Kwasi, and she should probably hire Tom Scholar while she is at it
Yes, Kwasi has to go. He was rather obscure anyway so I doubt anyone will shed a tear, and Liz can just blame her appointing him on a mad moment.
Problem is he knows that everything in the budget was signed off by Liz.
The reality is both of them need to go - even just removing Kwasi raises serious questions about her suitable to select and manage people...
Yes if Kwarteng goes then Truss goes too and she knows that.
The only alternative is Kwarteng to announce deep spending cuts to calm the markets about the deficit but at the cost of ensuring the redwall Tory MPs lose their seats.
Or dump Truss and Kwarteng and replace them with Wallace and Sunak and reverse the Kwarteng tax cuts for the rich
Liz needs to keep a lid on this. If it becomes mainstream knowledge then I doubt even The Express would continue its support. Sack Kwarteng and do a massive dead-cat thing. That's the only option.
Probably a stupid question, but is the Russian border really that impervious? Look at this Google grab of a location a few hundred metres from the Latvia/Russia border. It doesn't appear very heavily fortified.
Would it be possible to breach the border on foot if one is willing to abandon one's vehicle?
At a minimum, Liz has to fire Kwasi, and she should probably hire Tom Scholar while she is at it
Yes, Kwasi has to go. He was rather obscure anyway so I doubt anyone will shed a tear, and Liz can just blame her appointing him on a mad moment.
Problem is he knows that everything in the budget was signed off by Liz.
The reality is both of them need to go - even just removing Kwasi raises serious questions about her suitable to select and manage people...
I wouldn't rule out a mental health breakdown. Perhaps she can't hack it? I certainly couldn't, but I would have listened more to the people around me before starting on this track.
It is impossible to imagine Thatcher hunkering down for 5 days the way that Truss has.
tory mps knew she wasnt up to it but foisted her on the country anyway...every one of them should lose their seats at the next election...a total wipeout
Spare a thought for the new Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch on board HMS Queen Elizabeth in New York Harbour as she delivers a keynote speech today telling an "audience of US investors why the UK is the best place in the world to invest". https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1575101253557755904
well it's certainly cheaper for them to buy things here now. (ETA already mentioned by Sir Norfolk).
Nordstream seems a pretty Russian operation to me but what would I know? For a few reasons:
- the Gazprom legal one (the tamest and reassuring) - Because this is a perfect warning shot to Europe about the vulnerability of its other pipelines, and fairly cost free given it seems likely NS1 and 2 will never again see the light of day - Gazprom “coincidentally” just cut of Ukraine transit pipeline - bridge burning and a poison pill for any future post-Putin Russian rapprochement - They’ve been loitering suspiciously around subsea pipelines and cables for years. It’s definitely in their list of “things we could do” - They won’t care if they’re caught, whilst it would be massively risky for the US if their involvement were ever revealed
Also fits Russian military doctrine. Your last point, though, seem to me the clincher. Biden is notoriously cautious; Trump might pull that shit, but I very much doubt he would.
At a minimum, Liz has to fire Kwasi, and she should probably hire Tom Scholar while she is at it
Yes, Kwasi has to go. He was rather obscure anyway so I doubt anyone will shed a tear, and Liz can just blame her appointing him on a mad moment.
Problem is he knows that everything in the budget was signed off by Liz.
The reality is both of them need to go - even just removing Kwasi raises serious questions about her suitable to select and manage people...
Yes if Kwarteng goes then Truss goes too and she knows that.
The only alternative is Kwarteng to announce deep spending cuts to calm the markets about the deficit but at the cost of ensuring the redwall Tory MPs lose their seats.
Or dump Truss and Kwarteng and replace them with Wallace and Sunak and reverse the Kwarteng tax cuts for the rich
"dump Truss and Kwarteng and replace them with Wallace and Sunak and reverse the Kwarteng tax cuts for the rich" should at least get them to the election without being in single figures.
Also has the benefit of Sunak being required by Wallace to fund Ukraine. Appearing luke-warm did him no favours in his PM election bid.
Liz needs to keep a lid on this. If it becomes mainstream knowledge then I doubt even The Express would continue its support. Sack Kwarteng and do a massive dead-cat thing. That's the only option.
Sky's Economics guru tweeting it suggests at least a *little* bit of steam escaping the lid..
At a minimum, Liz has to fire Kwasi, and she should probably hire Tom Scholar while she is at it
Yes, Kwasi has to go. He was rather obscure anyway so I doubt anyone will shed a tear, and Liz can just blame her appointing him on a mad moment.
Problem is he knows that everything in the budget was signed off by Liz.
The reality is both of them need to go - even just removing Kwasi raises serious questions about her suitable to select and manage people...
Yes if Kwarteng goes then Truss goes too and she knows that.
The only alternative is Kwarteng to announce deep spending cuts to calm the markets about the deficit but at the cost of ensuring the redwall Tory MPs lose their seats.
Or dump Truss and Kwarteng and replace them with Wallace and Sunak and reverse the Kwarteng tax cuts for the rich
What spending cuts?
Massive spending cuts are already quietly baked into things because there is zero chance departments are going to get 10% increases. So any announcement of spending cuts would be way worse than what was announced as a 10% cut in headline monetary budgets is probably 20% in real terms...
Plus there is very little that can actually be cut - where is there any excess spending - we've already had 12 years of cuts on anything that isn't pensions / the NHS...
At a minimum, Liz has to fire Kwasi, and she should probably hire Tom Scholar while she is at it
Yes, Kwasi has to go. He was rather obscure anyway so I doubt anyone will shed a tear, and Liz can just blame her appointing him on a mad moment.
Problem is he knows that everything in the budget was signed off by Liz.
The reality is both of them need to go - even just removing Kwasi raises serious questions about her suitable to select and manage people...
But how does a party have the legitimacy to govern if it installs a leader, who then wrecks the economy, and replaces them in the space of 2 months? They either need to cede to a Unity government, which Labour would be insane to join, or they should fall apart as a party, and current Tory MPs need to leave the party, become indies and vote down this gov / vote for a GE. It would be insanity to just do another leadership election right now and accept a new Tory PM and new cabinet.
Form a new centre right group/party and offer Starmer PM in a national government coalition with date of next GE agreed for May 2024 giving the NG 18 months to stabilise everything. Moderates have no chance of surviving the 'Tory' toxicity. Nor do the spartans from the right. Needs a centre right Phil Hammond/Jeremy Hunt/Teresa May/Damian Green type party and the Steve Baker Street Irregulars in a Johnsonite populist party
A big declaration by Putin is scheduled for Friday 30 September.
Russia is signalling that all they want is the five territories (by far the largest part of what they still need to take is in the DPR) and nukes kept out of rump Ukraine. Of course if NATO countries supply weapons that are used to attack Russian territory that changes the game.
If Moscow was minded to blow up some gas pipelines, why not attack Norwegian pipes to western Europe? Thus increasing European energy hunger but keeping open the tantalising hope of energy from Russia?
I fear we are close to a terrible, terrible war
I'm going to assume that sabotaging Nord Stream 2 has plausible deniability - Russia can always be like "why would we wreck our own infrastructure / money making pipeline when we could always just turn it off it we want to"
Actually attacking someone else's pipeline to Europe would be an open act of war.
Someone posted a map showing the points of explosion just inside international waters, showing someone was being careful: either Russia about Article 5, or someone else trying to give that implication.
Those locations say nothing about who did it.
"always just turn it off it we want to"
The pipelines were already switched off. Or to be more exact, Nordstream 1 was off and Nordstream 2 hadn't come onstream yet.
The Portovaya compressor plant near Vyborg was also sabotaged last month.
"All they want" is 20% of the territory of their neighbour, whom they attacked in an act of wanton aggression. How about I steal 20% of your property and then say "hey, I only want this 20%, you get to keep 80%, seems like a fair deal?"
Of course this is also after Crimea was stolen, then Luhansk and Donetsk was stolen, now Zaporizhzhia and Kherson are being stolen. The idea that we could agree this and Russia would stop there is ridiculous. The Russians are untrustworthy war criminals. And Ukraine is winning. A much better option is to turf the orcs out and break Russia's military capacity for 50 years.
You don't give a f***ing shit about what country people who actually live in those territories want to live in, do you?
All you know is you hate the Russians, Soviets, war criminals, disrespecters of private property rights, whatever those filthy foreigners who don't know how to hold a knife and fork properly call themselves, and kill kill kill.
Nobody would want you anywhere near decision making in a conflict.
If the Ukrainians in those areas were so keen on becoming Russian, then they might have willingly joined their army.
Instead of Russia needing general mobilisation, the invasion would have found willing troops. And the Ukrainians, attempting to invade a country that did not want them, would have been crushed.
Who benefits from this? Is it really Russia? Quite the puzzle
VDL and Borrell making a statement at 4 on this apparaently
I feel like A Conspiratorial Loon but if I had to hazard a guess I'd say the Yanks did this, not Jonny Moscow
The pipeline is a crucial choke-point for Putin, he can apply pressure, or allow gas deliveries, as he desires. If the pipeline is destroyed he loses all leverage - after the initial shock. How does he gain from that?
The destruction of the pipeline means that continental Europe, especially Germany, is more likely to stay loyal to NATO and the western/Ukrainian cause, because there is no longer any choice in the matter
Cui bono? The USA
It also looks like it is reinforcing what is being said in back channel discussions:
"Threatening to use nukes has lost you Nordstream 1 and 2. Use nukes - and every bit of your hydrocarbons kit will get the same treatment. Now, fuck off out of every bit of Ukraine, before we get really pissed off at you and some more of your playthings accidentally break....."
Seems sensible to me as it prevents Germany getting gas directly from Russia. This ties Germany closer to the hawks - Poland and the US. It's a win for Ukraine.
Overnight it dismantles about a decade of German energy policy. Hard to see the Russians doing that.
A faction of German politics wanting to end the reliance on Russia?
The mistake in all this is assuming countries , political parties and governments are monoliths.
Even Putin runs a coalition - hence the last moment recasting of his announcement.
An act of sabotage on this scale can really only have been done by a Government and the only two realistic candidates would be the USA (probably with NATO knowledge and consent) and Russia (who I doubt Russia would have the expertise.)
But what's the politics behind it. I just don't understand.
The sabotage could have been done with a remote piloted underwater vehicle placing some devices on the pipeline.
That would once have required major technology. Now it is off the shelf.
The question is whether it was done from a surface vessel (lots of people, including sub national groups could do that), or from a submarine “mother vessel”
The US and the Russians definitely have such submarines. Other navies have some capability to carry ROVs on their subs and operate them like that.
It seems likely, though, that whoever blew the pipelines also nobbled the compressor station on land at Portovaya. So it's probably not Sweden.
Infiltrating Russian installations is trivial.
You put a decoy washing machine outside. All the guards rush out to steal it.
A big declaration by Putin is scheduled for Friday 30 September.
Russia is signalling that all they want is the five territories (by far the largest part of what they still need to take is in the DPR) and nukes kept out of rump Ukraine. Of course if NATO countries supply weapons that are used to attack Russian territory that changes the game.
If Moscow was minded to blow up some gas pipelines, why not attack Norwegian pipes to western Europe? Thus increasing European energy hunger but keeping open the tantalising hope of energy from Russia?
I fear we are close to a terrible, terrible war
I'm going to assume that sabotaging Nord Stream 2 has plausible deniability - Russia can always be like "why would we wreck our own infrastructure / money making pipeline when we could always just turn it off it we want to"
Actually attacking someone else's pipeline to Europe would be an open act of war.
Someone posted a map showing the points of explosion just inside international waters, showing someone was being careful: either Russia about Article 5, or someone else trying to give that implication.
Those locations say nothing about who did it.
"always just turn it off it we want to"
The pipelines were already switched off. Or to be more exact, Nordstream 1 was off and Nordstream 2 hadn't come onstream yet.
The Portovaya compressor plant near Vyborg was also sabotaged last month.
"All they want" is 20% of the territory of their neighbour, whom they attacked in an act of wanton aggression. How about I steal 20% of your property and then say "hey, I only want this 20%, you get to keep 80%, seems like a fair deal?"
Of course this is also after Crimea was stolen, then Luhansk and Donetsk was stolen, now Zaporizhzhia and Kherson are being stolen. The idea that we could agree this and Russia would stop there is ridiculous. The Russians are untrustworthy war criminals. And Ukraine is winning. A much better option is to turf the orcs out and break Russia's military capacity for 50 years.
You don't give a f***ing shit about what country people who actually live in those territories want to live in, do you?
All you know is you hate the Russians, Soviets, war criminals, disrespecters of private property rights, whatever those filthy foreigners who don't know how to hold a knife and fork properly call themselves, and kill kill kill.
Nobody would want you anywhere near decision making in a conflict.
If the Ukrainians in those areas were so keen on becoming Russian, then they might have willingly joined their army.
Instead of Russia needing general mobilisation, the invasion would have found willing troops. And the Ukrainians, attempting to invade a country that did not want them, would have been crushed.
Remind me again, what's actually happening?
are you prepared to risk a nuclear attack for the sake of ukraine...
At a minimum, Liz has to fire Kwasi, and she should probably hire Tom Scholar while she is at it
Yes, Kwasi has to go. He was rather obscure anyway so I doubt anyone will shed a tear, and Liz can just blame her appointing him on a mad moment.
Problem is he knows that everything in the budget was signed off by Liz.
The reality is both of them need to go - even just removing Kwasi raises serious questions about her suitable to select and manage people...
Yes if Kwarteng goes then Truss goes too and she knows that.
The only alternative is Kwarteng to announce deep spending cuts to calm the markets about the deficit but at the cost of ensuring the redwall Tory MPs lose their seats.
Or dump Truss and Kwarteng and replace them with Wallace and Sunak and reverse the Kwarteng tax cuts for the rich
"dump Truss and Kwarteng and replace them with Wallace and Sunak and reverse the Kwarteng tax cuts for the rich" should at least get them to the election without being in single figures.
Also has the benefit of Sunak being required by Wallace to fund Ukraine. Appearing luke-warm did him no favours in his PM election bid.
Still don't see how you get 300+ Tory MPs converging on a single replacement option, presumably in some secrecy, before pulling the trigger to remove Truss. The likelihood of a membership-pleasing idiot chucking their hat in the ring with enough MPs to get them to the 'public vote' needs to be highly adjacent to zero.
I'm told: - Pension funds getting hammered and losing huge amounts of capital - Banks forcing them to make margin calls and liquidate assets - so gilts - Some pension funds losing large amounts of their fund - Hence BoE stepped in - https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1575073150064545797
It’s been entertaining hosting the troll for the last few weeks, but I do think it’s now time to pull the plug.
He/she hasn't broken any site rules, so: Let them stay, is my vote
We can't kick people out for having opinions we merely dislike
I heard pro russian opinions in the pub at the weekend from an antiquarian bookseller; they aren't all from a troll farm. The usual thing where you hear that Ukraine is of no strategic importance to anyone. And the... 'but we killed millions of people in Iraq' argument. It is better to accept that they are opinions that are legitimately held and to then debate them.
Was this really all about protecting boomers with DB pensions?!!!!
The immediate issue was Defined Benefit Pensions - as they were going to blow up instantly.
Defined Contribution pensions don't blow up in the same way - you would just have lost x% of their value and been poorer forever more.....
Looks to me like this is yet another instance of the young getting screwed over by the wealthy oldsters. Why is the BoE backstopping private DB pension schemes? The young are locked out of those schemes - and indeed, paying for them via their employers through lower wages and worse DC schemes.
You have to be up the creek if everyone is writing to the BoE...
So, can someone explain how pension funds go bust in a day? You take contributions and invest them and pay out pensions. I can see how you go bust over a decade if you have made unaffordable commitments to too many pensioners, but unless you have borrowed to boost your investment, and why would you do that, what is the problem?
Comments
It is fair to say the plane is not busy
https://twitter.com/akaloy/status/1574824835443789824?s=20&t=7Bj5B5_7W03Z4QJ7PhB6qA
Genuine question....
News you won't hear from the commentariat today includes....
JP Morgan predicts US recession is 'imminent' (Bloomberg).
US 30-year Mortgage rate breaches 6.50%, highest since 2008 (Bloomberg).
The commentariat wants you to believe this is just the UK, because they want Truss gone. It clearly isn't, to anyone that's paying attention.
There's no context here, either because these reporters have an axe to grind, or because they simply do not understand context.
Remember how many times the Greek crisis was thought to have been 'solved' by various interventions.
When asked how long he would give them, he says "weeks".
https://twitter.com/AgnesChambre/status/1575079053458960385
I am still skeptical that Putin is ready to escalate to nuclear weapons use on the battlefield. But I do think he could use a demonstration explosion to hammer home a point, maybe over the Black Sea?
And how does the country manage sans a PM, again?
If Tory MPs don't trust this government, they can't just elect a new Tory PM, it isn't viable. Why should the public trust the selectorate - MPs or members?
They're not, because if they were the IMF and Yellen wouldn't be focusing on the UK in particular, in their comments.
Ed Conway
@EdConwaySky
·
4m
🚨NEW🚨
On the
@bankofengland
intervention:
Am told the BoE were responding to a “run dynamic” on pension funds - a wholesale equivalent of the run which destroyed Northern Rock.
Had they not intervened, there would have been mass insolvencies of pension funds by THIS AFTERNOON.
The guy on the podcast dismissed the aircraft nukes on the basis that the Russian airforce dare not fly over Ukrainian-held territory. The nuclear artillery shells were dismissed on the basis of range IIRC. Thus leaving the missiles.
Course he could be wrong, but I thought it was worth a listen.
That was with a PM uniquely experienced for the task, a respected Chancellor & a seasoned No 10 team
And that crisis wasn’t self-inflicted
Cannot imagine what it feels like in No 10 today
https://twitter.com/GavinJKelly1/status/1575123909451587584
To do that you need 50 Tory MPs willing to move to Labour / Lib Dems and be allowed to stand for that party in the General Election.
Simply put - it isn't going to happen because Turkey's don't vote for Christmas...
https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1575101253557755904
Another Tory MP, a member of the government, said: "Liz has a pretty quick choice to make: either she bullets her chancellor and changes course or she could lose her premiership within a month." https://www.ft.com/content/a46e53bb-e23d-4450-a70e-05f71d2e57ef
Truss and Kwarteng do not want to sit in the corner and take their recession like good little boys and girls. The rest do not want the UK breakout because it might raise questions about the way they run their own economies.
That is what this is about. Like with the IMF interference. It isn't economic it is political.
And Liz can't remove her Chancellor because she is at AS responsible for these polices - see last Sunday's Sunday Times...
- the Gazprom legal one (the tamest and reassuring)
- Because this is a perfect warning shot to Europe about the vulnerability of its other pipelines, and fairly cost free given it seems likely NS1 and 2 will never again see the light of day
- Gazprom “coincidentally” just cut of Ukraine transit pipeline
- bridge burning and a poison pill for any future post-Putin Russian rapprochement
- They’ve been loitering suspiciously around subsea pipelines and cables for years. It’s definitely in their list of “things we could do”
- They won’t care if they’re caught, whilst it would be massively risky for the US if their involvement were ever revealed
. .
Or Truss could call a GE if the backbenchers are too chicken to VoNC her but are sending letters to the 22 committee.
It just seems absurd that the Conservatives will have gone through 3 PMs in less than a year without the electorate having a say. Maybe even His Majesty would feel a need to intervene - His government is failing, after all. And his name is Charles...
Was it @CountBinface? https://twitter.com/IainDale/status/1575099061673242625
It would be an appalling mismatch - the Kerch bridge would go, as would Russia's ability to resupply Ukraine.
Come and invest in the UK, where you never know what the day will bring!
GE is really the only option for her, and should be the only position of sensible Tory MPs.
Do you think it credible that there are no tory MPs saying these things?
2024 or later 1.29
2023 5.31
2022 25
Would it be possible to breach the border on foot if one is willing to abandon one's vehicle?
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@57.5286418,27.4760648,3a,75y,17.19h,83.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s91AwWM9Q08dYUdvzZpTM2w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
The reality is both of them need to go - even just removing Kwasi raises serious questions about her suitable to select and manage people...
holy cow
I took advantage of them
With my winnings I might be able to buy a pint...
Sam Coates Sky
@SamCoatesSky
·
3m
So pension funds might have gone bust today without BoE help, as we said in this thread
The actual trigger for Bank action, I'm told, is that apparently all LDI managers wrote to BoE today
What are LDI managers, you ask?
Well... read this
https://bondvigilantes.com/blog/2022/09/collateral-calls/
You have to be up the creek if everyone is writing to the BoE...
We can't kick people out for having opinions we merely dislike
I think there are plenty of tory MPs who are worried, but to talk about their own government to a left wing journalist in the snarky Femi Sorry way we see on the internet?
Nope.
https://twitter.com/gabrielmilland/status/1575133705047261185
It is impossible to imagine Thatcher hunkering down for 5 days the way that Truss has.
The only alternative is Kwarteng to announce deep spending cuts to calm the markets about the deficit but at the cost of ensuring the redwall Tory MPs lose their seats.
Or dump Truss and Kwarteng and replace them with Wallace and Sunak and reverse the Kwarteng tax cuts for the rich
There is a global bond crisis. We are not alone. But we are fucked
https://www.ft.com/content/038b30c3-f550-4cc0-93ed-9154021d6ee2
Was this really all about protecting boomers with DB pensions?!!!!
THE FINLAND RUMOUR
Defined Contribution pensions don't blow up in the same way - you would just have lost x% of their value and been poorer forever more.....
Your last point, though, seem to me the clincher. Biden is notoriously cautious; Trump might pull that shit, but I very much doubt he would.
Speaking of whom....
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1575081138523373568
Trump now offers to mediate peace talks between Russia and Ukraine.
Also has the benefit of Sunak being required by Wallace to fund Ukraine. Appearing luke-warm did him no favours in his PM election bid.
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1575135370181754881
Massive spending cuts are already quietly baked into things because there is zero chance departments are going to get 10% increases. So any announcement of spending cuts would be way worse than what was announced as a 10% cut in headline monetary budgets is probably 20% in real terms...
Plus there is very little that can actually be cut - where is there any excess spending - we've already had 12 years of cuts on anything that isn't pensions / the NHS...
Moderates have no chance of surviving the 'Tory' toxicity. Nor do the spartans from the right.
Needs a centre right Phil Hammond/Jeremy Hunt/Teresa May/Damian Green type party and the Steve Baker Street Irregulars in a Johnsonite populist party
Instead of Russia needing general mobilisation, the invasion would have found willing troops. And the Ukrainians, attempting to invade a country that did not want them, would have been crushed.
Remind me again, what's actually happening?
You put a decoy washing machine outside. All the guards rush out to steal it.
Solovyov gets drafted and goes crazy.
https://twitter.com/R82938886/status/1574865224108220423
Someone did a great job, though.
- Pension funds getting hammered and losing huge amounts of capital
- Banks forcing them to make margin calls and liquidate assets - so gilts
- Some pension funds losing large amounts of their fund
- Hence BoE stepped in
- https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1575073150064545797
What the fuck are the BoE doing?
Have I misunderstood?
Then: BOOM