The Treasury is proudly bragging that a "typical" first-time buyer, earning £30,000, can save £11,250 in stamp duty on a "representative" terraced house.
The average terraced house in London was valued at £694,000 in 2021.
They are utterly delusional about the scale of the crisis in London's housing market.
"Average" in this context is a bit misleading. You can go to zone 6 and it isn't anywhere near that price.
Well, yeah, that's how averages work! In some places it'll be less, in some places it'll be more, but the average across the city is £694,000, which is what the Treasury tweet is talking about (a "representative" terrace)!
The average would not be an average FTB terrace though.
A representative terrace bought by FTB would be below your total average. Potentially significantly below.
Also a good example of where mean, median and modal averages matter. The mean average is much higher than the median average, but the typical FTB will be buying below the median average, let alone a high end property inflating the mean averages.
The tweet says you would save £11,250 in stamp duty. That implies a purchase price of £600K.
You can argue about averages all you like but those are the numbers.
So the Tory vote is pensioners and people who afford a 600k house. 20pc polls sound about right.
It's not just those who can afford a 600k house it's those who can afford a 600k house on an income of £30,000...
HYUFD advising them to go for the young recipients of inheritances perhaps.
BREAKING: Euro zone's inflation rate hits 10% for the first time, piling pressure on the European Central Bank to keep raising interest rates aggressively trib.al/fK8FWVJ
Techne UK @techneUK NEW: Labour now lead by TWENTY points in Techne’s voting intention tracker.
Lab 47% (+6) Con 27% (-7) LibDem 11% (nc) Green 6% (+1) SNP 4% (nc)
1,625 questioned on 28-29 September. Changes with 21-22 September.
Something has happened.
Yes, we have entered Keir Starmer's ideal scenario. No other candidate would be in his position now, he is uniquely placed to take advantage by being boring.
He will walk the next election, 100 seat majority or more seems likely
BREAKING: Euro zone's inflation rate hits 10% for the first time, piling pressure on the European Central Bank to keep raising interest rates aggressively trib.al/fK8FWVJ
The Next Labour Government will be two or three terms at the least. The Tories aren't getting back in for a long time.
That is a very bold position Horse. If they get in with a 2005 style majority and have to enact very unpopular policy because of the state of the economy they might easily slip back into deep minority in 2029
It is bold but my prediction record since GE19 has been absolutely spot on.
Unfortunately you neglected to issue an OBR forecast alongside your predictions and the market has lost confidence
The Treasury is proudly bragging that a "typical" first-time buyer, earning £30,000, can save £11,250 in stamp duty on a "representative" terraced house.
The average terraced house in London was valued at £694,000 in 2021.
They are utterly delusional about the scale of the crisis in London's housing market.
"Average" in this context is a bit misleading. You can go to zone 6 and it isn't anywhere near that price.
Well, yeah, that's how averages work! In some places it'll be less, in some places it'll be more, but the average across the city is £694,000, which is what the Treasury tweet is talking about (a "representative" terrace)!
The average would not be an average FTB terrace though.
A representative terrace bought by FTB would be below your total average. Potentially significantly below.
Also a good example of where mean, median and modal averages matter. The mean average is much higher than the median average, but the typical FTB will be buying below the median average, let alone a high end property inflating the mean averages.
ignore that look at the tweet
Thanks to the Growth Plan, a typical first time buyer in London moving into a representative terraced house will save £11,250 on stamp duty & £1,050 on the household's energy bills - and if they earn £30,000 almost an additional £400 on tax.
This is around £12,700 in total.
It merges 2 completely different things together because it's impossible for someone earning £30,000 to be in a position to get a mortgage that would buy you a £600,000 house which the first half of the example is about.
Basically its utter nonsense written by someone who knows better and is probably posting it to prove a point...
Is £11,250 based on a £600k terrace? I haven't ran the numbers.
Yes, if anyone is suggesting that someone on £30k can afford a £600k home then they're mental.
Unfortunately the "anyone" is HM Treasury run by your idols, at least you are starting to realise they are not all there.
HMT are far from my idols.
The idea that the Government, any Government, aren't the solution to life's problems is kind of something I believe in. I have so little faith in the Government and the Treasury, I want to see less of it.
The fact that the numbers were ballsed up as badly as this, kind of feeds into my thinking. I doubt these figures were ran past Truss or Kwarteng, but this is the kind of bollocks the Treasury deals with.
That kind of partisan tweet is not put out by the type of civil servant GB news and the Mail get apoplectic about, but the SPADs appointed by the likes of Truss and Kwarteng.
Interesting thread, which I find slightly more convincing on the pipeline question than the combined opinions of @Leon , @Luckyguy1983 , and @Dura_Ace . FWIW.
I'm not sure what you think this thread tells us beyond any of the opinions offered by the users you've tagged in. The options listed here are purely (and admittedly) groundless speculation, and it seems obvious to me that the author has eked the Russian options out a lot, and dismissed evidence supporting the US option out of hand 'Biden's wierd Tweets' - Really? An actual threat saying 'we can do that' about ending Nordstream 2 is just a 'wierd Tweet' would a 'wierd Tweet' by Putin saying the same thing have been dismissed, or actually be held up as a smoking gun?
Of the Russian motives, there is only one that stands out to me as having validity, and that is Gazprom not having to pay penalties for not supplying gas. However, how that tallies with the cost of repairs, I don't know, and how it also tallies with Putin's willingness to upend normal ways of doing business (ie, why wouldn't he just refuse to pay the penalties), I also don't know.
In the other actors presented, there is also a failure to mention the likelihood of any of these states acting without American blessing/foreknowledge/support - which is practically zero. The Ukrainians are the only ones desperate enough to do that, and their capability of doing so is rightly questioned, and doing so without prior American knowledge risks future weapons supplies and financial support worth billions - the Americans are the only ones propping up the Ukrainian state.
Given all those things, the probable culprit is Ukraine, or one of the Baltic states, but with American blessing and support. This achieves American aims, but is deniable, and they will 100% wash their hands of anyone who gets fingered for it.
The thing that astonishes me is the wilful blindness as to America’s stated aims. The USA has said categorically “we will end Nordstream2 one way or another if Putin invades”
Biden said it on camera. His Secretary of State said it on camera. No ifs or buts, and Germany can go fuck itself
“Germany's sovereignty has just flown out the window. - Victoria Nuland, U.S. Under Secretary of State, declares that 'if Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward' indicating that the US, not Germany, has the last word on the pipeline project”
Yet somehow this evidence is irrelevant and Putin must be responsible because of his weird left arm, or something
I’m not completely sure America did this (your argument they got the Balts/Ukes to do it is plausible) but the desperate desire not to believe the Yanks did it, despite this overt evidence, is frankly surreal
Leon, you are discussing this with an out-and-out Putinist shill. A "character" who tried blaming everyone but Russia for the shootdown of MH17; and who denied Assad used chemical weapons. LG *may* have some noble characteristics, but when it comes to Russia, if he says it, it is almost certainly wrong.
Don't drink the same pipecleaner as him.
As for why Russia would do it: I (and others) have given you many reasons for it. You choose to ignore them. However, here's another one for you: those lists assume a rational actor. If Putin's irrational, then he'd just hit the pipelines it out of spite and to show Russia's stronkingness. And you think he's going to use nuclear weapons, which would be utterly irrational. If he can be so irrational as to use nukes, then why wouldn't he irrationally hit the pipelines?
(But IMO hitting the pipelines was *not* irrational. It was a very rational act.)
BREAKING: Euro zone's inflation rate hits 10% for the first time, piling pressure on the European Central Bank to keep raising interest rates aggressively trib.al/fK8FWVJ
BREAKING: Euro zone's inflation rate hits 10% for the first time, piling pressure on the European Central Bank to keep raising interest rates aggressively trib.al/fK8FWVJ
BREAKING: Euro zone's inflation rate hits 10% for the first time, piling pressure on the European Central Bank to keep raising interest rates aggressively trib.al/fK8FWVJ
Welcome move by No10 today. In the space of 1 week we’ve gone from the OBR being dismissed to the PM turning up to its meetings. Turns out the credibility of the institution we created 12 years ago to bring honesty to the public finances is more enduring than that of its critics
I know alJazeera have been frequently criticised for all sorts of things, but I've read some pretty good reports from them about Ukraine. They are, of course, more or less neutral in this fight.
Neutrality is an interesting concept. When Ireland was neutral at the time the world, and UK, faced an existential threat of barbarian Nazi darkness does that mean they were equally comfortable (or uncomfortable) with all outcomes? Same question here.
As put by one Irish person speaking to Robert Kee in 1980: 'While there was no desire on the part of the Irish to see the Nazis win, there was always a certain amusement on hearing of British military reverses.'
Rather offset by the large numbers of Irish volunteers for the British military.
5,000 deserted the Irish military to do so.
Churchill offered de Valera the 6 counties if the 26 would join the Allies. EdV very perceptively assumed that Churchill would contrive to fuck him on the deal and stayed neutral.
The Next Labour Government will be two or three terms at the least. The Tories aren't getting back in for a long time.
That is a very bold position Horse. If they get in with a 2005 style majority and have to enact very unpopular policy because of the state of the economy they might easily slip back into deep minority in 2029
It is bold but my prediction record since GE19 has been absolutely spot on.
Nah, you promised a 20 point lead and we went straight from the teens to 33 points. Very disappointed in your tipping.
Exclusive: The trustees of Serco's pension schemes approached the outsourcing giant for financial support earlier this week as the crisis in the UK government bond market forced a wave of firesales to meet collatral demands. To be clear, the Serco schemes are well-funded and...
2/2 ...in surplus, according to the company's most recent financial results. Nevertheless, the fact that Serco's trustees had to seek a standby credit facility of this nature underlines the scale of the panic caused among UK corporate pension trustees.
Interesting thread, which I find slightly more convincing on the pipeline question than the combined opinions of @Leon , @Luckyguy1983 , and @Dura_Ace . FWIW.
I'm not sure what you think this thread tells us beyond any of the opinions offered by the users you've tagged in. The options listed here are purely (and admittedly) groundless speculation, and it seems obvious to me that the author has eked the Russian options out a lot, and dismissed evidence supporting the US option out of hand 'Biden's wierd Tweets' - Really? An actual threat saying 'we can do that' about ending Nordstream 2 is just a 'wierd Tweet' would a 'wierd Tweet' by Putin saying the same thing have been dismissed, or actually be held up as a smoking gun?
Of the Russian motives, there is only one that stands out to me as having validity, and that is Gazprom not having to pay penalties for not supplying gas. However, how that tallies with the cost of repairs, I don't know, and how it also tallies with Putin's willingness to upend normal ways of doing business (ie, why wouldn't he just refuse to pay the penalties), I also don't know.
In the other actors presented, there is also a failure to mention the likelihood of any of these states acting without American blessing/foreknowledge/support - which is practically zero. The Ukrainians are the only ones desperate enough to do that, and their capability of doing so is rightly questioned, and doing so without prior American knowledge risks future weapons supplies and financial support worth billions - the Americans are the only ones propping up the Ukrainian state.
Given all those things, the probable culprit is Ukraine, or one of the Baltic states, but with American blessing and support. This achieves American aims, but is deniable, and they will 100% wash their hands of anyone who gets fingered for it.
The thing that astonishes me is the wilful blindness as to America’s stated aims. The USA has said categorically “we will end Nordstream2 one way or another if Putin invades”
Biden said it on camera. His Secretary of State said it on camera. No ifs or buts, and Germany can go fuck itself
“Germany's sovereignty has just flown out the window. - Victoria Nuland, U.S. Under Secretary of State, declares that 'if Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward' indicating that the US, not Germany, has the last word on the pipeline project”
Yet somehow this evidence is irrelevant and Putin must be responsible because of his weird left arm, or something
I’m not completely sure America did this (your argument they got the Balts/Ukes to do it is plausible) but the desperate desire not to believe the Yanks did it, despite this overt evidence, is frankly surreal
Leon, you are discussing this with an out-and-out Putinist shill. A "character" who tried blaming everyone but Russia for the shootdown of MH17; and who denied Assad used chemical weapons. LG *may* have some noble characteristics, but when it comes to Russia, if he says it, it is almost certainly wrong.
Don't drink the same pipecleaner as him.
As for why Russia would do it: I (and others) have given you many reasons for it. You choose to ignore them. However, here's another one for you: those lists assume a rational actor. If Putin's irrational, then he'd just hit the pipelines it out of spite and to show Russia's stronkingness. And you think he's going to use nuclear weapons, which would be utterly irrational. If he can be so irrational as to use nukes, then why wouldn't he irrationally hit the pipelines?
(But IMO hitting the pipelines was *not* irrational. It was a very rational act.)
Wait. So Putin bombed the pipeline because he’s rational, but he ALSO bombed them because he’s… irrational
Either way he definitely did it and let’s ignore the videos of the American President saying “I’m going to do this”
MOSCOW, Sept 30 (Reuters) - The Kremlin said on Friday it would consider attacks against any part of the regions of Ukraine that it is about to annex as acts of aggression against Russia itself. https://twitter.com/WJames_Reuters/status/1575777196672704512
Well, yes, that’s been their stated position for a while now. Next move is Putin’s.
Very quiet on here about this, and buried on the bbc. Agenda? It’s not great, but it could be worse.
Feels about right. 'It could be worse' and it will be worse, sadly.'
So much worse. After the GFC bail outs the idea has taken hold that the government can magic away any problems if they want to. It then becomes a moral failure not to. If you can bail out the banks why not me?
So you pay my wages when I can’t work, you pay my heating bill when it goes up, you are responsible for my mortgage.
It’s going to take a lot of time and pain to realise that the magic money tree has been cut down and burnt to keep us warm. The markets have said enough.
We are heading back to reality, when people have to accept they are responsible for themselves. It’s going to be a hell of a detox.
Well said, we are indeed. Truss and Kwasi have the right prescription for getting us back to reality, but the country doesn't want to hear it, and it might be frankly too little, too late now.
If the country wants to live in delusion that the government can magic away all our problems, then lets give Starmer a go and see if he can do it. When he can't, maybe people will realise Truss was ahead of her time and finally pay attention to what she rightly wanted to do.
Can the Government magic away all our problems? No, but several of our current problems were created by the Government a week ago. This “right prescription” is going to cost us all (except the super-rich) more via inflation and higher borrowing costs than any savings to our tax bills. Everyone being poorer is going to hit growth.
No, the problems were already there, the Government just pulled out the rug and revealed the extend they'd been brushed under it until now.
The politics was absolutely mishandled though. The £2bn in the 45p tax change is neither here nor there, and if it attracts people to pay their tax here instead of abroad then it absolutely would be self-funding and then some, but while making economic sense it destroyed any "all in it together" narrative and allowed the media and opposition to pretend that all this was about that rounding error of a change.
You seem to be blaming the media and opposition when it was the markets that gave their verdict . It seems strange that people who seem to like free markets only seem to like them when they agree with their opinion .
I like the free markets whether they agree with me or not. I believe in creative destruction and evolution, I do not believe that instantaneous snap judgements of markets is correct any more than people buying into Bitcoin because its going up in value in the past was a wise investment. But I believe in the market economy, because in the long term it identifies mistakes and corrects course.
People made a big deal about pound falling to £1.08 after Kwasi spoke, since then its fallen further to . . . £1.12
The pound is now roughly back to exactly where it was before Kwasi spoke last Friday. So lets not overreact to every move in every market.
The hysteria on here about the dollar exchange rate on Monday morning was a sight to behold. It was obviously a classic case of Dornbusch overshooting, though as most people on here aren't academic economists or forex traders, they could be expected to lose their heads I suppose.
Anyway, it is economically illiterate to discuss it in terms of the dollar rate, and has been for almost 50 years since the dollar peg system collapsed.
The trade-weighted exchange rate is the right measure. You wouldn't think it from all the hysteria in the press about our continually declining economy, but the latest version of the BIS TWER shows that the pound has risen slightly over the last 12 years, despite falling about 20% against the dollar in that time.
I had drinks with a literate lefty friend, in leafy Richmond Green last night, and his solution to our problems was “just tax the energy companies, they’re making so much profit”
And he’s got a degree and is in his 50s and seriously esteemed in a demanding career
People are utterly clueless as to how badly we are fucked, in basic ££ terms. If they do understand, they understand intuitively
The Ukraine crisis really has hit home tho. People know the nuclear details
Was it @kinabalu who has changed his mind about moving again?
Yep. I think London prices are about to drop significantly. Residential Property can be stubbornly robust because of the warped supply/demand fundamentals and political interference but with the expected level and speed of rate rises prices have to fall imo. My prediction is that the froth of the recent increases is blown off and prices go back to 2017 type levels. That's a 15% fall. So let's say between 10% and 20% to avoid false precision.
The Next Labour Government will be two or three terms at the least. The Tories aren't getting back in for a long time.
That is a very bold position Horse. If they get in with a 2005 style majority and have to enact very unpopular policy because of the state of the economy they might easily slip back into deep minority in 2029
Yup. The fundamentals remain the fundamentals. A Labour majority is highly unlikely, so the thorn in Labour’s side is going to be the SNP.
That being said, my guess would be that Labour in the mid-forties breaks the Scottish seat projections and they’d actually recover quite a few.
Interesting thread, which I find slightly more convincing on the pipeline question than the combined opinions of @Leon , @Luckyguy1983 , and @Dura_Ace . FWIW.
I'm not sure what you think this thread tells us beyond any of the opinions offered by the users you've tagged in. The options listed here are purely (and admittedly) groundless speculation, and it seems obvious to me that the author has eked the Russian options out a lot, and dismissed evidence supporting the US option out of hand 'Biden's wierd Tweets' - Really? An actual threat saying 'we can do that' about ending Nordstream 2 is just a 'wierd Tweet' would a 'wierd Tweet' by Putin saying the same thing have been dismissed, or actually be held up as a smoking gun?
Of the Russian motives, there is only one that stands out to me as having validity, and that is Gazprom not having to pay penalties for not supplying gas. However, how that tallies with the cost of repairs, I don't know, and how it also tallies with Putin's willingness to upend normal ways of doing business (ie, why wouldn't he just refuse to pay the penalties), I also don't know.
In the other actors presented, there is also a failure to mention the likelihood of any of these states acting without American blessing/foreknowledge/support - which is practically zero. The Ukrainians are the only ones desperate enough to do that, and their capability of doing so is rightly questioned, and doing so without prior American knowledge risks future weapons supplies and financial support worth billions - the Americans are the only ones propping up the Ukrainian state.
Given all those things, the probable culprit is Ukraine, or one of the Baltic states, but with American blessing and support. This achieves American aims, but is deniable, and they will 100% wash their hands of anyone who gets fingered for it.
The thing that astonishes me is the wilful blindness as to America’s stated aims. The USA has said categorically “we will end Nordstream2 one way or another if Putin invades”
Biden said it on camera. His Secretary of State said it on camera. No ifs or buts, and Germany can go fuck itself
“Germany's sovereignty has just flown out the window. - Victoria Nuland, U.S. Under Secretary of State, declares that 'if Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward' indicating that the US, not Germany, has the last word on the pipeline project”
Yet somehow this evidence is irrelevant and Putin must be responsible because of his weird left arm, or something
I’m not completely sure America did this (your argument they got the Balts/Ukes to do it is plausible) but the desperate desire not to believe the Yanks did it, despite this overt evidence, is frankly surreal
Leon, you are discussing this with an out-and-out Putinist shill. A "character" who tried blaming everyone but Russia for the shootdown of MH17; and who denied Assad used chemical weapons. LG *may* have some noble characteristics, but when it comes to Russia, if he says it, it is almost certainly wrong.
Don't drink the same pipecleaner as him.
As for why Russia would do it: I (and others) have given you many reasons for it. You choose to ignore them. However, here's another one for you: those lists assume a rational actor. If Putin's irrational, then he'd just hit the pipelines it out of spite and to show Russia's stronkingness. And you think he's going to use nuclear weapons, which would be utterly irrational. If he can be so irrational as to use nukes, then why wouldn't he irrationally hit the pipelines?
(But IMO hitting the pipelines was *not* irrational. It was a very rational act.)
Wait. So Putin bombed the pipeline because he’s rational, but he ALSO bombed them because he’s… irrational
Either way he definitely did it and let’s ignore the videos of the American President saying “I’m going to do this”
No - I'm pointing out that if you think he's irrational enough to use nukes, then why look for reasons he would bomb his own pipeline?
I just cannot see it being the US - the risks far outweigh the benefits (especially as Germany et al have now realised the issues with relying on Russian gas). If they'd done it a year ago, perhaps. But NS1 and NS2 were dead anyway.
In yesterday's local by-elections, the Tory vote was up in three of them, down slightly in two, and down around 10% in two.
Polling reflects the raw anger and fury, last nights results (impacted somewhat by postals going in before this week) perhaps reflect better the reality once faced with the live choice. But id watch what happens in locals in the next 3 weeks where there will be fewer and fewer early postals and time for processing whats happened. That being said, last nights results in and of themselves in no way support a 33 point labour lead
The Next Labour Government will be two or three terms at the least. The Tories aren't getting back in for a long time.
That is a very bold position Horse. If they get in with a 2005 style majority and have to enact very unpopular policy because of the state of the economy they might easily slip back into deep minority in 2029
It is bold but my prediction record since GE19 has been absolutely spot on.
Nah, you promised a 20 point lead and we went straight from the teens to 33 points. Very disappointed in your tipping.
So in summary, we should assume Labour will do much better than even I predicted. So 200 seat majority nailed on?
The Treasury is proudly bragging that a "typical" first-time buyer, earning £30,000, can save £11,250 in stamp duty on a "representative" terraced house.
The average terraced house in London was valued at £694,000 in 2021.
They are utterly delusional about the scale of the crisis in London's housing market.
"Average" in this context is a bit misleading. You can go to zone 6 and it isn't anywhere near that price.
Well, yeah, that's how averages work! In some places it'll be less, in some places it'll be more, but the average across the city is £694,000, which is what the Treasury tweet is talking about (a "representative" terrace)!
The average would not be an average FTB terrace though.
A representative terrace bought by FTB would be below your total average. Potentially significantly below.
Also a good example of where mean, median and modal averages matter. The mean average is much higher than the median average, but the typical FTB will be buying below the median average, let alone a high end property inflating the mean averages.
The tweet says you would save £11,250 in stamp duty. That implies a purchase price of £600K.
You can argue about averages all you like but those are the numbers.
So the Tory vote is pensioners and people who afford a 600k house. 20pc polls sound about right.
It's not just those who can afford a 600k house it's those who can afford a 600k house on an income of £30,000...
Yes... Tax dodgers of all nationalities, drug dealers, people traffickers, corrupt dictators.. Tory voters to the last man.
Interesting thread, which I find slightly more convincing on the pipeline question than the combined opinions of @Leon , @Luckyguy1983 , and @Dura_Ace . FWIW.
I'm not sure what you think this thread tells us beyond any of the opinions offered by the users you've tagged in. The options listed here are purely (and admittedly) groundless speculation, and it seems obvious to me that the author has eked the Russian options out a lot, and dismissed evidence supporting the US option out of hand 'Biden's wierd Tweets' - Really? An actual threat saying 'we can do that' about ending Nordstream 2 is just a 'wierd Tweet' would a 'wierd Tweet' by Putin saying the same thing have been dismissed, or actually be held up as a smoking gun?
Of the Russian motives, there is only one that stands out to me as having validity, and that is Gazprom not having to pay penalties for not supplying gas. However, how that tallies with the cost of repairs, I don't know, and how it also tallies with Putin's willingness to upend normal ways of doing business (ie, why wouldn't he just refuse to pay the penalties), I also don't know.
In the other actors presented, there is also a failure to mention the likelihood of any of these states acting without American blessing/foreknowledge/support - which is practically zero. The Ukrainians are the only ones desperate enough to do that, and their capability of doing so is rightly questioned, and doing so without prior American knowledge risks future weapons supplies and financial support worth billions - the Americans are the only ones propping up the Ukrainian state.
Given all those things, the probable culprit is Ukraine, or one of the Baltic states, but with American blessing and support. This achieves American aims, but is deniable, and they will 100% wash their hands of anyone who gets fingered for it.
The thing that astonishes me is the wilful blindness as to America’s stated aims. The USA has said categorically “we will end Nordstream2 one way or another if Putin invades”
Biden said it on camera. His Secretary of State said it on camera. No ifs or buts, and Germany can go fuck itself
“Germany's sovereignty has just flown out the window. - Victoria Nuland, U.S. Under Secretary of State, declares that 'if Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward' indicating that the US, not Germany, has the last word on the pipeline project”
Yet somehow this evidence is irrelevant and Putin must be responsible because of his weird left arm, or something
I’m not completely sure America did this (your argument they got the Balts/Ukes to do it is plausible) but the desperate desire not to believe the Yanks did it, despite this overt evidence, is frankly surreal
Leon, you are discussing this with an out-and-out Putinist shill. A "character" who tried blaming everyone but Russia for the shootdown of MH17; and who denied Assad used chemical weapons. LG *may* have some noble characteristics, but when it comes to Russia, if he says it, it is almost certainly wrong.
Don't drink the same pipecleaner as him.
As for why Russia would do it: I (and others) have given you many reasons for it. You choose to ignore them. However, here's another one for you: those lists assume a rational actor. If Putin's irrational, then he'd just hit the pipelines it out of spite and to show Russia's stronkingness. And you think he's going to use nuclear weapons, which would be utterly irrational. If he can be so irrational as to use nukes, then why wouldn't he irrationally hit the pipelines?
(But IMO hitting the pipelines was *not* irrational. It was a very rational act.)
Wait. So Putin bombed the pipeline because he’s rational, but he ALSO bombed them because he’s… irrational
Either way he definitely did it and let’s ignore the videos of the American President saying “I’m going to do this”
The American President didn't say he'd do it, he said he'd stop the pipes, and he did, in February they were stopped.
So why would he now blow up pipes that he'd already stopped? Cui bono?
Putin on the other hand has very good reasons to do it.
I had drinks with a literate lefty friend, in leafy Richmond Green last night, and his solution to our problems was “just tax the energy companies, they’re making so much profit”
And he’s got a degree and is in his 50s and seriously esteemed in a demanding career
People are utterly clueless as to how badly we are fucked, in basic ££ terms. If they do understand, they understand intuitively
The Ukraine crisis really has hit home tho. People know the nuclear details
Was it @kinabalu who has changed his mind about moving again?
Yep. I think London prices are about to drop significantly. Residential Property can be stubbornly robust because of the warped supply/demand fundamentals and political interference but with the expected level and speed of rate rises prices have to fall imo. My prediction is that the froth of the recent increases is blown off and prices go back to 2017 type levels. That's a 15% fall. So let's say between 10% and 20% to avoid false precision.
We’re definitely looking at stagnant/dropping house prices but I’m not sure London will fall that much - simply because many London prices haven’t actually risen that much, the last few years, not compared to the rest of the UK
The hit will be on bigger houses with gardens ex-London, which have soared in value. Now they are becoming ruinously expensive to heat
Somewhere like Cornwall is overdue a massive correction. Local prices are insane
At any rate, this is why we need to be self sufficient in energy, be it North sea, fracked gas, dirty old coal, wind (with storage), waste, tidal, or all of the above. Power cables can be cut, pipelines can be bombed. There is no way we should ever, ever be dependent on the continent, or any other power, for power.
Interesting thread, which I find slightly more convincing on the pipeline question than the combined opinions of @Leon , @Luckyguy1983 , and @Dura_Ace . FWIW.
I'm not sure what you think this thread tells us beyond any of the opinions offered by the users you've tagged in. The options listed here are purely (and admittedly) groundless speculation, and it seems obvious to me that the author has eked the Russian options out a lot, and dismissed evidence supporting the US option out of hand 'Biden's wierd Tweets' - Really? An actual threat saying 'we can do that' about ending Nordstream 2 is just a 'wierd Tweet' would a 'wierd Tweet' by Putin saying the same thing have been dismissed, or actually be held up as a smoking gun?
Of the Russian motives, there is only one that stands out to me as having validity, and that is Gazprom not having to pay penalties for not supplying gas. However, how that tallies with the cost of repairs, I don't know, and how it also tallies with Putin's willingness to upend normal ways of doing business (ie, why wouldn't he just refuse to pay the penalties), I also don't know.
In the other actors presented, there is also a failure to mention the likelihood of any of these states acting without American blessing/foreknowledge/support - which is practically zero. The Ukrainians are the only ones desperate enough to do that, and their capability of doing so is rightly questioned, and doing so without prior American knowledge risks future weapons supplies and financial support worth billions - the Americans are the only ones propping up the Ukrainian state.
Given all those things, the probable culprit is Ukraine, or one of the Baltic states, but with American blessing and support. This achieves American aims, but is deniable, and they will 100% wash their hands of anyone who gets fingered for it.
The thing that astonishes me is the wilful blindness as to America’s stated aims. The USA has said categorically “we will end Nordstream2 one way or another if Putin invades”
Biden said it on camera. His Secretary of State said it on camera. No ifs or buts, and Germany can go fuck itself
“Germany's sovereignty has just flown out the window. - Victoria Nuland, U.S. Under Secretary of State, declares that 'if Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward' indicating that the US, not Germany, has the last word on the pipeline project”
Yet somehow this evidence is irrelevant and Putin must be responsible because of his weird left arm, or something
I’m not completely sure America did this (your argument they got the Balts/Ukes to do it is plausible) but the desperate desire not to believe the Yanks did it, despite this overt evidence, is frankly surreal
Leon, you are discussing this with an out-and-out Putinist shill. A "character" who tried blaming everyone but Russia for the shootdown of MH17; and who denied Assad used chemical weapons. LG *may* have some noble characteristics, but when it comes to Russia, if he says it, it is almost certainly wrong.
Don't drink the same pipecleaner as him.
As for why Russia would do it: I (and others) have given you many reasons for it. You choose to ignore them. However, here's another one for you: those lists assume a rational actor. If Putin's irrational, then he'd just hit the pipelines it out of spite and to show Russia's stronkingness. And you think he's going to use nuclear weapons, which would be utterly irrational. If he can be so irrational as to use nukes, then why wouldn't he irrationally hit the pipelines?
(But IMO hitting the pipelines was *not* irrational. It was a very rational act.)
Wait. So Putin bombed the pipeline because he’s rational, but he ALSO bombed them because he’s… irrational
Either way he definitely did it and let’s ignore the videos of the American President saying “I’m going to do this”
Sigh. Putin did it so that the West would freeze this winter.
At any rate, this is why we need to be self sufficient in energy, be it North sea, fracked gas, dirty old coal, wind (with storage), waste, tidal, or all of the above. Power cables can be cut, pipelines can be bombed. There is no way we should ever, ever be dependent on the continent, or any other power, for power.
So you're now in favour of putting some productive solar on unproductive farmland? Or are you not that in favour of self-sufficiency on power?
I know this is a well rehearsed argument and positions are fixed but; yes she does, she commands a majority in the Commons. That’s our system. Nothing else.
Interesting thread, which I find slightly more convincing on the pipeline question than the combined opinions of @Leon , @Luckyguy1983 , and @Dura_Ace . FWIW.
I'm not sure what you think this thread tells us beyond any of the opinions offered by the users you've tagged in. The options listed here are purely (and admittedly) groundless speculation, and it seems obvious to me that the author has eked the Russian options out a lot, and dismissed evidence supporting the US option out of hand 'Biden's wierd Tweets' - Really? An actual threat saying 'we can do that' about ending Nordstream 2 is just a 'wierd Tweet' would a 'wierd Tweet' by Putin saying the same thing have been dismissed, or actually be held up as a smoking gun?
Of the Russian motives, there is only one that stands out to me as having validity, and that is Gazprom not having to pay penalties for not supplying gas. However, how that tallies with the cost of repairs, I don't know, and how it also tallies with Putin's willingness to upend normal ways of doing business (ie, why wouldn't he just refuse to pay the penalties), I also don't know.
In the other actors presented, there is also a failure to mention the likelihood of any of these states acting without American blessing/foreknowledge/support - which is practically zero. The Ukrainians are the only ones desperate enough to do that, and their capability of doing so is rightly questioned, and doing so without prior American knowledge risks future weapons supplies and financial support worth billions - the Americans are the only ones propping up the Ukrainian state.
Given all those things, the probable culprit is Ukraine, or one of the Baltic states, but with American blessing and support. This achieves American aims, but is deniable, and they will 100% wash their hands of anyone who gets fingered for it.
The thing that astonishes me is the wilful blindness as to America’s stated aims. The USA has said categorically “we will end Nordstream2 one way or another if Putin invades”
Biden said it on camera. His Secretary of State said it on camera. No ifs or buts, and Germany can go fuck itself
“Germany's sovereignty has just flown out the window. - Victoria Nuland, U.S. Under Secretary of State, declares that 'if Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward' indicating that the US, not Germany, has the last word on the pipeline project”
Yet somehow this evidence is irrelevant and Putin must be responsible because of his weird left arm, or something
I’m not completely sure America did this (your argument they got the Balts/Ukes to do it is plausible) but the desperate desire not to believe the Yanks did it, despite this overt evidence, is frankly surreal
Leon, you are discussing this with an out-and-out Putinist shill. A "character" who tried blaming everyone but Russia for the shootdown of MH17; and who denied Assad used chemical weapons. LG *may* have some noble characteristics, but when it comes to Russia, if he says it, it is almost certainly wrong.
Don't drink the same pipecleaner as him.
As for why Russia would do it: I (and others) have given you many reasons for it. You choose to ignore them. However, here's another one for you: those lists assume a rational actor. If Putin's irrational, then he'd just hit the pipelines it out of spite and to show Russia's stronkingness. And you think he's going to use nuclear weapons, which would be utterly irrational. If he can be so irrational as to use nukes, then why wouldn't he irrationally hit the pipelines?
(But IMO hitting the pipelines was *not* irrational. It was a very rational act.)
Wait. So Putin bombed the pipeline because he’s rational, but he ALSO bombed them because he’s… irrational
Either way he definitely did it and let’s ignore the videos of the American President saying “I’m going to do this”
No. If it was Putin then his reasoning might have been
1 - We are not selling any gas down these pipelines 2 - We have easy access to the inside of the pipes and can send explosives down 3 - We can blame the Americans / Norwegians / Germans / etc etc 4 - It provides useful propaganda for the home audience 5 - It provides a distraction during the Ukraine annexation process 6 - Leon will believe it was flint knapping aliens and completely distract PB for us
OK, maybe not No.6 but Putin has nothing to lose and quite a bit to gain.
Next week pictures of delegates at the Tory conference applauding ministers as they proclaim huge tax cuts for the very richest and benefits cuts for the very poorest will be beamed into TV sets up and down the country.
Tax cuts for the richest at the moment may be problematic. However the benefits proposal to increase benefits in line with earnings not inflation I expect will be more popular
Next week pictures of delegates at the Tory conference applauding ministers as they proclaim huge tax cuts for the very richest and benefits cuts for the very poorest will be beamed into TV sets up and down the country.
Tax cuts for the richest at the moment may be problematic. However the benefits proposal to increase benefits in line with earnings not inflation I expect will be more popular
Not if pensioners receive the triple lock
Benefits and pensions have to rise equally and anyone who cannot see that deserves to be thrown out of office
And I say this as a pensioner
Pensioners are the Tories core vote and of course most state Pensioners paid in via NI their whole working lives
Keep the triple lock, since the state pension is £10,000 a year, not generous at all. There are, of course, well-off pensioners. Means-testing pensioners would be expensive. Combining income tax and NI would get rid of the anomaly that pensioners who are still earning money do not pay NI.
That is unlikely because no Chancellor wants to increase the headline rate of income tax, even if combined tax and NI would be the same, because Chancellors think all voters are thick as mince. It *might* need some adjustment to using NI to qualify for pensions.
The Next Labour Government will be two or three terms at the least. The Tories aren't getting back in for a long time.
That is a very bold position Horse. If they get in with a 2005 style majority and have to enact very unpopular policy because of the state of the economy they might easily slip back into deep minority in 2029
It is bold but my prediction record since GE19 has been absolutely spot on.
Nah, you promised a 20 point lead and we went straight from the teens to 33 points. Very disappointed in your tipping.
At any rate, this is why we need to be self sufficient in energy, be it North sea, fracked gas, dirty old coal, wind (with storage), waste, tidal, or all of the above. Power cables can be cut, pipelines can be bombed. There is no way we should ever, ever be dependent on the continent, or any other power, for power.
So you're now in favour of putting some productive solar on unproductive farmland? Or are you not that in favour of self-sufficiency on power?
I'd say self-sufficiency in energy is important but of second order importance under food security. Life without power would be unpleasant, life without food more so.
I had drinks with a literate lefty friend, in leafy Richmond Green last night, and his solution to our problems was “just tax the energy companies, they’re making so much profit”
And he’s got a degree and is in his 50s and seriously esteemed in a demanding career
People are utterly clueless as to how badly we are fucked, in basic ££ terms. If they do understand, they understand intuitively
The Ukraine crisis really has hit home tho. People know the nuclear details
Was it @kinabalu who has changed his mind about moving again?
Yep. I think London prices are about to drop significantly. Residential Property can be stubbornly robust because of the warped supply/demand fundamentals and political interference but with the expected level and speed of rate rises prices have to fall imo. My prediction is that the froth of the recent increases is blown off and prices go back to 2017 type levels. That's a 15% fall. So let's say between 10% and 20% to avoid false precision.
We’re definitely looking at stagnant/dropping house prices but I’m not sure London will fall that much - simply because many London prices haven’t actually risen that much, the last few years, not compared to the rest of the UK
The hit will be on bigger houses with gardens ex-London, which have soared in value. Now they are becoming ruinously expensive to heat
Somewhere like Cornwall is overdue a massive correction. Local prices are insane
Working from home plays in the opposite directions. Its very uncertain, but I think working from home will count for more than heating or recent trends - i.e. bigger garden properties will fall less than flats and small homes.
Interesting thread, which I find slightly more convincing on the pipeline question than the combined opinions of @Leon , @Luckyguy1983 , and @Dura_Ace . FWIW.
I'm not sure what you think this thread tells us beyond any of the opinions offered by the users you've tagged in. The options listed here are purely (and admittedly) groundless speculation, and it seems obvious to me that the author has eked the Russian options out a lot, and dismissed evidence supporting the US option out of hand 'Biden's wierd Tweets' - Really? An actual threat saying 'we can do that' about ending Nordstream 2 is just a 'wierd Tweet' would a 'wierd Tweet' by Putin saying the same thing have been dismissed, or actually be held up as a smoking gun?
Of the Russian motives, there is only one that stands out to me as having validity, and that is Gazprom not having to pay penalties for not supplying gas. However, how that tallies with the cost of repairs, I don't know, and how it also tallies with Putin's willingness to upend normal ways of doing business (ie, why wouldn't he just refuse to pay the penalties), I also don't know.
In the other actors presented, there is also a failure to mention the likelihood of any of these states acting without American blessing/foreknowledge/support - which is practically zero. The Ukrainians are the only ones desperate enough to do that, and their capability of doing so is rightly questioned, and doing so without prior American knowledge risks future weapons supplies and financial support worth billions - the Americans are the only ones propping up the Ukrainian state.
Given all those things, the probable culprit is Ukraine, or one of the Baltic states, but with American blessing and support. This achieves American aims, but is deniable, and they will 100% wash their hands of anyone who gets fingered for it.
The thing that astonishes me is the wilful blindness as to America’s stated aims. The USA has said categorically “we will end Nordstream2 one way or another if Putin invades”
Biden said it on camera. His Secretary of State said it on camera. No ifs or buts, and Germany can go fuck itself
“Germany's sovereignty has just flown out the window. - Victoria Nuland, U.S. Under Secretary of State, declares that 'if Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward' indicating that the US, not Germany, has the last word on the pipeline project”
Yet somehow this evidence is irrelevant and Putin must be responsible because of his weird left arm, or something
I’m not completely sure America did this (your argument they got the Balts/Ukes to do it is plausible) but the desperate desire not to believe the Yanks did it, despite this overt evidence, is frankly surreal
Leon, you are discussing this with an out-and-out Putinist shill. A "character" who tried blaming everyone but Russia for the shootdown of MH17; and who denied Assad used chemical weapons. LG *may* have some noble characteristics, but when it comes to Russia, if he says it, it is almost certainly wrong.
Don't drink the same pipecleaner as him.
As for why Russia would do it: I (and others) have given you many reasons for it. You choose to ignore them. However, here's another one for you: those lists assume a rational actor. If Putin's irrational, then he'd just hit the pipelines it out of spite and to show Russia's stronkingness. And you think he's going to use nuclear weapons, which would be utterly irrational. If he can be so irrational as to use nukes, then why wouldn't he irrationally hit the pipelines?
(But IMO hitting the pipelines was *not* irrational. It was a very rational act.)
Wait. So Putin bombed the pipeline because he’s rational, but he ALSO bombed them because he’s… irrational
Either way he definitely did it and let’s ignore the videos of the American President saying “I’m going to do this”
No. If it was Putin then his reasoning might have been
1 - We are not selling any gas down these pipelines 2 - We have easy access to the inside of the pipes and can send explosives down 3 - We can blame the Americans / Norwegians / Germans / etc etc 4 - It provides useful propaganda for the home audience 5 - It provides a distraction during the Ukraine annexation process 6 - Leon will believe it was flint knapping aliens and completely distract PB for us
OK, maybe not No.6 but Putin has nothing to lose and quite a bit to gain.
6 is Putin's "useful idiots" in the West are blaming America, and Leon is falling for it hook, line and sinker.
I had drinks with a literate lefty friend, in leafy Richmond Green last night, and his solution to our problems was “just tax the energy companies, they’re making so much profit”
And he’s got a degree and is in his 50s and seriously esteemed in a demanding career
People are utterly clueless as to how badly we are fucked, in basic ££ terms. If they do understand, they understand intuitively
The Ukraine crisis really has hit home tho. People know the nuclear details
Was it @kinabalu who has changed his mind about moving again?
Yep. I think London prices are about to drop significantly. Residential Property can be stubbornly robust because of the warped supply/demand fundamentals and political interference but with the expected level and speed of rate rises prices have to fall imo. My prediction is that the froth of the recent increases is blown off and prices go back to 2017 type levels. That's a 15% fall. So let's say between 10% and 20% to avoid false precision.
We’re definitely looking at stagnant/dropping house prices but I’m not sure London will fall that much - simply because many London prices haven’t actually risen that much, the last few years, not compared to the rest of the UK
The hit will be on bigger houses with gardens ex-London, which have soared in value. Now they are becoming ruinously expensive to heat
Somewhere like Cornwall is overdue a massive correction. Local prices are insane
Yes I might be talking my book here but I think London property isn't going to correct massively in nominal terms. GBP weakness has made prime London property more competitive for international buyers and that drmand cascades down through the whole market. As you say outside of London it may be a different story. Outside of high unemployment and a mass of forced sales though I think a correction not a crash is the more likely scenario nationally.
I know this is a well rehearsed argument and positions are fixed but; yes she does, she commands a majority in the Commons. That’s our system. Nothing else.
The Next Labour Government will be two or three terms at the least. The Tories aren't getting back in for a long time.
That is a very bold position Horse. If they get in with a 2005 style majority and have to enact very unpopular policy because of the state of the economy they might easily slip back into deep minority in 2029
It is bold but my prediction record since GE19 has been absolutely spot on.
Nah, you promised a 20 point lead and we went straight from the teens to 33 points. Very disappointed in your tipping.
The Treasury is proudly bragging that a "typical" first-time buyer, earning £30,000, can save £11,250 in stamp duty on a "representative" terraced house.
The average terraced house in London was valued at £694,000 in 2021.
They are utterly delusional about the scale of the crisis in London's housing market.
"Average" in this context is a bit misleading. You can go to zone 6 and it isn't anywhere near that price.
Well, yeah, that's how averages work! In some places it'll be less, in some places it'll be more, but the average across the city is £694,000, which is what the Treasury tweet is talking about (a "representative" terrace)!
The average would not be an average FTB terrace though.
A representative terrace bought by FTB would be below your total average. Potentially significantly below.
Also a good example of where mean, median and modal averages matter. The mean average is much higher than the median average, but the typical FTB will be buying below the median average, let alone a high end property inflating the mean averages.
The tweet says you would save £11,250 in stamp duty. That implies a purchase price of £600K.
You can argue about averages all you like but those are the numbers.
Yes, someone else already pointed that out. Its embarrassingly bad and indefensible gibberish.
No way someone on £30k can afford a £600k home, that's insane!
Indeed, yet that was the Treasury tweet.
Complete, unmitigated gibberish. And I have no doubt it will be thrown back at them when some idiot goes on radio or TV to waffle abou how Stamp Duty changes will liberate us all.
I had drinks with a literate lefty friend, in leafy Richmond Green last night, and his solution to our problems was “just tax the energy companies, they’re making so much profit”
And he’s got a degree and is in his 50s and seriously esteemed in a demanding career
People are utterly clueless as to how badly we are fucked, in basic ££ terms. If they do understand, they understand intuitively
The Ukraine crisis really has hit home tho. People know the nuclear details
Was it @kinabalu who has changed his mind about moving again?
Yep. I think London prices are about to drop significantly. Residential Property can be stubbornly robust because of the warped supply/demand fundamentals and political interference but with the expected level and speed of rate rises prices have to fall imo. My prediction is that the froth of the recent increases is blown off and prices go back to 2017 type levels. That's a 15% fall. So let's say between 10% and 20% to avoid false precision.
We’re definitely looking at stagnant/dropping house prices but I’m not sure London will fall that much - simply because many London prices haven’t actually risen that much, the last few years, not compared to the rest of the UK.
The hit will be on bigger houses with gardens ex-London, which have soared in value. Now they are becoming ruinously expensive to heat.
Somewhere like Cornwall is overdue a massive correction. Local prices are insane.
I agree London will drop less than the Sticks but I think it'll fall by at least 10%. Course, I'm hoping so now having delayed a purchase. Then again, there's almost zero chance of it going UP so it's a win/flat really. And given win/wins never happen in anything legal a win/flat is the best you'll ever get and has to be done.
At any rate, this is why we need to be self sufficient in energy, be it North sea, fracked gas, dirty old coal, wind (with storage), waste, tidal, or all of the above. Power cables can be cut, pipelines can be bombed. There is no way we should ever, ever be dependent on the continent, or any other power, for power.
So you're now in favour of putting some productive solar on unproductive farmland? Or are you not that in favour of self-sufficiency on power?
Food security should go in tandem. But you could legislate everything newly built has solar panels - covered car parks, anything with a roof etc etc
I know this is a well rehearsed argument and positions are fixed but; yes she does, she commands a majority in the Commons. That’s our system. Nothing else.
That has yet to be tested
I agree. But until that happens the only reasonable assumption is that she does, else the Queen wouldn’t have appointed her.
Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng face a “very difficult conversation” with the Office for Budget Responsibility, a senior Conservative MP said before an emergency meeting with the independent economic forecaster.
Mel Stride, chairman of the Treasury committee, said the OBR would demand a “rethink” of plans for £45 billion in debt-funded tax cuts because “this circle cannot be squared”.
So when Truss emerges and says "Nothing has changed"...
What is the possibility of the OBR actually backing the government to some extent on the £45B tax cuts, just as the Labour Party has already backed the government on a lot of the tax cut package by promising to keep it for growth too and even opposing the rises in first place?
I know this is a well rehearsed argument and positions are fixed but; yes she does, she commands a majority in the Commons. That’s our system. Nothing else.
Having a mandate to do something exists entirely out with the system. She has the legal and political right to do these things. That does not give her a broader mandate from the public. The Government confuses these two concepts at its peril.
At any rate, this is why we need to be self sufficient in energy, be it North sea, fracked gas, dirty old coal, wind (with storage), waste, tidal, or all of the above. Power cables can be cut, pipelines can be bombed. There is no way we should ever, ever be dependent on the continent, or any other power, for power.
So you're now in favour of putting some productive solar on unproductive farmland? Or are you not that in favour of self-sufficiency on power?
Food security should go in tandem. But you could legislate everything newly built has solar panels - covered car parks, anything with a roof etc etc
Food security should be by encouraging those who do want to farm to be more productive/efficient/intensive in doing so, not by preventing anyone from building energy providing 'farms' or houses or industry or any other form of development.
Interesting thread, which I find slightly more convincing on the pipeline question than the combined opinions of @Leon , @Luckyguy1983 , and @Dura_Ace . FWIW.
I'm not sure what you think this thread tells us beyond any of the opinions offered by the users you've tagged in. The options listed here are purely (and admittedly) groundless speculation, and it seems obvious to me that the author has eked the Russian options out a lot, and dismissed evidence supporting the US option out of hand 'Biden's wierd Tweets' - Really? An actual threat saying 'we can do that' about ending Nordstream 2 is just a 'wierd Tweet' would a 'wierd Tweet' by Putin saying the same thing have been dismissed, or actually be held up as a smoking gun?
Of the Russian motives, there is only one that stands out to me as having validity, and that is Gazprom not having to pay penalties for not supplying gas. However, how that tallies with the cost of repairs, I don't know, and how it also tallies with Putin's willingness to upend normal ways of doing business (ie, why wouldn't he just refuse to pay the penalties), I also don't know.
In the other actors presented, there is also a failure to mention the likelihood of any of these states acting without American blessing/foreknowledge/support - which is practically zero. The Ukrainians are the only ones desperate enough to do that, and their capability of doing so is rightly questioned, and doing so without prior American knowledge risks future weapons supplies and financial support worth billions - the Americans are the only ones propping up the Ukrainian state.
Given all those things, the probable culprit is Ukraine, or one of the Baltic states, but with American blessing and support. This achieves American aims, but is deniable, and they will 100% wash their hands of anyone who gets fingered for it.
The thing that astonishes me is the wilful blindness as to America’s stated aims. The USA has said categorically “we will end Nordstream2 one way or another if Putin invades”
Biden said it on camera. His Secretary of State said it on camera. No ifs or buts, and Germany can go fuck itself
“Germany's sovereignty has just flown out the window. - Victoria Nuland, U.S. Under Secretary of State, declares that 'if Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward' indicating that the US, not Germany, has the last word on the pipeline project”
Yet somehow this evidence is irrelevant and Putin must be responsible because of his weird left arm, or something
I’m not completely sure America did this (your argument they got the Balts/Ukes to do it is plausible) but the desperate desire not to believe the Yanks did it, despite this overt evidence, is frankly surreal
Leon, you are discussing this with an out-and-out Putinist shill. A "character" who tried blaming everyone but Russia for the shootdown of MH17; and who denied Assad used chemical weapons. LG *may* have some noble characteristics, but when it comes to Russia, if he says it, it is almost certainly wrong.
Don't drink the same pipecleaner as him.
As for why Russia would do it: I (and others) have given you many reasons for it. You choose to ignore them. However, here's another one for you: those lists assume a rational actor. If Putin's irrational, then he'd just hit the pipelines it out of spite and to show Russia's stronkingness. And you think he's going to use nuclear weapons, which would be utterly irrational. If he can be so irrational as to use nukes, then why wouldn't he irrationally hit the pipelines?
(But IMO hitting the pipelines was *not* irrational. It was a very rational act.)
Wait. So Putin bombed the pipeline because he’s rational, but he ALSO bombed them because he’s… irrational
Either way he definitely did it and let’s ignore the videos of the American President saying “I’m going to do this”
No. If it was Putin then his reasoning might have been
1 - We are not selling any gas down these pipelines 2 - We have easy access to the inside of the pipes and can send explosives down 3 - We can blame the Americans / Norwegians / Germans / etc etc 4 - It provides useful propaganda for the home audience 5 - It provides a distraction during the Ukraine annexation process 6 - Leon will believe it was flint knapping aliens and completely distract PB for us
OK, maybe not No.6 but Putin has nothing to lose and quite a bit to gain.
Nothing to lose?! Why do you think Putin spent so much time, money and political capital to get this pipeline set up? Because he wants Germany reliant on Russian energy (= political leverage) and he NEEDS the money they pay for gas
He can turn the gas on and off at will anyway. A functional pipeline keeps that leverage (and the cash potentially incoming).
Why on earth would he permanently destroy a source of revenue and political power, thereby definitively pushing Germany towards America and mutilating his own economy?
I get that people don’t want to believe America did this. Emotionally painful. But the evidence makes them plausible villains, at the very least
Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng face a “very difficult conversation” with the Office for Budget Responsibility, a senior Conservative MP said before an emergency meeting with the independent economic forecaster.
Mel Stride, chairman of the Treasury committee, said the OBR would demand a “rethink” of plans for £45 billion in debt-funded tax cuts because “this circle cannot be squared”.
So when Truss emerges and says "Nothing has changed"...
What is the possibility of the OBR actually backing the government to some extent on the £45B tax cuts, just as the Labour Party has already backed the government on a lot of the tax cut package by promising to keep it for growth too and even opposing the rises in first place?
It all depends on the spending restraint proposition. However restoring market confidence and creating public faith in austerity funding tax cuts for the rich are different cats
I had drinks with a literate lefty friend, in leafy Richmond Green last night, and his solution to our problems was “just tax the energy companies, they’re making so much profit”
And he’s got a degree and is in his 50s and seriously esteemed in a demanding career
People are utterly clueless as to how badly we are fucked, in basic ££ terms. If they do understand, they understand intuitively
The Ukraine crisis really has hit home tho. People know the nuclear details
Was it @kinabalu who has changed his mind about moving again?
Yep. I think London prices are about to drop significantly. Residential Property can be stubbornly robust because of the warped supply/demand fundamentals and political interference but with the expected level and speed of rate rises prices have to fall imo. My prediction is that the froth of the recent increases is blown off and prices go back to 2017 type levels. That's a 15% fall. So let's say between 10% and 20% to avoid false precision.
We’re definitely looking at stagnant/dropping house prices but I’m not sure London will fall that much - simply because many London prices haven’t actually risen that much, the last few years, not compared to the rest of the UK
The hit will be on bigger houses with gardens ex-London, which have soared in value. Now they are becoming ruinously expensive to heat
Somewhere like Cornwall is overdue a massive correction. Local prices are insane
Working from home plays in the opposite directions. Its very uncertain, but I think working from home will count for more than heating or recent trends - i.e. bigger garden properties will fall less than flats and small homes.
Why would big garden properties fall more ?
Some of the semis near me have absolutely humungous gardens.
Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng face a “very difficult conversation” with the Office for Budget Responsibility, a senior Conservative MP said before an emergency meeting with the independent economic forecaster.
Mel Stride, chairman of the Treasury committee, said the OBR would demand a “rethink” of plans for £45 billion in debt-funded tax cuts because “this circle cannot be squared”.
So when Truss emerges and says "Nothing has changed"...
What is the possibility of the OBR actually backing the government to some extent on the £45B tax cuts, just as the Labour Party has already backed the government on a lot of the tax cut package by promising to keep it for growth too and even opposing the rises in first place?
I’ll say it again becuase I am a completely broken record, but in the shopping basket declined on the UK credit card was £45B of tax cuts to promote growth alongside a quarter of a trillion for a bill freeze for everyone UK economists have already called dangerously regressive and stupidly over expensive by not targeting enough - how are we so sure the OBR won’t call for the bill freeze to get a hair cut?
At any rate, this is why we need to be self sufficient in energy, be it North sea, fracked gas, dirty old coal, wind (with storage), waste, tidal, or all of the above. Power cables can be cut, pipelines can be bombed. There is no way we should ever, ever be dependent on the continent, or any other power, for power.
So you're now in favour of putting some productive solar on unproductive farmland? Or are you not that in favour of self-sufficiency on power?
Food security should go in tandem. But you could legislate everything newly built has solar panels - covered car parks, anything with a roof etc etc
Food security should be by encouraging those who do want to farm to be more productive/efficient/intensive in doing so, not by preventing anyone from building energy providing 'farms' or houses or industry or any other form of development.
What happens if because (for instance) of supermarket monopoly power compbined with the collapse of planning, it's more profitable to operate glamping pods, tank driving courses, machine-gun-your-own-grouse, suburban semis, and so on. than growing food?
Interesting thread, which I find slightly more convincing on the pipeline question than the combined opinions of @Leon , @Luckyguy1983 , and @Dura_Ace . FWIW.
I'm not sure what you think this thread tells us beyond any of the opinions offered by the users you've tagged in. The options listed here are purely (and admittedly) groundless speculation, and it seems obvious to me that the author has eked the Russian options out a lot, and dismissed evidence supporting the US option out of hand 'Biden's wierd Tweets' - Really? An actual threat saying 'we can do that' about ending Nordstream 2 is just a 'wierd Tweet' would a 'wierd Tweet' by Putin saying the same thing have been dismissed, or actually be held up as a smoking gun?
Of the Russian motives, there is only one that stands out to me as having validity, and that is Gazprom not having to pay penalties for not supplying gas. However, how that tallies with the cost of repairs, I don't know, and how it also tallies with Putin's willingness to upend normal ways of doing business (ie, why wouldn't he just refuse to pay the penalties), I also don't know.
In the other actors presented, there is also a failure to mention the likelihood of any of these states acting without American blessing/foreknowledge/support - which is practically zero. The Ukrainians are the only ones desperate enough to do that, and their capability of doing so is rightly questioned, and doing so without prior American knowledge risks future weapons supplies and financial support worth billions - the Americans are the only ones propping up the Ukrainian state.
Given all those things, the probable culprit is Ukraine, or one of the Baltic states, but with American blessing and support. This achieves American aims, but is deniable, and they will 100% wash their hands of anyone who gets fingered for it.
The thing that astonishes me is the wilful blindness as to America’s stated aims. The USA has said categorically “we will end Nordstream2 one way or another if Putin invades”
Biden said it on camera. His Secretary of State said it on camera. No ifs or buts, and Germany can go fuck itself
“Germany's sovereignty has just flown out the window. - Victoria Nuland, U.S. Under Secretary of State, declares that 'if Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward' indicating that the US, not Germany, has the last word on the pipeline project”
Yet somehow this evidence is irrelevant and Putin must be responsible because of his weird left arm, or something
I’m not completely sure America did this (your argument they got the Balts/Ukes to do it is plausible) but the desperate desire not to believe the Yanks did it, despite this overt evidence, is frankly surreal
Leon, you are discussing this with an out-and-out Putinist shill. A "character" who tried blaming everyone but Russia for the shootdown of MH17; and who denied Assad used chemical weapons. LG *may* have some noble characteristics, but when it comes to Russia, if he says it, it is almost certainly wrong.
Don't drink the same pipecleaner as him.
As for why Russia would do it: I (and others) have given you many reasons for it. You choose to ignore them. However, here's another one for you: those lists assume a rational actor. If Putin's irrational, then he'd just hit the pipelines it out of spite and to show Russia's stronkingness. And you think he's going to use nuclear weapons, which would be utterly irrational. If he can be so irrational as to use nukes, then why wouldn't he irrationally hit the pipelines?
(But IMO hitting the pipelines was *not* irrational. It was a very rational act.)
Wait. So Putin bombed the pipeline because he’s rational, but he ALSO bombed them because he’s… irrational
Either way he definitely did it and let’s ignore the videos of the American President saying “I’m going to do this”
No. If it was Putin then his reasoning might have been
1 - We are not selling any gas down these pipelines 2 - We have easy access to the inside of the pipes and can send explosives down 3 - We can blame the Americans / Norwegians / Germans / etc etc 4 - It provides useful propaganda for the home audience 5 - It provides a distraction during the Ukraine annexation process 6 - Leon will believe it was flint knapping aliens and completely distract PB for us
OK, maybe not No.6 but Putin has nothing to lose and quite a bit to gain.
Nothing to lose?! Why do you think Putin spent so much time, money and political capital to get this pipeline set up? Because he wants Germany reliant on Russian energy (= political leverage) and he NEEDS the money they pay for gas
He can turn the gas on and off at will anyway. A functional pipeline keeps that leverage (and the cash potentially incoming).
Why on earth would he permanently destroy a source of revenue and political power, thereby definitively pushing Germany towards America and mutilating his own economy?
I get that people don’t want to believe America did this. Emotionally painful. But the evidence makes them plausible villains, at the very least
Its not been permanently destroyed, its been damaged. And it was damaged after he'd turned it off already.
Why would he do it?
1: To show he could. 2: To threaten he could do more. 3: To put pressure on Europe to lift sanctions 4: To put pressure on Europe to stop supporting Ukraine. 5: Because the pipeline is pretty useless to him anyway until sanctions are lifted. 6: To encourage dissent in the West by getting useful idiots to turn on America 7: Because he's been using gas as a weapon against Europe for a year now and this is the next step in that. 8: Because he's getting desperate due to losing the war in Ukraine and is lashing out to show he's "strong"
That's eight good (in his eyes) reasons he'd do it off the top of my head.
I had drinks with a literate lefty friend, in leafy Richmond Green last night, and his solution to our problems was “just tax the energy companies, they’re making so much profit”
And he’s got a degree and is in his 50s and seriously esteemed in a demanding career
People are utterly clueless as to how badly we are fucked, in basic ££ terms. If they do understand, they understand intuitively
The Ukraine crisis really has hit home tho. People know the nuclear details
Was it @kinabalu who has changed his mind about moving again?
Yep. I think London prices are about to drop significantly. Residential Property can be stubbornly robust because of the warped supply/demand fundamentals and political interference but with the expected level and speed of rate rises prices have to fall imo. My prediction is that the froth of the recent increases is blown off and prices go back to 2017 type levels. That's a 15% fall. So let's say between 10% and 20% to avoid false precision.
We’re definitely looking at stagnant/dropping house prices but I’m not sure London will fall that much - simply because many London prices haven’t actually risen that much, the last few years, not compared to the rest of the UK.
The hit will be on bigger houses with gardens ex-London, which have soared in value. Now they are becoming ruinously expensive to heat.
Somewhere like Cornwall is overdue a massive correction. Local prices are insane.
I agree London will drop less than the Sticks but I think it'll fall by at least 10%. Course, I'm hoping so now having delayed a purchase. Then again, there's almost zero chance of it going UP so it's a win/flat really. And given win/wins never happen in anything legal a win/flat is the best you'll ever get and has to be done.
On the other hand the government has opened the gates to mass immigration, yet again. Which will be a powerful driver of rising prices. Especially in London
Richmond Green is a sublime place to drink on a clear fine autumn evening (as last night). As nice as anywhere in urban Europe. The world maybe
I can see why you wanted to live there. Bit far out of town tho
At any rate, this is why we need to be self sufficient in energy, be it North sea, fracked gas, dirty old coal, wind (with storage), waste, tidal, or all of the above. Power cables can be cut, pipelines can be bombed. There is no way we should ever, ever be dependent on the continent, or any other power, for power.
So you're now in favour of putting some productive solar on unproductive farmland? Or are you not that in favour of self-sufficiency on power?
Food security should go in tandem. But you could legislate everything newly built has solar panels - covered car parks, anything with a roof etc etc
Food security should be by encouraging those who do want to farm to be more productive/efficient/intensive in doing so, not by preventing anyone from building energy providing 'farms' or houses or industry or any other form of development.
No it should mean producing all our own basic veg, cereal and meat requirements. Once thats done move on to the other factors. Same as energy security means owning all our own energy needs. Do that and you are insulated from the globalist dirtbags.
At any rate, this is why we need to be self sufficient in energy, be it North sea, fracked gas, dirty old coal, wind (with storage), waste, tidal, or all of the above. Power cables can be cut, pipelines can be bombed. There is no way we should ever, ever be dependent on the continent, or any other power, for power.
So you're now in favour of putting some productive solar on unproductive farmland? Or are you not that in favour of self-sufficiency on power?
Food security should go in tandem. But you could legislate everything newly built has solar panels - covered car parks, anything with a roof etc etc
Food security should be by encouraging those who do want to farm to be more productive/efficient/intensive in doing so, not by preventing anyone from building energy providing 'farms' or houses or industry or any other form of development.
What happens if because (for instance) of supermarket monopoly power compbined with the collapse of planning, it's more profitable to operate glamping pods, tank driving courses, machine-gun-your-own-grouse, suburban semis, and so on. than growing food?
Free market, do those things.
Land would still be available for those who want it to provide food, and the surviving farms might become more productive, more intensive and efficient and have more power to stand up to the supermarkets. So the farmers win, society gets homes and things to do like tank driving course, the economy grows and we have both food and energy. Win/win/win.
At any rate, this is why we need to be self sufficient in energy, be it North sea, fracked gas, dirty old coal, wind (with storage), waste, tidal, or all of the above. Power cables can be cut, pipelines can be bombed. There is no way we should ever, ever be dependent on the continent, or any other power, for power.
So you're now in favour of putting some productive solar on unproductive farmland? Or are you not that in favour of self-sufficiency on power?
Food security should go in tandem. But you could legislate everything newly built has solar panels - covered car parks, anything with a roof etc etc
Food security should be by encouraging those who do want to farm to be more productive/efficient/intensive in doing so, not by preventing anyone from building energy providing 'farms' or houses or industry or any other form of development.
No it should mean producing all our own basic veg, cereal and meat requirements. Once thats done move on to the other factors. Same as energy security means owning all our own energy needs. Do that and you are insulated from the globalist dirtbags.
Except most of our land already is dedicated to agriculture, but we're not getting that from the sector.
At current productivity rates we'd need 120% of our land to be dedicated to agriculture in order to be self-sufficient. For fairly obvious reasons that isn't possible.
The only way we could be more self-sufficient is to be more productive. Unfortunately too many seem to think that productivity or intensively farming is an ugly concept done abroad that we need to be protected from by tariffs rather than learn from or embrace.
5: Because the pipeline is pretty useless to him anyway until sanctions are lifted.
This is just wrong though. It was Putin's decision to turn off the gas. Until then, Europe was still buying it.
But that's the point, it was Putin's decision to turn it off, and that's precisely why he'd then go and take the next step and flex his muscles. Its how he thinks.
He wants the sanctions lifted and the West to stop supporting Ukraine more than he wants to sell gas through the pipe.
At any rate, this is why we need to be self sufficient in energy, be it North sea, fracked gas, dirty old coal, wind (with storage), waste, tidal, or all of the above. Power cables can be cut, pipelines can be bombed. There is no way we should ever, ever be dependent on the continent, or any other power, for power.
So you're now in favour of putting some productive solar on unproductive farmland? Or are you not that in favour of self-sufficiency on power?
Food security should go in tandem. But you could legislate everything newly built has solar panels - covered car parks, anything with a roof etc etc
Food security should be by encouraging those who do want to farm to be more productive/efficient/intensive in doing so, not by preventing anyone from building energy providing 'farms' or houses or industry or any other form of development.
No it should mean producing all our own basic veg, cereal and meat requirements. Once thats done move on to the other factors. Same as energy security means owning all our own energy needs. Do that and you are insulated from the globalist dirtbags.
Except most of our land already is dedicated to agriculture, but we're not getting that from the sector.
At current productivity rates we'd need 120% of our land to be dedicated to agriculture in order to be self-sufficient. For fairly obvious reasons that isn't possible.
The only way we could be more self-sufficient is to be more productive. Unfortunately too many seem to think that productivity or intensively farming is an ugly concept done abroad that we need to be protected from by tariffs rather than learn from or embrace.
You must accept that there are some very nasty side effects from a lot of intensive farming.
Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng face a “very difficult conversation” with the Office for Budget Responsibility, a senior Conservative MP said before an emergency meeting with the independent economic forecaster.
Mel Stride, chairman of the Treasury committee, said the OBR would demand a “rethink” of plans for £45 billion in debt-funded tax cuts because “this circle cannot be squared”.
So when Truss emerges and says "Nothing has changed"...
What is the possibility of the OBR actually backing the government to some extent on the £45B tax cuts, just as the Labour Party has already backed the government on a lot of the tax cut package by promising to keep it for growth too and even opposing the rises in first place?
I’ll say it again becuase I am a completely broken record, but in the shopping basket declined on the UK credit card was £45B of tax cuts to promote growth alongside a quarter of a trillion for a bill freeze for everyone UK economists have already called dangerously regressive and stupidly over expensive by not targeting enough - how are we so sure the OBR won’t call for the bill freeze to get a hair cut?
The bill freeze is untargetted but fairly simple to administer. If some households are getting unneeded benefits the tax system should be used for that. Again too complex to target whose taxes go up but it means those most capable of affording it are shouldering the burden of fuel bill capping.
At any rate, this is why we need to be self sufficient in energy, be it North sea, fracked gas, dirty old coal, wind (with storage), waste, tidal, or all of the above. Power cables can be cut, pipelines can be bombed. There is no way we should ever, ever be dependent on the continent, or any other power, for power.
So you're now in favour of putting some productive solar on unproductive farmland? Or are you not that in favour of self-sufficiency on power?
Food security should go in tandem. But you could legislate everything newly built has solar panels - covered car parks, anything with a roof etc etc
Food security should be by encouraging those who do want to farm to be more productive/efficient/intensive in doing so, not by preventing anyone from building energy providing 'farms' or houses or industry or any other form of development.
No it should mean producing all our own basic veg, cereal and meat requirements. Once thats done move on to the other factors. Same as energy security means owning all our own energy needs. Do that and you are insulated from the globalist dirtbags.
Except most of our land already is dedicated to agriculture, but we're not getting that from the sector.
At current productivity rates we'd need 120% of our land to be dedicated to agriculture in order to be self-sufficient. For fairly obvious reasons that isn't possible.
The only way we could be more self-sufficient is to be more productive. Unfortunately too many seem to think that productivity or intensively farming is an ugly concept done abroad that we need to be protected from by tariffs rather than learn from or embrace.
Yes, but a food security policy would seek to address those issues. Before then hiving off arable land to other concerns.
I had drinks with a literate lefty friend, in leafy Richmond Green last night, and his solution to our problems was “just tax the energy companies, they’re making so much profit”
And he’s got a degree and is in his 50s and seriously esteemed in a demanding career
People are utterly clueless as to how badly we are fucked, in basic ££ terms. If they do understand, they understand intuitively
The Ukraine crisis really has hit home tho. People know the nuclear details
Was it @kinabalu who has changed his mind about moving again?
Yep. I think London prices are about to drop significantly. Residential Property can be stubbornly robust because of the warped supply/demand fundamentals and political interference but with the expected level and speed of rate rises prices have to fall imo. My prediction is that the froth of the recent increases is blown off and prices go back to 2017 type levels. That's a 15% fall. So let's say between 10% and 20% to avoid false precision.
We’re definitely looking at stagnant/dropping house prices but I’m not sure London will fall that much - simply because many London prices haven’t actually risen that much, the last few years, not compared to the rest of the UK
The hit will be on bigger houses with gardens ex-London, which have soared in value. Now they are becoming ruinously expensive to heat
Somewhere like Cornwall is overdue a massive correction. Local prices are insane
Working from home plays in the opposite directions. Its very uncertain, but I think working from home will count for more than heating or recent trends - i.e. bigger garden properties will fall less than flats and small homes.
Why would big garden properties fall more ?
Some of the semis near me have absolutely humungous gardens.
It would come down to the nuts of bolts of what people have to pay. People won't stand for a large increase in what would effectively be property taxes (replacing rates/council taxes).
I had drinks with a literate lefty friend, in leafy Richmond Green last night, and his solution to our problems was “just tax the energy companies, they’re making so much profit”
And he’s got a degree and is in his 50s and seriously esteemed in a demanding career
People are utterly clueless as to how badly we are fucked, in basic ££ terms. If they do understand, they understand intuitively
The Ukraine crisis really has hit home tho. People know the nuclear details
Was it @kinabalu who has changed his mind about moving again?
Yep. I think London prices are about to drop significantly. Residential Property can be stubbornly robust because of the warped supply/demand fundamentals and political interference but with the expected level and speed of rate rises prices have to fall imo. My prediction is that the froth of the recent increases is blown off and prices go back to 2017 type levels. That's a 15% fall. So let's say between 10% and 20% to avoid false precision.
We’re definitely looking at stagnant/dropping house prices but I’m not sure London will fall that much - simply because many London prices haven’t actually risen that much, the last few years, not compared to the rest of the UK.
The hit will be on bigger houses with gardens ex-London, which have soared in value. Now they are becoming ruinously expensive to heat.
Somewhere like Cornwall is overdue a massive correction. Local prices are insane.
I agree London will drop less than the Sticks but I think it'll fall by at least 10%. Course, I'm hoping so now having delayed a purchase. Then again, there's almost zero chance of it going UP so it's a win/flat really. And given win/wins never happen in anything legal a win/flat is the best you'll ever get and has to be done.
On the other hand the government has opened the gates to mass immigration, yet again. Which will be a powerful driver of rising prices. Especially in London
Richmond Green is a sublime place to drink on a clear fine autumn evening (as last night). As nice as anywhere in urban Europe. The world maybe
I can see why you wanted to live there. Bit far out of town tho
Yes, really like it - esp if you can live by the river. Might stay in NW3 though. Point with us is, we're upsizing not downsizing, looking ahead to elderly parent type scenarios, and we'll be selling a bit after buying, so for a while we'll be double exposed to a price fall if it happens and some of it will get realized. So, hang fire for now and see how things play out.
At any rate, this is why we need to be self sufficient in energy, be it North sea, fracked gas, dirty old coal, wind (with storage), waste, tidal, or all of the above. Power cables can be cut, pipelines can be bombed. There is no way we should ever, ever be dependent on the continent, or any other power, for power.
So you're now in favour of putting some productive solar on unproductive farmland? Or are you not that in favour of self-sufficiency on power?
Food security should go in tandem. But you could legislate everything newly built has solar panels - covered car parks, anything with a roof etc etc
Food security should be by encouraging those who do want to farm to be more productive/efficient/intensive in doing so, not by preventing anyone from building energy providing 'farms' or houses or industry or any other form of development.
No it should mean producing all our own basic veg, cereal and meat requirements. Once thats done move on to the other factors. Same as energy security means owning all our own energy needs. Do that and you are insulated from the globalist dirtbags.
Except most of our land already is dedicated to agriculture, but we're not getting that from the sector.
At current productivity rates we'd need 120% of our land to be dedicated to agriculture in order to be self-sufficient. For fairly obvious reasons that isn't possible.
The only way we could be more self-sufficient is to be more productive. Unfortunately too many seem to think that productivity or intensively farming is an ugly concept done abroad that we need to be protected from by tariffs rather than learn from or embrace.
You must accept that there are some very nasty side effects from a lot of intensive farming.
If you want self-sufficiency on food, then those are side effects we need to learn to manage and deal with and minimise then. Or admit defeat and accept we won't be self-sufficient on food, because we aren't going to dedicate 120% of land to agriculture which is what it would take at present levels of production.
I know alJazeera have been frequently criticised for all sorts of things, but I've read some pretty good reports from them about Ukraine. They are, of course, more or less neutral in this fight.
Neutrality is an interesting concept. When Ireland was neutral at the time the world, and UK, faced an existential threat of barbarian Nazi darkness does that mean they were equally comfortable (or uncomfortable) with all outcomes? Same question here.
As put by one Irish person speaking to Robert Kee in 1980: 'While there was no desire on the part of the Irish to see the Nazis win, there was always a certain amusement on hearing of British military reverses.'
Rather offset by the large numbers of Irish volunteers for the British military.
5,000 deserted the Irish military to do so.
Or indeed the volunteer Free State fire and rescue services that went to help in Belfast - the second time, without being asked.
Equally, the Belfast blitz would have been much harder for the Luftwaffe to manage if Dublin had observed a blackout.
Or we could simply watch the US Senate Foreign Affairs Committee openly demanding that the Nordstream pipeline be “ended permanently, not just suspended” - back in July 21
So I predicted 20 point leads and people are annoyed that I underestimated the lead and then we've had 20 point leads anyway?
If you'd first put a bet on when I said to many months ago you'd have made a lot of money.
Who was offering odds? I wouldn't have followed you in but if you've made some cash nice one. I won on Truss but that will disappear in one month's mortgage increase when we have to renew.
One thing about leaving the EU, hasn't half simplified my VAT return for boxes 2, 8 and 9. A small price to pay compared to the thousands of Euro a year our Dutch accountants now get
Interesting thread, which I find slightly more convincing on the pipeline question than the combined opinions of @Leon , @Luckyguy1983 , and @Dura_Ace . FWIW.
I'm not sure what you think this thread tells us beyond any of the opinions offered by the users you've tagged in. The options listed here are purely (and admittedly) groundless speculation, and it seems obvious to me that the author has eked the Russian options out a lot, and dismissed evidence supporting the US option out of hand 'Biden's wierd Tweets' - Really? An actual threat saying 'we can do that' about ending Nordstream 2 is just a 'wierd Tweet' would a 'wierd Tweet' by Putin saying the same thing have been dismissed, or actually be held up as a smoking gun?
Of the Russian motives, there is only one that stands out to me as having validity, and that is Gazprom not having to pay penalties for not supplying gas. However, how that tallies with the cost of repairs, I don't know, and how it also tallies with Putin's willingness to upend normal ways of doing business (ie, why wouldn't he just refuse to pay the penalties), I also don't know.
In the other actors presented, there is also a failure to mention the likelihood of any of these states acting without American blessing/foreknowledge/support - which is practically zero. The Ukrainians are the only ones desperate enough to do that, and their capability of doing so is rightly questioned, and doing so without prior American knowledge risks future weapons supplies and financial support worth billions - the Americans are the only ones propping up the Ukrainian state.
Given all those things, the probable culprit is Ukraine, or one of the Baltic states, but with American blessing and support. This achieves American aims, but is deniable, and they will 100% wash their hands of anyone who gets fingered for it.
The thing that astonishes me is the wilful blindness as to America’s stated aims. The USA has said categorically “we will end Nordstream2 one way or another if Putin invades”
Biden said it on camera. His Secretary of State said it on camera. No ifs or buts, and Germany can go fuck itself
“Germany's sovereignty has just flown out the window. - Victoria Nuland, U.S. Under Secretary of State, declares that 'if Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward' indicating that the US, not Germany, has the last word on the pipeline project”
Yet somehow this evidence is irrelevant and Putin must be responsible because of his weird left arm, or something
I’m not completely sure America did this (your argument they got the Balts/Ukes to do it is plausible) but the desperate desire not to believe the Yanks did it, despite this overt evidence, is frankly surreal
Leon, you are discussing this with an out-and-out Putinist shill. A "character" who tried blaming everyone but Russia for the shootdown of MH17; and who denied Assad used chemical weapons. LG *may* have some noble characteristics, but when it comes to Russia, if he says it, it is almost certainly wrong.
Don't drink the same pipecleaner as him.
As for why Russia would do it: I (and others) have given you many reasons for it. You choose to ignore them. However, here's another one for you: those lists assume a rational actor. If Putin's irrational, then he'd just hit the pipelines it out of spite and to show Russia's stronkingness. And you think he's going to use nuclear weapons, which would be utterly irrational. If he can be so irrational as to use nukes, then why wouldn't he irrationally hit the pipelines?
(But IMO hitting the pipelines was *not* irrational. It was a very rational act.)
Wait. So Putin bombed the pipeline because he’s rational, but he ALSO bombed them because he’s… irrational
Either way he definitely did it and let’s ignore the videos of the American President saying “I’m going to do this”
No. If it was Putin then his reasoning might have been
1 - We are not selling any gas down these pipelines 2 - We have easy access to the inside of the pipes and can send explosives down 3 - We can blame the Americans / Norwegians / Germans / etc etc 4 - It provides useful propaganda for the home audience 5 - It provides a distraction during the Ukraine annexation process 6 - Leon will believe it was flint knapping aliens and completely distract PB for us
OK, maybe not No.6 but Putin has nothing to lose and quite a bit to gain.
Nothing to lose?! Why do you think Putin spent so much time, money and political capital to get this pipeline set up? Because he wants Germany reliant on Russian energy (= political leverage) and he NEEDS the money they pay for gas
He can turn the gas on and off at will anyway. A functional pipeline keeps that leverage (and the cash potentially incoming).
Why on earth would he permanently destroy a source of revenue and political power, thereby definitively pushing Germany towards America and mutilating his own economy?
I get that people don’t want to believe America did this. Emotionally painful. But the evidence makes them plausible villains, at the very least
Its not been permanently destroyed, its been damaged. And it was damaged after he'd turned it off already.
Why would he do it?
1: To show he could. 2: To threaten he could do more. 3: To put pressure on Europe to lift sanctions 4: To put pressure on Europe to stop supporting Ukraine. 5: Because the pipeline is pretty useless to him anyway until sanctions are lifted. 6: To encourage dissent in the West by getting useful idiots to turn on America 7: Because he's been using gas as a weapon against Europe for a year now and this is the next step in that. 8: Because he's getting desperate due to losing the war in Ukraine and is lashing out to show he's "strong"
That's eight good (in his eyes) reasons he'd do it off the top of my head.
How exactly would he be doing it as a show of his own strength (1,2, and 8 - which are all the same reason by the way), whilst simultaneously doing it to sow dissent in the West by blaming America (6)?
And how does a blown up pipeline result in Europe lifting sanctions, or stopping its support for Ukraine?
And why would he blow up a pipeline 'because it's pretty useless to him'? Do you usually blow up things that are temporarily useless to you?
At any rate, this is why we need to be self sufficient in energy, be it North sea, fracked gas, dirty old coal, wind (with storage), waste, tidal, or all of the above. Power cables can be cut, pipelines can be bombed. There is no way we should ever, ever be dependent on the continent, or any other power, for power.
So you're now in favour of putting some productive solar on unproductive farmland? Or are you not that in favour of self-sufficiency on power?
Food security should go in tandem. But you could legislate everything newly built has solar panels - covered car parks, anything with a roof etc etc
Food security should be by encouraging those who do want to farm to be more productive/efficient/intensive in doing so, not by preventing anyone from building energy providing 'farms' or houses or industry or any other form of development.
No it should mean producing all our own basic veg, cereal and meat requirements. Once thats done move on to the other factors. Same as energy security means owning all our own energy needs. Do that and you are insulated from the globalist dirtbags.
Except most of our land already is dedicated to agriculture, but we're not getting that from the sector.
At current productivity rates we'd need 120% of our land to be dedicated to agriculture in order to be self-sufficient. For fairly obvious reasons that isn't possible.
The only way we could be more self-sufficient is to be more productive. Unfortunately too many seem to think that productivity or intensively farming is an ugly concept done abroad that we need to be protected from by tariffs rather than learn from or embrace.
Build more land. How much would it cost to fill in The Wash and put a solar farm on it?
5: Because the pipeline is pretty useless to him anyway until sanctions are lifted.
This is just wrong though. It was Putin's decision to turn off the gas. Until then, Europe was still buying it.
But that's the point, it was Putin's decision to turn it off, and that's precisely why he'd then go and take the next step and flex his muscles. Its how he thinks.
He wants the sanctions lifted and the West to stop supporting Ukraine more than he wants to sell gas through the pipe.
Blowing up the pipeline takes away the carrot he has to offer Germany.
I know this is a well rehearsed argument and positions are fixed but; yes she does, she commands a majority in the Commons. That’s our system. Nothing else.
'Form over substance' says she has a mandate to do anything (inc go dead against the manifesto they were elected on) but 'substance over form' says she doesn't. I go with substance over form.
Nothing to lose?! Why do you think Putin spent so much time, money and political capital to get this pipeline set up? Because he wants Germany reliant on Russian energy (= political leverage) and he NEEDS the money they pay for gas
He can turn the gas on and off at will anyway. A functional pipeline keeps that leverage (and the cash potentially incoming).
Why on earth would he permanently destroy a source of revenue and political power, thereby definitively pushing Germany towards America and mutilating his own economy?
I get that people don’t want to believe America did this. Emotionally painful. But the evidence makes them plausible villains, at the very least
The implicit Western threat to the future use of the pipeline was meant to deter Putin from doing something stupid. By destroying it himself he has effectively removed the pipeline from the game. We now need to compell Putin to do want we want (leave Ukraine) not deter him from annexation. He holds the territory now, and trading gas is now irrelevant. Putin may take futher destructive steps to cement his position as mad as they may seem to us, like closing his borders, cutting more ties, further embargos etc.
Read this for more on the argument, Dr. Jeffrey Lewis is an expert in this field.
Can I just say that, for the next X weeks, every comment I make must have the implicit caveat “unless we all get turned into radioactive gammon dust by Putin” - as that distinct possibility renders all predictions/opinions absurd
I just can’t be arsed to type it out every time
Buy a cheap gaming keyboard and program that sentence onto one of the function keys, then you can add "unless we all get turned into radioactive gammon dust by Putin" at the touch of a button.
Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng face a “very difficult conversation” with the Office for Budget Responsibility, a senior Conservative MP said before an emergency meeting with the independent economic forecaster.
Mel Stride, chairman of the Treasury committee, said the OBR would demand a “rethink” of plans for £45 billion in debt-funded tax cuts because “this circle cannot be squared”.
So when Truss emerges and says "Nothing has changed"...
What is the possibility of the OBR actually backing the government to some extent on the £45B tax cuts, just as the Labour Party has already backed the government on a lot of the tax cut package by promising to keep it for growth too and even opposing the rises in first place?
It all depends on the spending restraint proposition. However restoring market confidence and creating public faith in austerity funding tax cuts for the rich are different cats
The trouble is that the premise of this policy is that tax cuts need not be funded by spending restraint, and the PM and CX have tried to make a virtue of going against received economic wisdom. That isn’t compatible with seeking endorsement from orthodox sources.
In a way, this is a view through a window into 20% of what life would have been like for a Corbyn Government. Had the Government not made the 45p cut or touched bankers bonuses this time round, they could have tried a “people vs. the system” narrative like Corbyn surely would.
5: Because the pipeline is pretty useless to him anyway until sanctions are lifted.
This is just wrong though. It was Putin's decision to turn off the gas. Until then, Europe was still buying it.
But that's the point, it was Putin's decision to turn it off, and that's precisely why he'd then go and take the next step and flex his muscles. Its how he thinks.
He wants the sanctions lifted and the West to stop supporting Ukraine more than he wants to sell gas through the pipe.
Blowing up the pipeline takes away the carrot he has to offer Germany.
The fact is, and this is a fact - the only country that has talked of destroying the NS pipelines was the USA.
So if it was Russia they have ready made - indeed curated by the USA themselves - propaganda to blame the USA for it.
5: Because the pipeline is pretty useless to him anyway until sanctions are lifted.
This is just wrong though. It was Putin's decision to turn off the gas. Until then, Europe was still buying it.
But that's the point, it was Putin's decision to turn it off, and that's precisely why he'd then go and take the next step and flex his muscles. Its how he thinks.
He wants the sanctions lifted and the West to stop supporting Ukraine more than he wants to sell gas through the pipe.
Blowing up the pipeline takes away the carrot he has to offer Germany.
No it doesn't, it says to the Germans if you want the gas back you need to ensure the war ends so stop support for Ukraine, and lift sanctions so we can get this pipe fixed and turned back on.
There was a view by some in Europe that they could have their cake and eat it, support sanctions on Russia but Vlad would still sell them gas. Blowing up the pipe is Vlad's way of saying that isn't happening.
Or we could simply watch the US Senate Foreign Affairs Committee openly demanding that the Nordstream pipeline be “ended permanently, not just suspended” - back in July 21
So you can either believe the evidence here in front of your eyes, or the mad theories of assorted hobos on politicalbetting.com
You’re intelligent enough not to actually believe that the US or NATO did this, so I’m guessing you’re being contrary for fun. Isn’t it getting a bit boring yet?
I know this is a well rehearsed argument and positions are fixed but; yes she does, she commands a majority in the Commons. That’s our system. Nothing else.
But how many of the Tory MPs are now semi-detached? or even completely unsupportive of Ms Trust?
William James @WJames_Reuters · 1h MOSCOW, Sept 30 (Reuters) - The Kremlin said on Friday it would consider attacks against any part of the regions of Ukraine that it is about to annex as acts of aggression against Russia itself.
One thing about leaving the EU, hasn't half simplified my VAT return for boxes 2, 8 and 9. A small price to pay compared to the thousands of Euro a year our Dutch accountants now get
Next time we get the "name me one actual benefit of Brexit thread" we finally have our answer. Phew.
At any rate, this is why we need to be self sufficient in energy, be it North sea, fracked gas, dirty old coal, wind (with storage), waste, tidal, or all of the above. Power cables can be cut, pipelines can be bombed. There is no way we should ever, ever be dependent on the continent, or any other power, for power.
So you're now in favour of putting some productive solar on unproductive farmland? Or are you not that in favour of self-sufficiency on power?
Food security should go in tandem. But you could legislate everything newly built has solar panels - covered car parks, anything with a roof etc etc
Food security should be by encouraging those who do want to farm to be more productive/efficient/intensive in doing so, not by preventing anyone from building energy providing 'farms' or houses or industry or any other form of development.
No it should mean producing all our own basic veg, cereal and meat requirements. Once thats done move on to the other factors. Same as energy security means owning all our own energy needs. Do that and you are insulated from the globalist dirtbags.
Except most of our land already is dedicated to agriculture, but we're not getting that from the sector.
At current productivity rates we'd need 120% of our land to be dedicated to agriculture in order to be self-sufficient. For fairly obvious reasons that isn't possible.
The only way we could be more self-sufficient is to be more productive. Unfortunately too many seem to think that productivity or intensively farming is an ugly concept done abroad that we need to be protected from by tariffs rather than learn from or embrace.
Yes, but a food security policy would seek to address those issues. Before then hiving off arable land to other concerns.
A security policy deals with all those issues simultaneously, not just one of them.
What's wrong with hiving off our least arable land to deal with things its more productive at, while letting our most arable land become even more efficient and intensive?
Interesting thread, which I find slightly more convincing on the pipeline question than the combined opinions of @Leon , @Luckyguy1983 , and @Dura_Ace . FWIW.
I'm not sure what you think this thread tells us beyond any of the opinions offered by the users you've tagged in. The options listed here are purely (and admittedly) groundless speculation, and it seems obvious to me that the author has eked the Russian options out a lot, and dismissed evidence supporting the US option out of hand 'Biden's wierd Tweets' - Really? An actual threat saying 'we can do that' about ending Nordstream 2 is just a 'wierd Tweet' would a 'wierd Tweet' by Putin saying the same thing have been dismissed, or actually be held up as a smoking gun?
Of the Russian motives, there is only one that stands out to me as having validity, and that is Gazprom not having to pay penalties for not supplying gas. However, how that tallies with the cost of repairs, I don't know, and how it also tallies with Putin's willingness to upend normal ways of doing business (ie, why wouldn't he just refuse to pay the penalties), I also don't know.
In the other actors presented, there is also a failure to mention the likelihood of any of these states acting without American blessing/foreknowledge/support - which is practically zero. The Ukrainians are the only ones desperate enough to do that, and their capability of doing so is rightly questioned, and doing so without prior American knowledge risks future weapons supplies and financial support worth billions - the Americans are the only ones propping up the Ukrainian state.
Given all those things, the probable culprit is Ukraine, or one of the Baltic states, but with American blessing and support. This achieves American aims, but is deniable, and they will 100% wash their hands of anyone who gets fingered for it.
The thing that astonishes me is the wilful blindness as to America’s stated aims. The USA has said categorically “we will end Nordstream2 one way or another if Putin invades”
Biden said it on camera. His Secretary of State said it on camera. No ifs or buts, and Germany can go fuck itself
“Germany's sovereignty has just flown out the window. - Victoria Nuland, U.S. Under Secretary of State, declares that 'if Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward' indicating that the US, not Germany, has the last word on the pipeline project”
Yet somehow this evidence is irrelevant and Putin must be responsible because of his weird left arm, or something
I’m not completely sure America did this (your argument they got the Balts/Ukes to do it is plausible) but the desperate desire not to believe the Yanks did it, despite this overt evidence, is frankly surreal
Leon, you are discussing this with an out-and-out Putinist shill. A "character" who tried blaming everyone but Russia for the shootdown of MH17; and who denied Assad used chemical weapons. LG *may* have some noble characteristics, but when it comes to Russia, if he says it, it is almost certainly wrong.
Don't drink the same pipecleaner as him.
As for why Russia would do it: I (and others) have given you many reasons for it. You choose to ignore them. However, here's another one for you: those lists assume a rational actor. If Putin's irrational, then he'd just hit the pipelines it out of spite and to show Russia's stronkingness. And you think he's going to use nuclear weapons, which would be utterly irrational. If he can be so irrational as to use nukes, then why wouldn't he irrationally hit the pipelines?
(But IMO hitting the pipelines was *not* irrational. It was a very rational act.)
Wait. So Putin bombed the pipeline because he’s rational, but he ALSO bombed them because he’s… irrational
Either way he definitely did it and let’s ignore the videos of the American President saying “I’m going to do this”
No. If it was Putin then his reasoning might have been
1 - We are not selling any gas down these pipelines 2 - We have easy access to the inside of the pipes and can send explosives down 3 - We can blame the Americans / Norwegians / Germans / etc etc 4 - It provides useful propaganda for the home audience 5 - It provides a distraction during the Ukraine annexation process 6 - Leon will believe it was flint knapping aliens and completely distract PB for us
OK, maybe not No.6 but Putin has nothing to lose and quite a bit to gain.
Nothing to lose?! Why do you think Putin spent so much time, money and political capital to get this pipeline set up? Because he wants Germany reliant on Russian energy (= political leverage) and he NEEDS the money they pay for gas
He can turn the gas on and off at will anyway. A functional pipeline keeps that leverage (and the cash potentially incoming).
Why on earth would he permanently destroy a source of revenue and political power, thereby definitively pushing Germany towards America and mutilating his own economy?
I get that people don’t want to believe America did this. Emotionally painful. But the evidence makes them plausible villains, at the very least
Its not been permanently destroyed, its been damaged. And it was damaged after he'd turned it off already.
Why would he do it?
1: To show he could. 2: To threaten he could do more. 3: To put pressure on Europe to lift sanctions 4: To put pressure on Europe to stop supporting Ukraine. 5: Because the pipeline is pretty useless to him anyway until sanctions are lifted. 6: To encourage dissent in the West by getting useful idiots to turn on America 7: Because he's been using gas as a weapon against Europe for a year now and this is the next step in that. 8: Because he's getting desperate due to losing the war in Ukraine and is lashing out to show he's "strong"
That's eight good (in his eyes) reasons he'd do it off the top of my head.
Those don't look like very good reasons at all. Look at 3 and 4, for example. Putin can just as easily put pressure on Europe by simply switching off the gas. Blowing up the pipeline just takes away his ability to switch turn it on again, thus reducing the leverage he would otherwise have had.
Those who stand to gain the most from damaging the pipeline are those who opposed it in the first place - the Eastern European countries through with the gas would otherwise have passed, e.g. Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and yes, Ukraine.
I've no idea who did it, but I do think Leon has a point. It seems a very odd thing for Russia to have done.
William James @WJames_Reuters · 1h MOSCOW, Sept 30 (Reuters) - The Kremlin said on Friday it would consider attacks against any part of the regions of Ukraine that it is about to annex as acts of aggression against Russia itself.
MOSCOW, but helicopter attacks into Belgorod are fine. We're really serious about the annexation thing though. Grrr, Arrrh.
Comments
https://twitter.com/markets/status/1575774622536040449?s=46&t=QJuJi3i2InYi7HVRCxyY9w
He will walk the next election, 100 seat majority or more seems likely
Don't drink the same pipecleaner as him.
As for why Russia would do it: I (and others) have given you many reasons for it. You choose to ignore them. However, here's another one for you: those lists assume a rational actor. If Putin's irrational, then he'd just hit the pipelines it out of spite and to show Russia's stronkingness. And you think he's going to use nuclear weapons, which would be utterly irrational. If he can be so irrational as to use nukes, then why wouldn't he irrationally hit the pipelines?
(But IMO hitting the pipelines was *not* irrational. It was a very rational act.)
https://www.bloomberg.com/account/newsletters/money-stuff
Either way he definitely did it and let’s ignore the videos of the American President saying “I’m going to do this”
Anyway, it is economically illiterate to discuss it in terms of the dollar rate, and has been for almost 50 years since the dollar peg system collapsed.
The trade-weighted exchange rate is the right measure. You wouldn't think it from all the hysteria in the press about our continually declining economy, but the latest version of the BIS TWER shows that the pound has risen slightly over the last 12 years, despite falling about 20% against the dollar in that time.
That being said, my guess would be that Labour in the mid-forties breaks the Scottish seat projections and they’d actually recover quite a few.
I just cannot see it being the US - the risks far outweigh the benefits (especially as Germany et al have now realised the issues with relying on Russian gas). If they'd done it a year ago, perhaps. But NS1 and NS2 were dead anyway.
That being said, last nights results in and of themselves in no way support a 33 point labour lead
https://alastair-meeks.medium.com/interlude-liz-truss-the-doomed-prime-minister-39c45bf52843
Stressing the point that I too feel is not being sufficiently appreciated, namely that Truss has NO MANDATE for this shit. No mandate.
So why would he now blow up pipes that he'd already stopped? Cui bono?
Putin on the other hand has very good reasons to do it.
The hit will be on bigger houses with gardens ex-London, which have soared in value. Now they are becoming ruinously expensive to heat
Somewhere like Cornwall is overdue a massive correction. Local prices are insane
1 - We are not selling any gas down these pipelines
2 - We have easy access to the inside of the pipes and can send explosives down
3 - We can blame the Americans / Norwegians / Germans / etc etc
4 - It provides useful propaganda for the home audience
5 - It provides a distraction during the Ukraine annexation process
6 - Leon will believe it was flint knapping aliens and completely distract PB for us
OK, maybe not No.6 but Putin has nothing to lose and quite a bit to gain.
That is unlikely because no Chancellor wants to increase the headline rate of income tax, even if combined tax and NI would be the same, because Chancellors think all voters are thick as mince. It *might* need some adjustment to using NI to qualify for pensions.
Survation 21%
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-30/palantir-had-plan-to-crack-uk-health-system-buying-our-way-in
Complete, unmitigated gibberish. And I have no doubt it will be thrown back at them when some idiot goes on radio or TV to waffle abou how Stamp Duty changes will liberate us all.
He can turn the gas on and off at will anyway. A functional pipeline keeps that leverage (and the cash potentially incoming).
Why on earth would he permanently destroy a source of revenue and political power, thereby definitively pushing Germany towards America and mutilating his own economy?
I get that people don’t want to believe America did this. Emotionally painful. But the evidence makes them plausible villains, at the very least
Some of the semis near me have absolutely humungous gardens.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.380414,-1.1245286,3a,75y,27.17h,93.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJagehv5UiXugV1aHZcH06w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Average price £130k. Look at #46
Why would he do it?
1: To show he could.
2: To threaten he could do more.
3: To put pressure on Europe to lift sanctions
4: To put pressure on Europe to stop supporting Ukraine.
5: Because the pipeline is pretty useless to him anyway until sanctions are lifted.
6: To encourage dissent in the West by getting useful idiots to turn on America
7: Because he's been using gas as a weapon against Europe for a year now and this is the next step in that.
8: Because he's getting desperate due to losing the war in Ukraine and is lashing out to show he's "strong"
That's eight good (in his eyes) reasons he'd do it off the top of my head.
Richmond Green is a sublime place to drink on a clear fine autumn evening (as last night). As nice as anywhere in urban Europe. The world maybe
I can see why you wanted to live there. Bit far out of town tho
Land would still be available for those who want it to provide food, and the surviving farms might become more productive, more intensive and efficient and have more power to stand up to the supermarkets. So the farmers win, society gets homes and things to do like tank driving course, the economy grows and we have both food and energy. Win/win/win.
If you'd first put a bet on when I said to many months ago you'd have made a lot of money.
At current productivity rates we'd need 120% of our land to be dedicated to agriculture in order to be self-sufficient. For fairly obvious reasons that isn't possible.
The only way we could be more self-sufficient is to be more productive. Unfortunately too many seem to think that productivity or intensively farming is an ugly concept done abroad that we need to be protected from by tariffs rather than learn from or embrace.
He wants the sanctions lifted and the West to stop supporting Ukraine more than he wants to sell gas through the pipe.
Equally, the Belfast blitz would have been much harder for the Luftwaffe to manage if Dublin had observed a blackout.
https://twitter.com/gefira_org/status/1575744582356467712?s=46&t=QJuJi3i2InYi7HVRCxyY9w
So you can either believe the evidence here in front of your eyes, or the mad theories of assorted hobos on politicalbetting.com
And how does a blown up pipeline result in Europe lifting sanctions, or stopping its support for Ukraine?
And why would he blow up a pipeline 'because it's pretty useless to him'? Do you usually blow up things that are temporarily useless to you?
Read this for more on the argument, Dr. Jeffrey Lewis is an expert in this field.
https://nitter.net/ArmsControlWonk/status/1575265303130361859
Just like Putin launching nukes.
Here you go. £37 for a Corsair K55 with six programmable macro keys and pretty lights that you can turn on or off.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Corsair-Membrane-Programmable-Backlighting-Multimedia/dp/B01N3ML307/
In a way, this is a view through a window into 20% of what life would have been like for a Corbyn Government. Had the Government not made the 45p cut or touched bankers bonuses this time round, they could have tried a “people vs. the system” narrative like Corbyn surely would.
So if it was Russia they have ready made - indeed curated by the USA themselves - propaganda to blame the USA for it.
There was a view by some in Europe that they could have their cake and eat it, support sanctions on Russia but Vlad would still sell them gas. Blowing up the pipe is Vlad's way of saying that isn't happening.
@WJames_Reuters
·
1h
MOSCOW, Sept 30 (Reuters) - The Kremlin said on Friday it would consider attacks against any part of the regions of Ukraine that it is about to annex as acts of aggression against Russia itself.
What's wrong with hiving off our least arable land to deal with things its more productive at, while letting our most arable land become even more efficient and intensive?
Those who stand to gain the most from damaging the pipeline are those who opposed it in the first place - the Eastern European countries through with the gas would otherwise have passed, e.g. Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and yes, Ukraine.
I've no idea who did it, but I do think Leon has a point. It seems a very odd thing for Russia to have done.
It’s a death trap
https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1575792380468658176