Mordaunt as PM, Sunak as Chancellor is the best possible option the Tories have right now. Restore the tax rate for higher earners, redesign the energy subsidy, stop Sunak's NI raise and raise the money on second homes, curb low skill immigration.
The country could - and it is only could - be persuaded to accept yet another change of PM provided the party was united around that person AND they were seen to be governing in the national interest.
Entertaining as it is, the Tory mandate in 2019 has been largely ignored, but that is what these MPs ran on. So any leader would need to be focused on that or at least paying lipservice to it.
Can I throw another name into the ring - Dominic Raab. Stop laughing and listen for a minute. Raab has democratic legitimacy. He was First Secretary of State both before and after the 2019 election. That role was upgraded to Deputy Prime Minister. So if we need a caretaker PM it can't be some lightweight who had no senior role in the government which won the election.
Truss is heading for a Tory ELE. But they are not out of danger if they oust her and replace her with another nobody with their own grand plans and ambitions which nobody voted for. Party politics is fine when it has a mandate. Truss does not. Mordaunt doing Pennyism would not. So if they get this wrong, the ELE could still be on...
Legitimacy comes from having the support of parliament. The Tories need someone who has the charisma to separate themselves from the currently trashed Tory brand, who doesn't seem like a regular politician, who can authentically play into red wall conservatism. That is Mordaunt, not Raab. Though Raab could be Foreign Secretary.
I think we have exhausted the concept of legitimacy coming from having the support of parliament. A 3rd PM in the same parliament with a 3rd separate programme for government cannot claim political legitimacy - or at least won't be granted it by the electorate.
During the final days of the Brown government, what really did it for any ideas of a rainbow coalition was that senior Labour MPs said no. A paper constitutional legitimacy that "if we have a majority we are legit" doesn't wash - they were rejected and the likes of Jack Straw were adamant that they must leave the stage.
Tories are now 30 points behind in the polls. Whatever authority they had has gone. A return to status-quo-ante - led by Raab rather than Johnson who still faces sanction for lying to parliament remember - may be ok. But if Truss has to go because nobody voted for her, how does Mordaunt have any political legitimacy?
Constitutionally it would be ok, but if the Tories try and foist a 2nd un elected prime minister on us, surely the correct path should be a General Election. Johnson had to go, but after taking an interminable time to decide his successor, they either stick with her or go to the Country, the whole rotten lot of them deserve nothing less than a heavy defeat at the polls
Oxford Economics @OxfordEconomics We estimate the recent surge in swap rates means that UK house prices are 37% overvalued based on mortgage affordability. Though other metrics suggest prices are less stretched, we forecast prices will drop by 10%-15% over the next two years
They have plenty to complain about. Student debt, public debt, unaffordable pensions handed out willy nilly that they will have to fund but not receive, casual labour and zero hour contracts, worsening public services, I could go on all day.
All my pensions are DC, apart from one (a company one from many years ago), in the private sector you just cannot generally get DB pensions now I haven't had a DB in 35 years, casual labour and zero hour contracts affect everyone not just millenials, public services have been crap for many years. Every year we hear the same. Student debt, do they expect low paid workers who do not go to Uni to fund their higher education ?
Yes it is tough but it was not all milk and honey for other generations. Millenials seem to think they are the only generation who have had a tough time.
Gotta admit I don’t want my kids to die for Kharkiv. Bit shit for Kharkiv but then the division of Korea was pretty crap for lots of Koreans. We avoided nuclear war, however
Its not simply for Kharkiv though, its for ensuring we live in a world were nuclear weapons aren't routinely used in anger, which would make escalation to total nuclear war almost inevitable.
They invaded Kharkiv with conventional weapons, and we didn't retaliate directly with force. That line is there.
But since the 1950s its been a clear principle that nuclear weapons aren't used in war and if they are the other side has their own nukes and will respond. In that time both sides have lost wars and been humiliated, nuclear weapons aren't a weapon to avoid humiliation, they're a weapon to assure destruction.
The USSR lost in Afghanistan, as did the USA. Both sides were unable to win a total victory in Korea. The USA lost in Vietnam. Never though did any war escalate to a nuclear response, and we are right to guarantee that doesn't happen today - and if Putin is MAD enough to press the red button, he needs to know we're prepared to retaliate.
And a conventional retaliation to sink his fleet, and saying we are prepared to have a retaliation with Trident, is a bit of a distinction without a difference. We haven't engaged conventionally because we want to avoid nuclear war, if we retaliate conventionally we are saying we are prepared to risk that and see the conflict now go nuclear and ultimately to Trident, if it comes to that.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Nice to see you back Malcolm, and in fine form too.
And as big an ignorant prejudiced twat as ever.
You're a bit harsh on yourself there Malc. You know lots about, for example, horse racing.
Edit - was that a blockquote SNAFU or is my illness just making me feel confused?
I assume you have been driven mad by the gammons like foreskin
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation.
Ukraine is not in NATO the most we should do is further sanction Russia and supply Ukraine
The good thing is NATO commanders are not answerable to you, and maybe you should read a bit more about the agreed overwhelming conventional response by NATO that has been communicated to the Kremlin including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet in the event of a nuclear weapon being used
Which we hope is a deterrent.
However if Putin does launch a nuclear weapon in Ukraine that threat will have been proved not to be a deterrent. The risk is going through with it then risks further escalation nd our going to war with an insane Russian President already having showed himself ready to use nuclear missiles
Some risks are appropriate to take.
If Putin chose to nuke Essex as a "warning" to the West to back off do you think the rest of the UK should say "OK, Essex has been nuked but we don't want to be nuked ourselves so we'd better not risk escalating this any further" or do you think we should retaliate?
No, of course not. Essex is in the UK and then we would have to launch a Trident nuclear weapon on Moscow in response.
However Ukraine is not in the UK nor even in NATO so the comparison is absurd
Its not absurd, we made certain guarantees when they disarmed their nukes so its under our nuclear shield as far as a red line on nukes is concerned.
A nuke on Ukraine absolutely should be considered the same as a nuke on Berlin, we made that guarantee and got them to disarm their nukes on that proviso.
We should never have disarmed Ukraine's nukes but we did and we cannot go back now.
who's we? This is part of the problem thinking "we" have to bit in all the time in other countries disputes
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation.
Ukraine is not in NATO the most we should do is further sanction Russia and supply Ukraine
The good thing is NATO commanders are not answerable to you, and maybe you should read a bit more about the agreed overwhelming conventional response by NATO that has been communicated to the Kremlin including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet in the event of a nuclear weapon being used
Which we hope is a deterrent.
However if Putin does launch a nuclear weapon in Ukraine that threat will have been proved not to be a deterrent. The risk is going through with it then risks further escalation nd our going to war with an insane Russian President already having showed himself ready to use nuclear missiles
Some risks are appropriate to take.
If Putin chose to nuke Essex as a "warning" to the West to back off do you think the rest of the UK should say "OK, Essex has been nuked but we don't want to be nuked ourselves so we'd better not risk escalating this any further" or do you think we should retaliate?
No, of course not. Essex is in the UK and then we would have to launch a Trident nuclear weapon on Moscow in response.
However Ukraine is not in the UK nor even in NATO so the comparison is absurd
Its not absurd, we made certain guarantees when they disarmed their nukes so its under our nuclear shield as far as a red line on nukes is concerned.
A nuke on Ukraine absolutely should be considered the same as a nuke on Berlin, we made that guarantee and got them to disarm their nukes on that proviso.
Britain does not have a military defence alliance with Ukraine.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Nice to see you back Malcolm, and in fine form too.
And as big an ignorant prejudiced twat as ever.
Oh Dear , cockroach has his panties in a bunch already! Watch that blood pressure
How'd you get a hold of my pic, malc?
Is that not your average Tory Rob
I am so glad I am not the average Tory, Malc
For sure G, not a pretty sight at all. Hope you and family are well.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Nice to see you back Malcolm, and in fine form too.
And as big an ignorant prejudiced twat as ever.
You're a bit harsh on yourself there Malc. You know lots about, for example, horse racing.
Edit - was that a blockquote SNAFU or is my illness just making me feel confused?
I assume you have been driven mad by the gammons like foreskin
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation.
Ukraine is not in NATO the most we should do is further sanction Russia and supply Ukraine
The good thing is NATO commanders are not answerable to you, and maybe you should read a bit more about the agreed overwhelming conventional response by NATO that has been communicated to the Kremlin including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet in the event of a nuclear weapon being used
Which we hope is a deterrent.
However if Putin does launch a nuclear weapon in Ukraine that threat will have been proved not to be a deterrent. The risk is going through with it then risks further escalation nd our going to war with an insane Russian President already having showed himself ready to use nuclear missiles
Some risks are appropriate to take.
If Putin chose to nuke Essex as a "warning" to the West to back off do you think the rest of the UK should say "OK, Essex has been nuked but we don't want to be nuked ourselves so we'd better not risk escalating this any further" or do you think we should retaliate?
No, of course not. Essex is in the UK and then we would have to launch a Trident nuclear weapon on Moscow in response.
However Ukraine is not in the UK nor even in NATO so the comparison is absurd
Its not absurd, we made certain guarantees when they disarmed their nukes so its under our nuclear shield as far as a red line on nukes is concerned.
A nuke on Ukraine absolutely should be considered the same as a nuke on Berlin, we made that guarantee and got them to disarm their nukes on that proviso.
We should never have disarmed Ukraine's nukes but we did and we cannot go back now.
We don't need to go back, we have our own. We made a commitment, we can honour it, and we can be clear that we will if it gets that far.
If Russia can win with conventional weapons then we won't directly fight, that's been the unwritten rule in all conflicts from Korea onwards. But if they can't, then they must withdraw, just as all sides lost in Afghanistan, just as the USA lost in Vietnam etc
Gotta admit I don’t want my kids to die for Kharkiv. Bit shit for Kharkiv but then the division of Korea was pretty crap for lots of Koreans. We avoided nuclear war, however
You are allowed to say that. You don't want your children to die over Kharkiv. Bart, meanwhile, wants his wife and daughter to die if the Russians use a battlefield nuke in Ukraine.
Oxford Economics @OxfordEconomics We estimate the recent surge in swap rates means that UK house prices are 37% overvalued based on mortgage affordability. Though other metrics suggest prices are less stretched, we forecast prices will drop by 10%-15% over the next two years
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Nice to see you back Malcolm, and in fine form too.
Yeah, nice to see you back @malcolmg, hope you and your good lady are well and you are having a good success rate on the gee gee's.
You're definitely on fine form too
Taz, thanks and also thanks to all other well wishers. Been in the doldrums a bit on the horses but jumping season starting which is my favourite. I got the Arc winner but that did not need any skill. Off for my covid and flu jags later today.
Welcome back Malc great to have you back on here.
Fairytale for Alpinista.
There is an analogy here. Alpinista was the fairytale result and turns out she was good enough to win. Nothing however said that it was inevitable. Some on here with their view of the Ukraine war are looking at it as though, as with so many other conflicts of the past, "we" have won and then retro-fitting their opinions onto this far from certain outcome.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Nice to see you back Malcolm, and in fine form too.
And as big an ignorant prejudiced twat as ever.
Oh Dear , cockroach has his panties in a bunch already! Watch that blood pressure
How'd you get a hold of my pic, malc?
Is that not your average Tory Rob
I am so glad I am not the average Tory, Malc
For sure G, not a pretty sight at all. Hope you and family are well.
Thanks Malc and yes we are ok and had the gift of our 5th grandchild 6 weeks ago
Mind you we keep taking the pills and consider ourselves very fortunate
Someone took a situation like this to the high court a few years ago, when they pulled in front of a red light to let an police car (on flashing lights) pass and got a ticket. They lost. The law is the law but the problem is a lack of judgement on the part of the authorities that serve the notices (as you imply).
In London, if all drivers refused point blank ever to move into bus lanes you would have instant gridlock. Buses coming the other way would not be able to get through unless drivers used their common sense and shifted over, briefly utilising the bus lane. I've often thought that a day of 'working to rule' by all drivers would helpfully show how much the traffic flow relies on common sense.
There is a similar issue with the yellow grid boxes at junctions. Strictly you shouldn't pull into one unless the exit is completely clear but if everyone applied that to the letter, gridlock would once again result.
The simplest thing to do in this case was for the car driver to stay in their lane, or move over as far right as possible, and for the ambulance to use the restricted lane to 'undertake'. Since the ambulance was on blues-and-twos at the time, they would have been within the rules. Road law is incredibly clear: drivers must not break the law in order to let an emergency vehicle past. The emergency services have themselves repeated that many many times.
Nonetheless, a bus lane ticket is a simple fixed penalty non-points and frankly if it's the difference between life and death for the patient on the ambulance, I can cope with losing a few quid. It's in a good cause.
Quite frankly, if the law is as you state it, it is BAD law. There should always be exceptions. What if a small child was lying in the way?
I feel like I am absolutely stating the obvious here. But the 'law' insofar as motoring offences goes is being ignored continuously and it only really takes on any signficance when there is an accident or an opportunistic fine and proof in the form of CCTV or dashcam footage. The worst thing is speeding. Quite often the average recorded speed in a 30 restricted area is over 45 mph. I've seen many traffic surveys like this.
This is why I think there are exceptions for lawyers and barristers where they don't have any significant professional consequences for motoring convictions.
This is not new. Most laws for the whole of human civilisation have not worked very well, there is a good book about this I am reading at the moment - the rule of laws by Fernanda Pirie.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation.
Ukraine is not in NATO the most we should do is further sanction Russia and supply Ukraine
The good thing is NATO commanders are not answerable to you, and maybe you should read a bit more about the agreed overwhelming conventional response by NATO that has been communicated to the Kremlin including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet in the event of a nuclear weapon being used
Which we hope is a deterrent.
However if Putin does launch a nuclear weapon in Ukraine that threat will have been proved not to be a deterrent. The risk is going through with it then risks further escalation nd our going to war with an insane Russian President already having showed himself ready to use nuclear missiles
Some risks are appropriate to take.
If Putin chose to nuke Essex as a "warning" to the West to back off do you think the rest of the UK should say "OK, Essex has been nuked but we don't want to be nuked ourselves so we'd better not risk escalating this any further" or do you think we should retaliate?
No, of course not. Essex is in the UK and then we would have to launch a Trident nuclear weapon on Moscow in response.
However Ukraine is not in the UK nor even in NATO so the comparison is absurd
Its not absurd, we made certain guarantees when they disarmed their nukes so its under our nuclear shield as far as a red line on nukes is concerned.
A nuke on Ukraine absolutely should be considered the same as a nuke on Berlin, we made that guarantee and got them to disarm their nukes on that proviso.
Britain does not have a military defence alliance with Ukraine.
Yes we do.
We are signatories to the Budapest Memorandum which forbade the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
Ukraine had a larger stockpile of nuclear weaponry than the UK did a the time we entered into that agreement with them, as a result of it they disarmed their nukes and we guaranteed nukes wouldn't be used against them.
Oxford Economics @OxfordEconomics We estimate the recent surge in swap rates means that UK house prices are 37% overvalued based on mortgage affordability. Though other metrics suggest prices are less stretched, we forecast prices will drop by 10%-15% over the next two years
They have plenty to complain about. Student debt, public debt, unaffordable pensions handed out willy nilly that they will have to fund but not receive, casual labour and zero hour contracts, worsening public services, I could go on all day.
Well yes, and also a 10-15% drop in house prices reduces them from eye-watering to only slightly less eye-watering.
Oxford Economics @OxfordEconomics We estimate the recent surge in swap rates means that UK house prices are 37% overvalued based on mortgage affordability. Though other metrics suggest prices are less stretched, we forecast prices will drop by 10%-15% over the next two years
They have plenty to complain about. Student debt, public debt, unaffordable pensions handed out willy nilly that they will have to fund but not receive, casual labour and zero hour contracts, worsening public services, I could go on all day.
All my pensions are DC, apart from one (a company one from many years ago), in the private sector you just cannot generally get DB pensions now I haven't had a DB in 35 years, casual labour and zero hour contracts affect everyone not just millenials, public services have been crap for many years. Every year we hear the same. Student debt, do they expect low paid workers who do not go to Uni to fund their higher education ?
Yes it is tough but it was not all milk and honey for other generations. Millenials seem to think they are the only generation who have had a tough time.
I think that is a little harsh. As @rcs1000 was pointing out this morning, they are the first generation in a very long time to have poorer economic prospects than their parents. The self indulgence of older generations is leaving them one hell of a mess to clean up.
Oxford Economics @OxfordEconomics We estimate the recent surge in swap rates means that UK house prices are 37% overvalued based on mortgage affordability. Though other metrics suggest prices are less stretched, we forecast prices will drop by 10%-15% over the next two years
They have plenty to complain about. Student debt, public debt, unaffordable pensions handed out willy nilly that they will have to fund but not receive, casual labour and zero hour contracts, worsening public services, I could go on all day.
Well yes, and also a 10-15% drop in house prices reduces them from eye-watering to only slightly less eye-watering.
Indeed, it would only reverse one year worth of inflation and they'd still be about 25% too high at least.
House prices should roughly halve in value from where they are now. Shame for those who bought when the bubble was at its peak, but bubbles burst.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation.
Ukraine is not in NATO the most we should do is further sanction Russia and supply Ukraine
The good thing is NATO commanders are not answerable to you, and maybe you should read a bit more about the agreed overwhelming conventional response by NATO that has been communicated to the Kremlin including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet in the event of a nuclear weapon being used
Which we hope is a deterrent.
However if Putin does launch a nuclear weapon in Ukraine that threat will have been proved not to be a deterrent. The risk is going through with it then risks further escalation nd our going to war with an insane Russian President already having showed himself ready to use nuclear missiles
Some risks are appropriate to take.
If Putin chose to nuke Essex as a "warning" to the West to back off do you think the rest of the UK should say "OK, Essex has been nuked but we don't want to be nuked ourselves so we'd better not risk escalating this any further" or do you think we should retaliate?
No, of course not. Essex is in the UK and then we would have to launch a Trident nuclear weapon on Moscow in response.
However Ukraine is not in the UK nor even in NATO so the comparison is absurd
Its not absurd, we made certain guarantees when they disarmed their nukes so its under our nuclear shield as far as a red line on nukes is concerned.
A nuke on Ukraine absolutely should be considered the same as a nuke on Berlin, we made that guarantee and got them to disarm their nukes on that proviso.
Britain does not have a military defence alliance with Ukraine.
Yes we do.
We are signatories to the Budapest Memorandum which forbade the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
Ukraine had a larger stockpile of nuclear weaponry than the UK did a the time we entered into that agreement with them, as a result of it they disarmed their nukes and we guaranteed nukes wouldn't be used against them.
Best argument against CND. Ever. Simply unanswerable.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Nice to see you back Malcolm, and in fine form too.
And as big an ignorant prejudiced twat as ever.
You're a bit harsh on yourself there Malc. You know lots about, for example, horse racing.
Edit - was that a blockquote SNAFU or is my illness just making me feel confused?
I assume you have been driven mad by the gammons like foreskin
You've been gone for 3 months.
This is how you decide to "relaunch" yourself?
You cannot change perfection.
I am delighted you are back. It reminds people just how small brained, juvenile, pathetic and thuggish the average follower of the man who was referred to as a "sex pest and objectionable bully" by his own QC actually are.
I bet you are going a bit gammon now eh Malc? Will you get complaints from the neighbours next door in your semi-detached bungalow as you start snarling and swearing and bursting out of your vest like an ugly overweight pale white incredible hulk? Will your long-suffering wife have to tell you to calm down and take another blood pressure pill, or is she not talking to you after you lost your pension money on the horses?
Someone took a situation like this to the high court a few years ago, when they pulled in front of a red light to let an police car (on flashing lights) pass and got a ticket. They lost. The law is the law but the problem is a lack of judgement on the part of the authorities that serve the notices (as you imply).
In London, if all drivers refused point blank ever to move into bus lanes you would have instant gridlock. Buses coming the other way would not be able to get through unless drivers used their common sense and shifted over, briefly utilising the bus lane. I've often thought that a day of 'working to rule' by all drivers would helpfully show how much the traffic flow relies on common sense.
There is a similar issue with the yellow grid boxes at junctions. Strictly you shouldn't pull into one unless the exit is completely clear but if everyone applied that to the letter, gridlock would once again result.
The simplest thing to do in this case was for the car driver to stay in their lane, or move over as far right as possible, and for the ambulance to use the restricted lane to 'undertake'. Since the ambulance was on blues-and-twos at the time, they would have been within the rules. Road law is incredibly clear: drivers must not break the law in order to let an emergency vehicle past. The emergency services have themselves repeated that many many times.
Nonetheless, a bus lane ticket is a simple fixed penalty non-points and frankly if it's the difference between life and death for the patient on the ambulance, I can cope with losing a few quid. It's in a good cause.
Quite frankly, if the law is as you state it, it is BAD law. There should always be exceptions. What if a small child was lying in the way?
I feel like I am absolutely stating the obvious here. But the 'law' insofar as motoring offences goes is being ignored continuously and it only really takes on any signficance when there is an accident or an opportunistic fine and proof in the form of CCTV or dashcam footage. The worst thing is speeding. Quite often the average recorded speed in a 30 restricted area is over 45 mph. I've seen many traffic surveys like this.
This is why I think there are exceptions for lawyers and barristers where they don't have any significant professional consequences for motoring convictions.
This is not new. Most laws for the whole of human civilisation have not worked very well, there is a good book about this I am reading at the moment - the rule of laws by Fernanda Pirie.
Thanks for the book tip. Sounds v interesting; I'll take a look.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation.
Ukraine is not in NATO the most we should do is further sanction Russia and supply Ukraine
The good thing is NATO commanders are not answerable to you, and maybe you should read a bit more about the agreed overwhelming conventional response by NATO that has been communicated to the Kremlin including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet in the event of a nuclear weapon being used
Which we hope is a deterrent.
However if Putin does launch a nuclear weapon in Ukraine that threat will have been proved not to be a deterrent. The risk is going through with it then risks further escalation and our going to war with an insane Russian President already having showed himself ready to use nuclear missiles
Did you read my post
Putin has been told by NATO of the consequences of using a nuclear weapon with an overwhelming NATO response with conventional weapons sinking his Black Sea fleet
NATO have said nothing of the sort. The phrase 'Serious Consequences' was as far as Stoltenberg would go.
Pretty meaningless then.
This one's a bit hard to do strategic clarity about even if you wanted to, eg if Russia let off a tactical nuclear weapon as a threat, the ideal next steps would be: - China and India freak out and apply sanctions - Russia go oh shit and don't do anything else - NATO does nothing
...but that relies on what China and India would do in this hypothetical situation. At the opposite end of the scale, the Chinese might instead say, "OK cool, the new rule is that big countries can use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries in their sphere of interest", in which case NATO basically has to hit Russia hard enough to make them regret playing the nuclear card and dissuade other countries from doing it in future, at the risk of escalating and blowing up the world.
Oxford Economics @OxfordEconomics We estimate the recent surge in swap rates means that UK house prices are 37% overvalued based on mortgage affordability. Though other metrics suggest prices are less stretched, we forecast prices will drop by 10%-15% over the next two years
They have plenty to complain about. Student debt, public debt, unaffordable pensions handed out willy nilly that they will have to fund but not receive, casual labour and zero hour contracts, worsening public services, I could go on all day.
Well yes, and also a 10-15% drop in house prices reduces them from eye-watering to only slightly less eye-watering.
And unless there is a fundamental shift in the marketplace (I.e a dramatic change in the supply vs demand - which there won’t be) it will likely only take 2-5 years for the prices to head back upwards to pre-correction levels.
Someone took a situation like this to the high court a few years ago, when they pulled in front of a red light to let an police car (on flashing lights) pass and got a ticket. They lost. The law is the law but the problem is a lack of judgement on the part of the authorities that serve the notices (as you imply).
In London, if all drivers refused point blank ever to move into bus lanes you would have instant gridlock. Buses coming the other way would not be able to get through unless drivers used their common sense and shifted over, briefly utilising the bus lane. I've often thought that a day of 'working to rule' by all drivers would helpfully show how much the traffic flow relies on common sense.
There is a similar issue with the yellow grid boxes at junctions. Strictly you shouldn't pull into one unless the exit is completely clear but if everyone applied that to the letter, gridlock would once again result.
Small clarification: you can legally pull into a grid box to turn right even if your path is currently blocked by oncoming traffic.
It's all a bit hit and miss, particularly as regards cameras and the extent to which the rules are imposed. The biggest practical problem I find is that you have to read the mind of the driver(s) in front of you. If the proceed normally you should be ok but if one pulls up well short of the car ahead of it you may be forced to stop in the grid box, and the law offers you no way out.
You could argue that you should wait until the way is clear, but if we all did that traffic would grind to a halt instantly.
I had a policeman flash his lights and gesture somewhat angrily, because I stopped before a grid box. Until there was space the other side…..
Oxford Economics @OxfordEconomics We estimate the recent surge in swap rates means that UK house prices are 37% overvalued based on mortgage affordability. Though other metrics suggest prices are less stretched, we forecast prices will drop by 10%-15% over the next two years
They have plenty to complain about. Student debt, public debt, unaffordable pensions handed out willy nilly that they will have to fund but not receive, casual labour and zero hour contracts, worsening public services, I could go on all day.
All my pensions are DC, apart from one (a company one from many years ago), in the private sector you just cannot generally get DB pensions now I haven't had a DB in 35 years, casual labour and zero hour contracts affect everyone not just millenials, public services have been crap for many years. Every year we hear the same. Student debt, do they expect low paid workers who do not go to Uni to fund their higher education ?
Yes it is tough but it was not all milk and honey for other generations. Millenials seem to think they are the only generation who have had a tough time.
Basically agree that older generations had it tougher. Society is supposed to progress so that makes sense to me.
What I think is perhaps unusual is that it feels to me like younger people are being harmed by the governments overwhelmingly elected by older generations.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation.
Ukraine is not in NATO the most we should do is further sanction Russia and supply Ukraine
The good thing is NATO commanders are not answerable to you, and maybe you should read a bit more about the agreed overwhelming conventional response by NATO that has been communicated to the Kremlin including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet in the event of a nuclear weapon being used
Which we hope is a deterrent.
However if Putin does launch a nuclear weapon in Ukraine that threat will have been proved not to be a deterrent. The risk is going through with it then risks further escalation nd our going to war with an insane Russian President already having showed himself ready to use nuclear missiles
Some risks are appropriate to take.
If Putin chose to nuke Essex as a "warning" to the West to back off do you think the rest of the UK should say "OK, Essex has been nuked but we don't want to be nuked ourselves so we'd better not risk escalating this any further" or do you think we should retaliate?
No, of course not. Essex is in the UK and then we would have to launch a Trident nuclear weapon on Moscow in response.
However Ukraine is not in the UK nor even in NATO so the comparison is absurd
Its not absurd, we made certain guarantees when they disarmed their nukes so its under our nuclear shield as far as a red line on nukes is concerned.
A nuke on Ukraine absolutely should be considered the same as a nuke on Berlin, we made that guarantee and got them to disarm their nukes on that proviso.
Britain does not have a military defence alliance with Ukraine.
Yes we do.
We are signatories to the Budapest Memorandum which forbade the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
Ukraine had a larger stockpile of nuclear weaponry than the UK did a the time we entered into that agreement with them, as a result of it they disarmed their nukes and we guaranteed nukes wouldn't be used against them.
No we didn't. We said we would go to the Security Council if nukes were used against Ukraine.
Only one Con defence in today's local byelections. It is in Gloucester and they will almost certainly lose it. There are also Lab defences in Hartlepool, Leicester, and Stockport. Finally a Green defence in Epping Forest! Strangely the Green candidate is the former councillor removed for non-attendance.
NEW: Officials in Downing Street are working on a U-turn on Liz Truss's tax plans, but no decisions will be made before Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng gets back from the IMF in Washington
Someone took a situation like this to the high court a few years ago, when they pulled in front of a red light to let an police car (on flashing lights) pass and got a ticket. They lost. The law is the law but the problem is a lack of judgement on the part of the authorities that serve the notices (as you imply).
In London, if all drivers refused point blank ever to move into bus lanes you would have instant gridlock. Buses coming the other way would not be able to get through unless drivers used their common sense and shifted over, briefly utilising the bus lane. I've often thought that a day of 'working to rule' by all drivers would helpfully show how much the traffic flow relies on common sense.
There is a similar issue with the yellow grid boxes at junctions. Strictly you shouldn't pull into one unless the exit is completely clear but if everyone applied that to the letter, gridlock would once again result.
I absolutely work to rule with box junctions after getting two fines in one week for minor infractions a few years back. There was one junction near us where they clearly had to reduce its size because over zealous enforcement had stopped the traffic moving completely.
With box junctions part of the problem is at least half of London drivers don't seem to realise that you can go on them to turn right if all thats stopping you exiting is oncoming traffic.
Similarly London drivers are oblivious to bus lane active times. Regularly you will see cars queuing up on a Sunday for 10 minutes to go through one set of lights, with a completely empty bus lane next to it that they could be using instead. I have no idea what they think the times and days on the signs mean.
Oxford Economics @OxfordEconomics We estimate the recent surge in swap rates means that UK house prices are 37% overvalued based on mortgage affordability. Though other metrics suggest prices are less stretched, we forecast prices will drop by 10%-15% over the next two years
They have plenty to complain about. Student debt, public debt, unaffordable pensions handed out willy nilly that they will have to fund but not receive, casual labour and zero hour contracts, worsening public services, I could go on all day.
Well yes, and also a 10-15% drop in house prices reduces them from eye-watering to only slightly less eye-watering.
Indeed, it would only reverse one year worth of inflation and they'd still be about 25% too high at least.
House prices should roughly halve in value from where they are now. Shame for those who bought when the bubble was at its peak, but bubbles burst.
Yes, that's my position. Though getting caught in a housing bubble engenders rather more sympathy than getting caught in something like a Bitcoin bubble. Most bubbles it's possible simply to opt out of - choose not to own a Bitcoin. People who get caught in such things have only themselves to blame. Whereas everyone needs a house, and I can remember the desperation as a non-homeowner to own something, anything before the prospect of ever having a house receded away forever (and this was back in the mid noughties, when by current levels prices seemed relatively sane).
As far as I can see the least bad solution would be 10 years of no growth at all in house prices, while inflation causes falls in real terms.
The reason Remoaners STILL get worked up by the idea “Britain was not sovereign in the EU” is because they know it is true, not the opposite
It therefore irks them because it is an inarguable reason for Brexit. They will never be able to turn around and say “Brexit was a mistake” because Brexit is already, in these terms, a success. We are sovereign again. We control our own borders. The fact the borders are pathetically uncontrolled is down to OUR stupid useless government which we can elect or dismiss
Every time I see Ursula von der Wotsit on the telly I give thanks for Brexit. Quite sincerely
Tho she must have been extremely hot in her 20s
Like the lab leak, just because you say it’s inarguable, doesn’t mean it is. Without wishing to be credentialist I’ve studied both EU law and history to Masters level, and am a qualified lawyer, and I firmly believe that the UK was sovereign in the EU. But I accept that I’m not going to change your mind, partly because you wouldn’t understand many of the concepts I’d have to refer to, but more because it’s an emotional thing with you (as so much is) so I can’t be arsed trying. This stuff used to wind me up admittedly, but now I’m sitting back watching the shitshow you sold the country with a similar resigned fatalistic air I view the prospect of nuclear Armageddon.
Some are saying let's risk London being nuked and Britain being destroyed, their aim being to save Donetsk from the Donetskians.
Oh and something something, wicked bad Mr Putin.
One has to ask why would those who in other contexts appear reasonably sane say such a thing. I am not being rhetorical. I really mean that people should ask this question: why do they say it? Is it because they've reasoned it all out and decided that what they're saying is the rational conclusion to draw given the circumstances?
Were they so vocal when there was actual real genocide in Rwanda, and practically no risk of London being nuked or Britain being destroyed had Britain intervened?
The trigger for me deciding WW3 is imminent will be any NATO country flying warplanes over any of the six territories.
Depending on how things play out, I may bring things forward by changing the criterion to flying warplanes over any part of pre-September 2022 Ukraine.
NEW: Officials in Downing Street are working on a U-turn on Liz Truss's tax plans, but no decisions will be made before Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng gets back from the IMF in Washington
He shouldn't bother coming back...
His position is untenable. He should be gone by the end of the month.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation.
Ukraine is not in NATO the most we should do is further sanction Russia and supply Ukraine
The good thing is NATO commanders are not answerable to you, and maybe you should read a bit more about the agreed overwhelming conventional response by NATO that has been communicated to the Kremlin including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet in the event of a nuclear weapon being used
Which we hope is a deterrent.
However if Putin does launch a nuclear weapon in Ukraine that threat will have been proved not to be a deterrent. The risk is going through with it then risks further escalation nd our going to war with an insane Russian President already having showed himself ready to use nuclear missiles
Some risks are appropriate to take.
If Putin chose to nuke Essex as a "warning" to the West to back off do you think the rest of the UK should say "OK, Essex has been nuked but we don't want to be nuked ourselves so we'd better not risk escalating this any further" or do you think we should retaliate?
No, of course not. Essex is in the UK and then we would have to launch a Trident nuclear weapon on Moscow in response.
However Ukraine is not in the UK nor even in NATO so the comparison is absurd
Its not absurd, we made certain guarantees when they disarmed their nukes so its under our nuclear shield as far as a red line on nukes is concerned.
A nuke on Ukraine absolutely should be considered the same as a nuke on Berlin, we made that guarantee and got them to disarm their nukes on that proviso.
We should never have disarmed Ukraine's nukes but we did and we cannot go back now.
We could give them some nukes - do the American “we are just hanging them on someone else’s planes. Not actually gifting them” thing which gets around the NPT.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Nice to see you back Malcolm, and in fine form too.
Yeah, nice to see you back @malcolmg, hope you and your good lady are well and you are having a good success rate on the gee gee's.
You're definitely on fine form too
Taz, thanks and also thanks to all other well wishers. Been in the doldrums a bit on the horses but jumping season starting which is my favourite. I got the Arc winner but that did not need any skill. Off for my covid and flu jags later today.
NEW: Officials in Downing Street are working on a U-turn on Liz Truss's tax plans, but no decisions will be made before Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng gets back from the IMF in Washington
He shouldn't bother coming back...
At best his options are going to be to agree with the PM (or really the 1922) or be sacked. He may not have a choice of options.
Gotta admit I don’t want my kids to die for Kharkiv. Bit shit for Kharkiv but then the division of Korea was pretty crap for lots of Koreans. We avoided nuclear war, however
Some are saying let's risk London being nuked and Britain being destroyed, their aim being to save Donetsk from the Donetskians.
Oh and something something, wicked bad Mr Putin.
One has to ask why would those who in other contexts appear reasonably sane say such a thing. I am not being rhetorical. I really mean that people should ask this question: why do they say it? Is it because they've reasoned it all out and decided that what they're saying is the rational conclusion to draw given the circumstances?
Were they so vocal when there was actual real genocide in Rwanda, and practically no risk of London being nuked or Britain being destroyed had Britain intervened?
The trigger for me deciding WW3 is imminent will be any NATO country flying warplanes over any of the six territories.
Depending on how things play out, I may bring things forward by changing the criterion to flying warplanes over any part of pre-September 2022 Ukraine.
Ooh, we've got another one.
Maybe maybe not but engage with the question.
Bart wants his wife and daughter to die if the Russians use a battlefield nuclear weapon in Ukraine; do you think similarly*?
*not Bart's wife and daughter, obvs! You and your family.
NEW: Officials in Downing Street are working on a U-turn on Liz Truss's tax plans, but no decisions will be made before Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng gets back from the IMF in Washington
He shouldn't bother coming back...
At best his options are going to be to agree with the PM (or really the 1922) or be sacked. He may not have a choice of options.
Does he really want to be Chancellor in name only?
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Nice to see you back Malcolm, and in fine form too.
Yeah, nice to see you back @malcolmg, hope you and your good lady are well and you are having a good success rate on the gee gee's.
You're definitely on fine form too
Taz, thanks and also thanks to all other well wishers. Been in the doldrums a bit on the horses but jumping season starting which is my favourite. I got the Arc winner but that did not need any skill. Off for my covid and flu jags later today.
Two jags?
You are John Prescott and I duck very hurriedly before that ballistic turnip gets me...
Oxford Economics @OxfordEconomics We estimate the recent surge in swap rates means that UK house prices are 37% overvalued based on mortgage affordability. Though other metrics suggest prices are less stretched, we forecast prices will drop by 10%-15% over the next two years
They have plenty to complain about. Student debt, public debt, unaffordable pensions handed out willy nilly that they will have to fund but not receive, casual labour and zero hour contracts, worsening public services, I could go on all day.
All my pensions are DC, apart from one (a company one from many years ago), in the private sector you just cannot generally get DB pensions now I haven't had a DB in 35 years, casual labour and zero hour contracts affect everyone not just millenials, public services have been crap for many years. Every year we hear the same. Student debt, do they expect low paid workers who do not go to Uni to fund their higher education ?
Yes it is tough but it was not all milk and honey for other generations. Millenials seem to think they are the only generation who have had a tough time.
I think that is a little harsh. As @rcs1000 was pointing out this morning, they are the first generation in a very long time to have poorer economic prospects than their parents. The self indulgence of older generations is leaving them one hell of a mess to clean up.
Yes, I read that from rcs1000 and I agree with it in general. Their prospects do seem to be poorer but then when I entered the world of work in the early eighties the same could have been said about my generation at the time. It did not work out that way.
I am also critical of is their view that every other generation had it easy and they are the only ones who have had a hard time.
Gotta admit I don’t want my kids to die for Kharkiv. Bit shit for Kharkiv but then the division of Korea was pretty crap for lots of Koreans. We avoided nuclear war, however
Korea was a civil war. This is rather different.
Should we have nuked the US when they invaded Iraq in 2003? What is/was the Iraqi bodycount, soldiers and civilians, in that conflict remind me again if you would.
In the Budget 2021, the government announced future changes to the corporation tax rate. From April 2023, if your taxable profits are above £250,000 then you'll be subject to an upper limit of 25%. If your profits are £50,000 or less then you'll be subject to a lower limit rate of 19%
They could revert then continually & shamelessly reannounce this bit of Sunak's plan.
19% for your hairdresser, the pub, the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker....
It would be disappointing to reinstate the national insurance rise, as that is a big hit on employees.
Some are saying let's risk London being nuked and Britain being destroyed, their aim being to save Donetsk from the Donetskians.
Oh and something something, wicked bad Mr Putin.
One has to ask why would those who in other contexts appear reasonably sane say such a thing. I am not being rhetorical. I really mean that people should ask this question: why do they say it? Is it because they've reasoned it all out and decided that what they're saying is the rational conclusion to draw given the circumstances?
Were they so vocal when there was actual real genocide in Rwanda, and practically no risk of London being nuked or Britain being destroyed had Britain intervened?
The trigger for me deciding WW3 is imminent will be any NATO country flying warplanes over any of the six territories.
Depending on how things play out, I may bring things forward by changing the criterion to flying warplanes over any part of pre-September 2022 Ukraine.
+1- it is ridiculous what we are risking for a slavic border dispute ,especially as Ukraine and Russia were one county only 30 years ago and Ukraine was a massively corrupt country(like Russia) throughout the 2010s
Some are saying let's risk London being nuked and Britain being destroyed, their aim being to save Donetsk from the Donetskians.
Oh and something something, wicked bad Mr Putin.
One has to ask why would those who in other contexts appear reasonably sane say such a thing. I am not being rhetorical. I really mean that people should ask this question: why do they say it? Is it because they've reasoned it all out and decided that what they're saying is the rational conclusion to draw given the circumstances?
Were they so vocal when there was actual real genocide in Rwanda, and practically no risk of London being nuked or Britain being destroyed had Britain intervened?
The trigger for me deciding WW3 is imminent will be any NATO country flying warplanes over any of the six territories.
Depending on how things play out, I may bring things forward by changing the criterion to flying warplanes over any part of pre-September 2022 Ukraine.
Ooh, we've got another one.
Maybe maybe not but engage with the question.
Bart wants his wife and daughter to die if the Russians use a battlefield nuclear weapon in Ukraine; do you think similarly*?
*not Bart's wife and daughter, obvs! You and your family.
I don't *want* anyone to die. And nor AIUI does Bart, no matter how frequently you misrepresent his position.
House price corrections of the scale Bart fantasises about are in the time-honoured category of "things PBers reliably predict but which never happen", along with moving the capital to York and closing the Bakerloo line.
Gotta admit I don’t want my kids to die for Kharkiv. Bit shit for Kharkiv but then the division of Korea was pretty crap for lots of Koreans. We avoided nuclear war, however
Korea was a civil war. This is rather different.
Should we have nuked the US when they invaded Iraq in 2003? What is/was the Iraqi bodycount, soldiers and civilians, in that conflict remind me again if you would.
Strawmanning again. When did I suggest that we 'nuke' Russia ?
We've argued often enough for you to have some idea of my views on this.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation.
Ukraine is not in NATO the most we should do is further sanction Russia and supply Ukraine
The good thing is NATO commanders are not answerable to you, and maybe you should read a bit more about the agreed overwhelming conventional response by NATO that has been communicated to the Kremlin including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet in the event of a nuclear weapon being used
Which we hope is a deterrent.
However if Putin does launch a nuclear weapon in Ukraine that threat will have been proved not to be a deterrent. The risk is going through with it then risks further escalation nd our going to war with an insane Russian President already having showed himself ready to use nuclear missiles
Some risks are appropriate to take.
If Putin chose to nuke Essex as a "warning" to the West to back off do you think the rest of the UK should say "OK, Essex has been nuked but we don't want to be nuked ourselves so we'd better not risk escalating this any further" or do you think we should retaliate?
No, of course not. Essex is in the UK and then we would have to launch a Trident nuclear weapon on Moscow in response.
However Ukraine is not in the UK nor even in NATO so the comparison is absurd
Its not absurd, we made certain guarantees when they disarmed their nukes so its under our nuclear shield as far as a red line on nukes is concerned.
A nuke on Ukraine absolutely should be considered the same as a nuke on Berlin, we made that guarantee and got them to disarm their nukes on that proviso.
Britain does not have a military defence alliance with Ukraine.
Yes we do.
We are signatories to the Budapest Memorandum which forbade the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
Ukraine had a larger stockpile of nuclear weaponry than the UK did a the time we entered into that agreement with them, as a result of it they disarmed their nukes and we guaranteed nukes wouldn't be used against them.
No we didn't. We said we would go to the Security Council if nukes were used against Ukraine.
That's only part of the security assurances we gave. The Security Council is part 4, if they're attacked, which we've done.
The guarantee against nukes comes in part 5 and then there's part 6 too, where we, the USA and Russia agreed not to use nukes and to 'consult with each other' if there's questions regarding the commitments which is what's happening and where we are rightly saying that we will stand by our security assurances we gave Ukraine against nuclear aggression in 1993.
Oxford Economics @OxfordEconomics We estimate the recent surge in swap rates means that UK house prices are 37% overvalued based on mortgage affordability. Though other metrics suggest prices are less stretched, we forecast prices will drop by 10%-15% over the next two years
They have plenty to complain about. Student debt, public debt, unaffordable pensions handed out willy nilly that they will have to fund but not receive, casual labour and zero hour contracts, worsening public services, I could go on all day.
Well yes, and also a 10-15% drop in house prices reduces them from eye-watering to only slightly less eye-watering.
Indeed, it would only reverse one year worth of inflation and they'd still be about 25% too high at least.
House prices should roughly halve in value from where they are now. Shame for those who bought when the bubble was at its peak, but bubbles burst.
Yes, that's my position. Though getting caught in a housing bubble engenders rather more sympathy than getting caught in something like a Bitcoin bubble. Most bubbles it's possible simply to opt out of - choose not to own a Bitcoin. People who get caught in such things have only themselves to blame. Whereas everyone needs a house, and I can remember the desperation as a non-homeowner to own something, anything before the prospect of ever having a house receded away forever (and this was back in the mid noughties, when by current levels prices seemed relatively sane).
As far as I can see the least bad solution would be 10 years of no growth at all in house prices, while inflation causes falls in real terms.
I keep pointing this out that this wont work. Because of the build cost problem. House prices have risen with build cost inflation. Build cost inflation is rising with general inflation. The experience of the last recession is that build costs did not fall significantly with house prices. If house prices fall 50%, then no houses will be built, the development industry will close down. This would be an economic catastrophe which no one would benefit from. Particularly given the collapse of the construction industry. In the meantime, population growth is likely to continue, along with the demand for housing, which will not be eased by new housing being built on any scale.
In the Budget 2021, the government announced future changes to the corporation tax rate. From April 2023, if your taxable profits are above £250,000 then you'll be subject to an upper limit of 25%. If your profits are £50,000 or less then you'll be subject to a lower limit rate of 19%
They could revert then continually & shamelessly reannounce this bit of Sunak's plan.
19% for your hairdresser, the pub, the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker....
It would be disappointing to reinstate the national insurance rise, as that is a big hit on employees.
Truss could have just junked that and kept the rest and she'd be credible.
Gotta admit I don’t want my kids to die for Kharkiv. Bit shit for Kharkiv but then the division of Korea was pretty crap for lots of Koreans. We avoided nuclear war, however
Korea was a civil war. This is rather different.
Should we have nuked the US when they invaded Iraq in 2003? What is/was the Iraqi bodycount, soldiers and civilians, in that conflict remind me again if you would.
I must say that I am really looking forward to a world where waving nukes gets you what you want.
After I finish my Violet Club replica, all I want is Mersault. And Chablis. The Pale of Calais will be absolutely my last territorial demand. Honest….
Some are saying let's risk London being nuked and Britain being destroyed, their aim being to save Donetsk from the Donetskians.
Oh and something something, wicked bad Mr Putin.
One has to ask why would those who in other contexts appear reasonably sane say such a thing. I am not being rhetorical. I really mean that people should ask this question: why do they say it? Is it because they've reasoned it all out and decided that what they're saying is the rational conclusion to draw given the circumstances?
Were they so vocal when there was actual real genocide in Rwanda, and practically no risk of London being nuked or Britain being destroyed had Britain intervened?
The trigger for me deciding WW3 is imminent will be any NATO country flying warplanes over any of the six territories.
Depending on how things play out, I may bring things forward by changing the criterion to flying warplanes over any part of pre-September 2022 Ukraine.
Ooh, we've got another one.
Maybe maybe not but engage with the question.
Bart wants his wife and daughter to die if the Russians use a battlefield nuclear weapon in Ukraine; do you think similarly*?
*not Bart's wife and daughter, obvs! You and your family.
I don't *want* anyone to die. And nor AIUI does Bart, no matter how frequently you misrepresent his position.
Well, possibly apart from Putin himself.
Bart *wants* us to retaliate with nuclear weapons if Russia uses tactical nukes in Ukraine. He didn't *want* us to retaliate with the Industrial Scale Machete Mk.IV in Rwanda, nor, in 2014 in the Crimea, nor, er, against the US in 2003 when they invaded Iraq and caused between 150,000 and 1m casualties there.
He possesses free will and didn't *want* to do anything about so many previous conflicts but now he *wants* to sacrifice himself, his wife, his daughter, you and me for this one.
What have I misrepresented and what is your position?
Some are saying let's risk London being nuked and Britain being destroyed, their aim being to save Donetsk from the Donetskians.
Oh and something something, wicked bad Mr Putin.
One has to ask why would those who in other contexts appear reasonably sane say such a thing. I am not being rhetorical. I really mean that people should ask this question: why do they say it? Is it because they've reasoned it all out and decided that what they're saying is the rational conclusion to draw given the circumstances?
Were they so vocal when there was actual real genocide in Rwanda, and practically no risk of London being nuked or Britain being destroyed had Britain intervened?
The trigger for me deciding WW3 is imminent will be any NATO country flying warplanes over any of the six territories.
Depending on how things play out, I may bring things forward by changing the criterion to flying warplanes over any part of pre-September 2022 Ukraine.
+1- it is ridiculous what we are risking for a slavic border dispute ,especially as Ukraine and Russia were one county only 30 years ago and Ukraine was a massively corrupt country(like Russia) throughout the 2010s
Yes, fuck them. They've got funny foreign names, after all. Just as we should have given Hitler a free hand in Poland.
Gotta admit I don’t want my kids to die for Kharkiv. Bit shit for Kharkiv but then the division of Korea was pretty crap for lots of Koreans. We avoided nuclear war, however
Korea was a civil war. This is rather different.
Should we have nuked the US when they invaded Iraq in 2003? What is/was the Iraqi bodycount, soldiers and civilians, in that conflict remind me again if you would.
Strawmanning again. When did I suggest that we 'nuke' Russia ?
We've argued often enough for you to have some idea of my views on this.
Not sure if I put you into the PB Warrior class or the more pragmatic one. My point is that we are selective around which conflicts we want to become involved with and it is as well to try to unpick the logic of each decision. Or lack thereof.
U-Turn talk reminds me of this from a former minister I quoted on @BBCNewsnight last night: “It is checkmate for the PM. Either she embarks on a screeching U turn on her tax cuts, which means she is finished politically, or she does nothing and then we are finished politically” https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1580537607909691392
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Nice to see you back Malcolm, and in fine form too.
Yeah, nice to see you back @malcolmg, hope you and your good lady are well and you are having a good success rate on the gee gee's.
You're definitely on fine form too
Taz, thanks and also thanks to all other well wishers. Been in the doldrums a bit on the horses but jumping season starting which is my favourite. I got the Arc winner but that did not need any skill. Off for my covid and flu jags later today.
Welcome back Malc great to have you back on here.
Fairytale for Alpinista.
There is an analogy here. Alpinista was the fairytale result and turns out she was good enough to win. Nothing however said that it was inevitable. Some on here with their view of the Ukraine war are looking at it as though, as with so many other conflicts of the past, "we" have won and then retro-fitting their opinions onto this far from certain outcome.
Ukraine are going to whup their butts for sure. The Ruskies being asked to do teh fighting are not up for it. Dying for nothing.
Some are saying let's risk London being nuked and Britain being destroyed, their aim being to save Donetsk from the Donetskians.
Oh and something something, wicked bad Mr Putin.
One has to ask why would those who in other contexts appear reasonably sane say such a thing. I am not being rhetorical. I really mean that people should ask this question: why do they say it? Is it because they've reasoned it all out and decided that what they're saying is the rational conclusion to draw given the circumstances?
Were they so vocal when there was actual real genocide in Rwanda, and practically no risk of London being nuked or Britain being destroyed had Britain intervened?
The trigger for me deciding WW3 is imminent will be any NATO country flying warplanes over any of the six territories.
Depending on how things play out, I may bring things forward by changing the criterion to flying warplanes over any part of pre-September 2022 Ukraine.
Ooh, we've got another one.
Maybe maybe not but engage with the question.
Bart wants his wife and daughter to die if the Russians use a battlefield nuclear weapon in Ukraine; do you think similarly*?
*not Bart's wife and daughter, obvs! You and your family.
I don't *want* anyone to die. And nor AIUI does Bart, no matter how frequently you misrepresent his position.
Well, possibly apart from Putin himself.
Bart *wants* us to retaliate with nuclear weapons if Russia uses tactical nukes in Ukraine. He didn't *want* us to retaliate with the Industrial Scale Machete Mk.IV in Rwanda, nor, in 2014 in the Crimea, nor, er, against the US in 2003 when they invaded Iraq and caused between 150,000 and 1m casualties there.
He possesses free will and didn't *want* to do anything about so many previous conflicts but now he *wants* to sacrifice himself, his wife, his daughter, you and me for this one.
What have I misrepresented and what is your position?
You were a soldier. Death in battle was certainly, a possible consequence of your decision to join the army. But, I don't think that means you *wanted* to die in battle. But, you accepted that there was a chance of it.
Some are saying let's risk London being nuked and Britain being destroyed, their aim being to save Donetsk from the Donetskians.
Oh and something something, wicked bad Mr Putin.
One has to ask why would those who in other contexts appear reasonably sane say such a thing. I am not being rhetorical. I really mean that people should ask this question: why do they say it? Is it because they've reasoned it all out and decided that what they're saying is the rational conclusion to draw given the circumstances?
Were they so vocal when there was actual real genocide in Rwanda, and practically no risk of London being nuked or Britain being destroyed had Britain intervened?
The trigger for me deciding WW3 is imminent will be any NATO country flying warplanes over any of the six territories.
Depending on how things play out, I may bring things forward by changing the criterion to flying warplanes over any part of pre-September 2022 Ukraine.
+1- it is ridiculous what we are risking for a slavic border dispute ,especially as Ukraine and Russia were one county only 30 years ago and Ukraine was a massively corrupt country(like Russia) throughout the 2010s
Yes, fuck them. They've got funny foreign names, after all. Just as we should have given Hitler a free hand in Poland.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation.
Ukraine is not in NATO the most we should do is further sanction Russia and supply Ukraine
The good thing is NATO commanders are not answerable to you, and maybe you should read a bit more about the agreed overwhelming conventional response by NATO that has been communicated to the Kremlin including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet in the event of a nuclear weapon being used
Which we hope is a deterrent.
However if Putin does launch a nuclear weapon in Ukraine that threat will have been proved not to be a deterrent. The risk is going through with it then risks further escalation nd our going to war with an insane Russian President already having showed himself ready to use nuclear missiles
Some risks are appropriate to take.
If Putin chose to nuke Essex as a "warning" to the West to back off do you think the rest of the UK should say "OK, Essex has been nuked but we don't want to be nuked ourselves so we'd better not risk escalating this any further" or do you think we should retaliate?
No, of course not. Essex is in the UK and then we would have to launch a Trident nuclear weapon on Moscow in response.
However Ukraine is not in the UK nor even in NATO so the comparison is absurd
Its not absurd, we made certain guarantees when they disarmed their nukes so its under our nuclear shield as far as a red line on nukes is concerned.
A nuke on Ukraine absolutely should be considered the same as a nuke on Berlin, we made that guarantee and got them to disarm their nukes on that proviso.
Britain does not have a military defence alliance with Ukraine.
Yes we do.
We are signatories to the Budapest Memorandum which forbade the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
Ukraine had a larger stockpile of nuclear weaponry than the UK did a the time we entered into that agreement with them, as a result of it they disarmed their nukes and we guaranteed nukes wouldn't be used against them.
No we didn't. We said we would go to the Security Council if nukes were used against Ukraine.
That's only part of the security assurances we gave. The Security Council is part 4, if they're attacked, which we've done.
The guarantee against nukes comes in part 5 and then there's part 6 too, where we, the USA and Russia agreed not to use nukes and to 'consult with each other' if there's questions regarding the commitments which is what's happening and where we are rightly saying that we will stand by our security assurances we gave Ukraine against nuclear aggression in 1993.
So we should.
And nowhere does it give any commitment whatsoever about retaliation.
You said this: "A nuke on Ukraine absolutely should be considered the same as a nuke on Berlin, we made that guarantee and got them to disarm their nukes on that proviso".
Which is rubbish. And found nowhere in the Budapest Memoranda.
Oxford Economics @OxfordEconomics We estimate the recent surge in swap rates means that UK house prices are 37% overvalued based on mortgage affordability. Though other metrics suggest prices are less stretched, we forecast prices will drop by 10%-15% over the next two years
Oxford Economics @OxfordEconomics We estimate the recent surge in swap rates means that UK house prices are 37% overvalued based on mortgage affordability. Though other metrics suggest prices are less stretched, we forecast prices will drop by 10%-15% over the next two years
They have plenty to complain about. Student debt, public debt, unaffordable pensions handed out willy nilly that they will have to fund but not receive, casual labour and zero hour contracts, worsening public services, I could go on all day.
Well yes, and also a 10-15% drop in house prices reduces them from eye-watering to only slightly less eye-watering.
Indeed, it would only reverse one year worth of inflation and they'd still be about 25% too high at least.
House prices should roughly halve in value from where they are now. Shame for those who bought when the bubble was at its peak, but bubbles burst.
Yes, that's my position. Though getting caught in a housing bubble engenders rather more sympathy than getting caught in something like a Bitcoin bubble. Most bubbles it's possible simply to opt out of - choose not to own a Bitcoin. People who get caught in such things have only themselves to blame. Whereas everyone needs a house, and I can remember the desperation as a non-homeowner to own something, anything before the prospect of ever having a house receded away forever (and this was back in the mid noughties, when by current levels prices seemed relatively sane).
As far as I can see the least bad solution would be 10 years of no growth at all in house prices, while inflation causes falls in real terms.
I keep pointing this out that this wont work. Because of the build cost problem. House prices have risen with build cost inflation. Build cost inflation is rising with general inflation. The experience of the last recession is that build costs did not fall significantly with house prices. If house prices fall 50%, then no houses will be built, the development industry will close down. This would be an economic catastrophe which no one would benefit from. Particularly given the collapse of the construction industry. In the meantime, population growth is likely to continue, along with the demand for housing, which will not be eased by new housing being built on any scale.
The majority of house building costs are labour.
The cost of labour is rightly bound to the cost of… housing. Particularly rented accommodation.
Which is why the regional cost of house building varies so much.
Some are saying let's risk London being nuked and Britain being destroyed, their aim being to save Donetsk from the Donetskians.
Oh and something something, wicked bad Mr Putin.
One has to ask why would those who in other contexts appear reasonably sane say such a thing. I am not being rhetorical. I really mean that people should ask this question: why do they say it? Is it because they've reasoned it all out and decided that what they're saying is the rational conclusion to draw given the circumstances?
Were they so vocal when there was actual real genocide in Rwanda, and practically no risk of London being nuked or Britain being destroyed had Britain intervened?
The trigger for me deciding WW3 is imminent will be any NATO country flying warplanes over any of the six territories.
Depending on how things play out, I may bring things forward by changing the criterion to flying warplanes over any part of pre-September 2022 Ukraine.
+1- it is ridiculous what we are risking for a slavic border dispute ,especially as Ukraine and Russia were one county only 30 years ago and Ukraine was a massively corrupt country(like Russia) throughout the 2010s
Yes, fuck them. They've got funny foreign names, after all. Just as we should have given Hitler a free hand in Poland.
Hitler did not have nukes
Hitler killed orders of magnitude greater numbers of people than Putin can.
Some are saying let's risk London being nuked and Britain being destroyed, their aim being to save Donetsk from the Donetskians.
Oh and something something, wicked bad Mr Putin.
One has to ask why would those who in other contexts appear reasonably sane say such a thing. I am not being rhetorical. I really mean that people should ask this question: why do they say it? Is it because they've reasoned it all out and decided that what they're saying is the rational conclusion to draw given the circumstances?
Were they so vocal when there was actual real genocide in Rwanda, and practically no risk of London being nuked or Britain being destroyed had Britain intervened?
The trigger for me deciding WW3 is imminent will be any NATO country flying warplanes over any of the six territories.
Depending on how things play out, I may bring things forward by changing the criterion to flying warplanes over any part of pre-September 2022 Ukraine.
+1- it is ridiculous what we are risking for a slavic border dispute ,especially as Ukraine and Russia were one county only 30 years ago and Ukraine was a massively corrupt country(like Russia) throughout the 2010s
Yes, fuck them. They've got funny foreign names, after all. Just as we should have given Hitler a free hand in Poland.
Question to you also - should we have intervened against the US when they invaded Iraq in 2003?
Some are saying let's risk London being nuked and Britain being destroyed, their aim being to save Donetsk from the Donetskians.
Oh and something something, wicked bad Mr Putin.
One has to ask why would those who in other contexts appear reasonably sane say such a thing. I am not being rhetorical. I really mean that people should ask this question: why do they say it? Is it because they've reasoned it all out and decided that what they're saying is the rational conclusion to draw given the circumstances?
Were they so vocal when there was actual real genocide in Rwanda, and practically no risk of London being nuked or Britain being destroyed had Britain intervened?
The trigger for me deciding WW3 is imminent will be any NATO country flying warplanes over any of the six territories.
Depending on how things play out, I may bring things forward by changing the criterion to flying warplanes over any part of pre-September 2022 Ukraine.
+1- it is ridiculous what we are risking for a slavic border dispute ,especially as Ukraine and Russia were one county only 30 years ago and Ukraine was a massively corrupt country(like Russia) throughout the 2010s
Yes, fuck them. They've got funny foreign names, after all. Just as we should have given Hitler a free hand in Poland.
Question to you also - should we have intervened against the US when they invaded Iraq in 2003?
Conservative MPs are talking seriously about whether Liz Truss should be ousted as their leader, barely more than a month after she took office.
Her performance last night at a meeting with the 1922 Committee of Tory backbenchers was seen, by common consensus, as disastrous.
One backbench MP told The Times this morning that the mood was “deadly” for the prime minister. Truss is under pressure to change course with her economic plans. Senior advisers have warned the prime minister that it is “no longer credible” to press ahead with big tax cuts without risking a financial crisis.
The MP noted that under the leadership rules at present Truss is immune from a challenge for her first year. However, they added: “If the ’22 changed the rules, we’d hit the threshold for a confidence vote in a couple of hours.”
The backbencher did not support Truss for the leadership, but just a week ago said that they believed their colleagues were overreacting to the mini-budget and that she should be given time to turn her leadership around.
Oxford Economics @OxfordEconomics We estimate the recent surge in swap rates means that UK house prices are 37% overvalued based on mortgage affordability. Though other metrics suggest prices are less stretched, we forecast prices will drop by 10%-15% over the next two years
They have plenty to complain about. Student debt, public debt, unaffordable pensions handed out willy nilly that they will have to fund but not receive, casual labour and zero hour contracts, worsening public services, I could go on all day.
All my pensions are DC, apart from one (a company one from many years ago), in the private sector you just cannot generally get DB pensions now I haven't had a DB in 35 years, casual labour and zero hour contracts affect everyone not just millenials, public services have been crap for many years. Every year we hear the same. Student debt, do they expect low paid workers who do not go to Uni to fund their higher education ?
Yes it is tough but it was not all milk and honey for other generations. Millenials seem to think they are the only generation who have had a tough time.
I think that is a little harsh. As @rcs1000 was pointing out this morning, they are the first generation in a very long time to have poorer economic prospects than their parents. The self indulgence of older generations is leaving them one hell of a mess to clean up.
Yes, I read that from rcs1000 and I agree with it in general. Their prospects do seem to be poorer but then when I entered the world of work in the early eighties the same could have been said about my generation at the time. It did not work out that way.
I am also critical of is their view that every other generation had it easy and they are the only ones who have had a hard time.
100% agree. It's great fun on here reading the vitriol of milleniums about the easy life had by those before them. My first flat at 15k was a huge struggle to buy and afford with loan limits and interest rates sky high. Of course the furniture was shabby , second hand and not chic while the bare boards were down to no dosh for a carpet not a trendy cool vibe at all- actually quite cold in the winter. I could go on but the self-absorbed whingers aren't interested. How many years since anyone got a penny of interest on their savings so that people could have cheap mortgage rates?
Gotta admit I don’t want my kids to die for Kharkiv. Bit shit for Kharkiv but then the division of Korea was pretty crap for lots of Koreans. We avoided nuclear war, however
Korea was a civil war. This is rather different.
Should we have nuked the US when they invaded Iraq in 2003? What is/was the Iraqi bodycount, soldiers and civilians, in that conflict remind me again if you would.
I must say that I am really looking forward to a world where waving nukes gets you what you want.
After I finish my Violet Club replica, all I want is Mersault. And Chablis. The Pale of Calais will be absolutely my last territorial demand. Honest….
{opens map of France}
Actually…
Nukes is just a big weapon. Nations have used all kinds of weapons to achieve their various aims in history. Crimea was annexed in 2014 and we decided to invoke the Budapest Memoranda and nothing happened.
This is not so much a small war in a faraway place as a regional conflict.
Will Putin march on Poland and Germany after he's done with Ukraine? I don't know but we have actual agreements in place with those countries (albeit as we discussed endlessly vs Brexit Nato Article 5 commits no one to anything). So maybe he will and we will have to assess the situation if or when it happens.
As for the slippery slope fallacy...well, the clue's in the name.
Some are saying let's risk London being nuked and Britain being destroyed, their aim being to save Donetsk from the Donetskians.
Oh and something something, wicked bad Mr Putin.
One has to ask why would those who in other contexts appear reasonably sane say such a thing. I am not being rhetorical. I really mean that people should ask this question: why do they say it? Is it because they've reasoned it all out and decided that what they're saying is the rational conclusion to draw given the circumstances?
Were they so vocal when there was actual real genocide in Rwanda, and practically no risk of London being nuked or Britain being destroyed had Britain intervened?
The trigger for me deciding WW3 is imminent will be any NATO country flying warplanes over any of the six territories.
Depending on how things play out, I may bring things forward by changing the criterion to flying warplanes over any part of pre-September 2022 Ukraine.
+1- it is ridiculous what we are risking for a slavic border dispute ,especially as Ukraine and Russia were one county only 30 years ago and Ukraine was a massively corrupt country(like Russia) throughout the 2010s
Yes, fuck them. They've got funny foreign names, after all. Just as we should have given Hitler a free hand in Poland.
Question to you also - should we have intervened against the US when they invaded Iraq in 2003?
No.
Hypocrite. Or rather, not hypocrite, but pragmatist. (Perhaps also hypocrite.)
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Nice to see you back Malcolm, and in fine form too.
And as big an ignorant prejudiced twat as ever.
You're a bit harsh on yourself there Malc. You know lots about, for example, horse racing.
Edit - was that a blockquote SNAFU or is my illness just making me feel confused?
I assume you have been driven mad by the gammons like foreskin
You've been gone for 3 months.
This is how you decide to "relaunch" yourself?
You cannot change perfection.
I am delighted you are back. It reminds people just how small brained, juvenile, pathetic and thuggish the average follower of the man who was referred to as a "sex pest and objectionable bully" by his own QC actually are.
I bet you are going a bit gammon now eh Malc? Will you get complaints from the neighbours next door in your semi-detached bungalow as you start snarling and swearing and bursting out of your vest like an ugly overweight pale white incredible hulk? Will your long-suffering wife have to tell you to calm down and take another blood pressure pill, or is she not talking to you after you lost your pension money on the horses?
LOL, confirms why I left for a while. Having to suffer morons like you is tough. Just trying to repeat my description of you is very tame and I chuckle at your poor perception skills. Too thick to read posts and understand the reality of posters due to your bigoted arrogance of mistakenly believing you are something special rather than something distasteful picked up on someone's shoe. Just for guidance , there are no semi's where I reside and my wife encourages me to polish the porsche. Also I am well able to lose £5 on teh horse's now and again without bankrupting myself which even a lowlife idiot like yourself should be able to comprehend. Now head off back to your Jeremy Kyle show sunshine.
Gotta admit I don’t want my kids to die for Kharkiv. Bit shit for Kharkiv but then the division of Korea was pretty crap for lots of Koreans. We avoided nuclear war, however
Korea was a civil war. This is rather different.
Should we have nuked the US when they invaded Iraq in 2003? What is/was the Iraqi bodycount, soldiers and civilians, in that conflict remind me again if you would.
Strawmanning again. When did I suggest that we 'nuke' Russia ?
We've argued often enough for you to have some idea of my views on this.
Not sure if I put you into the PB Warrior class or the more pragmatic one. My point is that we are selective around which conflicts we want to become involved with and it is as well to try to unpick the logic of each decision. Or lack thereof.
Sure - and I was replying to Leon, who appears to be proposing we impose a settlement on Ukraine, pointing out that acceptable settlements to civil wars aren't going to be the same as those to wars of aggression.
Gotta admit I don’t want my kids to die for Kharkiv. Bit shit for Kharkiv but then the division of Korea was pretty crap for lots of Koreans. We avoided nuclear war, however
Korea was a civil war. This is rather different.
Should we have nuked the US when they invaded Iraq in 2003? What is/was the Iraqi bodycount, soldiers and civilians, in that conflict remind me again if you would.
Strawmanning again. When did I suggest that we 'nuke' Russia ?
We've argued often enough for you to have some idea of my views on this.
Not sure if I put you into the PB Warrior class or the more pragmatic one. My point is that we are selective around which conflicts we want to become involved with and it is as well to try to unpick the logic of each decision. Or lack thereof.
Sure - and I was replying to Leon, who appears to be proposing we impose a settlement on Ukraine, pointing out that acceptable settlements to civil wars aren't going to be the same as those to wars of aggression.
Ah. Apols. I think I have said that the only people in a position to decide they want a negotiated settlement is Ukraine itself.
A further interesting point (and I think that's me done for today so I won't be going on to the new thread) is that some nations have negotiated settlements imposed upon them when they probably don't want them - eg the Palestinians.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
We have had this debate many times before and the only result is that it proves you Eurofanatics don't understand basic English and think it is possible to change the meaning of words haphazardly to suit your political view. It is the height of idiocy.
Well Richard, I am definitely not a "Eurofanatic" as you put it, even though I believe Brexit itself was the height of idiocy. You so desperately bang on about sovereignty because you, in spite of being a more intelligent Brexiteer (there are a few) were gulled by the non-argument. We were sovereign before Brexit, we are sovereign afterward. The remaining 27 nations are sovereign nations and are recognised as such by the UN. To pretend otherwise is not quite the height of idiocy, because that monumental ground is occupied by those who still believe Brexit was worthwhile.
I wasn't gulled by the argument. It was an argument I myself formulated many years ago before Brexit was ever even a concept. Where you and Doug for all his legal training are wrong is that you can only support your argument by changing the accepted meaning of words.
Sovereignty is defined as the exercising of supreme power or authority. There is no possibility of arguing that we had this whilst we remained a member of the EU once the system of QMV had been adopted. We had ceded Sovereignty to a higher authority and this were no longer Sovereign.
The old canard that we were Sovereign because we could leave does not hold. It was possible for a slave in the US to buy themselves out of slavery. But the fact that they could theoretically do this, or that some did on occasion actually achieve this, does not make them any less slaves prior to that time. This is not to claim that membership of the EU was akin to slavery. That is the normal straw man attack made on those using this argument. It is an example of how one can change one's status within a system but doing so does not retrospectively alter the original status prior to the change.
What you might argue - and many pro-EU authorities have done so - is that the whole concept of sovereignty is a myth or is undesirable. This has been an argument put forward by the LSE, by Tony Blair in his attempts to end the era of the Westphalian system, and by the EU themselves who flit back and forth between saying that Sovereignty is 'polled' or 'shared' and saying that it is an outdated and dangerous concept - along with the idea of States themselves. All these different groups have accepted that EU membership have eroded or removed Sovereignty as it traditionally defined but they argue that this is a good and necessary thing.
That is where the real argument should be centred.
Gotta admit I don’t want my kids to die for Kharkiv. Bit shit for Kharkiv but then the division of Korea was pretty crap for lots of Koreans. We avoided nuclear war, however
Its not simply for Kharkiv though, its for ensuring we live in a world were nuclear weapons aren't routinely used in anger, which would make escalation to total nuclear war almost inevitable.
They invaded Kharkiv with conventional weapons, and we didn't retaliate directly with force. That line is there.
But since the 1950s its been a clear principle that nuclear weapons aren't used in war and if they are the other side has their own nukes and will respond. In that time both sides have lost wars and been humiliated, nuclear weapons aren't a weapon to avoid humiliation, they're a weapon to assure destruction.
The USSR lost in Afghanistan, as did the USA. Both sides were unable to win a total victory in Korea. The USA lost in Vietnam. Never though did any war escalate to a nuclear response, and we are right to guarantee that doesn't happen today - and if Putin is MAD enough to press the red button, he needs to know we're prepared to retaliate.
And a conventional retaliation to sink his fleet, and saying we are prepared to have a retaliation with Trident, is a bit of a distinction without a difference. We haven't engaged conventionally because we want to avoid nuclear war, if we retaliate conventionally we are saying we are prepared to risk that and see the conflict now go nuclear and ultimately to Trident, if it comes to that.
You are getting a touch high on your own supply with all this "We" and "Trident". The UK is a not unimportant player in this war but neither is it a key one. The most important thing is how the Biden administration handles it. Thus far they've done well imo.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Nice to see you back Malcolm, and in fine form too.
Yeah, nice to see you back @malcolmg, hope you and your good lady are well and you are having a good success rate on the gee gee's.
You're definitely on fine form too
Taz, thanks and also thanks to all other well wishers. Been in the doldrums a bit on the horses but jumping season starting which is my favourite. I got the Arc winner but that did not need any skill. Off for my covid and flu jags later today.
Two Jags, like Prescott?
I keep wondering where the use of 'jag' for vaccination comes from in Scotland?
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Nice to see you back Malcolm, and in fine form too.
Yeah, nice to see you back @malcolmg, hope you and your good lady are well and you are having a good success rate on the gee gee's.
You're definitely on fine form too
Taz, thanks and also thanks to all other well wishers. Been in the doldrums a bit on the horses but jumping season starting which is my favourite. I got the Arc winner but that did not need any skill. Off for my covid and flu jags later today.
Two Jags, like Prescott?
I keep wondering where the use of 'jag' for vaccination comes from in Scotland?
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
We have had this debate many times before and the only result is that it proves you Eurofanatics don't understand basic English and think it is possible to change the meaning of words haphazardly to suit your political view. It is the height of idiocy.
Well Richard, I am definitely not a "Eurofanatic" as you put it, even though I believe Brexit itself was the height of idiocy. You so desperately bang on about sovereignty because you, in spite of being a more intelligent Brexiteer (there are a few) were gulled by the non-argument. We were sovereign before Brexit, we are sovereign afterward. The remaining 27 nations are sovereign nations and are recognised as such by the UN. To pretend otherwise is not quite the height of idiocy, because that monumental ground is occupied by those who still believe Brexit was worthwhile.
I wasn't gulled by the argument. It was an argument I myself formulated many years ago before Brexit was ever even a concept. Where you and Doug for all his legal training are wrong is that you can only support your argument by changing the accepted meaning of words.
Sovereignty is defined as the exercising of supreme power or authority. There is no possibility of arguing that we had this whilst we remained a member of the EU once the system of QMV had been adopted. We had ceded Sovereignty to a higher authority and this were no longer Sovereign.
The old canard that we were Sovereign because we could leave does not hold. It was possible for a slave in the US to buy themselves out of slavery. But the fact that they could theoretically do this, or that some did on occasion actually achieve this, does not make them any less slaves prior to that time. This is not to claim that membership of the EU was akin to slavery. That is the normal straw man attack made on those using this argument. It is an example of how one can change one's status within a system but doing so does not retrospectively alter the original status prior to the change.
What you might argue - and many pro-EU authorities have done so - is that the whole concept of sovereignty is a myth or is undesirable. This has been an argument put forward by the LSE, by Tony Blair in his attempts to end the era of the Westphalian system, and by the EU themselves who flit back and forth between saying that Sovereignty is 'polled' or 'shared' and saying that it is an outdated and dangerous concept - along with the idea of States themselves. All these different groups have accepted that EU membership have eroded or removed Sovereignty as it traditionally defined but they argue that this is a good and necessary thing.
That is where the real argument should be centred.
QMV is not inconsistent with being Sovereign. Nations voluntarily agree it knowing somethings will go against them, but others for them and it is a net win for them all over the course of numerous decisions and avoids stalemate. If not they can choose to leave. It is the same sort of thing as pre-agreeing arbitration in a contract. You might not like the result, but you agree to it to avoid deadlock. It is sensible and you agree beforehand what requires majority voting and what has to voted in favour by all.
Sky saying discussions are underway way to reverse the corporation tax and implement a dividend tax
If this happens Kwarteng has to resign
Truss will be next if matters do not improve
I still can’t see how Truss gets through
The only thing that may reprieve her is her mps who cannot agree her successor
The conservative party is in a complete mess and so divided they will be in opposition in 2 years no matter what they do, but hopefully they will at least provide an opposition to labour
More hopefully, the LibDems will, in their absence.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Nice to see you back Malcolm, and in fine form too.
Yeah, nice to see you back @malcolmg, hope you and your good lady are well and you are having a good success rate on the gee gee's.
You're definitely on fine form too
Taz, thanks and also thanks to all other well wishers. Been in the doldrums a bit on the horses but jumping season starting which is my favourite. I got the Arc winner but that did not need any skill. Off for my covid and flu jags later today.
Two Jags, like Prescott?
I keep wondering where the use of 'jag' for vaccination comes from in Scotland?
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Nice to see you back Malcolm, and in fine form too.
Yeah, nice to see you back @malcolmg, hope you and your good lady are well and you are having a good success rate on the gee gee's.
You're definitely on fine form too
Taz, thanks and also thanks to all other well wishers. Been in the doldrums a bit on the horses but jumping season starting which is my favourite. I got the Arc winner but that did not need any skill. Off for my covid and flu jags later today.
Two Jags, like Prescott?
I keep wondering where the use of 'jag' for vaccination comes from in Scotland?
Well for sharp objects we would say that is "jaggy" or if we prick our finger we would say I "jagged" my finger. So standard usage where you penetrate skin with a sharp object. Be too poncy to say I pricked my finger and a Jab is where you are punching someone a la boxing
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Nice to see you back Malcolm, and in fine form too.
And as big an ignorant prejudiced twat as ever.
You're a bit harsh on yourself there Malc. You know lots about, for example, horse racing.
Edit - was that a blockquote SNAFU or is my illness just making me feel confused?
I assume you have been driven mad by the gammons like foreskin
You've been gone for 3 months.
This is how you decide to "relaunch" yourself?
You cannot change perfection.
I am delighted you are back. It reminds people just how small brained, juvenile, pathetic and thuggish the average follower of the man who was referred to as a "sex pest and objectionable bully" by his own QC actually are.
I bet you are going a bit gammon now eh Malc? Will you get complaints from the neighbours next door in your semi-detached bungalow as you start snarling and swearing and bursting out of your vest like an ugly overweight pale white incredible hulk? Will your long-suffering wife have to tell you to calm down and take another blood pressure pill, or is she not talking to you after you lost your pension money on the horses?
You are like a broken record, so useless you are down to pasting the same crap thing over and over again. Go and look for your brain.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation.
Ukraine is not in NATO the most we should do is further sanction Russia and supply Ukraine
The good thing is NATO commanders are not answerable to you, and maybe you should read a bit more about the agreed overwhelming conventional response by NATO that has been communicated to the Kremlin including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet in the event of a nuclear weapon being used
Which we hope is a deterrent.
However if Putin does launch a nuclear weapon in Ukraine that threat will have been proved not to be a deterrent. The risk is going through with it then risks further escalation nd our going to war with an insane Russian President already having showed himself ready to use nuclear missiles
Some risks are appropriate to take.
If Putin chose to nuke Essex as a "warning" to the West to back off do you think the rest of the UK should say "OK, Essex has been nuked but we don't want to be nuked ourselves so we'd better not risk escalating this any further" or do you think we should retaliate?
No, of course not. Essex is in the UK and then we would have to launch a Trident nuclear weapon on Moscow in response.
However Ukraine is not in the UK nor even in NATO so the comparison is absurd
Its not absurd, we made certain guarantees when they disarmed their nukes so its under our nuclear shield as far as a red line on nukes is concerned.
A nuke on Ukraine absolutely should be considered the same as a nuke on Berlin, we made that guarantee and got them to disarm their nukes on that proviso.
We should never have disarmed Ukraine's nukes but we did and we cannot go back now.
I shudder to think how 2014 would have played out had there been nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
Comments
Yes it is tough but it was not all milk and honey for other generations. Millenials seem to think they are the only generation who have had a tough time.
They invaded Kharkiv with conventional weapons, and we didn't retaliate directly with force. That line is there.
But since the 1950s its been a clear principle that nuclear weapons aren't used in war and if they are the other side has their own nukes and will respond. In that time both sides have lost wars and been humiliated, nuclear weapons aren't a weapon to avoid humiliation, they're a weapon to assure destruction.
The USSR lost in Afghanistan, as did the USA. Both sides were unable to win a total victory in Korea. The USA lost in Vietnam. Never though did any war escalate to a nuclear response, and we are right to guarantee that doesn't happen today - and if Putin is MAD enough to press the red button, he needs to know we're prepared to retaliate.
And a conventional retaliation to sink his fleet, and saying we are prepared to have a retaliation with Trident, is a bit of a distinction without a difference. We haven't engaged conventionally because we want to avoid nuclear war, if we retaliate conventionally we are saying we are prepared to risk that and see the conflict now go nuclear and ultimately to Trident, if it comes to that.
If Russia can win with conventional weapons then we won't directly fight, that's been the unwritten rule in all conflicts from Korea onwards. But if they can't, then they must withdraw, just as all sides lost in Afghanistan, just as the USA lost in Vietnam etc
Fairytale for Alpinista.
There is an analogy here. Alpinista was the fairytale result and turns out she was good enough to win. Nothing however said that it was inevitable. Some on here with their view of the Ukraine war are looking at it as though, as with so many other conflicts of the past, "we" have won and then retro-fitting their opinions onto this far from certain outcome.
Mind you we keep taking the pills and consider ourselves very fortunate
This is why I think there are exceptions for lawyers and barristers where they don't have any significant professional consequences for motoring convictions.
This is not new. Most laws for the whole of human civilisation have not worked very well, there is a good book about this I am reading at the moment - the rule of laws by Fernanda Pirie.
We are signatories to the Budapest Memorandum which forbade the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
Ukraine had a larger stockpile of nuclear weaponry than the UK did a the time we entered into that agreement with them, as a result of it they disarmed their nukes and we guaranteed nukes wouldn't be used against them.
House prices should roughly halve in value from where they are now. Shame for those who bought when the bubble was at its peak, but bubbles burst.
I bet you are going a bit gammon now eh Malc? Will you get complaints from the neighbours next door in your semi-detached bungalow as you start snarling and swearing and bursting out of your vest like an ugly overweight pale white incredible hulk? Will your long-suffering wife have to tell you to calm down and take another blood pressure pill, or is she not talking to you after you lost your pension money on the horses?
- China and India freak out and apply sanctions
- Russia go oh shit and don't do anything else
- NATO does nothing
...but that relies on what China and India would do in this hypothetical situation. At the opposite end of the scale, the Chinese might instead say, "OK cool, the new rule is that big countries can use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries in their sphere of interest", in which case NATO basically has to hit Russia hard enough to make them regret playing the nuclear card and dissuade other countries from doing it in future, at the risk of escalating and blowing up the world.
What I think is perhaps unusual is that it feels to me like younger people are being harmed by the governments overwhelmingly elected by older generations.
He shouldn't bother coming back...
Similarly London drivers are oblivious to bus lane active times. Regularly you will see cars queuing up on a Sunday for 10 minutes to go through one set of lights, with a completely empty bus lane next to it that they could be using instead. I have no idea what they think the times and days on the signs mean.
Though getting caught in a housing bubble engenders rather more sympathy than getting caught in something like a Bitcoin bubble. Most bubbles it's possible simply to opt out of - choose not to own a Bitcoin. People who get caught in such things have only themselves to blame. Whereas everyone needs a house, and I can remember the desperation as a non-homeowner to own something, anything before the prospect of ever having a house receded away forever (and this was back in the mid noughties, when by current levels prices seemed relatively sane).
As far as I can see the least bad solution would be 10 years of no growth at all in house prices, while inflation causes falls in real terms.
This is rather different.
Bart wants his wife and daughter to die if the Russians use a battlefield nuclear weapon in Ukraine; do you think similarly*?
*not Bart's wife and daughter, obvs! You and your family.
He is now Rishi's bitch.
You are John Prescott and I duck very hurriedly before that ballistic turnip gets me...
I am also critical of is their view that every other generation had it easy and they are the only ones who have had a hard time.
‘Liz Truss has two problems: she’s not liked and secondly she is regarded as incompetent’
-John Curtice
#bbcr4WATO
Well, possibly apart from Putin himself.
When did I suggest that we 'nuke' Russia ?
We've argued often enough for you to have some idea of my views on this.
The guarantee against nukes comes in part 5 and then there's part 6 too, where we, the USA and Russia agreed not to use nukes and to 'consult with each other' if there's questions regarding the commitments which is what's happening and where we are rightly saying that we will stand by our security assurances we gave Ukraine against nuclear aggression in 1993.
So we should.
House prices have risen with build cost inflation. Build cost inflation is rising with general inflation.
The experience of the last recession is that build costs did not fall significantly with house prices.
If house prices fall 50%, then no houses will be built, the development industry will close down.
This would be an economic catastrophe which no one would benefit from. Particularly given the collapse of the construction industry.
In the meantime, population growth is likely to continue, along with the demand for housing, which will not be eased by new housing being built on any scale.
But, she decided to indulge in fantasy economics.
After I finish my Violet Club replica, all I want is Mersault. And Chablis. The Pale of Calais will be absolutely my last territorial demand. Honest….
{opens map of France}
Actually…
He possesses free will and didn't *want* to do anything about so many previous conflicts but now he *wants* to sacrifice himself, his wife, his daughter, you and me for this one.
What have I misrepresented and what is your position?
https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1580537607909691392
You said this: "A nuke on Ukraine absolutely should be considered the same as a nuke on Berlin, we made that guarantee and got them to disarm their nukes on that proviso".
Which is rubbish. And found nowhere in the Budapest Memoranda.
The cost of labour is rightly bound to the cost of… housing. Particularly rented accommodation.
Which is why the regional cost of house building varies so much.
This is not so much a small war in a faraway place as a regional conflict.
Will Putin march on Poland and Germany after he's done with Ukraine? I don't know but we have actual agreements in place with those countries (albeit as we discussed endlessly vs Brexit Nato Article 5 commits no one to anything). So maybe he will and we will have to assess the situation if or when it happens.
As for the slippery slope fallacy...well, the clue's in the name.
Just for guidance , there are no semi's where I reside and my wife encourages me to polish the porsche. Also I am well able to lose £5 on teh horse's now and again without bankrupting myself which even a lowlife idiot like yourself should be able to comprehend.
Now head off back to your Jeremy Kyle show sunshine.
A further interesting point (and I think that's me done for today so I won't be going on to the new thread) is that some nations have negotiated settlements imposed upon them when they probably don't want them - eg the Palestinians.
Sovereignty is defined as the exercising of supreme power or authority. There is no possibility of arguing that we had this whilst we remained a member of the EU once the system of QMV had been adopted. We had ceded Sovereignty to a higher authority and this were no longer Sovereign.
The old canard that we were Sovereign because we could leave does not hold. It was possible for a slave in the US to buy themselves out of slavery. But the fact that they could theoretically do this, or that some did on occasion actually achieve this, does not make them any less slaves prior to that time. This is not to claim that membership of the EU was akin to slavery. That is the normal straw man attack made on those using this argument. It is an example of how one can change one's status within a system but doing so does not retrospectively alter the original status prior to the change.
What you might argue - and many pro-EU authorities have done so - is that the whole concept of sovereignty is a myth or is undesirable. This has been an argument put forward by the LSE, by Tony Blair in his attempts to end the era of the Westphalian system, and by the EU themselves who flit back and forth between saying that Sovereignty is 'polled' or 'shared' and saying that it is an outdated and dangerous concept - along with the idea of States themselves. All these different groups have accepted that EU membership have eroded or removed Sovereignty as it traditionally defined but they argue that this is a good and necessary thing.
That is where the real argument should be centred.
Is what Scots call a jag.