People without a home of their own vote Labour, as a class.
People with a home owned outright vote Tory, as a class.
People with a mortgage are the swing voters, as a class.
The young are struggling to get on the property ladder, they're voting Labour anyway so will struggle to see much swing anyway.
The elderly have paid off their mortgages and have a triple locked pension and no mortgage to worry about.
The middle aged are seeing their wages go up by less than inflation while their mortgage costs shoot up, so swing voters are going to do what they do and swing.
It was after the incredibly NIMBYISH Lib Dem by election win in Chesham and Amersham that the Tories rolled back their plans to liberalise planning laws to increase housing supply.
We are not building enough homes. I cannot see that changing.
If we really wanted to build enough new homes over say the next 5-7 years then forgetting everything else presumably we would need a very big number of immigrant builders and trades? Which is not going to be popular either.
Why would we?
I have no objection to that, but the alternative is that we could pay a good wage to people with skills, or apprentices to those jobs too.
In any industry the overwhelming majority of people working in the sector are UK nationals and immigrants make a small proportion, if you want to attract a lot of people to work for you then paying a good wage is the best starting point. If you're paying a good wage and attracting migrants as well as UK nationals, then there's nothing wrong with that - if you want to only attract migrants as you can't hire UK nationals for minimum wage, then that's a you problem.
We need a quarter of a million extra for the current level of construction. To double new houses is going to take a lot of extra workers.
Lots of sectors are short of workers, we can't just offer good wages and conditions and fill them all, the numbers don't add up.
Sure we can.
There's lots of people working unproductive jobs. There's lots of unproductive businesses.
Pay goes up, the productive jobs do well, then unproductive jobs die. Those who were working in unproductive jobs get freed up to do more productive ones.
That's how competition works. We need to let unproductive jobs die and good pay rises for the productive businesses outcompeting the unproductive ones is a part of that.
Sorry but the real world is rather more complex than that. Worker shortages are not simply about wages or even conditions. The real challenge is workforce mobility versus workforce stability. The media is fixated with the idea that putting up wages waves a magic wand and removes labour shortage. It does not. Every sector, private and public is experiencing similar challenges.
One of the possibilities is to look at the western obsession with laziness, sorry, I mean retirement. People seem to think that inactivity at a relatively young age is something to aspire to.
We are also told that teachers are underpaid. They now have an employer contribution of 23.6% into their pension, which they can top up even further. We are encouraging them to retire early through culture and monetary incentive.
Similarly NHS employees are getting 22% employer contribution. That means that a hospital consultant who gets a handsome base salary (plus the strange entitlement to do private practice on the side) gets pension contributions by the taxpayer that are almost equivalent of the annual average salary
Contrast these "fat cat" pension arrangements with the average private sector worker: 4%
You seem to be comparing fat cat public sector professionals with the whole of the private sector. Choose a private company and look up what their directors pay themselves and their professional staff.
You are missing the point (possibly deliberately) . Those companies do not pay their directors from taxpayers pockets and most of them are sacked if they underperform.
I don't object to public sector staff being paid well, but that also has to be looked at in the context of some of the outstanding benefits they get, particularly job security and pension contributions. Do you want to tell me that a graduate getting £28k plus a further 6K pension contribution and 40 days holiday is a bad package? Try telling that to many other grads starting on a great deal less than that.
These benefits were always used by the Treasury as a justification to mark down the nominal salary. There was a set system for doing that, as parst of the pay comparators, for setting civil service salary.
People without a home of their own vote Labour, as a class.
People with a home owned outright vote Tory, as a class.
People with a mortgage are the swing voters, as a class.
The young are struggling to get on the property ladder, they're voting Labour anyway so will struggle to see much swing anyway.
The elderly have paid off their mortgages and have a triple locked pension and no mortgage to worry about.
The middle aged are seeing their wages go up by less than inflation while their mortgage costs shoot up, so swing voters are going to do what they do and swing.
It was after the incredibly NIMBYISH Lib Dem by election win in Chesham and Amersham that the Tories rolled back their plans to liberalise planning laws to increase housing supply.
We are not building enough homes. I cannot see that changing.
If we really wanted to build enough new homes over say the next 5-7 years then forgetting everything else presumably we would need a very big number of immigrant builders and trades? Which is not going to be popular either.
Why would we?
I have no objection to that, but the alternative is that we could pay a good wage to people with skills, or apprentices to those jobs too.
In any industry the overwhelming majority of people working in the sector are UK nationals and immigrants make a small proportion, if you want to attract a lot of people to work for you then paying a good wage is the best starting point. If you're paying a good wage and attracting migrants as well as UK nationals, then there's nothing wrong with that - if you want to only attract migrants as you can't hire UK nationals for minimum wage, then that's a you problem.
We need a quarter of a million extra for the current level of construction. To double new houses is going to take a lot of extra workers.
Lots of sectors are short of workers, we can't just offer good wages and conditions and fill them all, the numbers don't add up.
Sure we can.
There's lots of people working unproductive jobs. There's lots of unproductive businesses.
Pay goes up, the productive jobs do well, then unproductive jobs die. Those who were working in unproductive jobs get freed up to do more productive ones.
That's how competition works. We need to let unproductive jobs die and good pay rises for the productive businesses outcompeting the unproductive ones is a part of that.
Sorry but the real world is rather more complex than that. Worker shortages are not simply about wages or even conditions. The real challenge is workforce mobility versus workforce stability. The media is fixated with the idea that putting up wages waves a magic wand and removes labour shortage. It does not. Every sector, private and public is experiencing similar challenges.
One of the possibilities is to look at the western obsession with laziness, sorry, I mean retirement. People seem to think that inactivity at a relatively young age is something to aspire to.
We are also told that teachers are underpaid. They now have an employer contribution of 23.6% into their pension, which they can top up even further. We are encouraging them to retire early through culture and monetary incentive.
Similarly NHS employees are getting 22% employer contribution. That means that a hospital consultant who gets a handsome base salary (plus the strange entitlement to do private practice on the side) gets pension contributions by the taxpayer that are almost equivalent of the annual average salary
Contrast these "fat cat" pension arrangements with the average private sector worker: 4%
Certainly there's a myriad of problems and no one universal solution, on that I agree with you.
Though given the topic of conversation we were having was the workforce for building houses, then I think the private sector not the public sector is where to look at.
I'm not sure many electricians, plumbers and the rest of the building trade are retiring young because of their state-funded 22% employer contribution.
For the NHS it certainly is an issue. Even Foxy unironically references how many colleagues are considering retirement without considering that other people don't have that as an option.
To your final point, yes indeed.
An NHS consultant is a very responsible job, but that is balanced by it being one of the safest jobs in terms of job security in the world. Add to that that many are earning (not including private practice) £120k. This means that on 22% employer pension contribution the taxpayer is paying £26k in pension contributions. the average salary in this country is just over £27k
Teachers start on a salary of £28k, which in fact equates to £34608 when pension is added in. Not a bad starting salary, particularly when considering they get 40 days paid holiday compared to between 20 and 25 in the private sector
The highest paid headteachers get £83k. Their employer pension contribution paid by the taxpayer is £19588 pa.
HYUFD doesn't agree with you re head teachers. His firgures the other day were of the order of twice as much for the sensible bit, 5 x if you are not sensible and include company chief execs of whole academy chains.
That was the data I saw. I have seen evidence quoted in newspapers (therefore caution applies) of much higher salaries and I imagine they do exist, but there is little point in using extremes to illustrate a point. Those on the extremes are unlikely to present such a burden on the taxpayer overall. I think a pension contribution of almost 20k a year is pretty big anyway, when the taxpayer is footing it for what I imagine is quite a large number of peopel when you consider the number of large comps there are in the country .
Review as in we must make CR3 a masterpiece of tankology or we should look at buying something from somewhere else that works?
Probably the K2, from the same place. It's starting to become the new NATO European standard - and we'd probably get a decent deal to build it on licence.
Challenger is obsolete in concept.
That will depend on whether all the "Can't use the bridges in X" stuff turns out to be true.
We will be finding out fairly shortly.
We need something that works, and gets made on budget. Build a proven design under licence, and that's (providing the MoD don't re-spec it) nearly a given.
We don't need, and can't afford, another Ajax. Bollocks to national pride; we need some pragmatism.
Namer and Merkeva. Just to upset people.
Jericho 3 for Ukraine.....
What might the enemy do to upset you back?
The angry-men-in-corduroys-and-bicycle-clips manning the local Corbyn Memorial stall? I think we can take them out. In a Namer....
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
It's called sarcasm.
There are many potential reasons for the US's reluctance, few good. Internal politics. Fears of cost. Fears that stronk equipment might not be as stronk as they think (as the Russians have discovered). Memories of the Iraq debacle. Fears of Russia's reaction. Fears the US will not be left with enough kit.
The same sort of thinking that kept the US out of WWII until far too late is still all too common, especially after Iraq. The tragedy is that this is a very 'cheap' war for the US and other countries, especially compared to if they had to get involved directly.
As for finding my position unbalanced: perhaps you should consider whether your position is also unbalanced?
I'll just say what I've been saying all along, and please tell me why you think it is unbalanced: Germany is doing more than people think. They are doing less than they say. They are doing less than they should.
I have said this many times in the past. What's wrong with that?
Germany isn't threatened territorially.
WW2 analogies welcome so long as it's understood that Britain and the US are backing the other side from the one they allied with before.
'Territorially' is just one Russia can threaten them. Russia sees the EU as a threat, and Germany does quite well out of the EU, thanks very much. Then there's other issues with Russia's malign influence. Remember Salisbury? Litvinenko?
"WW2 analogies welcome so long as it's understood that Britain and the US are backing the other side from the one they allied with before."
True (after June 1941). Wrong (before June 1941). That's quite an important point to remember.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
It's called sarcasm.
There are many potential reasons for the US's reluctance, few good. Internal politics. Fears of cost. Fears that stronk equipment might not be as stronk as they think (as the Russians have discovered). Memories of the Iraq debacle. Fears of Russia's reaction. Fears the US will not be left with enough kit.
The same sort of thinking that kept the US out of WWII until far too late is still all too common, especially after Iraq. The tragedy is that this is a very 'cheap' war for the US and other countries, especially compared to if they had to get involved directly.
As for finding my position unbalanced: perhaps you should consider whether your position is also unbalanced?
I'll just say what I've been saying all along, and please tell me why you think it is unbalanced: Germany is doing more than people think. They are doing less than they say. They are doing less than they should.
I have said this many times in the past. What's wrong with that?
Yes I understood it was sarcasm, I just thought it was a bit beneath you.
"Germany is doing more than people think. They are doing less than they say. They are doing less than they should." Is fair comment as far as it goes.
But, for example, claiming Sweden's announcement today "shames" Germany does seem a bit unbalanced to me.
What specifically do you find unbalanced in my position?
Well, the fact you agreed with my position above "is fair comment as far as it goes", yet you seem to think Germany is above criticism on this matter.
Germany sees itself as a leader in Europe. It often acts as if it is a leader in Europe. Yet when it comes to a place where real leadership is needed, they're all over the place, and worse, preventing others from doing the right thing.
What on earth makes you think that I "think Germany is above criticism on this matter"? But I prefer criticism that is informed and thoughtful rather than just catharsis.
People without a home of their own vote Labour, as a class.
People with a home owned outright vote Tory, as a class.
People with a mortgage are the swing voters, as a class.
The young are struggling to get on the property ladder, they're voting Labour anyway so will struggle to see much swing anyway.
The elderly have paid off their mortgages and have a triple locked pension and no mortgage to worry about.
The middle aged are seeing their wages go up by less than inflation while their mortgage costs shoot up, so swing voters are going to do what they do and swing.
Some real thick halfwits on here. For dummies, yes you BART SIMPSON, not all pensioners own homes , many have next to no personal pensions and get £9K a year and teh ones who vote Tory are loaded and woudl not even worry about the paltry amount the triple lock gives them. It is ignoramus Tories like you that have ensured they are hated throughout the land.
You want to find a dummy, thick halfwit then try looking in the mirror first.
I said I was speaking in generalities "as a class". If you're incapable of reading comprehension, then that's not my problem.
Yes there's some pensioners who are struggling. The solution is to deal with that, not piss billions up the wall maintaining the triple lock for those who aren't.
Heck, you could fund a vast increase in Pension Credits or other support for struggling pensioners, if the well off pensioners faced the same marginal tax rate as the young do by abolishing the graduate tax and national insurance and taxing everyone on the same rate as their earnings.
But you don't want to actually help struggling pensioners, you just want to pull the ladder up behind you and fuck anyone young or old who is struggling. Hence why you object to paying the same tax rate as everyone else.
Mor enutjobbery from a clown. I bet I pay many times the tax you pay and at the same rates and higher you whinging little snot.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
I'd also add that Sweden only reversed its policy of not supplying weapons to Ukraine after Germany did. Similarly, they are only promising these CV90 armored vehicles after Germany promised to supply Marders.
It's fair to provide a bit of balance in the debate. Point is, though, that this spring is (probably) going to be the decisive phase of the war, in the context of Russia's plans to remobilise. Decision time on weapons supplies is now.
That's true, I just find JJ's posts somewhat unbalanced.
As I've said, the fastest way to get Leopard's to Ukraine is to get Biden to announce that the US will supply Abrams tanks, something they could have done months ago.
And yes I do know the US isn't in Europe, but the US is by far the biggest supplier of weapons to Ukraine, I think it's fair to say without US support Ukraine wouldn't be able to continue fighting.
Someone came up with an interesting suggestion. That the US will, if/when sending Leopards is OK'd by Germany, sell M1s to the donating European nations at a rate of knots. The German government would see this a wiping out a potential export market.
Possibly, although according to the Americans their own tanks are virtually unusable.
You mean the requirements for maintenance? - this doesn't seem to have stopped a fair number of foreign sales to date
I was referring to their excuses for refusing to supply them to Ukraine so far...
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
It's called sarcasm.
There are many potential reasons for the US's reluctance, few good. Internal politics. Fears of cost. Fears that stronk equipment might not be as stronk as they think (as the Russians have discovered). Memories of the Iraq debacle. Fears of Russia's reaction. Fears the US will not be left with enough kit.
The same sort of thinking that kept the US out of WWII until far too late is still all too common, especially after Iraq. The tragedy is that this is a very 'cheap' war for the US and other countries, especially compared to if they had to get involved directly.
As for finding my position unbalanced: perhaps you should consider whether your position is also unbalanced?
I'll just say what I've been saying all along, and please tell me why you think it is unbalanced: Germany is doing more than people think. They are doing less than they say. They are doing less than they should.
I have said this many times in the past. What's wrong with that?
Yes I understood it was sarcasm, I just thought it was a bit beneath you.
"Germany is doing more than people think. They are doing less than they say. They are doing less than they should." Is fair comment as far as it goes.
But, for example, claiming Sweden's announcement today "shames" Germany does seem a bit unbalanced to me.
What specifically do you find unbalanced in my position?
Well, the fact you agreed with my position above "is fair comment as far as it goes", yet you seem to think Germany is above criticism on this matter.
Germany sees itself as a leader in Europe. It often acts as if it is a leader in Europe. Yet when it comes to a place where real leadership is needed, they're all over the place, and worse, preventing others from doing the right thing.
What on earth makes you think that I "think Germany is above criticism on this matter"? But I prefer criticism that is informed and thoughtful rather than just catharsis.
Because I've offered mild criticism of Germany (and I *think* politely to Germany), and you seem to have taken a lot of offence at that criticism.
I'd hope my replies show that my criticism is informed and thoughtful, even if you disagree with it. I think I've answered the questions you've asked?
If you're not 95 why on Earth would you vote Tory? They've fucked us, time to fuck the pensioners too.
Some of us are not old but are old enough to remember that Labour fucked us even more. The problems the young suffer from today like house prices, tuition fees etc were mostly started in Labour's time.
But yes, the Tories don't deserve our votes either.
And the Lib Dems pander to NIMBYs.
There's nobody good to vote for. Almost enough to put you off politics altogether.
I've given up following it except for reading what is posted here. Much easier life
I'm not even reading what is posted here much anymore either. Think this is the first time in a week I've been to the site.
Hard to stay interested when everything sucks and there's nothing to interest you. For me voting is a civil responsibility, but what do you do when there's nobody to vote for?
Think I'll spoil my ballot next time by writing something like "build more houses" on it. None of the parties deserve my vote, but I won't simply not go to the ballot box.
A position I have been in for many elections.
I have no love for Starmer and his party but he will be getting my vote. Its the turn of the left to show what they can do, now they are no longer run by madmen (Corbyn, Mcdonell and the communist Milne).
People without a home of their own vote Labour, as a class.
People with a home owned outright vote Tory, as a class.
People with a mortgage are the swing voters, as a class.
The young are struggling to get on the property ladder, they're voting Labour anyway so will struggle to see much swing anyway.
The elderly have paid off their mortgages and have a triple locked pension and no mortgage to worry about.
The middle aged are seeing their wages go up by less than inflation while their mortgage costs shoot up, so swing voters are going to do what they do and swing.
It was after the incredibly NIMBYISH Lib Dem by election win in Chesham and Amersham that the Tories rolled back their plans to liberalise planning laws to increase housing supply.
We are not building enough homes. I cannot see that changing.
If we really wanted to build enough new homes over say the next 5-7 years then forgetting everything else presumably we would need a very big number of immigrant builders and trades? Which is not going to be popular either.
Why would we?
I have no objection to that, but the alternative is that we could pay a good wage to people with skills, or apprentices to those jobs too.
In any industry the overwhelming majority of people working in the sector are UK nationals and immigrants make a small proportion, if you want to attract a lot of people to work for you then paying a good wage is the best starting point. If you're paying a good wage and attracting migrants as well as UK nationals, then there's nothing wrong with that - if you want to only attract migrants as you can't hire UK nationals for minimum wage, then that's a you problem.
We need a quarter of a million extra for the current level of construction. To double new houses is going to take a lot of extra workers.
Lots of sectors are short of workers, we can't just offer good wages and conditions and fill them all, the numbers don't add up.
Sure we can.
There's lots of people working unproductive jobs. There's lots of unproductive businesses.
Pay goes up, the productive jobs do well, then unproductive jobs die. Those who were working in unproductive jobs get freed up to do more productive ones.
That's how competition works. We need to let unproductive jobs die and good pay rises for the productive businesses outcompeting the unproductive ones is a part of that.
Sorry but the real world is rather more complex than that. Worker shortages are not simply about wages or even conditions. The real challenge is workforce mobility versus workforce stability. The media is fixated with the idea that putting up wages waves a magic wand and removes labour shortage. It does not. Every sector, private and public is experiencing similar challenges.
One of the possibilities is to look at the western obsession with laziness, sorry, I mean retirement. People seem to think that inactivity at a relatively young age is something to aspire to.
We are also told that teachers are underpaid. They now have an employer contribution of 23.6% into their pension, which they can top up even further. We are encouraging them to retire early through culture and monetary incentive.
Similarly NHS employees are getting 22% employer contribution. That means that a hospital consultant who gets a handsome base salary (plus the strange entitlement to do private practice on the side) gets pension contributions by the taxpayer that are almost equivalent of the annual average salary
Contrast these "fat cat" pension arrangements with the average private sector worker: 4%
Certainly there's a myriad of problems and no one universal solution, on that I agree with you.
Though given the topic of conversation we were having was the workforce for building houses, then I think the private sector not the public sector is where to look at.
I'm not sure many electricians, plumbers and the rest of the building trade are retiring young because of their state-funded 22% employer contribution.
For the NHS it certainly is an issue. Even Foxy unironically references how many colleagues are considering retirement without considering that other people don't have that as an option.
To your final point, yes indeed.
An NHS consultant is a very responsible job, but that is balanced by it being one of the safest jobs in terms of job security in the world. Add to that that many are earning (not including private practice) £120k. This means that on 22% employer pension contribution the taxpayer is paying £26k in pension contributions. the average salary in this country is just over £27k
Teachers start on a salary of £28k, which in fact equates to £34608 when pension is added in. Not a bad starting salary, particularly when considering they get 40 days paid holiday compared to between 20 and 25 in the private sector
The highest paid headteachers get £83k. Their employer pension contribution paid by the taxpayer is £19588 pa.
Those employers contributions are added to the NHS Consultants contribution (14.5% of income) and taxed via the Annual Allowance taper, giving many of my colleagues heft 5 figure tax bills. That is a big driver of early retirement, going part time and refusing voluntary overtime.
People without a home of their own vote Labour, as a class.
People with a home owned outright vote Tory, as a class.
People with a mortgage are the swing voters, as a class.
The young are struggling to get on the property ladder, they're voting Labour anyway so will struggle to see much swing anyway.
The elderly have paid off their mortgages and have a triple locked pension and no mortgage to worry about.
The middle aged are seeing their wages go up by less than inflation while their mortgage costs shoot up, so swing voters are going to do what they do and swing.
It was after the incredibly NIMBYISH Lib Dem by election win in Chesham and Amersham that the Tories rolled back their plans to liberalise planning laws to increase housing supply.
We are not building enough homes. I cannot see that changing.
If we really wanted to build enough new homes over say the next 5-7 years then forgetting everything else presumably we would need a very big number of immigrant builders and trades? Which is not going to be popular either.
Why would we?
I have no objection to that, but the alternative is that we could pay a good wage to people with skills, or apprentices to those jobs too.
In any industry the overwhelming majority of people working in the sector are UK nationals and immigrants make a small proportion, if you want to attract a lot of people to work for you then paying a good wage is the best starting point. If you're paying a good wage and attracting migrants as well as UK nationals, then there's nothing wrong with that - if you want to only attract migrants as you can't hire UK nationals for minimum wage, then that's a you problem.
We need a quarter of a million extra for the current level of construction. To double new houses is going to take a lot of extra workers.
Lots of sectors are short of workers, we can't just offer good wages and conditions and fill them all, the numbers don't add up.
Sure we can.
There's lots of people working unproductive jobs. There's lots of unproductive businesses.
Pay goes up, the productive jobs do well, then unproductive jobs die. Those who were working in unproductive jobs get freed up to do more productive ones.
That's how competition works. We need to let unproductive jobs die and good pay rises for the productive businesses outcompeting the unproductive ones is a part of that.
Sorry but the real world is rather more complex than that. Worker shortages are not simply about wages or even conditions. The real challenge is workforce mobility versus workforce stability. The media is fixated with the idea that putting up wages waves a magic wand and removes labour shortage. It does not. Every sector, private and public is experiencing similar challenges.
One of the possibilities is to look at the western obsession with laziness, sorry, I mean retirement. People seem to think that inactivity at a relatively young age is something to aspire to.
We are also told that teachers are underpaid. They now have an employer contribution of 23.6% into their pension, which they can top up even further. We are encouraging them to retire early through culture and monetary incentive.
Similarly NHS employees are getting 22% employer contribution. That means that a hospital consultant who gets a handsome base salary (plus the strange entitlement to do private practice on the side) gets pension contributions by the taxpayer that are almost equivalent of the annual average salary
Contrast these "fat cat" pension arrangements with the average private sector worker: 4%
The dual nature of the "health" system in Britain was always part and parcel of the post-WW2 "cradle to grave" deal. This is the reason why there ARE waiting lists for routine operations in the state sector - if the ops ever get done at all. The term "NHS" which wasn't used in such a big and Capitalised way in the first few years of the said arrangement's existence, is a classic piece of propaganda to distract from the INTRINSICALLY dual nature of the set-up.
"Comprehensive", as in schools, was another one.
The dual system was a way of mitigating disruption to the formation of the NHS from a very greedy BMA, and they have continued to milk that position ever since. The differential between doctors and other health professionals is astonishing. Do they ever volunteer to close the gap by reigning in their demands? No chance.
Only a minority of Consultants do any Private practice at all.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
We can all show examples. One of my big bugbears is the sob stories of single parents who are struggling. I have sympathy for them of course. Life can be shit. But my ire is raised to the media who never, NEVER, ask if the father is contributing, or how they ended up where they are. Father a child - its your responsibility to support said child. Its not down to society to pay for your 20 seconds of 'fun'.
People without a home of their own vote Labour, as a class.
People with a home owned outright vote Tory, as a class.
People with a mortgage are the swing voters, as a class.
The young are struggling to get on the property ladder, they're voting Labour anyway so will struggle to see much swing anyway.
The elderly have paid off their mortgages and have a triple locked pension and no mortgage to worry about.
The middle aged are seeing their wages go up by less than inflation while their mortgage costs shoot up, so swing voters are going to do what they do and swing.
It was after the incredibly NIMBYISH Lib Dem by election win in Chesham and Amersham that the Tories rolled back their plans to liberalise planning laws to increase housing supply.
We are not building enough homes. I cannot see that changing.
If we really wanted to build enough new homes over say the next 5-7 years then forgetting everything else presumably we would need a very big number of immigrant builders and trades? Which is not going to be popular either.
Why would we?
I have no objection to that, but the alternative is that we could pay a good wage to people with skills, or apprentices to those jobs too.
In any industry the overwhelming majority of people working in the sector are UK nationals and immigrants make a small proportion, if you want to attract a lot of people to work for you then paying a good wage is the best starting point. If you're paying a good wage and attracting migrants as well as UK nationals, then there's nothing wrong with that - if you want to only attract migrants as you can't hire UK nationals for minimum wage, then that's a you problem.
We need a quarter of a million extra for the current level of construction. To double new houses is going to take a lot of extra workers.
Lots of sectors are short of workers, we can't just offer good wages and conditions and fill them all, the numbers don't add up.
Sure we can.
There's lots of people working unproductive jobs. There's lots of unproductive businesses.
Pay goes up, the productive jobs do well, then unproductive jobs die. Those who were working in unproductive jobs get freed up to do more productive ones.
That's how competition works. We need to let unproductive jobs die and good pay rises for the productive businesses outcompeting the unproductive ones is a part of that.
Sorry but the real world is rather more complex than that. Worker shortages are not simply about wages or even conditions. The real challenge is workforce mobility versus workforce stability. The media is fixated with the idea that putting up wages waves a magic wand and removes labour shortage. It does not. Every sector, private and public is experiencing similar challenges.
One of the possibilities is to look at the western obsession with laziness, sorry, I mean retirement. People seem to think that inactivity at a relatively young age is something to aspire to.
We are also told that teachers are underpaid. They now have an employer contribution of 23.6% into their pension, which they can top up even further. We are encouraging them to retire early through culture and monetary incentive.
Similarly NHS employees are getting 22% employer contribution. That means that a hospital consultant who gets a handsome base salary (plus the strange entitlement to do private practice on the side) gets pension contributions by the taxpayer that are almost equivalent of the annual average salary
Contrast these "fat cat" pension arrangements with the average private sector worker: 4%
Certainly there's a myriad of problems and no one universal solution, on that I agree with you.
Though given the topic of conversation we were having was the workforce for building houses, then I think the private sector not the public sector is where to look at.
I'm not sure many electricians, plumbers and the rest of the building trade are retiring young because of their state-funded 22% employer contribution.
For the NHS it certainly is an issue. Even Foxy unironically references how many colleagues are considering retirement without considering that other people don't have that as an option.
To your final point, yes indeed.
An NHS consultant is a very responsible job, but that is balanced by it being one of the safest jobs in terms of job security in the world. Add to that that many are earning (not including private practice) £120k. This means that on 22% employer pension contribution the taxpayer is paying £26k in pension contributions. the average salary in this country is just over £27k
Teachers start on a salary of £28k, which in fact equates to £34608 when pension is added in. Not a bad starting salary, particularly when considering they get 40 days paid holiday compared to between 20 and 25 in the private sector
The highest paid headteachers get £83k. Their employer pension contribution paid by the taxpayer is £19588 pa.
How much are doctors paid in the private sector? How much are teachers paid in the private sector?
Prep school teachers start on £25k
Average private school Maths or English teacher earns between £25 to 42k
That seems to be talking about primary or prep school teachers, although it is not entirely clear. It does suggest most private schools pay more than the state sector, but then caveats that some pay less.
On topic, interesting from the chart is that while most of the middle age switchers from Tory have gone to Labour, among the youngest and the oldest cohorts there’s a significant chunk ‘missing’ - presumably they’ve either switched to non-Labour alternatives to the Tories, or are saying they don’t know or won’t vote.
I'm particularly intrigued by 'walked like a fir tree'. Never having seen this phenomenon in the wild, I'm wondering in exactly what manner they walk. Does anyone have a link to a video?
It’s a well known phenomenon around Burnam wood. Did a treat for Malcolm Macduff etc.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
We can all show examples. One of my big bugbears is the sob stories of single parents who are struggling. I have sympathy for them of course. Life can be shit. But my ire is raised to the media who never, NEVER, ask if the father is contributing, or how they ended up where they are. Father a child - its your responsibility to support said child. Its not down to society to pay for your 20 seconds of 'fun'.
That watch she is wearing looks suspiciously like a Rolex I bought my ex wife.
But Lee Anderson is really stupid, didn't he realise a bunch of weirdos would end up stalking that 'poor' girl's past.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
Always good to hear from an expert in not helping Ukraine enough.
'Man, I've chickenhawked 3 tours of passing vicarious judgment on the internet, it's hell out there!'
People without a home of their own vote Labour, as a class.
People with a home owned outright vote Tory, as a class.
People with a mortgage are the swing voters, as a class.
The young are struggling to get on the property ladder, they're voting Labour anyway so will struggle to see much swing anyway.
The elderly have paid off their mortgages and have a triple locked pension and no mortgage to worry about.
The middle aged are seeing their wages go up by less than inflation while their mortgage costs shoot up, so swing voters are going to do what they do and swing.
It was after the incredibly NIMBYISH Lib Dem by election win in Chesham and Amersham that the Tories rolled back their plans to liberalise planning laws to increase housing supply.
We are not building enough homes. I cannot see that changing.
If we really wanted to build enough new homes over say the next 5-7 years then forgetting everything else presumably we would need a very big number of immigrant builders and trades? Which is not going to be popular either.
Why would we?
I have no objection to that, but the alternative is that we could pay a good wage to people with skills, or apprentices to those jobs too.
In any industry the overwhelming majority of people working in the sector are UK nationals and immigrants make a small proportion, if you want to attract a lot of people to work for you then paying a good wage is the best starting point. If you're paying a good wage and attracting migrants as well as UK nationals, then there's nothing wrong with that - if you want to only attract migrants as you can't hire UK nationals for minimum wage, then that's a you problem.
We need a quarter of a million extra for the current level of construction. To double new houses is going to take a lot of extra workers.
Lots of sectors are short of workers, we can't just offer good wages and conditions and fill them all, the numbers don't add up.
Sure we can.
There's lots of people working unproductive jobs. There's lots of unproductive businesses.
Pay goes up, the productive jobs do well, then unproductive jobs die. Those who were working in unproductive jobs get freed up to do more productive ones.
That's how competition works. We need to let unproductive jobs die and good pay rises for the productive businesses outcompeting the unproductive ones is a part of that.
Sorry but the real world is rather more complex than that. Worker shortages are not simply about wages or even conditions. The real challenge is workforce mobility versus workforce stability. The media is fixated with the idea that putting up wages waves a magic wand and removes labour shortage. It does not. Every sector, private and public is experiencing similar challenges.
One of the possibilities is to look at the western obsession with laziness, sorry, I mean retirement. People seem to think that inactivity at a relatively young age is something to aspire to.
We are also told that teachers are underpaid. They now have an employer contribution of 23.6% into their pension, which they can top up even further. We are encouraging them to retire early through culture and monetary incentive.
Similarly NHS employees are getting 22% employer contribution. That means that a hospital consultant who gets a handsome base salary (plus the strange entitlement to do private practice on the side) gets pension contributions by the taxpayer that are almost equivalent of the annual average salary
Contrast these "fat cat" pension arrangements with the average private sector worker: 4%
You seem to be comparing fat cat public sector professionals with the whole of the private sector. Choose a private company and look up what their directors pay themselves and their professional staff.
You are missing the point (possibly deliberately) . Those companies do not pay their directors from taxpayers pockets and most of them are sacked if they underperform.
I don't object to public sector staff being paid well, but that also has to be looked at in the context of some of the outstanding benefits they get, particularly job security and pension contributions. Do you want to tell me that a graduate getting £28k plus a further 6K pension contribution and 40 days holiday is a bad package? Try telling that to many other grads starting on a great deal less than that.
Plenty of talk here about the public sector having to hire consultants because they do not pay enough to recruit or retain professional staff.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
We can all show examples. One of my big bugbears is the sob stories of single parents who are struggling. I have sympathy for them of course. Life can be shit. But my ire is raised to the media who never, NEVER, ask if the father is contributing, or how they ended up where they are. Father a child - its your responsibility to support said child. Its not down to society to pay for your 20 seconds of 'fun'.
That watch she is wearing looks suspiciously like a Rolex I bought my ex wife.
But Lee Anderson is really stupid, didn't he realise a bunch of weirdos would end up stalking that 'poor' girl past.
Indeed, very careless of him to introduce her to his fellow Tory MPs.
Would Tony Blair have taken a job in a Corbyn Shadow Cabinet?
Should be clearer by saying that I meant a hypothetical Blair who hadn’t been PM etc.
Probably. He was first elected in 1983 on a manifesto of quitting the EU, quitting NATO, unilateral nuclear disarmament, abolishing the hose of Lords etc. Considerably more radical than anything in Corbyns manifesto.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
Always good to hear from an expert in not helping Ukraine enough.
'Man, I've chickenhawked 3 tours of passing vicarious judgment on the internet, it's hell out there!'
All while you’ve been boldly risking life and limb battling “colonialism” on PB, you big brave boy
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
We can all show examples. One of my big bugbears is the sob stories of single parents who are struggling. I have sympathy for them of course. Life can be shit. But my ire is raised to the media who never, NEVER, ask if the father is contributing, or how they ended up where they are. Father a child - its your responsibility to support said child. Its not down to society to pay for your 20 seconds of 'fun'.
I entirely agree. However if the father turns out to be an utter shit that doesn't really help the mother or the children does it?
Hm. Just had a look near me. Apparently both Brighton/Hove and Lewes DC have the same project. It's Hove actually, so no idea why it's also appearing under Lewes. Wonder how many other errors there are?
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Would Tony Blair have taken a job in a Corbyn Shadow Cabinet?
Should be clearer by saying that I meant a hypothetical Blair who hadn’t been PM etc.
Probably. He was first elected in 1983 on a manifesto of quitting the EU, quitting NATO, unilateral nuclear disarmament, abolishing the hose of Lords etc. Considerably more radical than anything in Corbyns manifesto.
Yeah, but does anyone think that he meant any of it?
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
We can all show examples. One of my big bugbears is the sob stories of single parents who are struggling. I have sympathy for them of course. Life can be shit. But my ire is raised to the media who never, NEVER, ask if the father is contributing, or how they ended up where they are. Father a child - its your responsibility to support said child. Its not down to society to pay for your 20 seconds of 'fun'.
Probably not that much fun if it only lasted 20 seconds.
God, I hate it when poshos pretend to be ordinary working class people, disgusting that people try and fool people like this.
As you said, it was a stupid thing to post this woman's details, and probably without her consent. It serves as a warning about how easy it can be to doxx people, whether they be parliamentary researchers or Russian conscripts taking selfies in front of road signs. It's the SMO of Jennifer's ear all over again.
Would Tony Blair have taken a job in a Corbyn Shadow Cabinet?
Should be clearer by saying that I meant a hypothetical Blair who hadn’t been PM etc.
Probably. He was first elected in 1983 on a manifesto of quitting the EU, quitting NATO, unilateral nuclear disarmament, abolishing the hose of Lords etc. Considerably more radical than anything in Corbyns manifesto.
Yeah, but does anyone think that he meant any of it?
Certainly not, but surely the same would have been true of a modern Blair in Corbyns shadow cabinet. Starmer or Streeting for example.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
We can all show examples. One of my big bugbears is the sob stories of single parents who are struggling. I have sympathy for them of course. Life can be shit. But my ire is raised to the media who never, NEVER, ask if the father is contributing, or how they ended up where they are. Father a child - its your responsibility to support said child. Its not down to society to pay for your 20 seconds of 'fun'.
I entirely agree. However if the father turns out to be an utter shit that doesn't really help the mother or the children does it?
No - but the media can ask, she can say, and that at least answers that. Almost exclusively the stories covered on Radio 5 in this vein are single mothers, and I never get to hear why. I have a suspicion that if the father died tragically of cancer last year, we would hear. There was one about 2 weeks ago, single parent of two, struggling to feed the family and then another on the way. Its not judgemental to ask about life choices at that point.
Hm. Just had a look near me. Apparently both Brighton/Hove and Lewes DC have the same project. It's Hove actually, so no idea why it's also appearing under Lewes. Wonder how many other errors there are?
Some interesting ones around me. £245 000 to a pub in Melton Mowbray for example.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
She almost certainly lives in Clapham or Balham so that £775 could actually be mates rates or her room is absolutely tiny.
In her place I'd have refused to be a political prop, she's going to get so much online hate for this and loads of death threats and threats of physical abuse. The MP is an absolute idiot for putting her in this position.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
It's called sarcasm.
There are many potential reasons for the US's reluctance, few good. Internal politics. Fears of cost. Fears that stronk equipment might not be as stronk as they think (as the Russians have discovered). Memories of the Iraq debacle. Fears of Russia's reaction. Fears the US will not be left with enough kit.
The same sort of thinking that kept the US out of WWII until far too late is still all too common, especially after Iraq. The tragedy is that this is a very 'cheap' war for the US and other countries, especially compared to if they had to get involved directly.
As for finding my position unbalanced: perhaps you should consider whether your position is also unbalanced?
I'll just say what I've been saying all along, and please tell me why you think it is unbalanced: Germany is doing more than people think. They are doing less than they say. They are doing less than they should.
I have said this many times in the past. What's wrong with that?
Yes I understood it was sarcasm, I just thought it was a bit beneath you.
"Germany is doing more than people think. They are doing less than they say. They are doing less than they should." Is fair comment as far as it goes.
But, for example, claiming Sweden's announcement today "shames" Germany does seem a bit unbalanced to me.
What specifically do you find unbalanced in my position?
Well, the fact you agreed with my position above "is fair comment as far as it goes", yet you seem to think Germany is above criticism on this matter.
Germany sees itself as a leader in Europe. It often acts as if it is a leader in Europe. Yet when it comes to a place where real leadership is needed, they're all over the place, and worse, preventing others from doing the right thing.
What on earth makes you think that I "think Germany is above criticism on this matter"? But I prefer criticism that is informed and thoughtful rather than just catharsis.
Because I've offered mild criticism of Germany (and I *think* politely to Germany), and you seem to have taken a lot of offence at that criticism.
I'd hope my replies show that my criticism is informed and thoughtful, even if you disagree with it. I think I've answered the questions you've asked?
OK I've had a quick look and I really can't find this taking "a lot of offence" you refer to. Perhaps mild annoyance at perceived inconsistencies and bias, which may well be illusory. I also have not said a single word in defence of Germany's policies, let alone suggested it is above criticism.
I think expecting Germany to show leadership in military matter is unrealistic, for now.
I also think that the US reluctance to supply tanks might be also connected to what their aims are in this war. And whether there is clarity on that. US aims in this war are going to be critical in informing decision-making in allies. For example, it may be that the US sees this war ending with a return to the de facto borders in February last year (as suggested by Blinken last month), security guarantees, and maybe some kind of fudge on holding future plebiscites. Or maybe they will support Ukraine to expel Russia from the whole of Ukrainian territory including Crimea (though it doesn't look like it). Or maybe they are even happy with the war just dragging on, weakening Russia - with the added plus of helping their natural gas exports.
God, I hate it when poshos pretend to be ordinary working class people, disgusting that people try and fool people like this.
As you said, it was a stupid thing to post this woman's details, and probably without her consent. It serves as a warning about how easy it can be to doxx people, whether they be parliamentary researchers or Russian conscripts taking selfies in front of road signs. It's the SMO of Jennifer's ear all over again.
People without a home of their own vote Labour, as a class.
People with a home owned outright vote Tory, as a class.
People with a mortgage are the swing voters, as a class.
The young are struggling to get on the property ladder, they're voting Labour anyway so will struggle to see much swing anyway.
The elderly have paid off their mortgages and have a triple locked pension and no mortgage to worry about.
The middle aged are seeing their wages go up by less than inflation while their mortgage costs shoot up, so swing voters are going to do what they do and swing.
It was after the incredibly NIMBYISH Lib Dem by election win in Chesham and Amersham that the Tories rolled back their plans to liberalise planning laws to increase housing supply.
We are not building enough homes. I cannot see that changing.
If we really wanted to build enough new homes over say the next 5-7 years then forgetting everything else presumably we would need a very big number of immigrant builders and trades? Which is not going to be popular either.
Why would we?
I have no objection to that, but the alternative is that we could pay a good wage to people with skills, or apprentices to those jobs too.
In any industry the overwhelming majority of people working in the sector are UK nationals and immigrants make a small proportion, if you want to attract a lot of people to work for you then paying a good wage is the best starting point. If you're paying a good wage and attracting migrants as well as UK nationals, then there's nothing wrong with that - if you want to only attract migrants as you can't hire UK nationals for minimum wage, then that's a you problem.
We need a quarter of a million extra for the current level of construction. To double new houses is going to take a lot of extra workers.
Lots of sectors are short of workers, we can't just offer good wages and conditions and fill them all, the numbers don't add up.
Sure we can.
There's lots of people working unproductive jobs. There's lots of unproductive businesses.
Pay goes up, the productive jobs do well, then unproductive jobs die. Those who were working in unproductive jobs get freed up to do more productive ones.
That's how competition works. We need to let unproductive jobs die and good pay rises for the productive businesses outcompeting the unproductive ones is a part of that.
Sorry but the real world is rather more complex than that. Worker shortages are not simply about wages or even conditions. The real challenge is workforce mobility versus workforce stability. The media is fixated with the idea that putting up wages waves a magic wand and removes labour shortage. It does not. Every sector, private and public is experiencing similar challenges.
One of the possibilities is to look at the western obsession with laziness, sorry, I mean retirement. People seem to think that inactivity at a relatively young age is something to aspire to.
We are also told that teachers are underpaid. They now have an employer contribution of 23.6% into their pension, which they can top up even further. We are encouraging them to retire early through culture and monetary incentive.
Similarly NHS employees are getting 22% employer contribution. That means that a hospital consultant who gets a handsome base salary (plus the strange entitlement to do private practice on the side) gets pension contributions by the taxpayer that are almost equivalent of the annual average salary
Contrast these "fat cat" pension arrangements with the average private sector worker: 4%
You seem to be comparing fat cat public sector professionals with the whole of the private sector. Choose a private company and look up what their directors pay themselves and their professional staff.
You are missing the point (possibly deliberately) . Those companies do not pay their directors from taxpayers pockets and most of them are sacked if they underperform.
I don't object to public sector staff being paid well, but that also has to be looked at in the context of some of the outstanding benefits they get, particularly job security and pension contributions. Do you want to tell me that a graduate getting £28k plus a further 6K pension contribution and 40 days holiday is a bad package? Try telling that to many other grads starting on a great deal less than that.
On your first point. Quite a lot of company directors do in fact benefit from taxpayers' pockets, when they run private sector companies winning public sector contracts.
For example, a huge amount of money ended up in directors' pockets from the supply of PPE and other Covid-related projects. Not much risk there. Not to mention the outsourcing of a huge number of profitable public services to the private sector.
Hm. Just had a look near me. Apparently both Brighton/Hove and Lewes DC have the same project. It's Hove actually, so no idea why it's also appearing under Lewes. Wonder how many other errors there are?
Some interesting ones around me. £245 000 to a pub in Melton Mowbray for example.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
Always good to hear from an expert in not helping Ukraine enough.
'Man, I've chickenhawked 3 tours of passing vicarious judgment on the internet, it's hell out there!'
All while you’ve been boldly risking life and limb battling “colonialism” on PB, you big brave boy
I stand to be corrected but I don’t remember ever using the term colonialism here. Otoh I definitely haven’t given it large about risking life and limb then got a note from my mum to say I had a bit of a sniffle so won’t be doing anything risky.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Biggest swing here is those who are late middle aged. So not retired, and some way off retirement. If they were going to buy a house, they've started by now. Not particularly woke...
What has the government done to hack them off? (Apart from generally being rubbish, natch.) Some of it will be that there are more 2019 Conservative voters who can shift, but surely not all of it is that
Inflation. That's what so many people remmber of the 1970s. Permanent damage to savings, and to some extent to wages. They will still be talking of Tory inflation in 2050 and later.
I won't be, not without a seance anyway.
I think from recent remarks of yours you are my age? In which case man up, we will be sprightly youngsters barely into our 90s.
I am keen to shuffle off before Johnson's sixth consecutive election win.
Imagine the state the nation will be in by then as the comedy continues. The fifth Mrs Johnson's dog will be Secretary of State for Home Affairs and drawing a salary.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Why does that make it more complicated? If it's the right thing to do, they should do it. If it's not the right thing to do, they should say clearly they will not send them - and why.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
Not in a way that makes it more complicated to send tanks
What is currently making it complicated for Germany to send tanks is the apparent reluctance of the US to send tanks.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
Always good to hear from an expert in not helping Ukraine enough.
'Man, I've chickenhawked 3 tours of passing vicarious judgment on the internet, it's hell out there!'
All while you’ve been boldly risking life and limb battling “colonialism” on PB, you big brave boy
I stand to be corrected but I don’t remember ever using the term colonialism here. Otoh I definitely haven’t given it large about risking life and limb then got a note from my mum to say I had a bit of a sniffle so won’t be doing anything risky.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
The Nazi relationship with Ukraine was far less clear cut than that.
As indeed it was in Russia.
Or any other country occupied by the Nazis. Not sure what LuckyGuy's point was.
Hm. Just had a look near me. Apparently both Brighton/Hove and Lewes DC have the same project. It's Hove actually, so no idea why it's also appearing under Lewes. Wonder how many other errors there are?
Some interesting ones around me. £245 000 to a pub in Melton Mowbray for example.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
It's called sarcasm.
There are many potential reasons for the US's reluctance, few good. Internal politics. Fears of cost. Fears that stronk equipment might not be as stronk as they think (as the Russians have discovered). Memories of the Iraq debacle. Fears of Russia's reaction. Fears the US will not be left with enough kit.
The same sort of thinking that kept the US out of WWII until far too late is still all too common, especially after Iraq. The tragedy is that this is a very 'cheap' war for the US and other countries, especially compared to if they had to get involved directly.
As for finding my position unbalanced: perhaps you should consider whether your position is also unbalanced?
I'll just say what I've been saying all along, and please tell me why you think it is unbalanced: Germany is doing more than people think. They are doing less than they say. They are doing less than they should.
I have said this many times in the past. What's wrong with that?
Yes I understood it was sarcasm, I just thought it was a bit beneath you.
"Germany is doing more than people think. They are doing less than they say. They are doing less than they should." Is fair comment as far as it goes.
But, for example, claiming Sweden's announcement today "shames" Germany does seem a bit unbalanced to me.
What specifically do you find unbalanced in my position?
Well, the fact you agreed with my position above "is fair comment as far as it goes", yet you seem to think Germany is above criticism on this matter.
Germany sees itself as a leader in Europe. It often acts as if it is a leader in Europe. Yet when it comes to a place where real leadership is needed, they're all over the place, and worse, preventing others from doing the right thing.
What on earth makes you think that I "think Germany is above criticism on this matter"? But I prefer criticism that is informed and thoughtful rather than just catharsis.
Because I've offered mild criticism of Germany (and I *think* politely to Germany), and you seem to have taken a lot of offence at that criticism.
I'd hope my replies show that my criticism is informed and thoughtful, even if you disagree with it. I think I've answered the questions you've asked?
OK I've had a quick look and I really can't find this taking "a lot of offence" you refer to. Perhaps mild annoyance at perceived inconsistencies and bias, which may well be illusory. I also have not said a single word in defence of Germany's policies, let alone suggested it is above criticism.
I think expecting Germany to show leadership in military matter is unrealistic, for now.
You may note I've not gone on a xenophobic rant about Germany. I've not called them rude words. I've not belittled them. You seem to agree with much of what I've said, but you seem to think my position is 'unbalanced'. So how do you balance it? How do you balance Germany refusing to allow other countries to send Leopard 2 tanks?
As for the last line above, why is it 'unrealistic' ? Is not what Russia's doing in Ukraine wrong? Does it not pose a military, political and financial threat to Europe and the EU? Is not Germany the biggest country (in terms of GDP) in the EU? Do they not like to take leadership in other matters?
I'd also argue that the last line you wrote above *is* a defence of Germany's policies.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
The only way that Germany is different from the other countries already helping out more is that its forefathers were Nazis who raped Ukraine
Why should that stop them sending tanks?
Always good to hear from an expert in not helping Ukraine enough.
'Man, I've chickenhawked 3 tours of passing vicarious judgment on the internet, it's hell out there!'
All while you’ve been boldly risking life and limb battling “colonialism” on PB, you big brave boy
I stand to be corrected but I don’t remember ever using the term colonialism here. Otoh I definitely haven’t given it large about risking life and limb then got a note from my mum to say I had a bit of a sniffle so won’t be doing anything risky.
I’d still rather be someone who wanted to help
And it is always ever so lovely to be reminded of that time when I’d just been made redundant and was about to be homeless so drunkenly thought of going to Ukraine as an option
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
The following comment, over on ARRSE, made me laugh:
"When we send the Challengers we should give them all names of members of the Royal Family. Then we can send an extra one to use for spares and call it Harry."
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
It's called sarcasm.
There are many potential reasons for the US's reluctance, few good. Internal politics. Fears of cost. Fears that stronk equipment might not be as stronk as they think (as the Russians have discovered). Memories of the Iraq debacle. Fears of Russia's reaction. Fears the US will not be left with enough kit.
The same sort of thinking that kept the US out of WWII until far too late is still all too common, especially after Iraq. The tragedy is that this is a very 'cheap' war for the US and other countries, especially compared to if they had to get involved directly.
As for finding my position unbalanced: perhaps you should consider whether your position is also unbalanced?
I'll just say what I've been saying all along, and please tell me why you think it is unbalanced: Germany is doing more than people think. They are doing less than they say. They are doing less than they should.
I have said this many times in the past. What's wrong with that?
Yes I understood it was sarcasm, I just thought it was a bit beneath you.
"Germany is doing more than people think. They are doing less than they say. They are doing less than they should." Is fair comment as far as it goes.
But, for example, claiming Sweden's announcement today "shames" Germany does seem a bit unbalanced to me.
What specifically do you find unbalanced in my position?
Well, the fact you agreed with my position above "is fair comment as far as it goes", yet you seem to think Germany is above criticism on this matter.
Germany sees itself as a leader in Europe. It often acts as if it is a leader in Europe. Yet when it comes to a place where real leadership is needed, they're all over the place, and worse, preventing others from doing the right thing.
What on earth makes you think that I "think Germany is above criticism on this matter"? But I prefer criticism that is informed and thoughtful rather than just catharsis.
Because I've offered mild criticism of Germany (and I *think* politely to Germany), and you seem to have taken a lot of offence at that criticism.
I'd hope my replies show that my criticism is informed and thoughtful, even if you disagree with it. I think I've answered the questions you've asked?
OK I've had a quick look and I really can't find this taking "a lot of offence" you refer to. Perhaps mild annoyance at perceived inconsistencies and bias, which may well be illusory. I also have not said a single word in defence of Germany's policies, let alone suggested it is above criticism.
I think expecting Germany to show leadership in military matter is unrealistic, for now.
You may note I've not gone on a xenophobic rant about Germany. I've not called them rude words. I've not belittled them. You seem to agree with much of what I've said, but you seem to think my position is 'unbalanced'. So how do you balance it? How do you balance Germany refusing to allow other countries to send Leopard 2 tanks?
As for the last line above, why is it 'unrealistic' ? Is not what Russia's doing in Ukraine wrong? Does it not pose a military, political and financial threat to Europe and the EU? Is not Germany the biggest country (in terms of GDP) in the EU? Do they not like to take leadership in other matters?
I'd also argue that the last line you wrote above *is* a defence of Germany's policies.
Germany has been a democratic republic for more than 70 years. At what point can we expect them to pull their weight in terms of standing up for European democracy? And I mean committing militarily, not just giving lip service.
France also keeps of trying to give Russia an out with gains from their aggression. The reality is that of the major European powers, the UK is the best European when it comes to what truly matters.
...Trump allies aren’t waiting for those talks to end before they unload. In a series of tweets in recent days, Donald Trump. Jr. accused Daniels of being a “weak RINO,” “Mitt Romney 2.0,” and “Mitch Romney (RINO-IN).” In private conversations, the elder Trump has also made derisive remarks about the 5-foot-7 Daniels’ height, calling him a “midget,” according to two people with knowledge of his remarks.
In response, Mark Lubbers, Daniels’ closest advisor and confidante, has unloaded on what he has called the “Trump crime family” in recent statements.
At its core, the potential matchup would be an epic one. On one side there’s Banks — a 43-year-old up-and-comer who has tried to apply a MAGA touch to the GOP establishment. On the other is Daniels, a 73-year-old former Ronald Reagan aide who practices the genteel Midwestern conservatism of his late mentor, former Sen. Richard Lugar.
“Mitch frightens them,” Bill Oesterle, Daniels’ first campaign manager in his 2004 run for governor, said of the Trump wing of the party. Daniels’s candidacy would be “an existential threat to whatever is left of their waning influence.”...
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
Hm. Just had a look near me. Apparently both Brighton/Hove and Lewes DC have the same project. It's Hove actually, so no idea why it's also appearing under Lewes. Wonder how many other errors there are?
Some interesting ones around me. £245 000 to a pub in Melton Mowbray for example.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
It's called sarcasm.
There are many potential reasons for the US's reluctance, few good. Internal politics. Fears of cost. Fears that stronk equipment might not be as stronk as they think (as the Russians have discovered). Memories of the Iraq debacle. Fears of Russia's reaction. Fears the US will not be left with enough kit.
The same sort of thinking that kept the US out of WWII until far too late is still all too common, especially after Iraq. The tragedy is that this is a very 'cheap' war for the US and other countries, especially compared to if they had to get involved directly.
As for finding my position unbalanced: perhaps you should consider whether your position is also unbalanced?
I'll just say what I've been saying all along, and please tell me why you think it is unbalanced: Germany is doing more than people think. They are doing less than they say. They are doing less than they should.
I have said this many times in the past. What's wrong with that?
Yes I understood it was sarcasm, I just thought it was a bit beneath you.
"Germany is doing more than people think. They are doing less than they say. They are doing less than they should." Is fair comment as far as it goes.
But, for example, claiming Sweden's announcement today "shames" Germany does seem a bit unbalanced to me.
What specifically do you find unbalanced in my position?
Well, the fact you agreed with my position above "is fair comment as far as it goes", yet you seem to think Germany is above criticism on this matter.
Germany sees itself as a leader in Europe. It often acts as if it is a leader in Europe. Yet when it comes to a place where real leadership is needed, they're all over the place, and worse, preventing others from doing the right thing.
What on earth makes you think that I "think Germany is above criticism on this matter"? But I prefer criticism that is informed and thoughtful rather than just catharsis.
Because I've offered mild criticism of Germany (and I *think* politely to Germany), and you seem to have taken a lot of offence at that criticism.
I'd hope my replies show that my criticism is informed and thoughtful, even if you disagree with it. I think I've answered the questions you've asked?
OK I've had a quick look and I really can't find this taking "a lot of offence" you refer to. Perhaps mild annoyance at perceived inconsistencies and bias, which may well be illusory. I also have not said a single word in defence of Germany's policies, let alone suggested it is above criticism.
I think expecting Germany to show leadership in military matter is unrealistic, for now.
You may note I've not gone on a xenophobic rant about Germany. I've not called them rude words. I've not belittled them. You seem to agree with much of what I've said, but you seem to think my position is 'unbalanced'. So how do you balance it? How do you balance Germany refusing to allow other countries to send Leopard 2 tanks?
As for the last line above, why is it 'unrealistic' ? Is not what Russia's doing in Ukraine wrong? Does it not pose a military, political and financial threat to Europe and the EU? Is not Germany the biggest country (in terms of GDP) in the EU? Do they not like to take leadership in other matters?
I'd also argue that the last line you wrote above *is* a defence of Germany's policies.
Germany has been a democratic republic for more than 70 years. At what point can we expect them to pull their weight in terms of standing up for European democracy? And I mean committing militarily, not just giving lip service.
France also keeps of trying to give Russia an out with gains from their aggression. The reality is that of the major European powers, the UK is the best European when it comes to what truly matters.
I will defend Macron a little on this. Yes, he was talking to Putin and Russia. Yes, he was negotiating. Yes, I did think that was wrong at the time.
But one little thing changed my mind: the video of the conversation between Macron and Zelenskyy on the first day of the war. AFAICR Zelesnkyy asked Macron to talk to Putin (and I'm guessing that wasn't the first time he'd done that role). We needed (and probably still do need) someone big talking to Russia.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
She almost certainly lives in Clapham or Balham so that £775 could actually be mates rates or her room is absolutely tiny.
In her place I'd have refused to be a political prop, she's going to get so much online hate for this and loads of death threats and threats of physical abuse. The MP is an absolute idiot for putting her in this position.
The COO of York Minster gets paid 80k a year. That is not rolling in it for someone in their 60s. I doubt he is subsidizing her rent or holidays.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
Hm. Just had a look near me. Apparently both Brighton/Hove and Lewes DC have the same project. It's Hove actually, so no idea why it's also appearing under Lewes. Wonder how many other errors there are?
Shildon's Locomotion improvements seem, for reasons unknown, to also be attached to Bishop Auckland - and granted the two towns aren't far apart but I can't imagine many people in Bishop are that interested in Locomotion's new gallery ready for the 2025 "200 years of Rail" celebrations.
Meghan Markle is now less popular than Queen Camilla in America, even after Prince Harry has made searing criticisms of his stepmother, according to exclusive polling for Newsweek.
"The Duchess of Sussex had a net approval rating of -13 and Camilla is at -8 following a survey of 2,000 eligible U.S. voters by Redfield & Wilton on Monday. The data was collected six days after the publication of Prince Harry's memoir, Spare.
The Duke of Sussex was not far behind, at -7, after his book publicity tour and the couple's recent Netflix docuseries, Harry & Meghan, appeared to collapse their U.S. popularity.
As recently as December 5, Harry was at +38 and Meghan at +23, far outstripping Camilla, who was at -2, according to Redfield & Wilton's polling."
Dunno if it's any of their business though.
They’ve broken a pretty basic human law. Do not attack your own family. Especially so, if your granny is a recently dead and near-universally admired woman
And above all, don’t do it for money and fame. UGH
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
It's called sarcasm.
There are many potential reasons for the US's reluctance, few good. Internal politics. Fears of cost. Fears that stronk equipment might not be as stronk as they think (as the Russians have discovered). Memories of the Iraq debacle. Fears of Russia's reaction. Fears the US will not be left with enough kit.
The same sort of thinking that kept the US out of WWII until far too late is still all too common, especially after Iraq. The tragedy is that this is a very 'cheap' war for the US and other countries, especially compared to if they had to get involved directly.
As for finding my position unbalanced: perhaps you should consider whether your position is also unbalanced?
I'll just say what I've been saying all along, and please tell me why you think it is unbalanced: Germany is doing more than people think. They are doing less than they say. They are doing less than they should.
I have said this many times in the past. What's wrong with that?
Germany isn't threatened territorially.
WW2 analogies welcome so long as it's understood that Britain and the US are backing the other side from the one they allied with before.
'Territorially' is just one Russia can threaten them. Russia sees the EU as a threat, and Germany does quite well out of the EU, thanks very much. Then there's other issues with Russia's malign influence. Remember Salisbury? Litvinenko?
"WW2 analogies welcome so long as it's understood that Britain and the US are backing the other side from the one they allied with before."
True (after June 1941). Wrong (before June 1941). That's quite an important point to remember.
I thought you might make that point about 1939-1941. (If we go back before 1939 we get to Spain where Germany and the USSR backed opposing sides.) But if another conflict between Germany and Russia lies in the future the WW2 analogy will best be made with 1941-45. That won't be lost on people who live in Ukraine and Belarus.
As for Salisbury... I believe the GRU were spying on Exercise Toxic Dagger which may have meant collecting physical samples and not just photos and elint.
The narrative got intertwined with the Skripals. If there was a plan to murder Skripal père it was unsuccessful. From the video of "clock enthusiasts" Petrov and Boshirov outside the stamp and coin shop, it's clear they were under surveillance. Pretty obvious they were up to no good. They were putting their expertise to use in the private sector probably - to the extent one can distinguish. Probably not sent by Putin. Were they even anything to do with the GRU job relating to TD? Maybe, maybe not.
Curiously a dude the narrative didn't get intertwined with was Glushkov in New Malden. The plan to murder him was successful.
Salisbury wasn't like Pearl Harbour. It wasn't even like recent "unexplained breakages" in pipelines, elsewhere in the energy network, and in the postal system. The postal problems are called "Russian" but the reports are buried away somewhere on page 17, not publicly addressed by Rishi Sunak as Salisbury was by Theresa May.
The main role of Salisbury as a story was to help Russia get written into the Defence Review as a threat.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
I accidentally bought some Tesco "Similar-to-weetabix-but-legally-distinct". It was weird how it looked like it had been described to someone who had done their best.
People without a home of their own vote Labour, as a class.
People with a home owned outright vote Tory, as a class.
People with a mortgage are the swing voters, as a class.
The young are struggling to get on the property ladder, they're voting Labour anyway so will struggle to see much swing anyway.
The elderly have paid off their mortgages and have a triple locked pension and no mortgage to worry about.
The middle aged are seeing their wages go up by less than inflation while their mortgage costs shoot up, so swing voters are going to do what they do and swing.
It was after the incredibly NIMBYISH Lib Dem by election win in Chesham and Amersham that the Tories rolled back their plans to liberalise planning laws to increase housing supply.
We are not building enough homes. I cannot see that changing.
If we really wanted to build enough new homes over say the next 5-7 years then forgetting everything else presumably we would need a very big number of immigrant builders and trades? Which is not going to be popular either.
Why would we?
I have no objection to that, but the alternative is that we could pay a good wage to people with skills, or apprentices to those jobs too.
In any industry the overwhelming majority of people working in the sector are UK nationals and immigrants make a small proportion, if you want to attract a lot of people to work for you then paying a good wage is the best starting point. If you're paying a good wage and attracting migrants as well as UK nationals, then there's nothing wrong with that - if you want to only attract migrants as you can't hire UK nationals for minimum wage, then that's a you problem.
We need a quarter of a million extra for the current level of construction. To double new houses is going to take a lot of extra workers.
Lots of sectors are short of workers, we can't just offer good wages and conditions and fill them all, the numbers don't add up.
Sure we can.
There's lots of people working unproductive jobs. There's lots of unproductive businesses.
Pay goes up, the productive jobs do well, then unproductive jobs die. Those who were working in unproductive jobs get freed up to do more productive ones.
That's how competition works. We need to let unproductive jobs die and good pay rises for the productive businesses outcompeting the unproductive ones is a part of that.
Sorry but the real world is rather more complex than that. Worker shortages are not simply about wages or even conditions. The real challenge is workforce mobility versus workforce stability. The media is fixated with the idea that putting up wages waves a magic wand and removes labour shortage. It does not. Every sector, private and public is experiencing similar challenges.
One of the possibilities is to look at the western obsession with laziness, sorry, I mean retirement. People seem to think that inactivity at a relatively young age is something to aspire to.
We are also told that teachers are underpaid. They now have an employer contribution of 23.6% into their pension, which they can top up even further. We are encouraging them to retire early through culture and monetary incentive.
Similarly NHS employees are getting 22% employer contribution. That means that a hospital consultant who gets a handsome base salary (plus the strange entitlement to do private practice on the side) gets pension contributions by the taxpayer that are almost equivalent of the annual average salary
Contrast these "fat cat" pension arrangements with the average private sector worker: 4%
Certainly there's a myriad of problems and no one universal solution, on that I agree with you.
Though given the topic of conversation we were having was the workforce for building houses, then I think the private sector not the public sector is where to look at.
I'm not sure many electricians, plumbers and the rest of the building trade are retiring young because of their state-funded 22% employer contribution.
For the NHS it certainly is an issue. Even Foxy unironically references how many colleagues are considering retirement without considering that other people don't have that as an option.
To your final point, yes indeed.
An NHS consultant is a very responsible job, but that is balanced by it being one of the safest jobs in terms of job security in the world. Add to that that many are earning (not including private practice) £120k. This means that on 22% employer pension contribution the taxpayer is paying £26k in pension contributions. the average salary in this country is just over £27k
Teachers start on a salary of £28k, which in fact equates to £34608 when pension is added in. Not a bad starting salary, particularly when considering they get 40 days paid holiday compared to between 20 and 25 in the private sector
The highest paid headteachers get £83k. Their employer pension contribution paid by the taxpayer is £19588 pa.
HYUFD doesn't agree with you re head teachers. His firgures the other day were of the order of twice as much for the sensible bit, 5 x if you are not sensible and include company chief execs of whole academy chains.
pay grades for Headmasters are easily visible because they are set at a national level.
If you want the serious money you need to leap beyond being a mere headmaster and get into trust management where you can determine and set your own pay.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
Get the Waitrose bran flakes, they are identical to the branded ones.
People without a home of their own vote Labour, as a class.
People with a home owned outright vote Tory, as a class.
People with a mortgage are the swing voters, as a class.
The young are struggling to get on the property ladder, they're voting Labour anyway so will struggle to see much swing anyway.
The elderly have paid off their mortgages and have a triple locked pension and no mortgage to worry about.
The middle aged are seeing their wages go up by less than inflation while their mortgage costs shoot up, so swing voters are going to do what they do and swing.
It was after the incredibly NIMBYISH Lib Dem by election win in Chesham and Amersham that the Tories rolled back their plans to liberalise planning laws to increase housing supply.
We are not building enough homes. I cannot see that changing.
If we really wanted to build enough new homes over say the next 5-7 years then forgetting everything else presumably we would need a very big number of immigrant builders and trades? Which is not going to be popular either.
Why would we?
I have no objection to that, but the alternative is that we could pay a good wage to people with skills, or apprentices to those jobs too.
In any industry the overwhelming majority of people working in the sector are UK nationals and immigrants make a small proportion, if you want to attract a lot of people to work for you then paying a good wage is the best starting point. If you're paying a good wage and attracting migrants as well as UK nationals, then there's nothing wrong with that - if you want to only attract migrants as you can't hire UK nationals for minimum wage, then that's a you problem.
We need a quarter of a million extra for the current level of construction. To double new houses is going to take a lot of extra workers.
Lots of sectors are short of workers, we can't just offer good wages and conditions and fill them all, the numbers don't add up.
Sure we can.
There's lots of people working unproductive jobs. There's lots of unproductive businesses.
Pay goes up, the productive jobs do well, then unproductive jobs die. Those who were working in unproductive jobs get freed up to do more productive ones.
That's how competition works. We need to let unproductive jobs die and good pay rises for the productive businesses outcompeting the unproductive ones is a part of that.
Sorry but the real world is rather more complex than that. Worker shortages are not simply about wages or even conditions. The real challenge is workforce mobility versus workforce stability. The media is fixated with the idea that putting up wages waves a magic wand and removes labour shortage. It does not. Every sector, private and public is experiencing similar challenges.
One of the possibilities is to look at the western obsession with laziness, sorry, I mean retirement. People seem to think that inactivity at a relatively young age is something to aspire to.
We are also told that teachers are underpaid. They now have an employer contribution of 23.6% into their pension, which they can top up even further. We are encouraging them to retire early through culture and monetary incentive.
Similarly NHS employees are getting 22% employer contribution. That means that a hospital consultant who gets a handsome base salary (plus the strange entitlement to do private practice on the side) gets pension contributions by the taxpayer that are almost equivalent of the annual average salary
Contrast these "fat cat" pension arrangements with the average private sector worker: 4%
Certainly there's a myriad of problems and no one universal solution, on that I agree with you.
Though given the topic of conversation we were having was the workforce for building houses, then I think the private sector not the public sector is where to look at.
I'm not sure many electricians, plumbers and the rest of the building trade are retiring young because of their state-funded 22% employer contribution.
For the NHS it certainly is an issue. Even Foxy unironically references how many colleagues are considering retirement without considering that other people don't have that as an option.
To your final point, yes indeed.
An NHS consultant is a very responsible job, but that is balanced by it being one of the safest jobs in terms of job security in the world. Add to that that many are earning (not including private practice) £120k. This means that on 22% employer pension contribution the taxpayer is paying £26k in pension contributions. the average salary in this country is just over £27k
Teachers start on a salary of £28k, which in fact equates to £34608 when pension is added in. Not a bad starting salary, particularly when considering they get 40 days paid holiday compared to between 20 and 25 in the private sector
The highest paid headteachers get £83k. Their employer pension contribution paid by the taxpayer is £19588 pa.
How much are doctors paid in the private sector? How much are teachers paid in the private sector?
Nigel_Foreman has rather strange ideas about public sector pensions - I find it wiser to ignore any thread where he wishes to discuss his "ideas".
People without a home of their own vote Labour, as a class.
People with a home owned outright vote Tory, as a class.
People with a mortgage are the swing voters, as a class.
The young are struggling to get on the property ladder, they're voting Labour anyway so will struggle to see much swing anyway.
The elderly have paid off their mortgages and have a triple locked pension and no mortgage to worry about.
The middle aged are seeing their wages go up by less than inflation while their mortgage costs shoot up, so swing voters are going to do what they do and swing.
It was after the incredibly NIMBYISH Lib Dem by election win in Chesham and Amersham that the Tories rolled back their plans to liberalise planning laws to increase housing supply.
We are not building enough homes. I cannot see that changing.
If we really wanted to build enough new homes over say the next 5-7 years then forgetting everything else presumably we would need a very big number of immigrant builders and trades? Which is not going to be popular either.
Why would we?
I have no objection to that, but the alternative is that we could pay a good wage to people with skills, or apprentices to those jobs too.
In any industry the overwhelming majority of people working in the sector are UK nationals and immigrants make a small proportion, if you want to attract a lot of people to work for you then paying a good wage is the best starting point. If you're paying a good wage and attracting migrants as well as UK nationals, then there's nothing wrong with that - if you want to only attract migrants as you can't hire UK nationals for minimum wage, then that's a you problem.
We need a quarter of a million extra for the current level of construction. To double new houses is going to take a lot of extra workers.
Lots of sectors are short of workers, we can't just offer good wages and conditions and fill them all, the numbers don't add up.
Sure we can.
There's lots of people working unproductive jobs. There's lots of unproductive businesses.
Pay goes up, the productive jobs do well, then unproductive jobs die. Those who were working in unproductive jobs get freed up to do more productive ones.
That's how competition works. We need to let unproductive jobs die and good pay rises for the productive businesses outcompeting the unproductive ones is a part of that.
Sorry but the real world is rather more complex than that. Worker shortages are not simply about wages or even conditions. The real challenge is workforce mobility versus workforce stability. The media is fixated with the idea that putting up wages waves a magic wand and removes labour shortage. It does not. Every sector, private and public is experiencing similar challenges.
One of the possibilities is to look at the western obsession with laziness, sorry, I mean retirement. People seem to think that inactivity at a relatively young age is something to aspire to.
We are also told that teachers are underpaid. They now have an employer contribution of 23.6% into their pension, which they can top up even further. We are encouraging them to retire early through culture and monetary incentive.
Similarly NHS employees are getting 22% employer contribution. That means that a hospital consultant who gets a handsome base salary (plus the strange entitlement to do private practice on the side) gets pension contributions by the taxpayer that are almost equivalent of the annual average salary
Contrast these "fat cat" pension arrangements with the average private sector worker: 4%
You seem to be comparing fat cat public sector professionals with the whole of the private sector. Choose a private company and look up what their directors pay themselves and their professional staff.
You are missing the point (possibly deliberately) . Those companies do not pay their directors from taxpayers pockets and most of them are sacked if they underperform.
I don't object to public sector staff being paid well, but that also has to be looked at in the context of some of the outstanding benefits they get, particularly job security and pension contributions. Do you want to tell me that a graduate getting £28k plus a further 6K pension contribution and 40 days holiday is a bad package? Try telling that to many other grads starting on a great deal less than that.
Job security as a teacher isn't (necessarily) that great. In a school I know well that failed an Ofsted inspection - 3 teachers as well as half of the senior management team were removed within a fortnight (and it wasn't a big school less than 15 teaching staff total).
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I am sure at some point she will pop up as PPC for some nice safe Conservative seat.
It shows how our meritocracy works. Private School, dad a Brigadier, high up in the CoE.
I wonder how many Comp school leavers made the shortlist for the job.
The Archbishop of York went to a state secondary modern school, most Tory MPs now went to state schools, including Anderson
Is the Archbishop of York relevant to this story?
(Mind you, are any actual relatives of the young lady any more relevant? Is she relevant? A single person willing to rent only a room probably can manage in London on £30k. It's the families/single parents on such that are really going to find it impossible.)
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
Get the Waitrose bran flakes, they are identical to the branded ones.
Ah 'bran flakes'... the dehydrated dead leaves of the trees from which the All Bran sticks are harvested, right?
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
I don't mind it. Needs to be mixed with muesli or granola though. That deals with the excess milk issue too.
But I have yoghurt, fruit and nuts for breakfast in the week and scrambled egg on toast at the weekend.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
It's called sarcasm.
There are many potential reasons for the US's reluctance, few good. Internal politics. Fears of cost. Fears that stronk equipment might not be as stronk as they think (as the Russians have discovered). Memories of the Iraq debacle. Fears of Russia's reaction. Fears the US will not be left with enough kit.
The same sort of thinking that kept the US out of WWII until far too late is still all too common, especially after Iraq. The tragedy is that this is a very 'cheap' war for the US and other countries, especially compared to if they had to get involved directly.
As for finding my position unbalanced: perhaps you should consider whether your position is also unbalanced?
I'll just say what I've been saying all along, and please tell me why you think it is unbalanced: Germany is doing more than people think. They are doing less than they say. They are doing less than they should.
I have said this many times in the past. What's wrong with that?
Yes I understood it was sarcasm, I just thought it was a bit beneath you.
"Germany is doing more than people think. They are doing less than they say. They are doing less than they should." Is fair comment as far as it goes.
But, for example, claiming Sweden's announcement today "shames" Germany does seem a bit unbalanced to me.
What specifically do you find unbalanced in my position?
Well, the fact you agreed with my position above "is fair comment as far as it goes", yet you seem to think Germany is above criticism on this matter.
Germany sees itself as a leader in Europe. It often acts as if it is a leader in Europe. Yet when it comes to a place where real leadership is needed, they're all over the place, and worse, preventing others from doing the right thing.
What on earth makes you think that I "think Germany is above criticism on this matter"? But I prefer criticism that is informed and thoughtful rather than just catharsis.
Because I've offered mild criticism of Germany (and I *think* politely to Germany), and you seem to have taken a lot of offence at that criticism.
I'd hope my replies show that my criticism is informed and thoughtful, even if you disagree with it. I think I've answered the questions you've asked?
OK I've had a quick look and I really can't find this taking "a lot of offence" you refer to. Perhaps mild annoyance at perceived inconsistencies and bias, which may well be illusory. I also have not said a single word in defence of Germany's policies, let alone suggested it is above criticism.
I think expecting Germany to show leadership in military matter is unrealistic, for now.
You may note I've not gone on a xenophobic rant about Germany. I've not called them rude words. I've not belittled them. You seem to agree with much of what I've said, but you seem to think my position is 'unbalanced'. So how do you balance it? How do you balance Germany refusing to allow other countries to send Leopard 2 tanks?
As for the last line above, why is it 'unrealistic' ? Is not what Russia's doing in Ukraine wrong? Does it not pose a military, political and financial threat to Europe and the EU? Is not Germany the biggest country (in terms of GDP) in the EU? Do they not like to take leadership in other matters?
I'd also argue that the last line you wrote above *is* a defence of Germany's policies.
Germany has been a democratic republic for more than 70 years. At what point can we expect them to pull their weight in terms of standing up for European democracy? And I mean committing militarily, not just giving lip service.
France also keeps of trying to give Russia an out with gains from their aggression. The reality is that of the major European powers, the UK is the best European when it comes to what truly matters.
It's certainly true that over the last 70 years Germany has been much less willing to get involved in foreign military operations than the UK or France or the USA, for obvious reasons I would have thought.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
It's called sarcasm.
There are many potential reasons for the US's reluctance, few good. Internal politics. Fears of cost. Fears that stronk equipment might not be as stronk as they think (as the Russians have discovered). Memories of the Iraq debacle. Fears of Russia's reaction. Fears the US will not be left with enough kit.
The same sort of thinking that kept the US out of WWII until far too late is still all too common, especially after Iraq. The tragedy is that this is a very 'cheap' war for the US and other countries, especially compared to if they had to get involved directly.
As for finding my position unbalanced: perhaps you should consider whether your position is also unbalanced?
I'll just say what I've been saying all along, and please tell me why you think it is unbalanced: Germany is doing more than people think. They are doing less than they say. They are doing less than they should.
I have said this many times in the past. What's wrong with that?
Yes I understood it was sarcasm, I just thought it was a bit beneath you.
"Germany is doing more than people think. They are doing less than they say. They are doing less than they should." Is fair comment as far as it goes.
But, for example, claiming Sweden's announcement today "shames" Germany does seem a bit unbalanced to me.
What specifically do you find unbalanced in my position?
Well, the fact you agreed with my position above "is fair comment as far as it goes", yet you seem to think Germany is above criticism on this matter.
Germany sees itself as a leader in Europe. It often acts as if it is a leader in Europe. Yet when it comes to a place where real leadership is needed, they're all over the place, and worse, preventing others from doing the right thing.
What on earth makes you think that I "think Germany is above criticism on this matter"? But I prefer criticism that is informed and thoughtful rather than just catharsis.
Because I've offered mild criticism of Germany (and I *think* politely to Germany), and you seem to have taken a lot of offence at that criticism.
I'd hope my replies show that my criticism is informed and thoughtful, even if you disagree with it. I think I've answered the questions you've asked?
OK I've had a quick look and I really can't find this taking "a lot of offence" you refer to. Perhaps mild annoyance at perceived inconsistencies and bias, which may well be illusory. I also have not said a single word in defence of Germany's policies, let alone suggested it is above criticism.
I think expecting Germany to show leadership in military matter is unrealistic, for now.
You may note I've not gone on a xenophobic rant about Germany. I've not called them rude words. I've not belittled them. You seem to agree with much of what I've said, but you seem to think my position is 'unbalanced'. So how do you balance it? How do you balance Germany refusing to allow other countries to send Leopard 2 tanks?
As for the last line above, why is it 'unrealistic' ? Is not what Russia's doing in Ukraine wrong? Does it not pose a military, political and financial threat to Europe and the EU? Is not Germany the biggest country (in terms of GDP) in the EU? Do they not like to take leadership in other matters?
I'd also argue that the last line you wrote above *is* a defence of Germany's policies.
I guess I wouldn't bother having a conversation with you if you were just calling names.
I've given an example of what I meant by "unbalanced" - "lack of balance" is a better description.
I wouldn't call my last line a defence of anything, just a description. As to why it isn't realistic I would have thought that was obvious. When was the last time Germany took the lead in something military?
Another description (I'm not saying I support the policy): Germany's policy for months has been that it would supply tanks to Ukraine if the US did (at least as I understood it). I'm not sure that it is entirely accurate to say this is just an excuse. Germany said the same about Marders, and the day after France said it would supply armored vehicles the US and Germany both announced that they would supply Bradleys and Marders (whether Germany has many Marders in a usable state is another matter, they seem to need to borrow Greece's...).
I don't know if Germany has actually decided what its response to the latest offers from Poland and others to supply Leopards to Ukraine is going to be, maybe we'll find out tomorrow. I still think they will allow it, especially if there is a bigger group of countries that want to do it, but might stick for the time being with their policy of waiting for the US before offering tanks directly from Germany. But clearly if the US announced Abrams to Ukraine then Leopards would go to Ukraine.
Also, how far the US is willing to go, or wants Ukraine to go in this war is probably a more important decision than whether Germany allows some countries to supply Leopards.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
It's called sarcasm.
There are many potential reasons for the US's reluctance, few good. Internal politics. Fears of cost. Fears that stronk equipment might not be as stronk as they think (as the Russians have discovered). Memories of the Iraq debacle. Fears of Russia's reaction. Fears the US will not be left with enough kit.
The same sort of thinking that kept the US out of WWII until far too late is still all too common, especially after Iraq. The tragedy is that this is a very 'cheap' war for the US and other countries, especially compared to if they had to get involved directly.
As for finding my position unbalanced: perhaps you should consider whether your position is also unbalanced?
I'll just say what I've been saying all along, and please tell me why you think it is unbalanced: Germany is doing more than people think. They are doing less than they say. They are doing less than they should.
I have said this many times in the past. What's wrong with that?
Germany isn't threatened territorially.
WW2 analogies welcome so long as it's understood that Britain and the US are backing the other side from the one they allied with before.
'Territorially' is just one Russia can threaten them. Russia sees the EU as a threat, and Germany does quite well out of the EU, thanks very much. Then there's other issues with Russia's malign influence. Remember Salisbury? Litvinenko?
"WW2 analogies welcome so long as it's understood that Britain and the US are backing the other side from the one they allied with before."
True (after June 1941). Wrong (before June 1941). That's quite an important point to remember.
I thought you might make that point about 1939-1941. (If we go back before 1939 we get to Spain where Germany and the USSR backed opposing sides.) But if another conflict between Germany and Russia lies in the future the WW2 analogy will best be made with 1941-45. That won't be lost on people who live in Ukraine and Belarus.
As for Salisbury... I believe the GRU were spying on Exercise Toxic Dagger which may have meant collecting physical samples and not just photos and elint.
The narrative got intertwined with the Skripals. If there was a plan to murder Skripal père it was unsuccessful. From the video of "clock enthusiasts" Petrov and Boshirov outside the stamp and coin shop, it's clear they were under surveillance. Pretty obvious they were up to no good. They were putting their expertise to use in the private sector probably - to the extent one can distinguish. Probably not sent by Putin. Were they even anything to do with the GRU job relating to TD? Maybe, maybe not.
Curiously a dude the narrative didn't get intertwined with was Glushkov in New Malden. The plan to murder him was successful.
Salisbury wasn't like Pearl Harbour. It wasn't even like recent "unexplained breakages" in pipelines, elsewhere in the energy network, and in the postal system. The postal problems are called "Russian" but the reports are buried away somewhere on page 17, not publicly addressed by Rishi Sunak as Salisbury was by Theresa May.
The main role of Salisbury as a story was to help Russia get written into the Defence Review as a threat.
Sweden will send about 50 IFV CV90 tracked vehicles and Archer artillery systems to Ukraine. The CV90 is used to transport up to 8 infantry troops and is equipped with a 40mm Bofors automatic gun. The package is worth SEK 4.3 billion ($419 million) https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1616025419693670405
The northern and eastern European countries get it. By their own words, Russia wants dominion over much of Europe. We can choose to stop it now, or in five or ten years, when it will be much, much more expensive.
This means we don't talk about giving Ukraine help. We don't equivocate. We don't do an "after-you" gambit. We give them what they need ASAP, so they can win this war.
The actions of the smaller nations - Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland etc - shame the larger ones such as Germany (and yes, @kamski, France and Italy).
I can understand Germany's reluctance, given their history. But they were in the wrong then. That doesn't mean they need to do wrong today.
What about the even larger one - the US?
You understand Germany's reluctance. Here's a thought experiment - what do you think are the reasons and arguments behind the US refusing (so far) to supply Ukraine with tanks?
Here's a fact that you may not have noticed, as it's quite a subtle one.
The USA is not in Europe. Germany is. The USA is not threatened territorially by Russia. They are not part of a massive economic bloc that is threatened by Russia's westwards expansion. Germany is.
You might want to check on a map.
Germany should do the right thing without such pathetic excuses. Other countries are not waiting for the US.
And why is Germany apparently stopping other countries from sending their Leopard tanks to Ukraine?
So you can't think of any reasons for the US to refuse tanks, except that it isn't in Europe? Come on, humour me and do the thought experiment.
You say you understand German reluctance but you are asking me for the reason. I'd be genuinely interested to hear what you think the reasons for German reluctance are.
"You might want to check on a map" really?
It's called sarcasm.
There are many potential reasons for the US's reluctance, few good. Internal politics. Fears of cost. Fears that stronk equipment might not be as stronk as they think (as the Russians have discovered). Memories of the Iraq debacle. Fears of Russia's reaction. Fears the US will not be left with enough kit.
The same sort of thinking that kept the US out of WWII until far too late is still all too common, especially after Iraq. The tragedy is that this is a very 'cheap' war for the US and other countries, especially compared to if they had to get involved directly.
As for finding my position unbalanced: perhaps you should consider whether your position is also unbalanced?
I'll just say what I've been saying all along, and please tell me why you think it is unbalanced: Germany is doing more than people think. They are doing less than they say. They are doing less than they should.
I have said this many times in the past. What's wrong with that?
Germany isn't threatened territorially.
WW2 analogies welcome so long as it's understood that Britain and the US are backing the other side from the one they allied with before.
'Territorially' is just one Russia can threaten them. Russia sees the EU as a threat, and Germany does quite well out of the EU, thanks very much. Then there's other issues with Russia's malign influence. Remember Salisbury? Litvinenko?
"WW2 analogies welcome so long as it's understood that Britain and the US are backing the other side from the one they allied with before."
True (after June 1941). Wrong (before June 1941). That's quite an important point to remember.
I thought you might make that point about 1939-1941. (If we go back before 1939 we get to Spain where Germany and the USSR backed opposing sides.) But if another conflict between Germany and Russia lies in the future the WW2 analogy will best be made with 1941-45. That won't be lost on people who live in Ukraine and Belarus.
This is one of those little tells. The imperialist mindset dies hard.
By the same token in a future war between Britain and Germany the experience of WW1 won't be lost on the people of Ireland. Nor of course the experience of WW2 on the people of Kenya or India.
Meghan Markle is now less popular than Queen Camilla in America, even after Prince Harry has made searing criticisms of his stepmother, according to exclusive polling for Newsweek.
"The Duchess of Sussex had a net approval rating of -13 and Camilla is at -8 following a survey of 2,000 eligible U.S. voters by Redfield & Wilton on Monday. The data was collected six days after the publication of Prince Harry's memoir, Spare.
The Duke of Sussex was not far behind, at -7, after his book publicity tour and the couple's recent Netflix docuseries, Harry & Meghan, appeared to collapse their U.S. popularity.
As recently as December 5, Harry was at +38 and Meghan at +23, far outstripping Camilla, who was at -2, according to Redfield & Wilton's polling."
Dunno if it's any of their business though.
They’ve broken a pretty basic human law. Do not attack your own family. Especially so, if your granny is a recently dead and near-universally admired woman
And above all, don’t do it for money and fame. UGH
"They’ve broken a pretty basic human law. Do not attack your own family." Well, exactly. This is imv literally a tragedy: Agamemnon, Hamlet, bit of Oedipus. The eternal tragic question; what do you do when [your perception is] your mum kills your dad, or in this case vice versa? The money and fame is by products.
Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
I don't mind it. Needs to be mixed with muesli or granola though. That deals with the excess milk issue too.
But I have yoghurt, fruit and nuts for breakfast in the week and scrambled egg on toast at the weekend.
So, your method is to mix other things in to hide the Weetabix? And then eat something else entirely?
That works for me!
ETA: From personal (family) research I can report that that Weetabix-liking gene is dominant (one parent likes, one dislikes, all children like) but the Marmite-liking gene is recessive (one parent likes, one dislikes, all children dislike).
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
I don't mind it. Needs to be mixed with muesli or granola though. That deals with the excess milk issue too.
But I have yoghurt, fruit and nuts for breakfast in the week and scrambled egg on toast at the weekend.
So, your method is to mix other things in to hide the Weetabix? And then eat something else entirely?
That works for me!
Weetabix works best when smushed down and cooked in the manner of porridge.
Lee Anderson MP @LeeAndersonMP_ Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix
I don't mind it. Needs to be mixed with muesli or granola though. That deals with the excess milk issue too.
But I have yoghurt, fruit and nuts for breakfast in the week and scrambled egg on toast at the weekend.
It's still coffee and a fag for me, I'm afraid. Same as when I was a student.
Meghan Markle is now less popular than Queen Camilla in America, even after Prince Harry has made searing criticisms of his stepmother, according to exclusive polling for Newsweek.
"The Duchess of Sussex had a net approval rating of -13 and Camilla is at -8 following a survey of 2,000 eligible U.S. voters by Redfield & Wilton on Monday. The data was collected six days after the publication of Prince Harry's memoir, Spare.
The Duke of Sussex was not far behind, at -7, after his book publicity tour and the couple's recent Netflix docuseries, Harry & Meghan, appeared to collapse their U.S. popularity.
As recently as December 5, Harry was at +38 and Meghan at +23, far outstripping Camilla, who was at -2, according to Redfield & Wilton's polling."
Dunno if it's any of their business though.
They’ve broken a pretty basic human law. Do not attack your own family. Especially so, if your granny is a recently dead and near-universally admired woman
And above all, don’t do it for money and fame. UGH
"They’ve broken a pretty basic human law. Do not attack your own family." Well, exactly. This is imv literally a tragedy: Agamemnon, Hamlet, bit of Oedipus. The eternal tragic question; what do you do when [your perception is] your mum kills your dad, or in this case vice versa? The money and fame is by products.
it’s not a by-product for HER. It is the essence. She wants the fame and attention. She’s got it. But it’s not quite panning out how she hoped
Where does it go from here? If they have any sense they will stop. Keep their millions. Be nice. Do charity. Etc
If they continue they could end up two of the most hated people in the English speaking world. it will look like a mad selfish vendetta
Comments
"WW2 analogies welcome so long as it's understood that Britain and the US are backing the other side from the one they allied with before."
True (after June 1941). Wrong (before June 1941). That's quite an important point to remember.
I'd hope my replies show that my criticism is informed and thoughtful, even if you disagree with it. I think I've answered the questions you've asked?
It is my firm opinion that lexicographers just make stuff up about word origins, and I've watched Cats Does Countdown and everything.
I had always believed it was Chatham Average, as in the town in Kent.
But Lee Anderson is really stupid, didn't he realise a bunch of weirdos would end up stalking that 'poor' girl's past.
'Man, I've chickenhawked 3 tours of passing vicarious judgment on the internet, it's hell out there!'
https://eurojewcong.org/ejc-in-action/statements/european-jewish-congress-shocked-and-appalled-by-russian-fms-holocaust-reference/
There was one about 2 weeks ago, single parent of two, struggling to feed the family and then another on the way. Its not judgemental to ask about life choices at that point.
In her place I'd have refused to be a political prop, she's going to get so much online hate for this and loads of death threats and threats of physical abuse. The MP is an absolute idiot for putting her in this position.
I think expecting Germany to show leadership in military matter is unrealistic, for now.
I also think that the US reluctance to supply tanks might be also connected to what their aims are in this war. And whether there is clarity on that. US aims in this war are going to be critical in informing decision-making in allies. For example, it may be that the US sees this war ending with a return to the de facto borders in February last year (as suggested by Blinken last month), security guarantees, and maybe some kind of fudge on holding future plebiscites. Or maybe they will support Ukraine to expel Russia from the whole of Ukrainian territory including Crimea (though it doesn't look like it). Or maybe they are even happy with the war just dragging on, weakening Russia - with the added plus of helping their natural gas exports.
For example, a huge amount of money ended up in directors' pockets from the supply of PPE and other Covid-related projects. Not much risk there. Not to mention the outsourcing of a huge number of profitable public services to the private sector.
Boris Johnson: Putin is like fat boy in Dickens making hollow threats
Former PM says Russian leader will never use nuclear weapons
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-putin-is-like-fat-boy-in-dickens-who-makes-hollow-threats-nlrff803p
And nothing like an assurance like that from Bozza Would I Lie To You Johnson to get me checking the tinned food stocks in the Anderson shelter.
Imagine the state the nation will be in by then as the comedy continues. The fifth Mrs Johnson's dog will be Secretary of
State for Home Affairs and drawing a salary.
Not sure what LuckyGuy's point was.
As for the last line above, why is it 'unrealistic' ? Is not what Russia's doing in Ukraine wrong? Does it not pose a military, political and financial threat to Europe and the EU? Is not Germany the biggest country (in terms of GDP) in the EU? Do they not like to take leadership in other matters?
I'd also argue that the last line you wrote above *is* a defence of Germany's policies.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ranting-tory-mp-lee-anderson-28846047.amp
I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
"When we send the Challengers we should give them all names of members of the Royal Family. Then we can send an extra one to use for spares and call it Harry."
France also keeps of trying to give Russia an out with gains from their aggression. The reality is that of the major European powers, the UK is the best European when it comes to what truly matters.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/18/ground-zero-of-the-republican-civil-war-the-indiana-senate-race-could-get-ugly-quickly-00078449
...Trump allies aren’t waiting for those talks to end before they unload. In a series of tweets in recent days, Donald Trump. Jr. accused Daniels of being a “weak RINO,” “Mitt Romney 2.0,” and “Mitch Romney (RINO-IN).” In private conversations, the elder Trump has also made derisive remarks about the 5-foot-7 Daniels’ height, calling him a “midget,” according to two people with knowledge of his remarks.
In response, Mark Lubbers, Daniels’ closest advisor and confidante, has unloaded on what he has called the “Trump crime family” in recent statements.
At its core, the potential matchup would be an epic one. On one side there’s Banks — a 43-year-old up-and-comer who has tried to apply a MAGA touch to the GOP establishment. On the other is Daniels, a 73-year-old former Ronald Reagan aide who practices the genteel Midwestern conservatism of his late mentor, former Sen. Richard Lugar.
“Mitch frightens them,” Bill Oesterle, Daniels’ first campaign manager in his 2004 run for governor, said of the Trump wing of the party. Daniels’s candidacy would be “an existential threat to whatever is left of their waning influence.”...
It shows how our meritocracy works. Private School, dad a Brigadier, high up in the CoE.
I wonder how many Comp school leavers made the shortlist for the job.
But one little thing changed my mind: the video of the conversation between Macron and Zelenskyy on the first day of the war. AFAICR Zelesnkyy asked Macron to talk to Putin (and I'm guessing that wasn't the first time he'd done that role). We needed (and probably still do need) someone big talking to Russia.
Just not *for* Russia.
And above all, don’t do it for money and fame. UGH
As for Salisbury... I believe the GRU were spying on Exercise Toxic Dagger which may have meant collecting physical samples and not just photos and elint.
The narrative got intertwined with the Skripals. If there was a plan to murder Skripal père it was unsuccessful. From the video of "clock enthusiasts" Petrov and Boshirov outside the stamp and coin shop, it's clear they were under surveillance. Pretty obvious they were up to no good. They were putting their expertise to use in the private sector probably - to the extent one can distinguish. Probably not sent by Putin. Were they even anything to do with the GRU job relating to TD? Maybe, maybe not.
Curiously a dude the narrative didn't get intertwined with was Glushkov in New Malden. The plan to murder him was successful.
Salisbury wasn't like Pearl Harbour. It wasn't even like recent "unexplained breakages" in pipelines, elsewhere in the energy network, and in the postal system. The postal problems are called "Russian" but the reports are buried away somewhere on page 17, not publicly addressed by Rishi Sunak as Salisbury was by Theresa May.
The main role of Salisbury as a story was to help Russia get written into the Defence Review as a threat.
If you want the serious money you need to leap beyond being a mere headmaster and get into trust management where you can determine and set your own pay.
Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
(Mind you, are any actual relatives of the young lady any more relevant? Is she relevant? A single person willing to rent only a room probably can manage in London on £30k. It's the families/single parents on such that are really going to find it impossible.)
50% of university enrollment will disappear in the next 10 years.”
https://twitter.com/chrisboettcher9/status/1615711362466078722?s=46&t=yIBjpkurM1GU7Z9F67jOmw
He’s probably right
But I have yoghurt, fruit and nuts for breakfast in the week and scrambled egg on toast at the weekend.
I've given an example of what I meant by "unbalanced" - "lack of balance" is a better description.
I wouldn't call my last line a defence of anything, just a description. As to why it isn't realistic I would have thought that was obvious. When was the last time Germany took the lead in something military?
Another description (I'm not saying I support the policy): Germany's policy for months has been that it would supply tanks to Ukraine if the US did (at least as I understood it). I'm not sure that it is entirely accurate to say this is just an excuse. Germany said the same about Marders, and the day after France said it would supply armored vehicles the US and Germany both announced that they would supply Bradleys and Marders (whether Germany has many Marders in a usable state is another matter, they seem to need to borrow Greece's...).
I don't know if Germany has actually decided what its response to the latest offers from Poland and others to supply Leopards to Ukraine is going to be, maybe we'll find out tomorrow. I still think they will allow it, especially if there is a bigger group of countries that want to do it, but might stick for the time being with their policy of waiting for the US before offering tanks directly from Germany. But clearly if the US announced Abrams to Ukraine then Leopards would go to Ukraine.
Also, how far the US is willing to go, or wants Ukraine to go in this war is probably a more important decision than whether Germany allows some countries to supply Leopards.
By the same token in a future war between Britain and Germany the experience of WW1 won't be lost on the people of Ireland. Nor of course the experience of WW2 on the people of Kenya or India.
That works for me!
ETA: From personal (family) research I can report that that Weetabix-liking gene is dominant (one parent likes, one dislikes, all children like) but the Marmite-liking gene is recessive (one parent likes, one dislikes, all children dislike).
Healthcare workers:
Support 59% (+9)
Oppose 2… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616089972456714241
Breaking news
The rail delivery group has made a best and final offer to the RMT including a pay rise of 9% over 2 years
The washing up requires effort though.
Where does it go from here? If they have any sense they will stop. Keep their millions. Be nice. Do charity. Etc
If they continue they could end up two of the most hated people in the English speaking world. it will look like a mad selfish vendetta