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.
One thing that is noticeable is that no smart arse has particularly been saying “if you want more growth then rejoin the EU” because everyone accepts any gain would be trivial. A useful straw in the wind about how unlikely it is that we ever will rejoin.
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.
You are right but miss the point that Truss was elected on the 2019 manifesto. Other leaders taking over halfway through parliaments have at least paid lip service to the convention that you keep to the manifesto. It is not that Truss has no mandate to be prime minister (as you say, ours is a parliamentary system) but that she has no mandate to rip up the old manifesto.
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.
Vlad already had turned off the pipeline but it wasn't sufficient, Europe still weren't bending to his will and still were supporting Ukraine and sanctions.
So this was the next thing for Russia to do, using the only logic Putin knows and understands - force and threats.
Isn’t it clear now that the government will have to put out a plan that the OBR can rubberstamp as fiscally sensible and leading to growth .
Kwarteng surely can’t stand there doing his statement and at the same time the OBR is rubbishing that .
Because the government refuses to back track on its mini budget then unless that’s defeated in the commons it looks like cuts to services and benefits being reduced in real terms .
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.
It over-shot because what happened was a surprise. After the overshooting Dornbusch predicts an upward asymptotic path to the the new (lower) equilibrium. But what was the surprise to the currency markets? Truss did no more than live up to her promises in the leadership contest that there would be tax reductions and supply side reforms.
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.
Easy target navigation wise - coastal, clear river estuary showing up in any moonlight, docks too I imagine. The Germans had no trouble erasing Clydebank without, say, Carlisle being lit up.
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?
No. I have largely given up trying to persuade people like you
But I am still fascinated by the bizarre mindset that will not accept direct evidence
We now have the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, the US Secretary of State, and the President of the USA all saying “we will end that pipeline permanently, one way or another” - with the clear threat of violent action
Yet somehow this all means nothing. It’s definitely Putin! It’s beyond weird
It’s like an old friend saying “in a fortnight I will come round to your house and pour fish over your head” and now, here you are, two weeks later in your house, covered in herrings, and you think: “Who did this? Must be the neighbour. He sometimes goes fishing”
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.
You are right but miss the point that Truss was elected on the 2019 manifesto. Other leaders taking over halfway through parliaments have at least paid lip service to the convention that you keep to the manifesto. It is not that Truss has no mandate to be prime minister (as you say, ours is a parliamentary system) but that she has no mandate to rip up the old manifesto.
But Truss is claiming to be following the manifesto, in her own way.
Afterall the manifesto promised not to raise tax (NI) but Sunak did that anyway, and Truss reversed that, so bringing us back closer to the manifesto.
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.
You are right but miss the point that Truss was elected on the 2019 manifesto. Other leaders taking over halfway through parliaments have at least paid lip service to the convention that you keep to the manifesto. It is not that Truss has no mandate to be prime minister (as you say, ours is a parliamentary system) but that she has no mandate to rip up the old manifesto.
Disagree. I don’t think the public really cares about manifestos or expects them to be honoured. It’s a bit like the breathless posts on here about how lying to parliament was the thing that would do for Boris. The public didn’t and don’t care.
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.
One thing that is noticeable is that no smart arse has particularly been saying “if you want more growth then rejoin the EU” because everyone accepts any gain would be trivial. A useful straw in the wind about how unlikely it is that we ever will rejoin.
It was asked on QT. Labour panellist, who was very good and professional, said not interested in the right tone.
We will end up with a halfway house between now and membership, probably take another decade to get there.
One thing blowing up the pipeline (And a reason for Russia) is that in the event of overall Russian defeat gas to Europe can't be in the peace terms. If Putin thinks he's going to lose, and perhaps deep down he does then no sweeties for the germans as a result.
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.
Easy target navigation wise - coastal, clear river estuary showing up in any moonlight, docks too I imagine. The Germans had no trouble erasing Clydebank without, say, Carlisle being lit up.
A somewhat belated good morning all. I remember, as a small boy, lying in bed in our Morrison shelter, during the war listening to the German bombers making their way up the Thames!
Pavel Latushka @PavelLatushka · 22h Our sources report: #Lukashenko agreed to deploy 120K soldiers 🇷🇺 during November-February. 🇧🇾 undertakes to supply 100K mobilized soldiers in addition. Lukashenko is preparing for a full-scale war. The West must issue an ultimatum he cannot refuse
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.
And that reality is what? A bunch of tax cuts paid for by borrowing money? How is that facing up to "reality" it's more fantasy economics. Where are the spending cuts, when is the sainted NHS going to actually be forced to modernise? Where are the state pension reforms and taper for high earning retirees? Where was the NI on pension income announcement?
There was absolutely no "reality" in the Friday statement, you are seeing what you want to see, not what they actually announced which was a series of unfunded tax cuts and new spending commitments. The Truss "prescription" is no different to Corbyn, just from the other side of the political divide, Corbyn wanted to borrow hundreds of billions for nationalisation and spending, Truss is borrowing hundreds of billions for tax cuts.
I do not think Bart or myself are saying that. I certainly am not. Last Friday was deeply delusional and idiotic, done by people without even the most rudimentary understanding of economics or politics or even morality. Just beyond stupid and needing reversed. But that will not solve the problems we face.
Actually I am saying that. Cut taxes, grow the economy, and take a smaller slice of a bigger pie. Borrow for the transition, because taxes are already choking the economy and higher than they've ever been.
What spending cuts should have been announced? Other than the traditional third rail of slashing welfare for pensioners, which I agree should be done but nobody will go near, there is not much left to cut. Taxes have risen as high as they'll go, spending has been cut as far as it will go, and we're still out of money.
The only way forward is to stop strangling the economy with taxes, let it grow, and take a smaller slice.
What they did was combine tax cuts with a massive uncosted and uncostable increase in public spending subsidising fuel costs. That is nuts. In the medium term I agree that taxes on incomes have risen too high but the market made it very clear that you cannot cut taxes and increase spending at the same time.
So what can you do?
Increase taxes yet again, strangle growth even more yet again?
If fixing the fundamentals of too high taxes can't be done, what can be done, other than manage decline by taxing working people more and more and having a state that's nothing but an NHS and pension provider?
Switch taxes on earnings for taxes on assets.
The only asset it makes sense to tax is land, every other asset can be moved out of our tax jurisdiction.
If anyone proposes rebalancing taxes away from income and into land instead, then I would absolutely be prepared to vote for them. Even if its Keir Starmer. But I don't see anyone proposing that yet.
So foreigners stop buying land, it gets much cheaper, house prices crash, everyone hates you, and you lose the next election
The price of land isn't the problem.
It's the scarcity of land you are allowed to build on., relative to the population.
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.
So was invading Ukraine, but that didn't stop them.
Who blew the pipeline ?? Someone suggested that it would be easy for Russia to do it because they have easy access to inside of pipeline. Two large problems with that theory.....
1. Placing a charge inside the pipeline is easy - but would requre a massive charge - the overpressure would be mostly dissipated inside the pipeline itself - the pipeline would act as a barrel and send massive shockwaves along the barrel length destroying the facilities at each end before the pipeline itself.
2. The pipeline is constructed in 12m lengths - which are encased in concrete (weight coating = ballast) for most of that length. The weakpoint is at the joint where there is around a 500mm length without concrete. Easy to identify joints from outside. Almost impossible inside the pipeline.
So no - the pipeline was destroyed from the outside. Probably a charge placed under the pipeline for maximum effect.
So back to the question - who?? My money is on US not Russia
One thing blowing up the pipeline (And a reason for Russia) is that in the event of overall Russian defeat gas to Europe can't be in the peace terms. If Putin thinks he's going to lose, and perhaps deep down he does then no sweeties for the germans as a result.
Yes, the most plausible argument for it being Russia is as part of a power struggle between parts of the Russian regime.
Isn’t it clear now that the government will have to put out a plan that the OBR can rubberstamp as fiscally sensible and leading to growth .
Kwarteng surely can’t stand there doing his statement and at the same time the OBR is rubbishing that .
Because the government refuses to back track on its mini budget then unless that’s defeated in the commons it looks like cuts to services and benefits being reduced in real terms .
People forget that the OBR span out of HMT and uses basically the same economic model. The Treasury can’t be surprised by what it will or won’t say.
Inflation in the Netherlands up to 17.1%. Most other western european nations around 10%. I wonder what the special factors are.
Stand by for an EU drama when Italy passes a budget. One reason we’ll be ok is that the caravan is about to move. To spare blushes, folk will say they were persuaded by the U.K. fiscal plan.
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.
Easy target navigation wise - coastal, clear river estuary showing up in any moonlight, docks too I imagine. The Germans had no trouble erasing Clydebank without, say, Carlisle being lit up.
A somewhat belated good morning all. I remember, as a small boy, lying in bed in our Morrison shelter, during the war listening to the German bombers making their way up the Thames!
Good day OKC!
My late mother had the same recollection of the Kampfgruppen flying overhead en route to Clydebank, with the unsynchronized beat of their engines (I think cos they were frightened of sonic detection and ranging).
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
What evidence? There is no evidence. If there was then we would know who did it. That is why we are speculating
All we know is that the pipelines have been destroyed. Until someone goes down there and examines the wreckage there will be no evidence.
One thing blowing up the pipeline (And a reason for Russia) is that in the event of overall Russian defeat gas to Europe can't be in the peace terms. If Putin thinks he's going to lose, and perhaps deep down he does then no sweeties for the germans as a result.
Yes, the most plausible argument for it being Russia is as part of a power struggle between parts of the Russian regime.
Yes. It makes little sense for Putin to destroy a pipeline he spent decades setting up
However, a maverick nationalist element that wants total war? And fears that Putin will accept an ugly peace?
Quite possible. And they exist in the Russian military
One thing blowing up the pipeline (And a reason for Russia) is that in the event of overall Russian defeat gas to Europe can't be in the peace terms. If Putin thinks he's going to lose, and perhaps deep down he does then no sweeties for the germans as a result.
That is the most compelling reason I've heard. Replacing him with a more West-friendly leadership no longer means the gas taps can get turned back on.
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.
That's right about the weak pound being a prop. But one way I look at this is through gilt yields. Taking property as an asset class, you can compare against alternatives that are also free of credit risk, gilts being an obvious benchmark. So, if the yield on gilts become sharply higher, property needs to yield more to compete, to keep its place in the risk/return hierarchy as it were. Rent increases can do some of that but imo (at the numbers we're looking at) not all of it. The rest has to come from a fall in prices.
Course we're both talking our books, aren't we, since you've just bought, and I've just decided not to.
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.
That's right about the weak pound being a prop. But one way I look at this is through gilt yields. Taking property as an asset class, you can compare against alternatives that are also free of credit risk, gilts being an obvious benchmark. So, if the yield on gilts become sharply higher, property needs to yield more to compete, to keep its place in the risk/return hierarchy as it were. Rent increases can do some of that but imo (at the numbers we're looking at) not all of it. The rest has to come from a fall in prices.
Course we're both talking our books, aren't we, since you've just bought, and I've just decided not to.
I hope you've told the seller you're out and not kept them hanging on to a forlorn hope.
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.
Former Chancellor Alistair Darling: "They just appear to be complete novices, suddenly being presented with a new toy to play with & they didn't understand what they were doing. (...) "The problems the govt are in now are entirely self-inflicted. This isn't a global problem." https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1575755291857412097
Other than Truss the Cabinet are mostly novices. For a 12 year government its remarkably inexperienced, but that's part of trying to revamp as a fresh government.
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
What evidence? There is no evidence. If there was then we would know who did it. That is why we are speculating
All we know is that the pipelines have been destroyed. Until someone goes down there and examines the wreckage there will be no evidence.
The evidence is American politicians, including the president, saying “we will end that pipeline one way or another” for the past year. And the Senate apparently suggesting it be done violently
“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”
If Deirdre Halfwit in your street is murdered, and you find recordings in the last year of Sam Baldeagle saying “I’m going to murder that Deidre Halfwit in the next year” then I’m pretty sure a court would accept this as evidence against Sam
Every visit of @BWallaceMP to 🇺🇦 brings good news to the battlefield. NLAWs, armoured vehicles, Starstreaks & Brimstones, UK-led 🇺🇦 recruits training programme…What’s next? We have a some good ideas to discuss today. P.SThis 🇬🇧MLRS M270 from the front line salutes you,my friend! https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1575797761244827652
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.
Nordstream wasn't in use and it was unlikely to be used at any point this winter. The point of blowing it up was therefore not to do with Nordstream itself, but about the vulnerability of pipelines, and other subsea infrastructure, in general.
It's a warning about the Norwegian pipelines. It's a message from Russia to Europe to back off, to acquiesce to some extent to the annexations, or to lose access to Norwegian gas.
It's a moment of truth for Europe as to how they will respond, and whether they can protect critical infrastructure.
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.
That's right about the weak pound being a prop. But one way I look at this is through gilt yields. Taking property as an asset class, you can compare against alternatives that are also free of credit risk, gilts being an obvious benchmark. So, if the yield on gilts become sharply higher, property needs to yield more to compete, to keep its place in the risk/return hierarchy as it were. Rent increases can do some of that but imo (at the numbers we're looking at) not all of it. The rest has to come from a fall in prices.
Course we're both talking our books, aren't we, since you've just bought, and I've just decided not to.
I hope you've told the seller you're out and not kept them hanging on to a forlorn hope.
Yes, I'm an honourable and straightforward person in financial dealings. Hate it when people try to be "players" and "shrewdies".
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
What evidence? There is no evidence. If there was then we would know who did it. That is why we are speculating
All we know is that the pipelines have been destroyed. Until someone goes down there and examines the wreckage there will be no evidence.
The evidence is American politicians, including the president, saying “we will end that pipeline one way or another” for the past year. And the Senate apparently suggesting it be done violently
“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”
If Deirdre Halfwit in your street is murdered, and you find recordings in the last year of Sam Baldeagle saying “I’m going to murder that Deidre Halfwit in the next year” then I’m pretty sure a court would accept this as evidence against Sam
“I’m going to murder that Deidre Halfwit in the next year” depends entirely on tone and context, as Marshall Hall QC would famously argue.
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
What evidence? There is no evidence. If there was then we would know who did it. That is why we are speculating
All we know is that the pipelines have been destroyed. Until someone goes down there and examines the wreckage there will be no evidence.
The evidence is American politicians, including the president, saying “we will end that pipeline one way or another” for the past year. And the Senate apparently suggesting it be done violently
“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”
If Deirdre Halfwit in your street is murdered, and you find recordings in the last year of Sam Baldeagle saying “I’m going to murder that Deidre Halfwit in the next year” then I’m pretty sure a court would accept this as evidence against Sam
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
What evidence? There is no evidence. If there was then we would know who did it. That is why we are speculating
All we know is that the pipelines have been destroyed. Until someone goes down there and examines the wreckage there will be no evidence.
The evidence is American politicians, including the president, saying “we will end that pipeline one way or another” for the past year. And the Senate apparently suggesting it be done violently
“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”
If Deirdre Halfwit in your street is murdered, and you find recordings in the last year of Sam Baldeagle saying “I’m going to murder that Deidre Halfwit in the next year” then I’m pretty sure a court would accept this as evidence against Sam
The US wouldn’t be able to keep it secret. Too many would know.
Well, I thought the swirling maelstrom of confusion and very plausible motives from all parties meant it would be completely unclear as to who did it but now this pretty clearly means Moscow did it.
Though to counter that whoever whacked Nordstream seems to have done a proper job on it, not the the signature of recent Russian military/espionage activity.
Former Chancellor Alistair Darling: "They just appear to be complete novices, suddenly being presented with a new toy to play with & they didn't understand what they were doing. (...) "The problems the govt are in now are entirely self-inflicted. This isn't a global problem." https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1575755291857412097
Other than Truss the Cabinet are mostly novices. For a 12 year government its remarkably inexperienced, but that's part of trying to revamp as a fresh government.
It is also recruiting from a very limited pool who didn't think the PM was going to be a disaster. Their careers are now cut very short.
The experienced could see how this would play out - and steered well clear..
Every visit of @BWallaceMP to 🇺🇦 brings good news to the battlefield. NLAWs, armoured vehicles, Starstreaks & Brimstones, UK-led 🇺🇦 recruits training programme…What’s next? We have a some good ideas to discuss today. P.SThis 🇬🇧MLRS M270 from the front line salutes you,my friend! https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1575797761244827652
Wonder how Ben is feeling about not going for PM now. Especially as the 3% seems to be another fantasy
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?
Hit primary goals, move on to secondary goals, then tertiary goals
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?
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.
Nordstream wasn't in use and it was unlikely to be used at any point this winter. The point of blowing it up was therefore not to do with Nordstream itself, but about the vulnerability of pipelines, and other subsea infrastructure, in general.
It's a warning about the Norwegian pipelines. It's a message from Russia to Europe to back off, to acquiesce to some extent to the annexations, or to lose access to Norwegian gas.
It's a moment of truth for Europe as to how they will respond, and whether they can protect critical infrastructure.
Well, I thought the swirling maelstrom of confusion and very plausible motives from all parties meant it would be completely unclear as to who did it but now this pretty clearly means Moscow did it.
Though to counter that whoever whacked Nordstream seems to have done a proper job on it, not the the signature of recent Russian military/espionage activity.
I recall my dad commenting on the novichok incident that it couldn't be the Russians as theyd have succeeded. A rather charming belief in eternal enemy competence really.
Former Chancellor Alistair Darling: "They just appear to be complete novices, suddenly being presented with a new toy to play with & they didn't understand what they were doing. (...) "The problems the govt are in now are entirely self-inflicted. This isn't a global problem." https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1575755291857412097
Other than Truss the Cabinet are mostly novices. For a 12 year government its remarkably inexperienced, but that's part of trying to revamp as a fresh government.
It is also recruiting from a very limited pool who didn't think the PM was going to be a disaster. Their careers are now cut very short.
The experienced could see how this would play out - and steered well clear..
I doubt even the experienced thought it would blow up quite so quickly though...
Former Chancellor Alistair Darling: "They just appear to be complete novices, suddenly being presented with a new toy to play with & they didn't understand what they were doing. (...) "The problems the govt are in now are entirely self-inflicted. This isn't a global problem." https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1575755291857412097
Other than Truss the Cabinet are mostly novices. For a 12 year government its remarkably inexperienced, but that's part of trying to revamp as a fresh government.
It is also recruiting from a very limited pool who didn't think the PM was going to be a disaster. Their careers are now cut very short.
The experienced could see how this would play out - and steered well clear..
I think that may be giving too much credit. Some of them at least probably did want a job, hence the mosning when Truss didnt appoint a broad field.
Another thing I discussed with my loony left friend last night is the possibility of Russia dropping a STRATEGIC nuke on somewhere important, as an overwhelming psychological ace, forcing us to fold
We decided this is highly unlikely (yay) but sadly not impossible (oof)
Which leaves the question: where? It wouldn’t be somewhere Putin covets and it would be far away from Russia. It would need to be very high profile but not the USA (= instant death for all)
In the past Putinist politicians have threatened both Germany and the UK. They fit the bill
However I then realised he wouldn’t hit the UK because of Trident. We can hit back. He can’t risk it. Trident would deter him
Sorry Berlin, you’ll get it. Or Munich
So there it is. Trident works. Nuclear deterrence works. We must keep our nukes
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.
Or by a land tax encouraging people to take down their decking and plant vegetables.
Torsten Bell @TorstenBell Sterling recovery is good news but not because it means all damage of the past week is undone. This is markets deciding there's more chance @bankofengland will do its job and raise rates - so the balance of the pain shifts away from inflation and towards higher mortgages
Former Chancellor Alistair Darling: "They just appear to be complete novices, suddenly being presented with a new toy to play with & they didn't understand what they were doing. (...) "The problems the govt are in now are entirely self-inflicted. This isn't a global problem." https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1575755291857412097
Other than Truss the Cabinet are mostly novices. For a 12 year government its remarkably inexperienced, but that's part of trying to revamp as a fresh government.
It is also recruiting from a very limited pool who didn't think the PM was going to be a disaster. Their careers are now cut very short.
The experienced could see how this would play out - and steered well clear..
The evidence is American politicians, including the president, saying “we will end that pipeline one way or another” for the past year. And the Senate apparently suggesting it be done violently
Add to the eyebrow raising pile of coincidences the fact that the Kearsage Amphibious Assault Group (Kearsage, Ignatius, Arlington and Gunston Hall) were in the Baltic at the time. So the USN would have a lot of ASW assets active in the area and would have a very good idea of what was going on below the surface as most of the Baltic isn't that deep.
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
What evidence? There is no evidence. If there was then we would know who did it. That is why we are speculating
All we know is that the pipelines have been destroyed. Until someone goes down there and examines the wreckage there will be no evidence.
The evidence is American politicians, including the president, saying “we will end that pipeline one way or another” for the past year. And the Senate apparently suggesting it be done violently
“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”
If Deirdre Halfwit in your street is murdered, and you find recordings in the last year of Sam Baldeagle saying “I’m going to murder that Deidre Halfwit in the next year” then I’m pretty sure a court would accept this as evidence against Sam
And what if Deirdre's estranged husband was aware of Sam's statement and murdered her himself and then used a jury of Leons to convict Sam?
Get a grip and stop twisting things to get the answer you want otherwise you might as well change your account name to Plato_3
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
What evidence? There is no evidence. If there was then we would know who did it. That is why we are speculating
All we know is that the pipelines have been destroyed. Until someone goes down there and examines the wreckage there will be no evidence.
The evidence is American politicians, including the president, saying “we will end that pipeline one way or another” for the past year. And the Senate apparently suggesting it be done violently
“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”
If Deirdre Halfwit in your street is murdered, and you find recordings in the last year of Sam Baldeagle saying “I’m going to murder that Deidre Halfwit in the next year” then I’m pretty sure a court would accept this as evidence against Sam
Yes but what Sam Baldeagle actually said was that he was going to fire Deirdre Halfwit, and she was fired six months ago and Sam is saying he hasn't spoken to Deirdre since she was fired.
Meanwhile Vladimir Newkenwodka has engaged on a killing spree murdering many of Deirdre's neighbours, and had also threatened Deirdre and recently was seen cutting off her phone line and CCTV system.
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
What evidence? There is no evidence. If there was then we would know who did it. That is why we are speculating
All we know is that the pipelines have been destroyed. Until someone goes down there and examines the wreckage there will be no evidence.
The evidence is American politicians, including the president, saying “we will end that pipeline one way or another” for the past year. And the Senate apparently suggesting it be done violently
“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”
If Deirdre Halfwit in your street is murdered, and you find recordings in the last year of Sam Baldeagle saying “I’m going to murder that Deidre Halfwit in the next year” then I’m pretty sure a court would accept this as evidence against Sam
But not to convict.
But some people on PB don’t even want Sam Baldeagle to be questioned. It’s an amusing psychological spectacle in a dark time
Pavel Latushka @PavelLatushka · 22h Our sources report: #Lukashenko agreed to deploy 120K soldiers 🇷🇺 during November-February. 🇧🇾 undertakes to supply 100K mobilized soldiers in addition. Lukashenko is preparing for a full-scale war. The West must issue an ultimatum he cannot refuse
The West really needs to issue Lukashenko with a bullet - and reinstate the true democratic victors. He has been an abomination within Europe. The time to allow him to stay in place has long ended.
Robbing Moscow of a route through to Kyiv again is vital.
Well, I thought the swirling maelstrom of confusion and very plausible motives from all parties meant it would be completely unclear as to who did it but now this pretty clearly means Moscow did it.
Though to counter that whoever whacked Nordstream seems to have done a proper job on it, not the the signature of recent Russian military/espionage activity.
The Russians don't have a problem with targets that can't fire back.
Torsten Bell @TorstenBell Sterling recovery is good news but not because it means all damage of the past week is undone. This is markets deciding there's more chance @bankofengland will do its job and raise rates - so the balance of the pain shifts away from inflation and towards higher mortgages
Sorry but is he claiming to be some sort of prophet? We’ve all been talking about Truss and her plans pushing interest rates up for months, and in any case most agree the Bank is behind the curve anyway.
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.
Nordstream wasn't in use and it was unlikely to be used at any point this winter. The point of blowing it up was therefore not to do with Nordstream itself, but about the vulnerability of pipelines, and other subsea infrastructure, in general.
It's a warning about the Norwegian pipelines. It's a message from Russia to Europe to back off, to acquiesce to some extent to the annexations, or to lose access to Norwegian gas.
It's a moment of truth for Europe as to how they will respond, and whether they can protect critical infrastructure.
Does seem to be quite a coincidence that it 'happened to blow up' just about the time the new Norway/Poland pipeline opened.
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
What evidence? There is no evidence. If there was then we would know who did it. That is why we are speculating
All we know is that the pipelines have been destroyed. Until someone goes down there and examines the wreckage there will be no evidence.
The evidence is American politicians, including the president, saying “we will end that pipeline one way or another” for the past year. And the Senate apparently suggesting it be done violently
“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”
If Deirdre Halfwit in your street is murdered, and you find recordings in the last year of Sam Baldeagle saying “I’m going to murder that Deidre Halfwit in the next year” then I’m pretty sure a court would accept this as evidence against Sam
But not to convict.
But some people on PB don’t even want Sam Baldeagle to be questioned. It’s an amusing psychological spectacle in a dark time
The good old apple pie has never engaged in skullduggery before
'Through the energy price guarantee the maximum [energy bill] will be £2,500' The prime minister incorrectly told more than one station that there would be a maximum energy bill of £2,500 after the energy price cap is lifted on 1 October.
This is a *major* fuck up. The price cap was badly understood in general. What people understood was that their bills might triple or quadruple - unpayable - but thanks to the cap have mererly doubled - unpayable.
But saying its a cash cap will enrage all the people paying more than £2,500. Who likely have bigger hiuuses, and likely were Tory supporters. The rout in the Tory numbers - and we have polls of 19 / 20 / 21 point deficits not just the Zahaw Bomba - is from firmly middle ground voters fleeing. This will make that worse.
The cap was 1900, its now 2500 with a 400 bill payment as well, whose bill is doubling?
For my 2 bedroom house with the cap and the bill payment I will be paying £90 less than last year for the same usage. Im sure there are millions of people living in small houses whose net energy costs will not now be going up compared to last winter.
Whose bill is doubling? What was the cap last winter?
This is the problem you Trussites have. You can keep saying "the sky is green" as passionately as you like. Then people look up and say "but it's blue"...
Cap (household average) to 1 October 2021 £1042 Cap to 1 April 2022 £1277 Cap to 1 October 2022 £1971 Cap from 1 October 2022 £2500
That to me looks like a 150% increase in 18 months and that is with Government intervention...
I thought it was £2500 of which the government is paying £400?
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
What evidence? There is no evidence. If there was then we would know who did it. That is why we are speculating
All we know is that the pipelines have been destroyed. Until someone goes down there and examines the wreckage there will be no evidence.
The evidence is American politicians, including the president, saying “we will end that pipeline one way or another” for the past year. And the Senate apparently suggesting it be done violently
“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”
If Deirdre Halfwit in your street is murdered, and you find recordings in the last year of Sam Baldeagle saying “I’m going to murder that Deidre Halfwit in the next year” then I’m pretty sure a court would accept this as evidence against Sam
Yes but what Sam Baldeagle actually said was that he was going to fire Deirdre Halfwit, and she was fired six months ago and Sam is saying he hasn't spoken to Deirdre since she was fired.
Meanwhile Vladimir Newkenwodka has engaged on a killing spree murdering many of Deirdre's neighbours, and had also threatened Deirdre and recently was seen cutting off her phone line and CCTV system.
The mortgage situation is what will kill this version of the Tories stone dead. Nobody under the age of 90 will be voting for them.
My mortgage is luckily a 5 year fixed but I am terrified what happens when I have to renew it. I hope I will be earning even more than I do now (which is already a good salary).
Ben Riley-Smith @benrileysmith · 13m BREAKING: The Treasury rejects calls for an early OBR forecast. Statement after meeting just released repeats it’s coming on Nov23 as planned.
Pavel Latushka @PavelLatushka · 22h Our sources report: #Lukashenko agreed to deploy 120K soldiers 🇷🇺 during November-February. 🇧🇾 undertakes to supply 100K mobilized soldiers in addition. Lukashenko is preparing for a full-scale war. The West must issue an ultimatum he cannot refuse
The West really needs to issue Lukashenko with a bullet - and reinstate the true democratic victors. He has been an abomination within Europe. The time to allow him to stay in place has long ended.
Robbing Moscow of a route through to Kyiv again is vital.
I am not convinced Lukashenko could cope with the response of his own people, never mind the West.
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
What evidence? There is no evidence. If there was then we would know who did it. That is why we are speculating
All we know is that the pipelines have been destroyed. Until someone goes down there and examines the wreckage there will be no evidence.
The evidence is American politicians, including the president, saying “we will end that pipeline one way or another” for the past year. And the Senate apparently suggesting it be done violently
“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”
If Deirdre Halfwit in your street is murdered, and you find recordings in the last year of Sam Baldeagle saying “I’m going to murder that Deidre Halfwit in the next year” then I’m pretty sure a court would accept this as evidence against Sam
Yes but what Sam Baldeagle actually said was that he was going to fire Deirdre Halfwit, and she was fired six months ago and Sam is saying he hasn't spoken to Deirdre since she was fired.
Meanwhile Vladimir Newkenwodka has engaged on a killing spree murdering many of Deirdre's neighbours, and had also threatened Deirdre and recently was seen cutting off her phone line and CCTV system.
Ugh! You’re rather mutilating my metaphor
Deirdre Halfwit is the Actual Pipeline
Yes I get that Deirdre is the pipeline and Newkenwodka had recently shut down the gas flowing through the pipeline (cutting the phone line and CCTV in my extension to the metaphor). Murder was his next step.
Ben Riley-Smith @benrileysmith · 13m BREAKING: The Treasury rejects calls for an early OBR forecast. Statement after meeting just released repeats it’s coming on Nov23 as planned.
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.
No.6 is the most likely. Putin will know that Leon would have fallen for it, as a falls for any old shit.
The evidence is American politicians, including the president, saying “we will end that pipeline one way or another” for the past year. And the Senate apparently suggesting it be done violently
Add to the eyebrow raising pile of coincidences the fact that the Kearsage Amphibious Assault Group (Kearsage, Ignatius, Arlington and Gunston Hall) were in the Baltic at the time. So the USN would have a lot of ASW assets active in the area and would have a very good idea of what was going on below the surface as most of the Baltic isn't that deep.
One theory on the Telegraph podcast was that sea floor mines could have been dropped by the pipeline some time ago, and set to be triggered later. You wouldn't necessarily require a submarine in the area in the hours beforehand.
This raises the possibility that mines are already in place on other pipelines.
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
What evidence? There is no evidence. If there was then we would know who did it. That is why we are speculating
All we know is that the pipelines have been destroyed. Until someone goes down there and examines the wreckage there will be no evidence.
The evidence is American politicians, including the president, saying “we will end that pipeline one way or another” for the past year. And the Senate apparently suggesting it be done violently
“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”
If Deirdre Halfwit in your street is murdered, and you find recordings in the last year of Sam Baldeagle saying “I’m going to murder that Deidre Halfwit in the next year” then I’m pretty sure a court would accept this as evidence against Sam
But not to convict.
But some people on PB don’t even want Sam Baldeagle to be questioned. It’s an amusing psychological spectacle in a dark time
New cold war time.
Could be a good time for western allies skulduggery and still hold the moral high ground.
So, nothing on innovation and R&D, but they want productivity up. They haven't a fecking clue...
Ben Riley-Smith @benrileysmith · 5m Understand these are the eight supply side reform areas that we can expect announcements on between now and Nov23:
Biz regulation Agriculture Housing and planning Immigration Mobile and broadband Financial services Childcare Energy
How is Childcare a supply side reform - the only options are - the Government spending more money OR reducing Child care costs by reducing the quality of childcare.
And that latter option just creates expensive problems in primary schools...
Ben Riley-Smith @benrileysmith · 13m BREAKING: The Treasury rejects calls for an early OBR forecast. Statement after meeting just released repeats it’s coming on Nov23 as planned.
Ben Riley-Smith @benrileysmith · 13m BREAKING: The Treasury rejects calls for an early OBR forecast. Statement after meeting just released repeats it’s coming on Nov23 as planned.
Grown ups not be allowed back in the house until the party they forbade has got through all the booze, destroyed the furniture and all the hundreds of gatecrashers have left.....
So, nothing on innovation and R&D, but they want productivity up. They haven't a fecking clue...
Ben Riley-Smith @benrileysmith · 5m Understand these are the eight supply side reform areas that we can expect announcements on between now and Nov23:
Biz regulation Agriculture Housing and planning Immigration Mobile and broadband Financial services Childcare Energy
It’s fair to assume something big has always been planned for Conference next week. Maybe something counterintuitive? “Childcare” is an interesting outlier.
Ben Riley-Smith @benrileysmith · 13m BREAKING: The Treasury rejects calls for an early OBR forecast. Statement after meeting just released repeats it’s coming on Nov23 as planned.
That'll settle the markets I'm sure
No, if I was advising them, I’d advise then to do this too. In the medium term you’re much better off asserting authority than giving in. (That’s not me saying I would have started from here).
So, nothing on innovation and R&D, but they want productivity up. They haven't a fecking clue...
Ben Riley-Smith @benrileysmith · 5m Understand these are the eight supply side reform areas that we can expect announcements on between now and Nov23:
Biz regulation Agriculture Housing and planning Immigration Mobile and broadband Financial services Childcare Energy
It’s fair to assume something big has always been planned for Conference next week. Maybe something counterintuitive? “Childcare” is an interesting outlier.
Children will no longer be cared for so we can cut the top rate to 35%
Coming to this a bit late, but can I say - before we are all vaporised - hooray for local radio journalists, local journalists, in fact, who asked sensible, to the point questions and left Truss looking like a total numpty - like the sort of doll where you pull a cord at the back to hear it speak.
It has been a refreshing sight in an increasingly dreary pompous world. Those journalists could teach some of the more well-known national journalists on tv or radio quite a few lessons on how to interview well.
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.
This blackout thing was Dev and Co.
It is mistake is to think of a country as a unified, uniform entity. The Irish Military, for example, was practically encouraging the desertions!
Even in a dictatorship, the dictator is managing a coalition of forces/groups. Which is why the many, many histories of Napoleonic France that assume that Napoleon had absolute power and everyone else was a servant are rubbish.
So, nothing on innovation and R&D, but they want productivity up. They haven't a fecking clue...
Ben Riley-Smith @benrileysmith · 5m Understand these are the eight supply side reform areas that we can expect announcements on between now and Nov23:
Biz regulation Agriculture Housing and planning Immigration Mobile and broadband Financial services Childcare Energy
It’s fair to assume something big has always been planned for Conference next week. Maybe something counterintuitive? “Childcare” is an interesting outlier.
Children will no longer be cared for so we can cut the top rate to 35%
Ben Riley-Smith @benrileysmith · 13m BREAKING: The Treasury rejects calls for an early OBR forecast. Statement after meeting just released repeats it’s coming on Nov23 as planned.
Grown ups not be allowed back in the house until the party they forbade has got through all the booze, destroyed the furniture and all the hundreds of gatecrashers have left.....
So, nothing on innovation and R&D, but they want productivity up. They haven't a fecking clue...
Ben Riley-Smith @benrileysmith · 5m Understand these are the eight supply side reform areas that we can expect announcements on between now and Nov23:
Biz regulation Agriculture Housing and planning Immigration Mobile and broadband Financial services Childcare Energy
It’s fair to assume something big has always been planned for Conference next week. Maybe something counterintuitive? “Childcare” is an interesting outlier.
No regulations No more food in the way of the service centres Do what you like Lots and none and Rwanda Bands no longer broad and telecoms no longer mobile Tax cuts for these absolute boys Nope Burn the dead
So, nothing on innovation and R&D, but they want productivity up. They haven't a fecking clue...
Ben Riley-Smith @benrileysmith · 5m Understand these are the eight supply side reform areas that we can expect announcements on between now and Nov23:
Biz regulation Agriculture Housing and planning Immigration Mobile and broadband Financial services Childcare Energy
It’s fair to assume something big has always been planned for Conference next week. Maybe something counterintuitive? “Childcare” is an interesting outlier.
Truss has a bee in her bonnet about that one. Cut the staff to toddler ratio so it all becomes cheaper.
'Through the energy price guarantee the maximum [energy bill] will be £2,500' The prime minister incorrectly told more than one station that there would be a maximum energy bill of £2,500 after the energy price cap is lifted on 1 October.
This is a *major* fuck up. The price cap was badly understood in general. What people understood was that their bills might triple or quadruple - unpayable - but thanks to the cap have mererly doubled - unpayable.
But saying its a cash cap will enrage all the people paying more than £2,500. Who likely have bigger hiuuses, and likely were Tory supporters. The rout in the Tory numbers - and we have polls of 19 / 20 / 21 point deficits not just the Zahaw Bomba - is from firmly middle ground voters fleeing. This will make that worse.
The cap was 1900, its now 2500 with a 400 bill payment as well, whose bill is doubling?
For my 2 bedroom house with the cap and the bill payment I will be paying £90 less than last year for the same usage. Im sure there are millions of people living in small houses whose net energy costs will not now be going up compared to last winter.
Whose bill is doubling? What was the cap last winter?
This is the problem you Trussites have. You can keep saying "the sky is green" as passionately as you like. Then people look up and say "but it's blue"...
Cap (household average) to 1 October 2021 £1042 Cap to 1 April 2022 £1277 Cap to 1 October 2022 £1971 Cap from 1 October 2022 £2500
That to me looks like a 150% increase in 18 months and that is with Government intervention...
It beats me why they bother to call it a cap. It seems to keep rising rather freely.
Ben Riley-Smith @benrileysmith · 13m BREAKING: The Treasury rejects calls for an early OBR forecast. Statement after meeting just released repeats it’s coming on Nov23 as planned.
Grown ups not be allowed back in the house until the party they forbade has got through all the booze, destroyed the furniture and all the hundreds of gatecrashers have left.....
When they say "the Treasury", who exactly do they mean? Is it Kwasi himself? Or his designated spokesman (political staff)? Or the neutral civil servants (most of whom have now been culled)? Or the pretty boys and girls who make up Truss's inner circle?
Ben Riley-Smith @benrileysmith · 13m BREAKING: The Treasury rejects calls for an early OBR forecast. Statement after meeting just released repeats it’s coming on Nov23 as planned.
Grown ups not be allowed back in the house until the party they forbade has got through all the booze, destroyed the furniture and all the hundreds of gatecrashers have left.....
The mortgage situation is what will kill this version of the Tories stone dead. Nobody under the age of 90 will be voting for them.
My mortgage is luckily a 5 year fixed but I am terrified what happens when I have to renew it. I hope I will be earning even more than I do now (which is already a good salary).
In a last flight out of Kabul situation, my daughter remortgaged on Tuesday with her current lender. 10 years fixed at 3.2%.
So, nothing on innovation and R&D, but they want productivity up. They haven't a fecking clue...
Ben Riley-Smith @benrileysmith · 5m Understand these are the eight supply side reform areas that we can expect announcements on between now and Nov23:
Biz regulation Agriculture Housing and planning Immigration Mobile and broadband Financial services Childcare Energy
It’s fair to assume something big has always been planned for Conference next week. Maybe something counterintuitive? “Childcare” is an interesting outlier.
Truss has a bee in her bonnet about that one. Cut the staff to toddler ratio so it all becomes cheaper.
Intensive farming levels of toddlers per Caregiving Unit
So, nothing on innovation and R&D, but they want productivity up. They haven't a fecking clue...
Ben Riley-Smith @benrileysmith · 5m Understand these are the eight supply side reform areas that we can expect announcements on between now and Nov23:
Biz regulation Agriculture Housing and planning Immigration Mobile and broadband Financial services Childcare Energy
It’s fair to assume something big has always been planned for Conference next week. Maybe something counterintuitive? “Childcare” is an interesting outlier.
Children will no longer be cared for so we can cut the top rate to 35%
Cheap source of food. Cuts inflation too.
A modest proposal redux. Nothing changes in this country.
Mobile and broadband sounds good, planning reform changes so people can't reject masts?
The work to upgrade Openreach's network to 100% fibre is already in progress so I would love to know what they are planning to do.
As for mobile the best bet there is mast sharing - planning isn't an issue even in a national park (provided you aren't building a permanent road to the mast.
Comments
So this was the next thing for Russia to do, using the only logic Putin knows and understands - force and threats.
Kwarteng surely can’t stand there doing his statement and at the same time the OBR is rubbishing that .
Because the government refuses to back track on its mini budget then unless that’s defeated in the commons it looks like cuts to services and benefits being reduced in real terms .
But I am still fascinated by the bizarre mindset that will not accept direct evidence
We now have the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, the US Secretary of State, and the President of the USA all saying “we will end that pipeline permanently, one way or another” - with the clear threat of violent action
Yet somehow this all means nothing. It’s definitely Putin! It’s beyond weird
It’s like an old friend saying “in a fortnight I will come round to your house and pour fish over your head” and now, here you are, two weeks later in your house, covered in herrings, and you think: “Who did this? Must be the neighbour. He sometimes goes fishing”
Afterall the manifesto promised not to raise tax (NI) but Sunak did that anyway, and Truss reversed that, so bringing us back closer to the manifesto.
We will end up with a halfway house between now and membership, probably take another decade to get there.
😂
I remember, as a small boy, lying in bed in our Morrison shelter, during the war listening to the German bombers making their way up the Thames!
Pavel Latushka
@PavelLatushka
·
22h
Our sources report: #Lukashenko agreed to deploy 120K soldiers 🇷🇺 during November-February. 🇧🇾 undertakes to supply 100K mobilized soldiers in addition. Lukashenko is preparing for a full-scale war. The West must issue an ultimatum he cannot refuse
https://twitter.com/PavelLatushka/status/1575450978685444104
It's the scarcity of land you are allowed to build on., relative to the population.
1. Placing a charge inside the pipeline is easy - but would requre a massive charge - the overpressure would be mostly dissipated inside the pipeline itself - the pipeline would act as a barrel and send massive shockwaves along the barrel length destroying the facilities at each end before the pipeline itself.
2. The pipeline is constructed in 12m lengths - which are encased in concrete (weight coating = ballast) for most of that length. The weakpoint is at the joint where there is around a 500mm length without concrete. Easy to identify joints from outside. Almost impossible inside the pipeline.
So no - the pipeline was destroyed from the outside. Probably a charge placed under the pipeline for maximum effect.
So back to the question - who?? My money is on US not Russia
My late mother had the same recollection of the Kampfgruppen flying overhead en route to Clydebank, with the unsynchronized beat of their engines (I think cos they were frightened of sonic detection and ranging).
All we know is that the pipelines have been destroyed. Until someone goes down there and examines the wreckage there will be no evidence.
However, a maverick nationalist element that wants total war? And fears that Putin will accept an ugly peace?
Quite possible. And they exist in the Russian military
Course we're both talking our books, aren't we, since you've just bought, and I've just decided not to.
Nice area - been to Roche Abbey & Firbeck a few times this year. I'd take one of the houses in Stone, I think.
Langold itself is a bit roughish in parts but hey - they did use decent size plots in a lot of the planned mining villages.
https://twitter.com/starboyhk/status/1487032297199001609?s=46&t=18kBNKOO17fg8fwwMoOfXw
“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”
If Deirdre Halfwit in your street is murdered, and you find recordings in the last year of Sam Baldeagle saying “I’m going to murder that Deidre Halfwit in the next year” then I’m pretty sure a court would accept this as evidence against Sam
Members choose the candidates (say they need 10 nominations from MPs) - members select 5 (perhaps a 3 week hustling/voting).
MPs then select from the last 5.
I think you use STV to avoid all the grubby deals that get done… but I doubt MPs would want that as they quite like the deals…
P.SThis 🇬🇧MLRS M270 from the front line salutes you,my friend!
https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1575797761244827652
It's a warning about the Norwegian pipelines. It's a message from Russia to Europe to back off, to acquiesce to some extent to the annexations, or to lose access to Norwegian gas.
It's a moment of truth for Europe as to how they will respond, and whether they can protect critical infrastructure.
The experienced could see how this would play out - and steered well clear..
We decided this is highly unlikely (yay) but sadly not impossible (oof)
Which leaves the question: where? It wouldn’t be somewhere Putin covets and it would be far away from Russia. It would need to be very high profile but not the USA (= instant death for all)
In the past Putinist politicians have threatened both Germany and the UK. They fit the bill
However I then realised he wouldn’t hit the UK because of Trident. We can hit back. He can’t risk it. Trident would deter him
Sorry Berlin, you’ll get it. Or Munich
So there it is. Trident works. Nuclear deterrence works. We must keep our nukes
At least that’s one perennial argument solved
https://twitter.com/TorstenBell/status/1575763247046840324
Torsten Bell
@TorstenBell
Sterling recovery is good news but not because it means all damage of the past week is undone. This is markets deciding there's more chance
@bankofengland
will do its job and raise rates - so the balance of the pain shifts away from inflation and towards higher mortgages
Get a grip and stop twisting things to get the answer you want otherwise you might as well change your account name to Plato_3
1.25% base rate, 17.1% inflation.
EU in real trouble this winter. As are we all
Meanwhile Vladimir Newkenwodka has engaged on a killing spree murdering many of Deirdre's neighbours, and had also threatened Deirdre and recently was seen cutting off her phone line and CCTV system.
Robbing Moscow of a route through to Kyiv again is vital.
https://www.euronews.com/2022/09/27/baltic-pipe-norway-poland-gas-pipeline-opens-in-key-move-to-cut-dependency-on-russia
Deirdre Halfwit is the Actual Pipeline
My mortgage is luckily a 5 year fixed but I am terrified what happens when I have to renew it. I hope I will be earning even more than I do now (which is already a good salary).
Ben Riley-Smith
@benrileysmith
·
13m
BREAKING: The Treasury rejects calls for an early OBR forecast. Statement after meeting just released repeats it’s coming on Nov23 as planned.
Ben Riley-Smith
@benrileysmith
·
5m
Understand these are the eight supply side reform areas that we can expect announcements on between now and Nov23:
Biz regulation
Agriculture
Housing and planning
Immigration
Mobile and broadband
Financial services
Childcare
Energy
This raises the possibility that mines are already in place on other pipelines.
Could be a good time for western allies skulduggery and still hold the moral high ground.
And that latter option just creates expensive problems in primary schools...
It has been a refreshing sight in an increasingly dreary pompous world. Those journalists could teach some of the more well-known national journalists on tv or radio quite a few lessons on how to interview well.
It is mistake is to think of a country as a unified, uniform entity. The Irish Military, for example, was practically encouraging the desertions!
Even in a dictatorship, the dictator is managing a coalition of forces/groups. Which is why the many, many histories of Napoleonic France that assume that Napoleon had absolute power and everyone else was a servant are rubbish.
https://youtu.be/smc-CqO4D10
No more food in the way of the service centres
Do what you like
Lots and none and Rwanda
Bands no longer broad and telecoms no longer mobile
Tax cuts for these absolute boys
Nope
Burn the dead
Done
(Which is what it is)
And how will it not be killed off my NIMBY scum like May killing off Boris's sensible proposed reforms.
As for mobile the best bet there is mast sharing - planning isn't an issue even in a national park (provided you aren't building a permanent road to the mast.