Not clear when it was taken? But the Scottish changes are interesting - as it's MRP and thefore not merely national swing. it does suggest some significant SNP-Lab movement (10 Labour gains).
Can she become enough of a goner to evade PMQs on Wednesday? She surely can't hand in notice to Chas without recommending a successor?
She resigns as leader but not as PM, whilst the Tories elect a new leader. Chas will then invite whoever is elected leader to form an administration. Truss would resign as PM minutes before the new leader arrives at Buck House.
So Ben Wallace becomes PM but in a Chairman of the Board type of way (but focussing on Ukraine) but having strong CEO, COO, and CFO.
So Sunak, Mordaunt, and Hunt.
Wallace has never given any indication he has any desire to be PM though?
Sunak was rejected by party members and he has to take his share of responsibility in the whole leadership election fiasco and Truss becoming PM in any case.
Which leaves us with Penny. She should become PM, Hunt stays as Chancellor and Sunak can be Deputy PM if that's grandiose enough for him?
Big danger though with Mordaunt. If she fails she will become the 3rd consecutive female pm to be a failure in office...not a good look for feminism
All political careers end in...
Well yes even thatchers did in the end after her many achievements...but theres no doubt May is in the bottom rank of pms and Truss is right at the bottom...so 3 female pms one great success and 2 failures overall a mixed record
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
I see you've made the mistake of believing Russian propagandists in the west. If you listen to what actual Russian propagandists say, they are very clear that they regard Ukraine as their land. It was never about having a buffer state between them and NATO.
I've never understood why Russia needs a buffer state? It seems much more reasonable that Ukraine should have a buffer state, after all, they're the people who have been most recently invaded. Maybe some part of Western Russia should be carved off, renamed, and its government should be stripped of the power to enter into partnerships or alliances, so that Ukrainians can feel more comfortable.
Sounds ridiculous, right?
I don’t know; it sounds like a plausible outcome from the war.
Doing the Cold War, various Tankies would tell people that, of course Russia *had* to have control of Eastern Europe, after their terrible suffering in WWII.
I always though - "Fuck me, that's one hell of a comfort blanket".
Were all the other eastern Europeans living the life of riley between 1939-45?
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
I see you've made the mistake of believing Russian propagandists in the west. If you listen to what actual Russian propagandists say, they are very clear that they regard Ukraine as their land. It was never about having a buffer state between them and NATO.
I've never understood why Russia needs a buffer state? It seems much more reasonable that Ukraine should have a buffer state, after all, they're the people who have been most recently invaded. Maybe some part of Western Russia should be carved off, renamed, and its government should be stripped of the power to enter into partnerships or alliances, so that Ukrainians can feel more comfortable.
Sounds ridiculous, right?
I don’t know; it sounds like a plausible outcome from the war.
Doing the Cold War, various Tankies would tell people that, of course Russia *had* to have control of Eastern Europe, after their terrible suffering in WWII.
I always though - "Fuck me, that's one hell of a comfort blanket".
A view that seems to have been shared by much of the German establishment.
I remember being called a Fascist, as a teenager, because I said that Poland should have free, multi party elections - this was pre 1989.
I live not far from the Polish Center in Hammersmith. Seeing the queues of people waiting to vote in Polish elections - which sometimes stretched round the corner into Ravenscourt Park - was a combination of surreal and awesome.
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
I see you've made the mistake of believing Russian propagandists in the west. If you listen to what actual Russian propagandists say, they are very clear that they regard Ukraine as their land. It was never about having a buffer state between them and NATO.
I've never understood why Russia needs a buffer state? It seems much more reasonable that Ukraine should have a buffer state, after all, they're the people who have been most recently invaded. Maybe some part of Western Russia should be carved off, renamed, and its government should be stripped of the power to enter into partnerships or alliances, so that Ukrainians can feel more comfortable.
Sounds ridiculous, right?
I don’t know; it sounds like a plausible outcome from the war.
Doing the Cold War, various Tankies would tell people that, of course Russia *had* to have control of Eastern Europe, after their terrible suffering in WWII.
I always though - "Fuck me, that's one hell of a comfort blanket".
Were all the other eastern Europeans living the life of riley between 1939-45?
That's is probably the best argument for the case that Russia will open a front via Belarus yet - it is so stupid that it is utterly Putinesque.
The last 8 months are making me think that all the books I've read about Putin were a load of old tosh.
No, that they referred to earlier versions of Putin.
We all change as we age.
I think that the behaviour of a number of leaders around the world shows this - that some people become, frankly, addled.
Yes they do, and that is a factor. However, people also act rationally and even morally according to their own reality. And our realities are totally different. We should attempt to understand the realities of others, not to reach out to them in some sort of Mary Poppins way, but to understand the way they may act in the future. It's just sensible to do so. To suggest that our own reality is the only one, and that others whose actions are starkly opposed are suffering from an illness is simply stupid.
No one's arguing about motivation. That's just your take. The reason we're supporting Ukraine is that it's an independent democratic European nation subject to an unprovoked war of aggression. Judge Putin by his actions, not by cod psychoanalysis.
As for your analysis, you lost your shit when Biden made an off the cuff remark about our dodgy economic policy... yet you appear happy to just step back and try to see the POV of a guy who launched a genocidal war...
So Ben Wallace becomes PM but in a Chairman of the Board type of way (but focussing on Ukraine) but having strong CEO, COO, and CFO.
So Sunak, Mordaunt, and Hunt.
Wallace has never given any indication he has any desire to be PM though?
Sunak was rejected by party members and he has to take his share of responsibility in the whole leadership election fiasco and Truss becoming PM in any case.
Which leaves us with Penny. She should become PM, Hunt stays as Chancellor and Sunak can be Deputy PM if that's grandiose enough for him?
Big danger though with Mordaunt. If she fails she will become the 3rd consecutive female pm to be a failure in office...not a good look for feminism
All political careers end in...
Well yes even thatchers did in the end after her many achievements...but theres no doubt May is in the bottom rank of pms and Truss is right at the bottom...so 3 female pms one great success and 2 failures overall a mixed record
Do you prefer a strong, male leader? The sort of bloke who is prepared to strip off his shirt and ride a horse as a publicity stunt?
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
I see you've made the mistake of believing Russian propagandists in the west. If you listen to what actual Russian propagandists say, they are very clear that they regard Ukraine as their land. It was never about having a buffer state between them and NATO.
I've never understood why Russia needs a buffer state? It seems much more reasonable that Ukraine should have a buffer state, after all, they're the people who have been most recently invaded. Maybe some part of Western Russia should be carved off, renamed, and its government should be stripped of the power to enter into partnerships or alliances, so that Ukrainians can feel more comfortable.
Sounds ridiculous, right?
I don’t know; it sounds like a plausible outcome from the war.
Doing the Cold War, various Tankies would tell people that, of course Russia *had* to have control of Eastern Europe, after their terrible suffering in WWII.
I always though - "Fuck me, that's one hell of a comfort blanket".
Much bigger than Belgium which was created to protect London and the mouth of the Thames.
So Ben Wallace becomes PM but in a Chairman of the Board type of way (but focussing on Ukraine) but having strong CEO, COO, and CFO.
So Sunak, Mordaunt, and Hunt.
Wallace has never given any indication he has any desire to be PM though?
Sunak was rejected by party members and he has to take his share of responsibility in the whole leadership election fiasco and Truss becoming PM in any case.
Which leaves us with Penny. She should become PM, Hunt stays as Chancellor and Sunak can be Deputy PM if that's grandiose enough for him?
Big danger though with Mordaunt. If she fails she will become the 3rd consecutive female pm to be a failure in office...not a good look for feminism
All political careers end in...
Well yes even thatchers did in the end after her many achievements...but theres no doubt May is in the bottom rank of pms and Truss is right at the bottom...so 3 female pms one great success and 2 failures overall a mixed record
I think that’s harsh on May and generous to Thatcher
I see Biden made his comments about Truss while visiting an ice cream shop in Oregon to support the Democrat Gubernatorial candidate. Which tells me that the polls suggesting this might be a GOP pick-up are probably in the right ballpark.
Can someone tell me how that squares up with the view held by not a few on here that we should piling onto the Dems to hold the House or even the Senate?
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
I see you've made the mistake of believing Russian propagandists in the west. If you listen to what actual Russian propagandists say, they are very clear that they regard Ukraine as their land. It was never about having a buffer state between them and NATO.
I've never understood why Russia needs a buffer state? It seems much more reasonable that Ukraine should have a buffer state, after all, they're the people who have been most recently invaded. Maybe some part of Western Russia should be carved off, renamed, and its government should be stripped of the power to enter into partnerships or alliances, so that Ukrainians can feel more comfortable.
Sounds ridiculous, right?
I don’t know; it sounds like a plausible outcome from the war.
Doing the Cold War, various Tankies would tell people that, of course Russia *had* to have control of Eastern Europe, after their terrible suffering in WWII.
I always though - "Fuck me, that's one hell of a comfort blanket".
A view that seems to have been shared by much of the German establishment.
I remember being called a Fascist, as a teenager, because I said that Poland should have free, multi party elections - this was pre 1989.
I live not far from the Polish Center in Hammersmith. Seeing the queues of people waiting to vote in Polish elections - which sometimes stretched round the corner into Ravenscourt Park - was a combination of surreal and awesome.
Mazurek Dąbrowskiego
Yes the admission of Poland and other Iron Curtain states to the EU was a triumph that cemented democracy in places that could have turned into failed states like Belarus or Russia.
I am glad that we supported it when we were in the EU. Best piece of progress in Europe in nearly a century.
Diplomats were careful in the 90s not to humiliate Russia. I wonder if we went too far and indulged their fantasies to global superpower status even if they lack the money, technology or ideas to make it a reality. It might be worth reminding them that the collapse of the Soviet Union had little to do with the west - the US President himself opposed it(!) and was all about Russia's own incompetence and cruelty.
I think it would be a mistake to look at developments post the end of the Cold War, and say that the West failed because Russia didn't become a democracy.
Of the countries that used to be part of the Eastern bloc, a fair number have made pretty good progress towards becoming open free societies, some are in something of an in-between state, and there are many which have made little progress at all - but it's still a big net plus compared with 1989, and it was probably unrealistic to expect that all countries would transition seamlessly to become democracies. It may well be that Russia's defeat in this war will encourage further moves towards democracy in a number of countries once part of the USSR, or Warsaw Pact, even if it might take longer yet for the same to happen in Russia itself.
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
Diplomats were careful in the 90s not to humiliate Russia. I wonder if we went too far and indulged their fantasies to global superpower status even if they lack the money, technology or ideas to make it a reality. It might be worth reminding them that the collapse of the Soviet Union had little to do with the west - the US President himself opposed it(!) and was all about Russia's own incompetence and cruelty.
I think it would be a mistake to look at developments post the end of the Cold War, and say that the West failed because Russia didn't become a democracy.
Of the countries that used to be part of the Eastern bloc, a fair number have made pretty good progress towards becoming open free societies, some are in something of an in-between state, and there are many which have made little progress at all - but it's still a big net plus compared with 1989, and it was probably unrealistic to expect that all countries would transition seamlessly to become democracies. It may well be that Russia's defeat in this war will encourage further moves towards democracy in a number of countries once part of the USSR, or Warsaw Pact, even if it might take longer yet for the same to happen in Russia itself.
Interesting point. If Russia was hypothetically part of the EU, would it have made a difference? Possibly.
I see Biden made his comments about Truss while visiting an ice cream shop in Oregon to support the Democrat Gubernatorial candidate. Which tells me that the polls suggesting this might be a GOP pick-up are probably in the right ballpark.
Can someone tell me how that squares up with the view held by not a few on here that we should piling onto the Dems to hold the House or even the Senate?
I'm probably missing something but how does one imply the other. I don't see any relationship.
PS Ah you mean because he is there? Sorry I'm being dim.
I see Biden made his comments about Truss while visiting an ice cream shop in Oregon to support the Democrat Gubernatorial candidate. Which tells me that the polls suggesting this might be a GOP pick-up are probably in the right ballpark.
Can someone tell me how that squares up with the view held by not a few on here that we should piling onto the Dems to hold the House or even the Senate?
That's is probably the best argument for the case that Russia will open a front via Belarus yet - it is so stupid that it is utterly Putinesque.
The last 8 months are making me think that all the books I've read about Putin were a load of old tosh.
No, that they referred to earlier versions of Putin.
We all change as we age.
I think that the behaviour of a number of leaders around the world shows this - that some people become, frankly, addled.
Yes they do, and that is a factor. However, people also act rationally and even morally according to their own reality. And our realities are totally different. We should attempt to understand the realities of others, not to reach out to them in some sort of Mary Poppins way, but to understand the way they may act in the future. It's just sensible to do so. To suggest that our own reality is the only one, and that others whose actions are starkly opposed are suffering from an illness is simply stupid.
No one's arguing about motivation. That's just your take. The reason we're supporting Ukraine is that it's an independent democratic European nation subject to an unprovoked war of aggression. Judge Putin by his actions, not by cod psychoanalysis.
As for your analysis, you lost your shit when Biden made an off the cuff remark about our dodgy economic policy... yet you appear happy to just step back and try to see the POV of a guy who launched a genocidal war...
We need to support Ukraine to the max, it's as simple as that. It may not be a perfect country but it's heading in the right direction and, if we don't support it, we risk given succour to dictators everywhere.
also the first failed attempt on Kyiv was in mud season when Putins tanks got bogged down...so i think this time Putin will wait for freezing conditions to start in November
Smart kid that Putin. He's noticed it gets icy in winter.
I wonder if he has learnt that his troops might need winter gear? So far, from what we are seeing (yes, I know...), it seems not.
I watched a YT video the other day saying Russia's winter did not defeat armies (e.g. Hitler 1943, Napoleon 1812); it only hinders unprepared armies (Winter war 1939). I have severe doubts that the Russian army is prepared for a harsh winter.
I suspect thar the movements in Belarus are a diversion. Indeed it isn't clear whether the movements are into or out of Belarus. Indeed they could be both, in order to rotate troops.
I think a further Russian attack on Kyiv is likely to go even worse than the first, as Ukraine is now better prepared and equipped. They also have several brigades just returned from the UK having completed training.
One of the reasons I think they're really going for it (again) is the messages from countries like China and Serbia for their citizens to leave Ukraine. They've been told that it's happening.
At the end of March Putin accepted that the initial invasion had failed, and he accepted the advice to narrow the focus on the Donbas and the Black Sea coast. After the recent defeats he's acknowledged that strategy has also failed. The question then is: what does he do in response to that failure?
Looks like he's not going for unilateral ceasefire, or tactical nuclear weapons, or a withdrawal to a shorter defensive line. Instead he forces Lukashenko to paylback all the support he's ever received, and he goes for Kyiv again. If he takes Kyiv (& Zelenskyy) he wins.
Quite how he's convinced himself that it will be a success this time I don't know. Perhaps he's been told that Ukraine committed all its reserves to the Kherson and Kharkiv offensive? Perhaps he believes the missiles and drones from Iran will tip the balance?
It looks less likely to succeed this time than last, but I now think he's going to try anyway.
I don't think he'd ever capture Zelensky - we would evacuate him before the city fell.
I also don't know what he'd do once in control of Ukraine. He'd have to give it back, and get very little thanks for doing so.
From the leaked plans before the invasion it was fairly clear that the plan was brutal repression and a Russification campaign.
That doesn't really provide a buffer of client states around Russia; it just moves the Russian border closer to NATO and that part a resentful and non-cooperative part of Russia too. I don't think hanging on to Ukraine is a serious option.
I see you've made the mistake of believing Russian propagandists in the west. If you listen to what actual Russian propagandists say, they are very clear that they regard Ukraine as their land. It was never about having a buffer state between them and NATO.
I've never understood why Russia needs a buffer state? It seems much more reasonable that Ukraine should have a buffer state, after all, they're the people who have been most recently invaded. Maybe some part of Western Russia should be carved off, renamed, and its government should be stripped of the power to enter into partnerships or alliances, so that Ukrainians can feel more comfortable.
Sounds ridiculous, right?
I don’t know; it sounds like a plausible outcome from the war.
Doing the Cold War, various Tankies would tell people that, of course Russia *had* to have control of Eastern Europe, after their terrible suffering in WWII.
I always though - "Fuck me, that's one hell of a comfort blanket".
Much bigger than Belgium which was created to protect London and the mouth of the Thames.
Not to mention the small moral difference between guaranteeing the independence and neutrality of a sovereign state and imposing a government at gun point.
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from an economics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I see Biden made his comments about Truss while visiting an ice cream shop in Oregon to support the Democrat Gubernatorial candidate. Which tells me that the polls suggesting this might be a GOP pick-up are probably in the right ballpark.
Can someone tell me how that squares up with the view held by not a few on here that we should piling onto the Dems to hold the House or even the Senate?
Oregon governor is a "toss-up" says 538 website.
There's a 3rd party candidate
538 have said that but the polls have give. the GOP several leads.
If this was an election where the Democrats had a chance of holding the House, this race shouldn't even be close. Nor should people be thinking that the GOP has even a whiff of a chance with the NY Governorship.
I see Biden made his comments about Truss while visiting an ice cream shop in Oregon to support the Democrat Gubernatorial candidate. Which tells me that the polls suggesting this might be a GOP pick-up are probably in the right ballpark.
Can someone tell me how that squares up with the view held by not a few on here that we should piling onto the Dems to hold the House or even the Senate?
I'm probably missing something but how does one imply the other. I don't see any relationship.
PS Ah you mean because he is there? Sorry I'm being dim.
No need to apologise, I probably phrased it badly.
But, yes, if Biden is in Oregon because he needs to support the candidate there, then that suggests serious issues with the support.
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from an economics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
A weekend to think about it should be more than enough.
She seems to have had a quiet weekend, with no news coming out. She may resign this week, but I have greened out at current odds as the appointment of a successor may be another shitshow rather than the coronation so desired, in which case she may still be PM on New Year's Day.
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
Half the foodbanks in Britain and homeless shelters are provided by the Church. How many does the City of London provide? As far as I see it Welby was arguing for tax cuts for lower earners rather than the rich, something even most Tory backbenchers would now agree with given they forced the PM and Chancellor to dump the cancellation of the 45p top rate but want to keep the basic rate cut
I see Biden made his comments about Truss while visiting an ice cream shop in Oregon to support the Democrat Gubernatorial candidate. Which tells me that the polls suggesting this might be a GOP pick-up are probably in the right ballpark.
Can someone tell me how that squares up with the view held by not a few on here that we should piling onto the Dems to hold the House or even the Senate?
Oregon governor is a "toss-up" says 538 website.
There's a 3rd party candidate
538 have said that but the polls have give. the GOP several leads.
If this was an election where the Democrats had a chance of holding the House, this race shouldn't even be close. Nor should people be thinking that the GOP has even a whiff of a chance with the NY Governorship.
Governorships are more stand alone races. Voters in blue states seem more willing to elect Republican governors than Republican senators.
Yesterday there was a poll showing the Dems only 5 points ahead in the Connecticut senate race, which should be safe for them but there was also a poll showing the Reps only 3 points ahead in the Iowa senate race. Both a re possibly outliers.
I don't like betting on the midterms as it's hard to know who is actually going to show up.
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from an economics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
A weekend to think about it should be more than enough.
She seems to have had a quiet weekend, with no news coming out. She may resign this week, but I have greened out at current odds as the appointment of a successor may be another shitshow rather than the coronation so desired, in which case she may still be PM on New Year's Day.
Unless she blows up everything by calling a GE.
I remember countless times May seemed on the brink of resigning after the 2017 election. Everytime people thought this is it but she lasted 2 more years
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
The survey was carried out with more than 10,000 adults on 26 to 30 September – two weeks before Liz Truss scrapped large parts of her mini-budget and sacked her chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng. Multiple polls have worsened further for the government since then.
Wallace isn't optimal because even if he plays a "Chairman" role the bottom line is he would still be front and centre in a GE campaign and he simply will not win as many votes as Penny or Sunak would.
Yes but Penny and Sunak would also divide the party, the former as she is seen as too woke and the latter as the membership have just rejected him.
Anyway, Yougov has Wallace with a +3% rating, compared to +2% for Mordaunt, -22% for Sunak and -7% for Truss (albeit figures a little old)
Not clear when it was taken? But the Scottish changes are interesting - as it's MRP and thefore not merely national swing. it does suggest some significant SNP-Lab movement (10 Labour gains).
Very interesting. It suggests a large obstacle to a Labour Overall is beginning to shift.
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from an economics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
Deceased royal Lord Mountbatten set to be named in court as alleged child abuser - Accusations of sex crimes at Belfast boys’ home to be made in court against the late Queen’s second cousin
That's is probably the best argument for the case that Russia will open a front via Belarus yet - it is so stupid that it is utterly Putinesque.
The last 8 months are making me think that all the books I've read about Putin were a load of old tosh.
No, that they referred to earlier versions of Putin.
We all change as we age.
I think that the behaviour of a number of leaders around the world shows this - that some people become, frankly, addled.
That's a reasonable point to a degree. But I do think that the West has been collectively blind to how atrophied and nihilistic Russia has become. We have been projecting our views that inculcated during the Cold War onto contemporary Russia and its leadership, and perhaps the whole post-Soviet era, and it has lead us to form opinions about the nation that are clearly at odds with the facts.
Another factor might be that Western leaders and business people see only Moscow, and tourists only Moscow and St Petersburg, both modern, cosmopolitan, global cities. They do not see the myriad small towns who support Putin, even if they think he's gone a bit soft compared with the hardline Russian nationalists, where supermarkets are rarely full, and hospitals sparsely equipped. Most of Russia, whose towns are, in our terms, left behind, red wall, and Brexity.
Similar to urban/suburban vs small town/rural divide in current US politics, as personified by Sage of Mar-a-Lardo.
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from an economics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
Deceased royal Lord Mountbatten set to be named in court as alleged child abuser - Accusations of sex crimes at Belfast boys’ home to be made in court against the late Queen’s second cousin
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do.
If we had more Bishops' Palaces again, we might have more high Tory Bishops again
I see Biden made his comments about Truss while visiting an ice cream shop in Oregon to support the Democrat Gubernatorial candidate. Which tells me that the polls suggesting this might be a GOP pick-up are probably in the right ballpark.
Can someone tell me how that squares up with the view held by not a few on here that we should piling onto the Dems to hold the House or even the Senate?
Fair question. One thing that's changed - a month or so back it looked as though inflation might just have peaked as the midterms approach. After the oil production cut agreed by Russia and the Saudis, that is likely to have been delayed.
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
the CoE gets no state funding so is perfectly entitles to give its opinion
Deceased royal Lord Mountbatten set to be named in court as alleged child abuser - Accusations of sex crimes at Belfast boys’ home to be made in court against the late Queen’s second cousin
No problem with Church leaders weighing in on politics - but that does mean they should not expect any deference for their positions beyond that of any other political actors.
Not sure all of the church hierarchy would like such a trade, but if you want to speak up, them's the breaks.
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
It may or may not be true. But economics is not exactly the church's field of expertise. And I am always wary of someone presenting an option as morally right, rather than being likely to result in outcomes x, y and z. It is a short cut in an argument that often suggests rather more scrutiny is required.
The Tory Party spokespeople willing to go on media sound increasingly like a concussed boxer throwing random haymakers. No coherent argument or line. Just a hope summat will connect.
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do
'Unfortunately'?!
Isn't priests living like princes part of what takes them away from focusing on, you know, the christian message?
I see Biden made his comments about Truss while visiting an ice cream shop in Oregon to support the Democrat Gubernatorial candidate. Which tells me that the polls suggesting this might be a GOP pick-up are probably in the right ballpark.
Can someone tell me how that squares up with the view held by not a few on here that we should piling onto the Dems to hold the House or even the Senate?
Oregon governor is a "toss-up" says 538 website.
There's a 3rd party candidate
538 have said that but the polls have give. the GOP several leads.
If this was an election where the Democrats had a chance of holding the House, this race shouldn't even be close. Nor should people be thinking that the GOP has even a whiff of a chance with the NY Governorship.
Doubt you've been paying much attention to NY State politics, including fact that current Democratic governor was NOT elected to that position, as she was Lieutenant Gov UNTIL her Democratic predecessor self-destructed and was forced to resign (sound familiar).
AND as Garth just pointed out, gubernatorial and other statewide races do NOT move in lockstep with federal races. True that they are related, but the relationship is modified by ticket splitting (for variety of reasons) which is common in US.
Certainly more common that most UKers can comprehend, esp. since you do NOT have as a rule more than one thing to vote upon in UK general elections.
A weekend to think about it should be more than enough.
She seems to have had a quiet weekend, with no news coming out. She may resign this week, but I have greened out at current odds as the appointment of a successor may be another shitshow rather than the coronation so desired, in which case she may still be PM on New Year's Day.
Unless she blows up everything by calling a GE.
I remember countless times May seemed on the brink of resigning after the 2017 election. Everytime people thought this is it but she lasted 2 more years
One of my favourite charts is opinion polling post 2017 GEand pre 2019 GE - as it shows that even during the period when May was essentially completely powerless, unable to progress her primary political goal and with her party out of her control, she was still leading in the polls for much of it, until the very end.
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
It may or may not be true. But economics is not exactly the church's field of expertise. And I am always wary of someone presenting an option as morally right, rather than being likely to result in outcomes x, y and z. It is a short cut in an argument that often suggests rather more scrutiny is required.
Yeah. But it's simple marginal propensity to spend. It isn't exactly a radical economic theory.
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do
'Unfortunately'?!
Isn't priests living like princes part of what takes them away from focusing on, you know, the christian message?
No, it was part of what made them Tories. In the 18th and 19th centuries when Bishops lived in grand Palaces and even vicars lived in grand country rectories and parsonages most of them were high Tories. Now most of the Palaces have been converted to schools or residential homes or educational centres and the rectories sold off or let out and the average vicar or even bishop lives in a 20th century built property far more of them are liberal left.
It is still perfectly possible to give alms for the poor, foodbanks and such and help the homeless while having a residence in the parish or diocese that befits your status!
German police in Rhineland-Palatinate on Thursday arrested a 75-year-old woman for plotting to kidnap Health Minister Karl Lauterbach and bring down the country’s power grid.
According to reports by the German news outlet T-Online the woman is called Elisabeth R., a professor of theology from the University of Mainz who has worked as a protestant pastor.
Elisabeth R. was involved in procuring weapons and explosives, and had proposed specific dates for the implementation of the plan, authorities said. The group's goal was to incite a civil war in Germany and to restore the German empire of 1871, authorities added.
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do.
If we had more Bishops' Palaces again, we might have more high Tory Bishops again
Why should Bishops live in Palaces and at the same time claim to help the poor
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do
'Unfortunately'?!
Isn't priests living like princes part of what takes them away from focusing on, you know, the christian message?
No, it is part of what made them Tories. In the 18th century when Bishops lived in grand Palaces and even vicars live in grand country rectories and parsonages most of them were high Tories. Now most of the Palaces have been converted to schools or residential homes or educational centres and the rectories sold off or let out and the average vicar or even bishop lives in a 20th century built property far more of them are liberal left.
It is still perfectly possible to give alms for the poor, foodbanks and such and help the homeless while having a residence in the parish or diocese that befits your status!
I grant I am not a theological scholar, but I'd hope Jesus was more about the humility and less about the 'Treat me as befits my station, peasants!'
But hey, most church leaders throughout history have managed to justify their own largesse in that respect.
German police in Rhineland-Palatinate on Thursday arrested a 75-year-old woman for plotting to kidnap Health Minister Karl Lauterbach and bring down the country’s power grid.
According to reports by the German news outlet T-Online the woman is called Elisabeth R., a professor of theology from the University of Mainz who has worked as a protestant pastor.
Elisabeth R. was involved in procuring weapons and explosives, and had proposed specific dates for the implementation of the plan, authorities said. The group's goal was to incite a civil war in Germany and to restore the German empire of 1871, authorities added.
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do.
If we had more Bishops' Palaces again, we might have more high Tory Bishops again
Why should Bishops live in Palaces and at the same time claim to help the poor
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do
'Unfortunately'?!
Isn't priests living like princes part of what takes them away from focusing on, you know, the christian message?
No, it was part of what made them Tories. In the 18th century when Bishops lived in grand Palaces and even vicars lived in grand country rectories and parsonages most of them were high Tories. Now most of the Palaces have been converted to schools or residential homes or educational centres and the rectories sold off or let out and the average vicar or even bishop lives in a 20th century built property far more of them are liberal left.
It is still perfectly possible to give alms for the poor, foodbanks and such and help the homeless while having a residence in the parish or diocese that befits your status!
Most church goers like to defer to bishops as a wise man or woman with virtue and would want such a person to have a high status including a suitable residence imo
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do
'Unfortunately'?!
Isn't priests living like princes part of what takes them away from focusing on, you know, the christian message?
No, it was part of what made them Tories. In the 18th and 19th centuries when Bishops lived in grand Palaces and even vicars lived in grand country rectories and parsonages most of them were high Tories. Now most of the Palaces have been converted to schools or residential homes or educational centres and the rectories sold off or let out and the average vicar or even bishop lives in a 20th century built property far more of them are liberal left.
It is still perfectly possible to give alms for the poor, foodbanks and such and help the homeless while having a residence in the parish or diocese that befits your status!
See. What status befits the Conservative Party? To be in power. Regardless of performance, competence or morality.
Deceased royal Lord Mountbatten set to be named in court as alleged child abuser - Accusations of sex crimes at Belfast boys’ home to be made in court against the late Queen’s second cousin
The underlying allegations (about a specific pedophile ring) have previously been investigated and found groundless
Yes, an absolutely disgraceful libellous attack on Mountbatten, dead 40 years after being blown up by the IRA and unable to defend himself.
No surprise the Scottish Nat stirrer spreading rumours though
Point of order - you cannot libel the dead
Belfast Telegraph ($) - Time to open all the files on Mountbatten after abuse claim: author Royal’s biographer says transparency now crucial as landmark legal case launched
A royal biographer has said allegations Lord Louis Mountbatten was involved in child sex abuse at Kincora Boys’ Home must be fully scrutinised. . . . [all you can see before paywall]
BelfastLive - I was abused by Lord Mountbatten, claims former Kincora boys’ home resident A former resident of the East Belfast home has waived his anonymity to make the allegations
Legal proceedings have been initiated against a number of institutions in Northern Ireland alleging that Lord Mountbatten abused a boy at a notorious Belfast children’s home in the 1970s.
Arthur Smyth, a former resident of the Kincora home, has waived his anonymity to make the allegations against the earl, a great uncle of the King.
Lord Mountbatten was killed along with three others when the IRA detonated a bomb on his boat in Mullaghmore, Co Sligo, in 1979.
Read more: Kincora survivors failed due to “sinister intelligence agenda”, lawyer says
Mr Smyth’s solicitor, Kevin Winters of KRW Law, said the civil action alleging negligence and breach of statutory duty was being taken against several state bodies.
He said he had filed a summons which would be issued in the High Court in Belfast on Tuesday.
Mr Winters said: “Central to the case are our client’s allegations of abuse by the late Lord Louis Mountbatten.
“Understandably many abuse survivors for reasons of obvious sensitivity choose to remain anonymous. Arthur’s decision to reveal his identity must be set against this backdrop.
“It is borne out of anger at systemic state cover-up on abuse at these institutions.
“He alleges to have been abused twice as an 11-year-old by the deceased royal.
“It’s the first time that someone has stepped forward to take allegations against Lord Mountbatten into a court.
“That decision hasn’t been taken lightly.
“He understands only too well that it will be a deeply unpopular case with many people coming as it does within weeks of the passing of the Queen.”
The Kincora home opened on Belfast’s Upper Newtownards Road, close to Stormont’s Parliament Buildings, in May 1958, and closed in October 1980 after a sex abuse scandal.
The Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry found that 39 boys were abused at Kincora and in 1981 three men were jailed for abusing 11 boys. . . .
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do.
If we had more Bishops' Palaces again, we might have more high Tory Bishops again
Why should Bishops live in Palaces and at the same time claim to help the poor
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do.
If we had more Bishops' Palaces again, we might have more high Tory Bishops again
Why should Bishops live in Palaces and at the same time claim to help the poor
Hypocrisy from them and the church in spades
The rich man in his castle, The poor man at his gate.
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do
'Unfortunately'?!
Isn't priests living like princes part of what takes them away from focusing on, you know, the christian message?
No, it was part of what made them Tories. In the 18th century when Bishops lived in grand Palaces and even vicars lived in grand country rectories and parsonages most of them were high Tories. Now most of the Palaces have been converted to schools or residential homes or educational centres and the rectories sold off or let out and the average vicar or even bishop lives in a 20th century built property far more of them are liberal left.
It is still perfectly possible to give alms for the poor, foodbanks and such and help the homeless while having a residence in the parish or diocese that befits your status!
Most church goers like to defer to bishops as a wise man or woman with virtue and would want such a person to have a high status including a suitable residence imo
Sure, but that's just standard social control stuff, expecting the powerful to have the trappings of power, it's not very necessary in a religious sense.
I'm not some revolutionary who thinks a church cannot have any amount of wealth, but if they want to be a force for progress and aiding others it seems pretty easy for them to make better use of that wealth than giving an archbishop a golden toilet, without making him live in a hovel.
How many charities are rightly criticised for high overheads?
German police in Rhineland-Palatinate on Thursday arrested a 75-year-old woman for plotting to kidnap Health Minister Karl Lauterbach and bring down the country’s power grid.
According to reports by the German news outlet T-Online the woman is called Elisabeth R., a professor of theology from the University of Mainz who has worked as a protestant pastor.
Elisabeth R. was involved in procuring weapons and explosives, and had proposed specific dates for the implementation of the plan, authorities said. The group's goal was to incite a civil war in Germany and to restore the German empire of 1871, authorities added.
Crumbs. Our former Queen led an even more interesting life than we knew.
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do
'Unfortunately'?!
Isn't priests living like princes part of what takes them away from focusing on, you know, the christian message?
they hardly live extravagent lives or even have lavish salaries of stipends -The A of C for example is paid about the same as a head teacher. Yes their residences are grand but they do not own them themselves but reside in them according to their role. The status of which as a bishop is higher in the Order of Precedence than judges generally
The survey was carried out with more than 10,000 adults on 26 to 30 September – two weeks before Liz Truss scrapped large parts of her mini-budget and sacked her chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng. Multiple polls have worsened further for the government since then.
So this is out of date....
Ouch. It's likely to be much worse than that for the Conservatives. Extinction is not just a scare story then.
Their approach gives the LDs a much bigger representation than you get from using electoral Calculus. Presumably it's because MRP allow for tactical voting.
I can see tactical voting being a big factor in the next election.
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do.
If we had more Bishops' Palaces again, we might have more high Tory Bishops again
Why should Bishops live in Palaces and at the same time claim to help the poor
Hypocrisy from them and the church in spades
Protestant Catholic split here in spades.
Big G is clearly very low church
You have no idea of my faith but certainly the wealth of the COE is in direct conflict with not only the way their staff live ( Bishops etc) but also the way they claim to be on the side of the poor
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do.
If we had more Bishops' Palaces again, we might have more high Tory Bishops again
Why should Bishops live in Palaces and at the same time claim to help the poor
Hypocrisy from them and the church in spades
The rich man in his castle, The poor man at his gate.
The parson in his parsonage, serving out the Port!
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do.
If we had more Bishops' Palaces again, we might have more high Tory Bishops again
Why should Bishops live in Palaces and at the same time claim to help the poor
Hypocrisy from them and the church in spades
Protestant Catholic split here in spades.
Big G is clearly very low church
You have no idea of my faith but certainly the wealth of the COE is in direct conflict with not only the way their staff live ( Bishops etc) but also the way they claim to be on the side of the poor
No it isn't, the average Bishop earns about £40k, the average vicar about £25k and most of them don't even have the grand Bishops Palaces and Vicars Rectories they did 100 years ago either
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do
'Unfortunately'?!
Isn't priests living like princes part of what takes them away from focusing on, you know, the christian message?
A critique that even predates the protestant reformation.
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do
'Unfortunately'?!
Isn't priests living like princes part of what takes them away from focusing on, you know, the christian message?
A critique that even predates the protestant reformation.
I have just read the Kingsbridge series, so in fairness not good timing to reflect upon the morals of senior churchmen.
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do.
If we had more Bishops' Palaces again, we might have more high Tory Bishops again
Why should Bishops live in Palaces and at the same time claim to help the poor
Hypocrisy from them and the church in spades
Protestant Catholic split here in spades.
Big G is clearly very low church
You have no idea of my faith but certainly the wealth of the COE is in direct conflict with not only the way their staff live ( Bishops etc) but also the way they claim to be on the side of the poor
No it isn't, the average Bishop earns about £40k, the average vicar about £25k and they don't even have the grand Bishops Palaces and Vicars Rectories they did 100 years ago either
You completely miss the point
It is nothing to do with how much each individual earns but the hypocrisy of the church and their staff
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
It may or may not be true. But economics is not exactly the church's field of expertise. And I am always wary of someone presenting an option as morally right, rather than being likely to result in outcomes x, y and z. It is a short cut in an argument that often suggests rather more scrutiny is required.
Yeah. But it's simple marginal propensity to spend. It isn't exactly a radical economic theory.
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do.
If we had more Bishops' Palaces again, we might have more high Tory Bishops again
Why should Bishops live in Palaces and at the same time claim to help the poor
Hypocrisy from them and the church in spades
Protestant Catholic split here in spades.
Big G is clearly very low church
You have no idea of my faith but certainly the wealth of the COE is in direct conflict with not only the way their staff live ( Bishops etc) but also the way they claim to be on the side of the poor
No it isn't, the average Bishop earns about £40k, the average vicar about £25k and most of them don't even have the grand Bishops Palaces and Vicars Rectories they did 100 years ago either
considering the responsibiliies bishops have (basically heading the church in their diocese -usually translating to a county) nobody does it for the money . Many are held in very high regard by parishes and a suitable house (which they only reside in but not own) is befitting the role and status
Archbishop of Canterbury takes aim at trickle-down economics
It isn't just Joe Biden taking a public view on Liz Truss's trickle-down economics (see 9.30pm).
The Most Rev Justin Welby, who made critical remarks while on a tour of Australia, said that if rich people have money they are more likely to save it than spend it.
He argued that a better way to generate spending in the economy would be to put more money into the pockets of those who need to buy food.
"In the UK, the priority is the cost of living, with the poorest," he told the Guardian. "And from aneconomics point of view, I’m deeply sceptical about trickle-down theory."
I always listen to old Etonians on fiscal matters.
bleating ninny.
Maybe the old fucker can start off by donating Lambeth Palace and the CoE pension fund to the poor
You don't like that he's said it, you don't think it's his place to interfere? Ok fair enough.
But what he's said is certainly true.
It probably is but I have a real problem with hypocrisy. There is plenty the CoE could be doing by example and leading but it's not. I find clergy who live in fine palaces and benefit from all the trappings of historical privilege pontificating about what's right and not right nauseating
Bishops should live in Palaces as befits their status in the realm, historically equivalent to peers of the realm, however unfortunately nowadays only a few like the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and Bath and Wells still do.
If we had more Bishops' Palaces again, we might have more high Tory Bishops again
Why should Bishops live in Palaces and at the same time claim to help the poor
Hypocrisy from them and the church in spades
Protestant Catholic split here in spades.
Big G is clearly very low church
You have no idea of my faith but certainly the wealth of the COE is in direct conflict with not only the way their staff live ( Bishops etc) but also the way they claim to be on the side of the poor
No it isn't, the average Bishop earns about £40k, the average vicar about £25k and they don't even have the grand Bishops Palaces and Vicars Rectories they did 100 years ago either
You completely miss the point
It is nothing to do with how much each individual earns but the hypocrisy of the church and their staff
This week I have seen confusion amongst police forces about what constitutes a ‘hate crime’.
The police need to enforce actual laws & fight actual crimes. Freedom of speech must be protected and a proportionate approach must be taken. 1/2
The public need to have confidence in their police forces.
This sort of thing undermines it.
Senior police officers who allow this to happen can expect to have to explain to me why they’re spending vital resources on politically correct campaigns. 2/2
Although, Jane has every right to expect civil treatment and I’ve no objection especially to Leics police highlighting offensive behaviour.
Good manners cost nothing but bad manners aren't "crimes", let alone "hate crimes" which require reporting to police and diverting resources from real crimes.
And "Jane" has an interesting back story:
Weird of the #Police to use this image. Someone did a reverse image search which linked to this page in the following tweet.
Comments
In early trading in Asia
+0.3%
I live not far from the Polish Center in Hammersmith. Seeing the queues of people waiting to vote in Polish elections - which sometimes stretched round the corner into Ravenscourt Park - was a combination of surreal and awesome.
Mazurek Dąbrowskiego
Who would he prefer? Wallace? Mordaunt? Could be Sunak.
Who would his heir apparent's former secretary who now heads the civil service prefer?
The reason we're supporting Ukraine is that it's an independent democratic European nation subject to an unprovoked war of aggression. Judge Putin by his actions, not by cod psychoanalysis.
As for your analysis, you lost your shit when Biden made an off the cuff remark about our dodgy economic policy... yet you appear happy to just step back and try to see the POV of a guy who launched a genocidal war...
Can someone tell me how that squares up with the view held by not a few on here that we should piling onto the Dems to hold the House or even the Senate?
I am glad that we supported it when we were in the EU. Best piece of progress in Europe in nearly a century.
Of the countries that used to be part of the Eastern bloc, a fair number have made pretty good progress towards becoming open free societies, some are in something of an in-between state, and there are many which have made little progress at all - but it's still a big net plus compared with 1989, and it was probably unrealistic to expect that all countries would transition seamlessly to become democracies. It may well be that Russia's defeat in this war will encourage further moves towards democracy in a number of countries once part of the USSR, or Warsaw Pact, even if it might take longer yet for the same to happen in Russia itself.
A now deceased family member told me the queen or at least those around her played a role in choosing Alec Douglas-Home as PM in 1963.
How old is the outgoing bod recommends appointment of successor thing anyway?
PS Ah you mean because he is there? Sorry I'm being dim.
There's a 3rd party candidate
If this was an election where the Democrats had a chance of holding the House, this race shouldn't even be close. Nor should people be thinking that the GOP has even a whiff of a chance with the NY Governorship.
https://twitter.com/WarMonitors/status/1581739600564736001?s=20&t=XHBVMad43z5zv_t59ox4lQ
But, yes, if Biden is in Oregon because he needs to support the candidate there, then that suggests serious issues with the support.
Opinium MRP poll.
Unless she blows up everything by calling a GE.
Yesterday there was a poll showing the Dems only 5 points ahead in the Connecticut senate race, which should be safe for them but there was also a poll showing the Reps only 3 points ahead in the Iowa senate race. Both a re possibly outliers.
I don't like betting on the midterms as it's hard to know who is actually going to show up.
Taken at face value: 'everyone has known' but those in power ignore it.
But what he's said is certainly true.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/16/rees-mogg-coffey-and-hunt-would-lose-seats-in-election-poll-suggests
The survey was carried out with more than 10,000 adults on 26 to 30 September – two weeks before Liz Truss scrapped large parts of her mini-budget and sacked her chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng. Multiple polls have worsened further for the government since then.
So this is out of date....
Do I get a prize?
Anyway, Yougov has Wallace with a +3% rating, compared to +2% for Mordaunt, -22% for Sunak and -7% for Truss (albeit figures a little old)
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Penny_Mordaunt?content=all
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Rishi_Sunak
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Liz_Truss
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Ben_Wallace?content=all
..
No surprise the Scottish Nat stirrer spreading rumours though
https://twitter.com/WarMonitors/status/1581739826931372032?s=20&t=umnFSlHYgEevWY_CfmW8wQ
If we had more Bishops' Palaces again, we might have more high Tory Bishops again
One thing that's changed - a month or so back it looked as though inflation might just have peaked as the midterms approach.
After the oil production cut agreed by Russia and the Saudis, that is likely to have been delayed.
So they only need to appoint 123 further peers and 700 seats in Parliament it is. Easy.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1581562518798888960?s=20&t=umnFSlHYgEevWY_CfmW8wQ
Not sure all of the church hierarchy would like such a trade, but if you want to speak up, them's the breaks.
No coherent argument or line.
Just a hope summat will connect.
Isn't priests living like princes part of what takes them away from focusing on, you know, the christian message?
AND as Garth just pointed out, gubernatorial and other statewide races do NOT move in lockstep with federal races. True that they are related, but the relationship is modified by ticket splitting (for variety of reasons) which is common in US.
Certainly more common that most UKers can comprehend, esp. since you do NOT have as a rule more than one thing to vote upon in UK general elections.
But it's simple marginal propensity to spend. It isn't exactly a radical economic theory.
It is still perfectly possible to give alms for the poor, foodbanks and such and help the homeless while having a residence in the parish or diocese that befits your status!
German police in Rhineland-Palatinate on Thursday arrested a 75-year-old woman for plotting to kidnap Health Minister Karl Lauterbach and bring down the country’s power grid.
According to reports by the German news outlet T-Online the woman is called Elisabeth R., a professor of theology from the University of Mainz who has worked as a protestant pastor.
Elisabeth R. was involved in procuring weapons and explosives, and had proposed specific dates for the implementation of the plan, authorities said. The group's goal was to incite a civil war in Germany and to restore the German empire of 1871, authorities added.
Hypocrisy from them and the church in spades
But hey, most church leaders throughout history have managed to justify their own largesse in that respect.
Hmmm.
To be in power. Regardless of performance, competence or morality.
Royal’s biographer says transparency now crucial as landmark legal case launched
A royal biographer has said allegations Lord Louis Mountbatten was involved in child sex abuse at Kincora Boys’ Home must be fully scrutinised. . . . [all you can see before paywall]
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/time-to-open-all-the-files-on-mountbatten-after-abuse-claim-author-42071009.html
BelfastLive - I was abused by Lord Mountbatten, claims former Kincora boys’ home resident
A former resident of the East Belfast home has waived his anonymity to make the allegations
Legal proceedings have been initiated against a number of institutions in Northern Ireland alleging that Lord Mountbatten abused a boy at a notorious Belfast children’s home in the 1970s.
Arthur Smyth, a former resident of the Kincora home, has waived his anonymity to make the allegations against the earl, a great uncle of the King.
Lord Mountbatten was killed along with three others when the IRA detonated a bomb on his boat in Mullaghmore, Co Sligo, in 1979.
Read more: Kincora survivors failed due to “sinister intelligence agenda”, lawyer says
Mr Smyth’s solicitor, Kevin Winters of KRW Law, said the civil action alleging negligence and breach of statutory duty was being taken against several state bodies.
He said he had filed a summons which would be issued in the High Court in Belfast on Tuesday.
Mr Winters said: “Central to the case are our client’s allegations of abuse by the late Lord Louis Mountbatten.
“Understandably many abuse survivors for reasons of obvious sensitivity choose to remain anonymous. Arthur’s decision to reveal his identity must be set against this backdrop.
“It is borne out of anger at systemic state cover-up on abuse at these institutions.
“He alleges to have been abused twice as an 11-year-old by the deceased royal.
“It’s the first time that someone has stepped forward to take allegations against Lord Mountbatten into a court.
“That decision hasn’t been taken lightly.
“He understands only too well that it will be a deeply unpopular case with many people coming as it does within weeks of the passing of the Queen.”
The Kincora home opened on Belfast’s Upper Newtownards Road, close to Stormont’s Parliament Buildings, in May 1958, and closed in October 1980 after a sex abuse scandal.
The Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry found that 39 boys were abused at Kincora and in 1981 three men were jailed for abusing 11 boys. . . .
https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/abused-lord-mountbatten-claims-former-25278128
The poor man at his gate.
I'm not some revolutionary who thinks a church cannot have any amount of wealth, but if they want to be a force for progress and aiding others it seems pretty easy for them to make better use of that wealth than giving an archbishop a golden toilet, without making him live in a hovel.
How many charities are rightly criticised for high overheads?
Their approach gives the LDs a much bigger representation than you get from using electoral Calculus. Presumably it's because MRP allow for tactical voting.
I can see tactical voting being a big factor in the next election.
It is nothing to do with how much each individual earns but the hypocrisy of the church and their staff
Beth Rigby: "View settling amongst MPs that it’s simply not sustainable for her to remain as PM"
https://twitter.com/The_TUC/status/1581554044988006400?t=0tfzvc0Arzo2LZQk-3fTRQ&s=19
Noticeable that when rewards went to wages rather than capital, economic growth was stronger.