Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Latest political betting odds from Smarkets – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited January 29 in General
imageLatest political betting odds from Smarkets – politicalbetting.com

I’ve got a hospital appointment today so there will be no more updates from me until I return. This is my main focus at the moment.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 18,056
    edited January 24
    1st, like the innings before the 2nd innings.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 2,405
    Best wishes Mike! Take care of yourself.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,240
    edited January 24
    What are the rules on the "Prime Minister after next election" market? It is "PM 1 week after close of polls", or "PM who first tries to pass a King's Speech", or "PM who first manages to pass a King's Speech" ?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503
    Best wishes Mike OGH!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Progressive taxation under Labour the Tories:
    FYI, a couple of interesting (🤓) tables on income #tax from #HMRC (basically showing 'the rich' *are* paying more tax)...

    1. the % shares of total income tax paid by different income groups (the shares paid by the top 10%, 5% and 1% have all risen over the last decade... (1/2)


    2. the percentage shares of total income for each percentile group (these haven't changed much over the last decade, meaning that higher earners are paying more #tax on roughly the same share of income). (2/2)
    https://twitter.com/julianhjessop/status/1617601327856586752

    Oh no, not data!

    Opinion, that “the rich” need to be taxed more, is much easier to sell to the electorate as a whole, who never think it will affect *them*. IIRC the top decile starts at about £60k annual income, way lower than most people think it would be.

    More seriously, those numbers are a precursor to emigration (and immigration forgone), and it doesn’t need many of the top 1% to change their behavior, to have a large effect on the total tax take.
    ...says our resident tax haven ex-pat.
    Yes, your resident tax haven ex-pat.

    Who sees stories like this in his local newspaper:
    https://www.thenationalnews.com/weekend/2023/01/13/all-roads-lead-to-dubai-for-the-workers-deserting-britains-sinking-ship/
    That tiktok video is absolutely devastating. It explains middle class impoverishment in the UK, the guy was an experienced primary school teacher in the UK in his mid 30's earning £33k, and only had £170 per month to live on after he had paid his living expenses... So actually, you would have to increase his wage by about 10k to make it worth him staying in the UK, IE so he could save up to buy a house, and THEN uprate the pay by inflation every year going forward. None of that will happen. What we have now got is the problems of London of the past 2 decades (where you can only live if you are a co-habiting couple or live in a houseshare) expanded to the whole country.
    Yes, absolutely. The problems are housing costs, housing costs, and housing costs.

    Build more houses. Lots more houses. Then build yet more houses.
    The problems are deeper than this I am afraid. I think that you could build as many houses as you want in Redcar but build costs and regulation mean that a 1 bed flat will always be £600 per month either in terms of rent or mortgage payments... The problem is everything to do with the cost of building and regulation. Unfortunately, unless you want to try and reduce regulation or find a way of building housing for less... The only real solution is to increase wages.
    A large portion of the cost of construction is the wages. Not just direct, but in the cost of materials.

    Wages, especially for the lower paid, are defined, largely, by housing cost.

    Note, historically, the interest by forward thinking employers in providing reasonable quality homes close to their bsuinesses.
    It is about a 70/30 split I think, wages/materials for the basic standard of housebuilding, which is based on a lot of manual labour. But there have been big increases in the minimum wage, obviously reflecting general inflation. If demand for housebuilding goes down, then build costs could go down, but this will be symptomatic of not much housebuilding going on, which would have its own negative consequences.
    Build costs might well go up, if there was a serious contraction in house building.

    If house prices go down, the pressure will be on build costs.
    The way to fix build costs, is with technology. Prefab houses offsite, and ship them in on half a dozen lorries. Government to underwrite 20-year mortgages on them if built to a defined standard. A handful of factories could churn out hundreds of units per week. Target price £100k for a 3-bed, plus land cost.

    It requires the same effort that went into housebuilding post-WWII - and an understanding from government, that housing is the nation’s highest priority.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 24,023

    What are the rules on the "Prime Minister after next election" market? It is "PM 1 week after close of polls", or "PM who first tries to pass a King's Speech", or "PM who first manages to pass a King's Speech" ?

    This market relates to the Prime Minister of the first new government formed after the next UK general election.
    The first person who accepts an invitation from the monarch to form a government after the election will be considered the winner. This will apply even if they immediately lose a vote of confidence in the House of Commons.
    The incumbent PM will be settled as the winner if they successfully form a new government (which may not require the specific invitation above).
    If no new PM is appointed before a further general election, this market will be void.
    Other contracts may be added.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,941
    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Progressive taxation under Labour the Tories:
    FYI, a couple of interesting (🤓) tables on income #tax from #HMRC (basically showing 'the rich' *are* paying more tax)...

    1. the % shares of total income tax paid by different income groups (the shares paid by the top 10%, 5% and 1% have all risen over the last decade... (1/2)


    2. the percentage shares of total income for each percentile group (these haven't changed much over the last decade, meaning that higher earners are paying more #tax on roughly the same share of income). (2/2)
    https://twitter.com/julianhjessop/status/1617601327856586752

    Oh no, not data!

    Opinion, that “the rich” need to be taxed more, is much easier to sell to the electorate as a whole, who never think it will affect *them*. IIRC the top decile starts at about £60k annual income, way lower than most people think it would be.

    More seriously, those numbers are a precursor to emigration (and immigration forgone), and it doesn’t need many of the top 1% to change their behavior, to have a large effect on the total tax take.
    ...says our resident tax haven ex-pat.
    Yes, your resident tax haven ex-pat.

    Who sees stories like this in his local newspaper:
    https://www.thenationalnews.com/weekend/2023/01/13/all-roads-lead-to-dubai-for-the-workers-deserting-britains-sinking-ship/
    That tiktok video is absolutely devastating. It explains middle class impoverishment in the UK, the guy was an experienced primary school teacher in the UK in his mid 30's earning £33k, and only had £170 per month to live on after he had paid his living expenses... So actually, you would have to increase his wage by about 10k to make it worth him staying in the UK, IE so he could save up to buy a house, and THEN uprate the pay by inflation every year going forward. None of that will happen. What we have now got is the problems of London of the past 2 decades (where you can only live if you are a co-habiting couple or live in a houseshare) expanded to the whole country.
    Yes, absolutely. The problems are housing costs, housing costs, and housing costs.

    Build more houses. Lots more houses. Then build yet more houses.
    The problems are deeper than this I am afraid. I think that you could build as many houses as you want in Redcar but build costs and regulation mean that a 1 bed flat will always be £600 per month either in terms of rent or mortgage payments... The problem is everything to do with the cost of building and regulation. Unfortunately, unless you want to try and reduce regulation or find a way of building housing for less... The only real solution is to increase wages.
    A large portion of the cost of construction is the wages. Not just direct, but in the cost of materials.

    Wages, especially for the lower paid, are defined, largely, by housing cost.

    Note, historically, the interest by forward thinking employers in providing reasonable quality homes close to their bsuinesses.
    It is about a 70/30 split I think, wages/materials for the basic standard of housebuilding, which is based on a lot of manual labour. But there have been big increases in the minimum wage, obviously reflecting general inflation. If demand for housebuilding goes down, then build costs could go down, but this will be symptomatic of not much housebuilding going on, which would have its own negative consequences.
    Build costs might well go up, if there was a serious contraction in house building.

    If house prices go down, the pressure will be on build costs.
    The way to fix build costs, is with technology. Prefab houses offsite, and ship them in on half a dozen lorries. Government to underwrite 20-year mortgages on them if built to a defined standard. A handful of factories could churn out hundreds of units per week. Target price £100k for a 3-bed, plus land cost.

    It requires the same effort that went into housebuilding post-WWII - and an understanding from government, that housing is the nation’s highest priority.
    It's interesting how pre-fabs have taken off in some areas (e.g. quite a few on Shetland - I've stayed in one, which was a great house) but almost unknown in others. We need to get out of the mindset that pre-fab = post-war tin bungalow, I guess.
  • What are the rules on the "Prime Minister after next election" market? It is "PM 1 week after close of polls", or "PM who first tries to pass a King's Speech", or "PM who first manages to pass a King's Speech" ?

    This market relates to the Prime Minister of the first new government formed after the next UK general election.

    The first person who accepts an invitation from the monarch to form a government after the election will be considered the winner. This will apply even if they immediately lose a vote of confidence in the House of Commons.

    The incumbent PM will be settled as the winner if they successfully form a new government (which may not require the specific invitation above).

    If no new PM is appointed before a further general election, this market will be void.

    Other contracts may be added.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503
    edited January 24
    Impressive that in an era of inflation, where time-value-of-money is a genuine concern, there’s £1.3m so far bet on the Next President market, which pays out on Jan 20th 2025 - almost exactly two years from now.

    I think laying DeSantis is the best bet at the moment. He’s still not formally a runner, and could well be keeping his nose clean for 2028 - when Trump definitely won’t be involved.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 11,036
    Curse of the new thread! FPT:

    The fundamental problem is population ageing, which has been exacerbated by policy failures. Between 1980 and 2009 the old age dependency ratio (numbers aged 65+ to those aged 15-64) was stable, moving from 0.23 to 0.24. Since then it has increased to 0.31. In 10 years it is expected to be 0.37 and by the end of this century 0.6 - so in terms of the ageing shock this has only just started. (UN data). Ageing has a number of effects that are contributing to the current crisis:
    * direct costs on working age people via taxation
    * A shortage of workers that increases costs to business and encourages/requires immigration
    * immigration plus old people remaining in family homes creates a housing shortage
    * higher taxes and housing costs encourages emigration of mobile and higher skilled workers, increasing tax burden on those remaining.
    Policy failures include regulatory impediments to housing supply, self defeating austerity policies that shrank the economy, and failure to raise the pension age sufficiently and to improve public health. Plus Brexit that has added to business costs and reduced tax revenue (also made it harder for retirees to move overseas). Ultimately, we have to realise that ageing poses an existential threat to our way of life that requires a complete rethink of our lifestyles, the welfare state, everything. We simply cannot afford to support increasing numbers of elderly people living in poor health - younger workers won't take it. This isn't an attack on old people - a group I love and respect and who I will be a member of sooner than I'd like to think. It's just arithmetic.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,682
    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Progressive taxation under Labour the Tories:
    FYI, a couple of interesting (🤓) tables on income #tax from #HMRC (basically showing 'the rich' *are* paying more tax)...

    1. the % shares of total income tax paid by different income groups (the shares paid by the top 10%, 5% and 1% have all risen over the last decade... (1/2)


    2. the percentage shares of total income for each percentile group (these haven't changed much over the last decade, meaning that higher earners are paying more #tax on roughly the same share of income). (2/2)
    https://twitter.com/julianhjessop/status/1617601327856586752

    Oh no, not data!

    Opinion, that “the rich” need to be taxed more, is much easier to sell to the electorate as a whole, who never think it will affect *them*. IIRC the top decile starts at about £60k annual income, way lower than most people think it would be.

    More seriously, those numbers are a precursor to emigration (and immigration forgone), and it doesn’t need many of the top 1% to change their behavior, to have a large effect on the total tax take.
    ...says our resident tax haven ex-pat.
    Yes, your resident tax haven ex-pat.

    Who sees stories like this in his local newspaper:
    https://www.thenationalnews.com/weekend/2023/01/13/all-roads-lead-to-dubai-for-the-workers-deserting-britains-sinking-ship/
    That tiktok video is absolutely devastating. It explains middle class impoverishment in the UK, the guy was an experienced primary school teacher in the UK in his mid 30's earning £33k, and only had £170 per month to live on after he had paid his living expenses... So actually, you would have to increase his wage by about 10k to make it worth him staying in the UK, IE so he could save up to buy a house, and THEN uprate the pay by inflation every year going forward. None of that will happen. What we have now got is the problems of London of the past 2 decades (where you can only live if you are a co-habiting couple or live in a houseshare) expanded to the whole country.
    Yes, absolutely. The problems are housing costs, housing costs, and housing costs.

    Build more houses. Lots more houses. Then build yet more houses.
    The problems are deeper than this I am afraid. I think that you could build as many houses as you want in Redcar but build costs and regulation mean that a 1 bed flat will always be £600 per month either in terms of rent or mortgage payments... The problem is everything to do with the cost of building and regulation. Unfortunately, unless you want to try and reduce regulation or find a way of building housing for less... The only real solution is to increase wages.
    A large portion of the cost of construction is the wages. Not just direct, but in the cost of materials.

    Wages, especially for the lower paid, are defined, largely, by housing cost.

    Note, historically, the interest by forward thinking employers in providing reasonable quality homes close to their bsuinesses.
    It is about a 70/30 split I think, wages/materials for the basic standard of housebuilding, which is based on a lot of manual labour. But there have been big increases in the minimum wage, obviously reflecting general inflation. If demand for housebuilding goes down, then build costs could go down, but this will be symptomatic of not much housebuilding going on, which would have its own negative consequences.
    Build costs might well go up, if there was a serious contraction in house building.

    If house prices go down, the pressure will be on build costs.
    The way to fix build costs, is with technology. Prefab houses offsite, and ship them in on half a dozen lorries. Government to underwrite 20-year mortgages on them if built to a defined standard. A handful of factories could churn out hundreds of units per week. Target price £100k for a 3-bed, plus land cost.

    It requires the same effort that went into housebuilding post-WWII - and an understanding from government, that housing is the nation’s highest priority.
    It's interesting how pre-fabs have taken off in some areas (e.g. quite a few on Shetland - I've stayed in one, which was a great house) but almost unknown in others. We need to get out of the mindset that pre-fab = post-war tin bungalow, I guess.
    SIPS construction is a great way to go. We doubled the size of our refurbed 1960 bungalow with a SIPS built extension, all pre-built off site and bolted together here.

    The look, feel, insulation, and comfort levels of the extension are brilliant. I wish we'd knocked the old part of the house down and done that in SIPS too now.

    https://www.sips.org
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    Interesting.

    Virus exposure and neurodegenerative disease risk across national biobanks
    https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(22)01147-3
    With recent findings connecting the Epstein-Barr virus to an increased risk of multiple sclerosis and growing concerns regarding the neurological impact of the coronavirus pandemic, we examined potential links between viral exposures and neurodegenerative disease risk. Using time series data from FinnGen for discovery and cross-sectional data from the UK Biobank for replication, we identified 45 viral exposures significantly associated with increased risk of neurodegenerative disease and replicated 22 of these associations. The largest effect association was between viral encephalitis exposure and Alzheimer’s disease. Influenza with pneumonia was significantly associated with five of the six neurodegenerative diseases studied. We also replicated the Epstein-Barr/multiple sclerosis association. Some of these exposures were associated with an increased risk of neurodegeneration up to 15 years after infection. As vaccines are currently available for some of the associated viruses, vaccination may be a way to reduce some risk of neurodegenerative disease.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Progressive taxation under Labour the Tories:
    FYI, a couple of interesting (🤓) tables on income #tax from #HMRC (basically showing 'the rich' *are* paying more tax)...

    1. the % shares of total income tax paid by different income groups (the shares paid by the top 10%, 5% and 1% have all risen over the last decade... (1/2)


    2. the percentage shares of total income for each percentile group (these haven't changed much over the last decade, meaning that higher earners are paying more #tax on roughly the same share of income). (2/2)
    https://twitter.com/julianhjessop/status/1617601327856586752

    Oh no, not data!

    Opinion, that “the rich” need to be taxed more, is much easier to sell to the electorate as a whole, who never think it will affect *them*. IIRC the top decile starts at about £60k annual income, way lower than most people think it would be.

    More seriously, those numbers are a precursor to emigration (and immigration forgone), and it doesn’t need many of the top 1% to change their behavior, to have a large effect on the total tax take.
    ...says our resident tax haven ex-pat.
    Yes, your resident tax haven ex-pat.

    Who sees stories like this in his local newspaper:
    https://www.thenationalnews.com/weekend/2023/01/13/all-roads-lead-to-dubai-for-the-workers-deserting-britains-sinking-ship/
    That tiktok video is absolutely devastating. It explains middle class impoverishment in the UK, the guy was an experienced primary school teacher in the UK in his mid 30's earning £33k, and only had £170 per month to live on after he had paid his living expenses... So actually, you would have to increase his wage by about 10k to make it worth him staying in the UK, IE so he could save up to buy a house, and THEN uprate the pay by inflation every year going forward. None of that will happen. What we have now got is the problems of London of the past 2 decades (where you can only live if you are a co-habiting couple or live in a houseshare) expanded to the whole country.
    Yes, absolutely. The problems are housing costs, housing costs, and housing costs.

    Build more houses. Lots more houses. Then build yet more houses.
    The problems are deeper than this I am afraid. I think that you could build as many houses as you want in Redcar but build costs and regulation mean that a 1 bed flat will always be £600 per month either in terms of rent or mortgage payments... The problem is everything to do with the cost of building and regulation. Unfortunately, unless you want to try and reduce regulation or find a way of building housing for less... The only real solution is to increase wages.
    A large portion of the cost of construction is the wages. Not just direct, but in the cost of materials.

    Wages, especially for the lower paid, are defined, largely, by housing cost.

    Note, historically, the interest by forward thinking employers in providing reasonable quality homes close to their bsuinesses.
    It is about a 70/30 split I think, wages/materials for the basic standard of housebuilding, which is based on a lot of manual labour. But there have been big increases in the minimum wage, obviously reflecting general inflation. If demand for housebuilding goes down, then build costs could go down, but this will be symptomatic of not much housebuilding going on, which would have its own negative consequences.
    Build costs might well go up, if there was a serious contraction in house building.

    If house prices go down, the pressure will be on build costs.
    The way to fix build costs, is with technology. Prefab houses offsite, and ship them in on half a dozen lorries. Government to underwrite 20-year mortgages on them if built to a defined standard. A handful of factories could churn out hundreds of units per week. Target price £100k for a 3-bed, plus land cost.

    It requires the same effort that went into housebuilding post-WWII - and an understanding from government, that housing is the nation’s highest priority.
    It's interesting how pre-fabs have taken off in some areas (e.g. quite a few on Shetland - I've stayed in one, which was a great house) but almost unknown in others. We need to get out of the mindset that pre-fab = post-war tin bungalow, I guess.
    Oh, I don't know - the wartime and immediately postwar prefabs were much loved by many of their occupants (modern, well designed, fitted kitchens as standard) and the survivors are often much cherished. I wonder if the problem is more the sort of shoddy assembly of factory-produced concrete modules seen for instance at Ronan Point? (The problem there was ISTR a basic design principle; but there was some pretty shocking workmanship even in the simple assembly of the concrete chunks.)
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 1,791
    Sandpit said:

    Impressive that, in an era of inflation, where time-value-of-money is a genuine concern, there’s £1.3m so far bet on the Next President market, which pays out on Jan 20th 2025 - almost exactly two years from now.

    I think laying DeSantis is the best bet at the moment. He’s still not formally a runner, and could well be keeping his nose clean for 2028 - when Trump definitely won’t be involved.

    Agree. It's very difficult to see how Trump won't get the Republcan nomination if he wants it - and he does. If de Santis persists and becomes a real contender Trump will just burn down the house and de Santis with it. De Santis is just 44. Far better to let Trump get beaten by Biden again, and then run in the next general election when the country will be looking for a change from the Democrats. Having said that, ambitious politicians are not known for their patience.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,147
    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Progressive taxation under Labour the Tories:
    FYI, a couple of interesting (🤓) tables on income #tax from #HMRC (basically showing 'the rich' *are* paying more tax)...

    1. the % shares of total income tax paid by different income groups (the shares paid by the top 10%, 5% and 1% have all risen over the last decade... (1/2)


    2. the percentage shares of total income for each percentile group (these haven't changed much over the last decade, meaning that higher earners are paying more #tax on roughly the same share of income). (2/2)
    https://twitter.com/julianhjessop/status/1617601327856586752

    Oh no, not data!

    Opinion, that “the rich” need to be taxed more, is much easier to sell to the electorate as a whole, who never think it will affect *them*. IIRC the top decile starts at about £60k annual income, way lower than most people think it would be.

    More seriously, those numbers are a precursor to emigration (and immigration forgone), and it doesn’t need many of the top 1% to change their behavior, to have a large effect on the total tax take.
    ...says our resident tax haven ex-pat.
    Yes, your resident tax haven ex-pat.

    Who sees stories like this in his local newspaper:
    https://www.thenationalnews.com/weekend/2023/01/13/all-roads-lead-to-dubai-for-the-workers-deserting-britains-sinking-ship/
    That tiktok video is absolutely devastating. It explains middle class impoverishment in the UK, the guy was an experienced primary school teacher in the UK in his mid 30's earning £33k, and only had £170 per month to live on after he had paid his living expenses... So actually, you would have to increase his wage by about 10k to make it worth him staying in the UK, IE so he could save up to buy a house, and THEN uprate the pay by inflation every year going forward. None of that will happen. What we have now got is the problems of London of the past 2 decades (where you can only live if you are a co-habiting couple or live in a houseshare) expanded to the whole country.
    Yes, absolutely. The problems are housing costs, housing costs, and housing costs.

    Build more houses. Lots more houses. Then build yet more houses.
    The problems are deeper than this I am afraid. I think that you could build as many houses as you want in Redcar but build costs and regulation mean that a 1 bed flat will always be £600 per month either in terms of rent or mortgage payments... The problem is everything to do with the cost of building and regulation. Unfortunately, unless you want to try and reduce regulation or find a way of building housing for less... The only real solution is to increase wages.
    A large portion of the cost of construction is the wages. Not just direct, but in the cost of materials.

    Wages, especially for the lower paid, are defined, largely, by housing cost.

    Note, historically, the interest by forward thinking employers in providing reasonable quality homes close to their bsuinesses.
    It is about a 70/30 split I think, wages/materials for the basic standard of housebuilding, which is based on a lot of manual labour. But there have been big increases in the minimum wage, obviously reflecting general inflation. If demand for housebuilding goes down, then build costs could go down, but this will be symptomatic of not much housebuilding going on, which would have its own negative consequences.
    Build costs might well go up, if there was a serious contraction in house building.

    If house prices go down, the pressure will be on build costs.
    The way to fix build costs, is with technology. Prefab houses offsite, and ship them in on half a dozen lorries. Government to underwrite 20-year mortgages on them if built to a defined standard. A handful of factories could churn out hundreds of units per week. Target price £100k for a 3-bed, plus land cost.

    It requires the same effort that went into housebuilding post-WWII - and an understanding from government, that housing is the nation’s highest priority.
    https://www.huf-haus.com/en-uk/detached-house/ has long been a thing.

    The problem is the lack of places you are allowed to build.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,909
    Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Does anyone know what the penalty is to a country should they transfer weapons without consent of the manufacturing country?

    Suppose Poland sends Leopards to Ukraine without German permission, Germany says “we aren’t going to sell you anymore weapons and we will take you to the European court (or whatever forum is relevant).

    Poland says “no problem, we will pay a fine and never buy a German kit again.”

    Germany loses an arms customer who is going to be upping their spending on arms and also is damaged in PR terms.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    Yuriy Ignat, the spokesman of the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, said that the USA has already decided on the type of aircraft to be supplied to Ukraine, as well as on the terms of pilot training.
    https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1617834435025698816
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    Ukraine’s deputy prosecutor general, Oleksiy Symonenko, has been removed from his post during a shake-up of senior officials, the prosecutor general’s office said.

    Reuters reports the statement announcing his removal on Tuesday gave no reason for the decision but said it had been “according to his own wish”.

    Earlier, the presidential aide Kyrylo Tymoshenko and deputy defence minister Vyacheslav Shapovalov both resigned, as Ukraine is gripped in a corruption scandal within its government.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/jan/24/russia-ukraine-war-live-zelenskiy-flags-more-changes-in-corruption-purge-german-defence-group-offers-to-send-tanks-if-needed
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 1,526
    edited January 24
    On a relatively slow news day, it is interesting that Yevgeny Prigrozhin, the vermin who leads the murderous, mercenary rabble of child rapists known as the Wagner Group is said to be in a growing confrontation with the "official" war criminals of the Russian Army High Command. Obviously I curse them both, but the news that Sunak´s Treasury permitted this sordid criminal to attempt to silence Eliot Higgins at Belling Cat with utterly unjustified legal intimidation is just another example that equivocation over Russia is not combined to just Germany. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/prigozhin-government-russia-ukraine-hack-libel-slapp/
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,147

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Progressive taxation under Labour the Tories:
    FYI, a couple of interesting (🤓) tables on income #tax from #HMRC (basically showing 'the rich' *are* paying more tax)...

    1. the % shares of total income tax paid by different income groups (the shares paid by the top 10%, 5% and 1% have all risen over the last decade... (1/2)


    2. the percentage shares of total income for each percentile group (these haven't changed much over the last decade, meaning that higher earners are paying more #tax on roughly the same share of income). (2/2)
    https://twitter.com/julianhjessop/status/1617601327856586752

    Oh no, not data!

    Opinion, that “the rich” need to be taxed more, is much easier to sell to the electorate as a whole, who never think it will affect *them*. IIRC the top decile starts at about £60k annual income, way lower than most people think it would be.

    More seriously, those numbers are a precursor to emigration (and immigration forgone), and it doesn’t need many of the top 1% to change their behavior, to have a large effect on the total tax take.
    ...says our resident tax haven ex-pat.
    Yes, your resident tax haven ex-pat.

    Who sees stories like this in his local newspaper:
    https://www.thenationalnews.com/weekend/2023/01/13/all-roads-lead-to-dubai-for-the-workers-deserting-britains-sinking-ship/
    That tiktok video is absolutely devastating. It explains middle class impoverishment in the UK, the guy was an experienced primary school teacher in the UK in his mid 30's earning £33k, and only had £170 per month to live on after he had paid his living expenses... So actually, you would have to increase his wage by about 10k to make it worth him staying in the UK, IE so he could save up to buy a house, and THEN uprate the pay by inflation every year going forward. None of that will happen. What we have now got is the problems of London of the past 2 decades (where you can only live if you are a co-habiting couple or live in a houseshare) expanded to the whole country.
    Yes, absolutely. The problems are housing costs, housing costs, and housing costs.

    Build more houses. Lots more houses. Then build yet more houses.
    The problems are deeper than this I am afraid. I think that you could build as many houses as you want in Redcar but build costs and regulation mean that a 1 bed flat will always be £600 per month either in terms of rent or mortgage payments... The problem is everything to do with the cost of building and regulation. Unfortunately, unless you want to try and reduce regulation or find a way of building housing for less... The only real solution is to increase wages.
    A large portion of the cost of construction is the wages. Not just direct, but in the cost of materials.

    Wages, especially for the lower paid, are defined, largely, by housing cost.

    Note, historically, the interest by forward thinking employers in providing reasonable quality homes close to their bsuinesses.
    It is about a 70/30 split I think, wages/materials for the basic standard of housebuilding, which is based on a lot of manual labour. But there have been big increases in the minimum wage, obviously reflecting general inflation. If demand for housebuilding goes down, then build costs could go down, but this will be symptomatic of not much housebuilding going on, which would have its own negative consequences.
    Build costs might well go up, if there was a serious contraction in house building.

    If house prices go down, the pressure will be on build costs.
    The way to fix build costs, is with technology. Prefab houses offsite, and ship them in on half a dozen lorries. Government to underwrite 20-year mortgages on them if built to a defined standard. A handful of factories could churn out hundreds of units per week. Target price £100k for a 3-bed, plus land cost.

    It requires the same effort that went into housebuilding post-WWII - and an understanding from government, that housing is the nation’s highest priority.
    It's interesting how pre-fabs have taken off in some areas (e.g. quite a few on Shetland - I've stayed in one, which was a great house) but almost unknown in others. We need to get out of the mindset that pre-fab = post-war tin bungalow, I guess.
    SIPS construction is a great way to go. We doubled the size of our refurbed 1960 bungalow with a SIPS built extension, all pre-built off site and bolted together here.

    The look, feel, insulation, and comfort levels of the extension are brilliant. I wish we'd knocked the old part of the house down and done that in SIPS too now.

    https://www.sips.org
    Where really big cost reductions could be achieved is in pre-fitted services.

    It isn't hard to imagine wall panels that come with their section of the ring main, with the wiring in proper ducts, with connectors to connect to the next section of the ring.

    Plumbing would be more interesting.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,949

    Sandpit said:

    Impressive that, in an era of inflation, where time-value-of-money is a genuine concern, there’s £1.3m so far bet on the Next President market, which pays out on Jan 20th 2025 - almost exactly two years from now.

    I think laying DeSantis is the best bet at the moment. He’s still not formally a runner, and could well be keeping his nose clean for 2028 - when Trump definitely won’t be involved.

    Agree. It's very difficult to see how Trump won't get the Republcan nomination if he wants it - and he does. If de Santis persists and becomes a real contender Trump will just burn down the house and de Santis with it. De Santis is just 44. Far better to let Trump get beaten by Biden again, and then run in the next general election when the country will be looking for a change from the Democrats. Having said that, ambitious politicians are not known for their patience.
    The trouble with waiting is that another, better contender will come along and your moment is past. Nonetheless, I agree that DeSantis's best hope is to avoid running against Trump.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503
    edited January 24

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Progressive taxation under Labour the Tories:
    FYI, a couple of interesting (🤓) tables on income #tax from #HMRC (basically showing 'the rich' *are* paying more tax)...

    1. the % shares of total income tax paid by different income groups (the shares paid by the top 10%, 5% and 1% have all risen over the last decade... (1/2)


    2. the percentage shares of total income for each percentile group (these haven't changed much over the last decade, meaning that higher earners are paying more #tax on roughly the same share of income). (2/2)
    https://twitter.com/julianhjessop/status/1617601327856586752

    Oh no, not data!

    Opinion, that “the rich” need to be taxed more, is much easier to sell to the electorate as a whole, who never think it will affect *them*. IIRC the top decile starts at about £60k annual income, way lower than most people think it would be.

    More seriously, those numbers are a precursor to emigration (and immigration forgone), and it doesn’t need many of the top 1% to change their behavior, to have a large effect on the total tax take.
    ...says our resident tax haven ex-pat.
    Yes, your resident tax haven ex-pat.

    Who sees stories like this in his local newspaper:
    https://www.thenationalnews.com/weekend/2023/01/13/all-roads-lead-to-dubai-for-the-workers-deserting-britains-sinking-ship/
    That tiktok video is absolutely devastating. It explains middle class impoverishment in the UK, the guy was an experienced primary school teacher in the UK in his mid 30's earning £33k, and only had £170 per month to live on after he had paid his living expenses... So actually, you would have to increase his wage by about 10k to make it worth him staying in the UK, IE so he could save up to buy a house, and THEN uprate the pay by inflation every year going forward. None of that will happen. What we have now got is the problems of London of the past 2 decades (where you can only live if you are a co-habiting couple or live in a houseshare) expanded to the whole country.
    Yes, absolutely. The problems are housing costs, housing costs, and housing costs.

    Build more houses. Lots more houses. Then build yet more houses.
    The problems are deeper than this I am afraid. I think that you could build as many houses as you want in Redcar but build costs and regulation mean that a 1 bed flat will always be £600 per month either in terms of rent or mortgage payments... The problem is everything to do with the cost of building and regulation. Unfortunately, unless you want to try and reduce regulation or find a way of building housing for less... The only real solution is to increase wages.
    A large portion of the cost of construction is the wages. Not just direct, but in the cost of materials.

    Wages, especially for the lower paid, are defined, largely, by housing cost.

    Note, historically, the interest by forward thinking employers in providing reasonable quality homes close to their bsuinesses.
    It is about a 70/30 split I think, wages/materials for the basic standard of housebuilding, which is based on a lot of manual labour. But there have been big increases in the minimum wage, obviously reflecting general inflation. If demand for housebuilding goes down, then build costs could go down, but this will be symptomatic of not much housebuilding going on, which would have its own negative consequences.
    Build costs might well go up, if there was a serious contraction in house building.

    If house prices go down, the pressure will be on build costs.
    The way to fix build costs, is with technology. Prefab houses offsite, and ship them in on half a dozen lorries. Government to underwrite 20-year mortgages on them if built to a defined standard. A handful of factories could churn out hundreds of units per week. Target price £100k for a 3-bed, plus land cost.

    It requires the same effort that went into housebuilding post-WWII - and an understanding from government, that housing is the nation’s highest priority.
    https://www.huf-haus.com/en-uk/detached-house/ has long been a thing.

    The problem is the lack of places you are allowed to build.
    AIUI the bigger problem is persuading banks to offer loans against them, because they’re seen as temporary structures. Self-build suffers from a similar problem, such that it only really works for cash buyers.

    Mortgage reform is the answer, which requires government to set standards they’re prepared to either underwrite themselves, or re-insure with the market.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,147
    edited January 24
    boulay said:

    Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Does anyone know what the penalty is to a country should they transfer weapons without consent of the manufacturing country?

    Suppose Poland sends Leopards to Ukraine without German permission, Germany says “we aren’t going to sell you anymore weapons and we will take you to the European court (or whatever forum is relevant).

    Poland says “no problem, we will pay a fine and never buy a German kit again.”

    Germany loses an arms customer who is going to be upping their spending on arms and also is damaged in PR terms.
    The biggest issue would probably be the cutting off of spare parts and technical assistance.

    So if Poland did this with the Leopards, the Ukrainians might end up with tanks that they have difficulty getting spare parts for, and the manufacturer won't help fix.

    With the M1s in Iraq and Egypt, the Americans have a massive presence in the supply chain/maintenance operation. Not sure about Australia...
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,949
    boulay said:

    Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Does anyone know what the penalty is to a country should they transfer weapons without consent of the manufacturing country?

    Suppose Poland sends Leopards to Ukraine without German permission, Germany says “we aren’t going to sell you anymore weapons and we will take you to the European court (or whatever forum is relevant).

    Poland says “no problem, we will pay a fine and never buy a German kit again.”

    Germany loses an arms customer who is going to be upping their spending on arms and also is damaged in PR terms.
    Dunno but which other countries will want to do business with a customer who ignores licence terms?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,778
    Returning for a moment to Cyclefree's article on misogyny; this asked a very specific question about the subject and so I read it with interest as Cyclefree is always so interesting and I wanted to know her answer to her own question.

    Except there wasn't, unless I have misread it, any attempt to answer as opposed to illustrate the problem.

    Do I just infer that Cyclefree's answer is that some male natures just are that way and it is unstoppable?

    May I call for a further article from Cyclefree on exactly this question. This subject matters.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503
    Nigelb said:

    Yuriy Ignat, the spokesman of the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, said that the USA has already decided on the type of aircraft to be supplied to Ukraine, as well as on the terms of pilot training.
    https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1617834435025698816

    OOHHHHHHH!!!!!

    Sounds like it could be F-16s heading to Ukraine. Game-changer if that’s the case.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,240
    tlg86 said:

    What are the rules on the "Prime Minister after next election" market? It is "PM 1 week after close of polls", or "PM who first tries to pass a King's Speech", or "PM who first manages to pass a King's Speech" ?

    This market relates to the Prime Minister of the first new government formed after the next UK general election.
    The first person who accepts an invitation from the monarch to form a government after the election will be considered the winner. This will apply even if they immediately lose a vote of confidence in the House of Commons.
    The incumbent PM will be settled as the winner if they successfully form a new government (which may not require the specific invitation above).
    If no new PM is appointed before a further general election, this market will be void.
    Other contracts may be added.
    Thanks.

    I think that makes Labour most seats a much better bet than Keir Starmer PM after the next election. Inflation means it's probably not worth backing Labour most seats and Sunak PM after the election, but I think that if the Tories have most seats they will almost certainly form a new government, and force Labour & SNP to vote them down. I also don't expect Labour/SNP to rush into a formal coalition agreement which would be necessary to force Sunak to give way earlier.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,147
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Yuriy Ignat, the spokesman of the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, said that the USA has already decided on the type of aircraft to be supplied to Ukraine, as well as on the terms of pilot training.
    https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1617834435025698816

    OOHHHHHHH!!!!!

    Sounds like it could be F-16s heading to Ukraine. Game-changer if that’s the case.
    Depends on the model - If it's the F16A/B that was supposed to be sold to Pakistan way back when, then they'd be useful (maybe).

    A F16C/D Block 52 - that would be a game changer.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,147

    boulay said:

    Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Does anyone know what the penalty is to a country should they transfer weapons without consent of the manufacturing country?

    Suppose Poland sends Leopards to Ukraine without German permission, Germany says “we aren’t going to sell you anymore weapons and we will take you to the European court (or whatever forum is relevant).

    Poland says “no problem, we will pay a fine and never buy a German kit again.”

    Germany loses an arms customer who is going to be upping their spending on arms and also is damaged in PR terms.
    Dunno but which other countries will want to do business with a customer who ignores licence terms?
    You might take a hit on price, for a while. The arms business is pretty cut throat (ha!), in the end.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,240
    boulay said:

    Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Does anyone know what the penalty is to a country should they transfer weapons without consent of the manufacturing country?

    Suppose Poland sends Leopards to Ukraine without German permission, Germany says “we aren’t going to sell you anymore weapons and we will take you to the European court (or whatever forum is relevant).

    Poland says “no problem, we will pay a fine and never buy a German kit again.”

    Germany loses an arms customer who is going to be upping their spending on arms and also is damaged in PR terms.
    The most immediate problem would be if Germany retaliated by refusing to supply spare parts, as it would mean that Ukraine would have to cannibalise the tanks they were sent for spare parts to keep some of them running. Germany's agreement is worth the effort of obtaining for that reason.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,147
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Progressive taxation under Labour the Tories:
    FYI, a couple of interesting (🤓) tables on income #tax from #HMRC (basically showing 'the rich' *are* paying more tax)...

    1. the % shares of total income tax paid by different income groups (the shares paid by the top 10%, 5% and 1% have all risen over the last decade... (1/2)


    2. the percentage shares of total income for each percentile group (these haven't changed much over the last decade, meaning that higher earners are paying more #tax on roughly the same share of income). (2/2)
    https://twitter.com/julianhjessop/status/1617601327856586752

    Oh no, not data!

    Opinion, that “the rich” need to be taxed more, is much easier to sell to the electorate as a whole, who never think it will affect *them*. IIRC the top decile starts at about £60k annual income, way lower than most people think it would be.

    More seriously, those numbers are a precursor to emigration (and immigration forgone), and it doesn’t need many of the top 1% to change their behavior, to have a large effect on the total tax take.
    ...says our resident tax haven ex-pat.
    Yes, your resident tax haven ex-pat.

    Who sees stories like this in his local newspaper:
    https://www.thenationalnews.com/weekend/2023/01/13/all-roads-lead-to-dubai-for-the-workers-deserting-britains-sinking-ship/
    That tiktok video is absolutely devastating. It explains middle class impoverishment in the UK, the guy was an experienced primary school teacher in the UK in his mid 30's earning £33k, and only had £170 per month to live on after he had paid his living expenses... So actually, you would have to increase his wage by about 10k to make it worth him staying in the UK, IE so he could save up to buy a house, and THEN uprate the pay by inflation every year going forward. None of that will happen. What we have now got is the problems of London of the past 2 decades (where you can only live if you are a co-habiting couple or live in a houseshare) expanded to the whole country.
    Yes, absolutely. The problems are housing costs, housing costs, and housing costs.

    Build more houses. Lots more houses. Then build yet more houses.
    The problems are deeper than this I am afraid. I think that you could build as many houses as you want in Redcar but build costs and regulation mean that a 1 bed flat will always be £600 per month either in terms of rent or mortgage payments... The problem is everything to do with the cost of building and regulation. Unfortunately, unless you want to try and reduce regulation or find a way of building housing for less... The only real solution is to increase wages.
    A large portion of the cost of construction is the wages. Not just direct, but in the cost of materials.

    Wages, especially for the lower paid, are defined, largely, by housing cost.

    Note, historically, the interest by forward thinking employers in providing reasonable quality homes close to their bsuinesses.
    It is about a 70/30 split I think, wages/materials for the basic standard of housebuilding, which is based on a lot of manual labour. But there have been big increases in the minimum wage, obviously reflecting general inflation. If demand for housebuilding goes down, then build costs could go down, but this will be symptomatic of not much housebuilding going on, which would have its own negative consequences.
    Build costs might well go up, if there was a serious contraction in house building.

    If house prices go down, the pressure will be on build costs.
    The way to fix build costs, is with technology. Prefab houses offsite, and ship them in on half a dozen lorries. Government to underwrite 20-year mortgages on them if built to a defined standard. A handful of factories could churn out hundreds of units per week. Target price £100k for a 3-bed, plus land cost.

    It requires the same effort that went into housebuilding post-WWII - and an understanding from government, that housing is the nation’s highest priority.
    https://www.huf-haus.com/en-uk/detached-house/ has long been a thing.

    The problem is the lack of places you are allowed to build.
    AIUI the bigger problem is persuading banks to offer loans against them, because they’re seen as temporary structures. Self-build suffers from a similar problem, such that it only really works for cash buyers.

    Mortgage reform is the answer, which requires government to set standards they’re prepared to either underwrite themselves, or re-insure with the market.
    A friend pioneered lending against tower block properties, in London.

    You can get mortgages through specialist lenders, for pre-fabs - the issue is quality, guarantees and resale value.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,941
    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Progressive taxation under Labour the Tories:
    FYI, a couple of interesting (🤓) tables on income #tax from #HMRC (basically showing 'the rich' *are* paying more tax)...

    1. the % shares of total income tax paid by different income groups (the shares paid by the top 10%, 5% and 1% have all risen over the last decade... (1/2)


    2. the percentage shares of total income for each percentile group (these haven't changed much over the last decade, meaning that higher earners are paying more #tax on roughly the same share of income). (2/2)
    https://twitter.com/julianhjessop/status/1617601327856586752

    Oh no, not data!

    Opinion, that “the rich” need to be taxed more, is much easier to sell to the electorate as a whole, who never think it will affect *them*. IIRC the top decile starts at about £60k annual income, way lower than most people think it would be.

    More seriously, those numbers are a precursor to emigration (and immigration forgone), and it doesn’t need many of the top 1% to change their behavior, to have a large effect on the total tax take.
    ...says our resident tax haven ex-pat.
    Yes, your resident tax haven ex-pat.

    Who sees stories like this in his local newspaper:
    https://www.thenationalnews.com/weekend/2023/01/13/all-roads-lead-to-dubai-for-the-workers-deserting-britains-sinking-ship/
    That tiktok video is absolutely devastating. It explains middle class impoverishment in the UK, the guy was an experienced primary school teacher in the UK in his mid 30's earning £33k, and only had £170 per month to live on after he had paid his living expenses... So actually, you would have to increase his wage by about 10k to make it worth him staying in the UK, IE so he could save up to buy a house, and THEN uprate the pay by inflation every year going forward. None of that will happen. What we have now got is the problems of London of the past 2 decades (where you can only live if you are a co-habiting couple or live in a houseshare) expanded to the whole country.
    Yes, absolutely. The problems are housing costs, housing costs, and housing costs.

    Build more houses. Lots more houses. Then build yet more houses.
    The problems are deeper than this I am afraid. I think that you could build as many houses as you want in Redcar but build costs and regulation mean that a 1 bed flat will always be £600 per month either in terms of rent or mortgage payments... The problem is everything to do with the cost of building and regulation. Unfortunately, unless you want to try and reduce regulation or find a way of building housing for less... The only real solution is to increase wages.
    A large portion of the cost of construction is the wages. Not just direct, but in the cost of materials.

    Wages, especially for the lower paid, are defined, largely, by housing cost.

    Note, historically, the interest by forward thinking employers in providing reasonable quality homes close to their bsuinesses.
    It is about a 70/30 split I think, wages/materials for the basic standard of housebuilding, which is based on a lot of manual labour. But there have been big increases in the minimum wage, obviously reflecting general inflation. If demand for housebuilding goes down, then build costs could go down, but this will be symptomatic of not much housebuilding going on, which would have its own negative consequences.
    Build costs might well go up, if there was a serious contraction in house building.

    If house prices go down, the pressure will be on build costs.
    The way to fix build costs, is with technology. Prefab houses offsite, and ship them in on half a dozen lorries. Government to underwrite 20-year mortgages on them if built to a defined standard. A handful of factories could churn out hundreds of units per week. Target price £100k for a 3-bed, plus land cost.

    It requires the same effort that went into housebuilding post-WWII - and an understanding from government, that housing is the nation’s highest priority.
    It's interesting how pre-fabs have taken off in some areas (e.g. quite a few on Shetland - I've stayed in one, which was a great house) but almost unknown in others. We need to get out of the mindset that pre-fab = post-war tin bungalow, I guess.
    Oh, I don't know - the wartime and immediately postwar prefabs were much loved by many of their occupants (modern, well designed, fitted kitchens as standard) and the survivors are often much cherished. I wonder if the problem is more the sort of shoddy assembly of factory-produced concrete modules seen for instance at Ronan Point? (The problem there was ISTR a basic design principle; but there was some pretty shocking workmanship even in the simple assembly of the concrete chunks.)
    Oh, indeed. Didn't get that across in my post, but there are some near my parents' house and I know that those are much loved by occupants,* but I do think your typical homebuyer, with no knowledge of them, would find them unappealing, for their asthetics as much as anything.

    *When they were still mostly council owned, the council had a plan to replace them with traditional build units, which was fiercely opposed by residents.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    Nigelb said:

    Ukraine’s deputy prosecutor general, Oleksiy Symonenko, has been removed from his post during a shake-up of senior officials, the prosecutor general’s office said.

    Reuters reports the statement announcing his removal on Tuesday gave no reason for the decision but said it had been “according to his own wish”.

    Earlier, the presidential aide Kyrylo Tymoshenko and deputy defence minister Vyacheslav Shapovalov both resigned, as Ukraine is gripped in a corruption scandal within its government.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/jan/24/russia-ukraine-war-live-zelenskiy-flags-more-changes-in-corruption-purge-german-defence-group-offers-to-send-tanks-if-needed

    Ukraine’s state broadcaster Suspilne is reporting on Telegram that the heads of administration in five of Ukraine’s regions have been dismissed, naming Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhzhya, Kyiv, Sumy and Kherson as the regions affected.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,240
    Sandpit said:

    Impressive that in an era of inflation, where time-value-of-money is a genuine concern, there’s £1.3m so far bet on the Next President market, which pays out on Jan 20th 2025 - almost exactly two years from now.

    I think laying DeSantis is the best bet at the moment. He’s still not formally a runner, and could well be keeping his nose clean for 2028 - when Trump definitely won’t be involved.

    I would bet on Trump for the Republican nomination and Biden for the Presidency. I think Trump is way underpriced for the nomination, still, and fear of Trump will lead to Biden/Democrats swallowing any doubts they have about Biden's age to renominate him. And I think Biden beats Trump by a wider margin than in 2020.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Yuriy Ignat, the spokesman of the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, said that the USA has already decided on the type of aircraft to be supplied to Ukraine, as well as on the terms of pilot training.
    https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1617834435025698816

    OOHHHHHHH!!!!!

    Sounds like it could be F-16s heading to Ukraine. Game-changer if that’s the case.
    Depends on the model - If it's the F16A/B that was supposed to be sold to Pakistan way back when, then they'd be useful (maybe).

    A F16C/D Block 52 - that would be a game changer.
    It’ll likely be the older ones. The Septics won’t want the most modern NATO kit ending up shot down and in enemy hands, nor non-NATO pilots and technicians knowing too much about them.

    What’s needed, is sufficient numbers to provide air cover for the Western tanks. We know that the enemy can’t field more than a handful of their latest-gen fighter aircraft in opposition, so they’ll mostly be fighting the Cold-War-era Soviet birds - and even then, likely not many of them.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    Selebian said:

    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Progressive taxation under Labour the Tories:
    FYI, a couple of interesting (🤓) tables on income #tax from #HMRC (basically showing 'the rich' *are* paying more tax)...

    1. the % shares of total income tax paid by different income groups (the shares paid by the top 10%, 5% and 1% have all risen over the last decade... (1/2)


    2. the percentage shares of total income for each percentile group (these haven't changed much over the last decade, meaning that higher earners are paying more #tax on roughly the same share of income). (2/2)
    https://twitter.com/julianhjessop/status/1617601327856586752

    Oh no, not data!

    Opinion, that “the rich” need to be taxed more, is much easier to sell to the electorate as a whole, who never think it will affect *them*. IIRC the top decile starts at about £60k annual income, way lower than most people think it would be.

    More seriously, those numbers are a precursor to emigration (and immigration forgone), and it doesn’t need many of the top 1% to change their behavior, to have a large effect on the total tax take.
    ...says our resident tax haven ex-pat.
    Yes, your resident tax haven ex-pat.

    Who sees stories like this in his local newspaper:
    https://www.thenationalnews.com/weekend/2023/01/13/all-roads-lead-to-dubai-for-the-workers-deserting-britains-sinking-ship/
    That tiktok video is absolutely devastating. It explains middle class impoverishment in the UK, the guy was an experienced primary school teacher in the UK in his mid 30's earning £33k, and only had £170 per month to live on after he had paid his living expenses... So actually, you would have to increase his wage by about 10k to make it worth him staying in the UK, IE so he could save up to buy a house, and THEN uprate the pay by inflation every year going forward. None of that will happen. What we have now got is the problems of London of the past 2 decades (where you can only live if you are a co-habiting couple or live in a houseshare) expanded to the whole country.
    Yes, absolutely. The problems are housing costs, housing costs, and housing costs.

    Build more houses. Lots more houses. Then build yet more houses.
    The problems are deeper than this I am afraid. I think that you could build as many houses as you want in Redcar but build costs and regulation mean that a 1 bed flat will always be £600 per month either in terms of rent or mortgage payments... The problem is everything to do with the cost of building and regulation. Unfortunately, unless you want to try and reduce regulation or find a way of building housing for less... The only real solution is to increase wages.
    A large portion of the cost of construction is the wages. Not just direct, but in the cost of materials.

    Wages, especially for the lower paid, are defined, largely, by housing cost.

    Note, historically, the interest by forward thinking employers in providing reasonable quality homes close to their bsuinesses.
    It is about a 70/30 split I think, wages/materials for the basic standard of housebuilding, which is based on a lot of manual labour. But there have been big increases in the minimum wage, obviously reflecting general inflation. If demand for housebuilding goes down, then build costs could go down, but this will be symptomatic of not much housebuilding going on, which would have its own negative consequences.
    Build costs might well go up, if there was a serious contraction in house building.

    If house prices go down, the pressure will be on build costs.
    The way to fix build costs, is with technology. Prefab houses offsite, and ship them in on half a dozen lorries. Government to underwrite 20-year mortgages on them if built to a defined standard. A handful of factories could churn out hundreds of units per week. Target price £100k for a 3-bed, plus land cost.

    It requires the same effort that went into housebuilding post-WWII - and an understanding from government, that housing is the nation’s highest priority.
    It's interesting how pre-fabs have taken off in some areas (e.g. quite a few on Shetland - I've stayed in one, which was a great house) but almost unknown in others. We need to get out of the mindset that pre-fab = post-war tin bungalow, I guess.
    Oh, I don't know - the wartime and immediately postwar prefabs were much loved by many of their occupants (modern, well designed, fitted kitchens as standard) and the survivors are often much cherished. I wonder if the problem is more the sort of shoddy assembly of factory-produced concrete modules seen for instance at Ronan Point? (The problem there was ISTR a basic design principle; but there was some pretty shocking workmanship even in the simple assembly of the concrete chunks.)
    Oh, indeed. Didn't get that across in my post, but there are some near my parents' house and I know that those are much loved by occupants,* but I do think your typical homebuyer, with no knowledge of them, would find them unappealing, for their asthetics as much as anything.

    *When they were still mostly council owned, the council had a plan to replace them with traditional build units, which was fiercely opposed by residents.
    Yes, the modern equivalent is very much what we need.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 1,791

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Yuriy Ignat, the spokesman of the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, said that the USA has already decided on the type of aircraft to be supplied to Ukraine, as well as on the terms of pilot training.
    https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1617834435025698816

    OOHHHHHHH!!!!!

    Sounds like it could be F-16s heading to Ukraine. Game-changer if that’s the case.
    Depends on the model - If it's the F16A/B that was supposed to be sold to Pakistan way back when, then they'd be useful (maybe).

    A F16C/D Block 52 - that would be a game changer.
    How? Establishing air superiority? Or taking out targets on the ground? Or both?
  • MuesliMuesli Posts: 17
    edited January 24
    FPT

    felix said:

    felix said:

    A long shot I know but does anyone know what a trebuchet is?

    Medieval catapult.
    Ah I see - early morning irony beyond my range...

    In my excuse one always assumes TSE historical awareness stops around the Battle of Marathon..
    Snickers
    I'm surprised more of you aren't racing to make the obvious Marathon puns
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,876
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Ukraine’s deputy prosecutor general, Oleksiy Symonenko, has been removed from his post during a shake-up of senior officials, the prosecutor general’s office said.

    Reuters reports the statement announcing his removal on Tuesday gave no reason for the decision but said it had been “according to his own wish”.

    Earlier, the presidential aide Kyrylo Tymoshenko and deputy defence minister Vyacheslav Shapovalov both resigned, as Ukraine is gripped in a corruption scandal within its government.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/jan/24/russia-ukraine-war-live-zelenskiy-flags-more-changes-in-corruption-purge-german-defence-group-offers-to-send-tanks-if-needed

    Ukraine’s state broadcaster Suspilne is reporting on Telegram that the heads of administration in five of Ukraine’s regions have been dismissed, naming Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhzhya, Kyiv, Sumy and Kherson as the regions affected.
    Cheating on their taxes or dodgy loans?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,147
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Yuriy Ignat, the spokesman of the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, said that the USA has already decided on the type of aircraft to be supplied to Ukraine, as well as on the terms of pilot training.
    https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1617834435025698816

    OOHHHHHHH!!!!!

    Sounds like it could be F-16s heading to Ukraine. Game-changer if that’s the case.
    Depends on the model - If it's the F16A/B that was supposed to be sold to Pakistan way back when, then they'd be useful (maybe).

    A F16C/D Block 52 - that would be a game changer.
    It’ll likely be the older ones. The Septics won’t want the most modern NATO kit ending up shot down and in enemy hands, nor non-NATO pilots and technicians knowing too much about them.

    What’s needed, is sufficient numbers to provide air cover for the Western tanks. We know that the enemy can’t field more than a handful of their latest-gen fighter aircraft in opposition, so they’ll mostly be fighting the Cold-War-era Soviet birds - and even then, likely not many of them.
    Older covers a multitude of sins. The F16 has been continuously upgraded since the 1970s. The early models would be hopelessly obsolete - which is why the US spent years shopping the Pakistani ordered planes around and had no takers.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    boulay said:

    Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Does anyone know what the penalty is to a country should they transfer weapons without consent of the manufacturing country?

    Suppose Poland sends Leopards to Ukraine without German permission, Germany says “we aren’t going to sell you anymore weapons and we will take you to the European court (or whatever forum is relevant).

    Poland says “no problem, we will pay a fine and never buy a German kit again.”

    Germany loses an arms customer who is going to be upping their spending on arms and also is damaged in PR terms.
    Which is why there will likely be an agreement in the end.

    What seems beyond doubt at this point is that the German coalition government is deeply split on the issue (as is public opinion), with Scholz pretty obviously opposed to tanks being supplied.

    By far the strongest opposition in opinion polls is on the far right.

    In any event Germany has probably lost a lot of future arms business whatever it does at this point. As has Switzerland.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    @PickardJE: useful summary of Zahawi responses over the last year via ⁦@DanNeidle⁩ https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1617842596461658114/photo/1
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Progressive taxation under Labour the Tories:
    FYI, a couple of interesting (🤓) tables on income #tax from #HMRC (basically showing 'the rich' *are* paying more tax)...

    1. the % shares of total income tax paid by different income groups (the shares paid by the top 10%, 5% and 1% have all risen over the last decade... (1/2)


    2. the percentage shares of total income for each percentile group (these haven't changed much over the last decade, meaning that higher earners are paying more #tax on roughly the same share of income). (2/2)
    https://twitter.com/julianhjessop/status/1617601327856586752

    Oh no, not data!

    Opinion, that “the rich” need to be taxed more, is much easier to sell to the electorate as a whole, who never think it will affect *them*. IIRC the top decile starts at about £60k annual income, way lower than most people think it would be.

    More seriously, those numbers are a precursor to emigration (and immigration forgone), and it doesn’t need many of the top 1% to change their behavior, to have a large effect on the total tax take.
    ...says our resident tax haven ex-pat.
    Yes, your resident tax haven ex-pat.

    Who sees stories like this in his local newspaper:
    https://www.thenationalnews.com/weekend/2023/01/13/all-roads-lead-to-dubai-for-the-workers-deserting-britains-sinking-ship/
    That tiktok video is absolutely devastating. It explains middle class impoverishment in the UK, the guy was an experienced primary school teacher in the UK in his mid 30's earning £33k, and only had £170 per month to live on after he had paid his living expenses... So actually, you would have to increase his wage by about 10k to make it worth him staying in the UK, IE so he could save up to buy a house, and THEN uprate the pay by inflation every year going forward. None of that will happen. What we have now got is the problems of London of the past 2 decades (where you can only live if you are a co-habiting couple or live in a houseshare) expanded to the whole country.
    Yes, absolutely. The problems are housing costs, housing costs, and housing costs.

    Build more houses. Lots more houses. Then build yet more houses.
    The problems are deeper than this I am afraid. I think that you could build as many houses as you want in Redcar but build costs and regulation mean that a 1 bed flat will always be £600 per month either in terms of rent or mortgage payments... The problem is everything to do with the cost of building and regulation. Unfortunately, unless you want to try and reduce regulation or find a way of building housing for less... The only real solution is to increase wages.
    A large portion of the cost of construction is the wages. Not just direct, but in the cost of materials.

    Wages, especially for the lower paid, are defined, largely, by housing cost.

    Note, historically, the interest by forward thinking employers in providing reasonable quality homes close to their bsuinesses.
    It is about a 70/30 split I think, wages/materials for the basic standard of housebuilding, which is based on a lot of manual labour. But there have been big increases in the minimum wage, obviously reflecting general inflation. If demand for housebuilding goes down, then build costs could go down, but this will be symptomatic of not much housebuilding going on, which would have its own negative consequences.
    Build costs might well go up, if there was a serious contraction in house building.

    If house prices go down, the pressure will be on build costs.
    The way to fix build costs, is with technology. Prefab houses offsite, and ship them in on half a dozen lorries. Government to underwrite 20-year mortgages on them if built to a defined standard. A handful of factories could churn out hundreds of units per week. Target price £100k for a 3-bed, plus land cost.

    It requires the same effort that went into housebuilding post-WWII - and an understanding from government, that housing is the nation’s highest priority.
    https://www.huf-haus.com/en-uk/detached-house/ has long been a thing.

    The problem is the lack of places you are allowed to build.
    AIUI the bigger problem is persuading banks to offer loans against them, because they’re seen as temporary structures. Self-build suffers from a similar problem, such that it only really works for cash buyers.

    Mortgage reform is the answer, which requires government to set standards they’re prepared to either underwrite themselves, or re-insure with the market.
    A friend pioneered lending against tower block properties, in London.

    You can get mortgages through specialist lenders, for pre-fabs - the issue is quality, guarantees and resale value.
    Isn’t tower block lending in a right mess now, after the cladding problems exposed by the Grenfell incident?

    Yes, the issues are quality and life-expectancy of the structures. There need to be defined standards, that are underwritable either by the reinsurance market or by government, that let mainstream mortgage providers lend against them.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,147

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Yuriy Ignat, the spokesman of the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, said that the USA has already decided on the type of aircraft to be supplied to Ukraine, as well as on the terms of pilot training.
    https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1617834435025698816

    OOHHHHHHH!!!!!

    Sounds like it could be F-16s heading to Ukraine. Game-changer if that’s the case.
    Depends on the model - If it's the F16A/B that was supposed to be sold to Pakistan way back when, then they'd be useful (maybe).

    A F16C/D Block 52 - that would be a game changer.
    How? Establishing air superiority? Or taking out targets on the ground? Or both?
    A current model F16 would do both quite well. And have the defensive capability to have some chance of survival against SAMs. And have a fair amount of capability fro destroying SAM system (SEAD).

    For example, the Ukrainians have been supplied with the HARM anti-radiation missile (homes in on radars). Because of compatibility issues with the Ukrainian MIGs, they are being used in a very basic mode. Fired from a late model F16, the plane can talk to the missile properly and that makes it much more effective.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    Best of luck OGH
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,147
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Progressive taxation under Labour the Tories:
    FYI, a couple of interesting (🤓) tables on income #tax from #HMRC (basically showing 'the rich' *are* paying more tax)...

    1. the % shares of total income tax paid by different income groups (the shares paid by the top 10%, 5% and 1% have all risen over the last decade... (1/2)


    2. the percentage shares of total income for each percentile group (these haven't changed much over the last decade, meaning that higher earners are paying more #tax on roughly the same share of income). (2/2)
    https://twitter.com/julianhjessop/status/1617601327856586752

    Oh no, not data!

    Opinion, that “the rich” need to be taxed more, is much easier to sell to the electorate as a whole, who never think it will affect *them*. IIRC the top decile starts at about £60k annual income, way lower than most people think it would be.

    More seriously, those numbers are a precursor to emigration (and immigration forgone), and it doesn’t need many of the top 1% to change their behavior, to have a large effect on the total tax take.
    ...says our resident tax haven ex-pat.
    Yes, your resident tax haven ex-pat.

    Who sees stories like this in his local newspaper:
    https://www.thenationalnews.com/weekend/2023/01/13/all-roads-lead-to-dubai-for-the-workers-deserting-britains-sinking-ship/
    That tiktok video is absolutely devastating. It explains middle class impoverishment in the UK, the guy was an experienced primary school teacher in the UK in his mid 30's earning £33k, and only had £170 per month to live on after he had paid his living expenses... So actually, you would have to increase his wage by about 10k to make it worth him staying in the UK, IE so he could save up to buy a house, and THEN uprate the pay by inflation every year going forward. None of that will happen. What we have now got is the problems of London of the past 2 decades (where you can only live if you are a co-habiting couple or live in a houseshare) expanded to the whole country.
    Yes, absolutely. The problems are housing costs, housing costs, and housing costs.

    Build more houses. Lots more houses. Then build yet more houses.
    The problems are deeper than this I am afraid. I think that you could build as many houses as you want in Redcar but build costs and regulation mean that a 1 bed flat will always be £600 per month either in terms of rent or mortgage payments... The problem is everything to do with the cost of building and regulation. Unfortunately, unless you want to try and reduce regulation or find a way of building housing for less... The only real solution is to increase wages.
    A large portion of the cost of construction is the wages. Not just direct, but in the cost of materials.

    Wages, especially for the lower paid, are defined, largely, by housing cost.

    Note, historically, the interest by forward thinking employers in providing reasonable quality homes close to their bsuinesses.
    It is about a 70/30 split I think, wages/materials for the basic standard of housebuilding, which is based on a lot of manual labour. But there have been big increases in the minimum wage, obviously reflecting general inflation. If demand for housebuilding goes down, then build costs could go down, but this will be symptomatic of not much housebuilding going on, which would have its own negative consequences.
    Build costs might well go up, if there was a serious contraction in house building.

    If house prices go down, the pressure will be on build costs.
    The way to fix build costs, is with technology. Prefab houses offsite, and ship them in on half a dozen lorries. Government to underwrite 20-year mortgages on them if built to a defined standard. A handful of factories could churn out hundreds of units per week. Target price £100k for a 3-bed, plus land cost.

    It requires the same effort that went into housebuilding post-WWII - and an understanding from government, that housing is the nation’s highest priority.
    https://www.huf-haus.com/en-uk/detached-house/ has long been a thing.

    The problem is the lack of places you are allowed to build.
    AIUI the bigger problem is persuading banks to offer loans against them, because they’re seen as temporary structures. Self-build suffers from a similar problem, such that it only really works for cash buyers.

    Mortgage reform is the answer, which requires government to set standards they’re prepared to either underwrite themselves, or re-insure with the market.
    A friend pioneered lending against tower block properties, in London.

    You can get mortgages through specialist lenders, for pre-fabs - the issue is quality, guarantees and resale value.
    Isn’t tower block lending in a right mess now, after the cladding problems exposed by the Grenfell incident?

    Yes, the issues are quality and life-expectancy of the structures. There need to be defined standards, that are underwritable either by the reinsurance market or by government, that let mainstream mortgage providers lend against them.
    Cladding : Indeed - many people deep in negative equity and/or unable to sell at all.

    Pre-fab : Yes, the main barrier to widespread mortgage acceptance is an established standard and quality. You can get a mortgage to build and buy a Huff house, for example. A manufacturer/builder guarantee bond (that isn't reliant on the existence of the manufacturer or builder) is probably the way to go.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    edited January 24

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Ukraine’s deputy prosecutor general, Oleksiy Symonenko, has been removed from his post during a shake-up of senior officials, the prosecutor general’s office said.

    Reuters reports the statement announcing his removal on Tuesday gave no reason for the decision but said it had been “according to his own wish”.

    Earlier, the presidential aide Kyrylo Tymoshenko and deputy defence minister Vyacheslav Shapovalov both resigned, as Ukraine is gripped in a corruption scandal within its government.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/jan/24/russia-ukraine-war-live-zelenskiy-flags-more-changes-in-corruption-purge-german-defence-group-offers-to-send-tanks-if-needed

    Ukraine’s state broadcaster Suspilne is reporting on Telegram that the heads of administration in five of Ukraine’s regions have been dismissed, naming Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhzhya, Kyiv, Sumy and Kherson as the regions affected.
    Cheating on their taxes or dodgy loans?
    It seems to be an anti-corruption drive.
    Though given that is also a preferred tool of autocrats for cementing their power (see eg China, and, laughably, Putin's Russia), it will be a while before the motivation is for sure.

    Zelensky has said he'll step down once the war is over, so I'm hopeful it's the former rather than the latter.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 3,121
    edited January 24
    Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Have you read what Erich Vad actually wrote?

    This is all starting to feel like 2003 again, except that this time we are risking nuclear annihilation. I'm guessing that those who are keen to go in against Russia with guns blazing are the same people who were beating the drum for the invasion of Iraq.

    Yes, Russia needs to be pushed out of Ukraine, but not at the cost of sparking a nuclear disaster.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Yuriy Ignat, the spokesman of the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, said that the USA has already decided on the type of aircraft to be supplied to Ukraine, as well as on the terms of pilot training.
    https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1617834435025698816

    OOHHHHHHH!!!!!

    Sounds like it could be F-16s heading to Ukraine. Game-changer if that’s the case.
    Depends on the model - If it's the F16A/B that was supposed to be sold to Pakistan way back when, then they'd be useful (maybe).

    A F16C/D Block 52 - that would be a game changer.
    It’ll likely be the older ones. The Septics won’t want the most modern NATO kit ending up shot down and in enemy hands, nor non-NATO pilots and technicians knowing too much about them.

    What’s needed, is sufficient numbers to provide air cover for the Western tanks. We know that the enemy can’t field more than a handful of their latest-gen fighter aircraft in opposition, so they’ll mostly be fighting the Cold-War-era Soviet birds - and even then, likely not many of them.
    Older covers a multitude of sins. The F16 has been continuously upgraded since the 1970s. The early models would be hopelessly obsolete - which is why the US spent years shopping the Pakistani ordered planes around and had no takers.
    The Pakistani order is going to be good enough for Ukraine. Right now, they need whatever planes they can get their hands on in numbers. They’ll be prepared to lose a few, in the battle for air superiority, knowing that the enemy has very few serviceable aircraft to oppose them.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    Trump now beats DeSantis 61% to 39% amongst Republican primary voters on a forced choice in a Big Village poll

    https://big-village.com/public-opinion-polling/
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,792
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Yuriy Ignat, the spokesman of the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, said that the USA has already decided on the type of aircraft to be supplied to Ukraine, as well as on the terms of pilot training.
    https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1617834435025698816

    OOHHHHHHH!!!!!

    Sounds like it could be F-16s heading to Ukraine. Game-changer if that’s the case.
    Depends on the model - If it's the F16A/B that was supposed to be sold to Pakistan way back when, then they'd be useful (maybe).

    A F16C/D Block 52 - that would be a game changer.
    It’ll likely be the older ones. The Septics won’t want the most modern NATO kit ending up shot down and in enemy hands, nor non-NATO pilots and technicians knowing too much about them.

    What’s needed, is sufficient numbers to provide air cover for the Western tanks. We know that the enemy can’t field more than a handful of their latest-gen fighter aircraft in opposition, so they’ll mostly be fighting the Cold-War-era Soviet birds - and even then, likely not many of them.
    Older covers a multitude of sins. The F16 has been continuously upgraded since the 1970s. The early models would be hopelessly obsolete - which is why the US spent years shopping the Pakistani ordered planes around and had no takers.
    The Pakistani order is going to be good enough for Ukraine. Right now, they need whatever planes they can get their hands on in numbers. They’ll be prepared to lose a few, in the battle for air superiority, knowing that the enemy has very few serviceable aircraft to oppose them.
    The original Pakistan order ended with USN/USMC Aggressor units where they have been beat to fuck.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,147

    Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Have you read what Erich Vld actually wrote?

    This is all starting to feel like 2003 again, except that this time we are risking nuclear annihilation. I'm guessing that those who are keen to go in against Russia with guns blazing are the same people who were beating the drum for the invasion of Iraq.

    Yes, Russia needs to be pushed out of Ukraine, but not at the cost of sparking a nuclear disaster.
    He's selling the "Civil war in Ukraine" narrative vs the reality of a Russian invasion, followed by Russia spending a lot of time and money creating "rebellions" in Eastern Ukraine.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316

    Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Have you read what Erich Vad actually wrote?

    This is all starting to feel like 2003 again, except that this time we are risking nuclear annihilation. I'm guessing that those who are keen to go in against Russia with guns blazing are the same people who were beating the drum for the invasion of Iraq.

    Yes, Russia needs to be pushed out of Ukraine, but not at the cost of sparking a nuclear disaster.
    Yes, I read his article.
    It basically argues, in terms, that Washington and Moscow should agree to partition Ukraine as the war cannot be won.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,147
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Yuriy Ignat, the spokesman of the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, said that the USA has already decided on the type of aircraft to be supplied to Ukraine, as well as on the terms of pilot training.
    https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1617834435025698816

    OOHHHHHHH!!!!!

    Sounds like it could be F-16s heading to Ukraine. Game-changer if that’s the case.
    Depends on the model - If it's the F16A/B that was supposed to be sold to Pakistan way back when, then they'd be useful (maybe).

    A F16C/D Block 52 - that would be a game changer.
    It’ll likely be the older ones. The Septics won’t want the most modern NATO kit ending up shot down and in enemy hands, nor non-NATO pilots and technicians knowing too much about them.

    What’s needed, is sufficient numbers to provide air cover for the Western tanks. We know that the enemy can’t field more than a handful of their latest-gen fighter aircraft in opposition, so they’ll mostly be fighting the Cold-War-era Soviet birds - and even then, likely not many of them.
    Older covers a multitude of sins. The F16 has been continuously upgraded since the 1970s. The early models would be hopelessly obsolete - which is why the US spent years shopping the Pakistani ordered planes around and had no takers.
    The Pakistani order is going to be good enough for Ukraine. Right now, they need whatever planes they can get their hands on in numbers. They’ll be prepared to lose a few, in the battle for air superiority, knowing that the enemy has very few serviceable aircraft to oppose them.
    The original Pakistan order ended with USN/USMC Aggressor units where they have been beat to fuck.
    IIRC they weren't upgraded (much) either - is that right?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,765

    Muesli said:

    Sean_F said:

    A long shot I know but does anyone know what a trebuchet is?

    Medieval artillery that hurled and iron or stone ball at a city wall.
    I’d say that artillery pun catapulted right over your head.
    He's been hoisted on his own petard.
    *hoist* *by* his own petard.
    Not if we’re quoting Shakespeare

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoist_with_his_own_petard
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,240

    Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Have you read what Erich Vad actually wrote?

    This is all starting to feel like 2003 again, except that this time we are risking nuclear annihilation. I'm guessing that those who are keen to go in against Russia with guns blazing are the same people who were beating the drum for the invasion of Iraq.

    Yes, Russia needs to be pushed out of Ukraine, but not at the cost of sparking a nuclear disaster.
    I was very against the 2003 invasion of Iraq and very pro providing maximum support for Ukraine now.

    I do think that diplomacy with China, in part related to the nuclear issue, is one reason for a more gradual pace of providing support to Ukraine, but I don't think that this means we can't now provide Western tanks.
  • Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Have you read what Erich Vld actually wrote?

    This is all starting to feel like 2003 again, except that this time we are risking nuclear annihilation. I'm guessing that those who are keen to go in against Russia with guns blazing are the same people who were beating the drum for the invasion of Iraq.

    Yes, Russia needs to be pushed out of Ukraine, but not at the cost of sparking a nuclear disaster.
    He's selling the "Civil war in Ukraine" narrative vs the reality of a Russian invasion, followed by Russia spending a lot of time and money creating "rebellions" in Eastern Ukraine.
    The truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. It is a fact that was was a large Russian speaking minority in the Donbas who were very unhappy with the government in Kyiv. It is also a fact that the Russians took advantage of this situation and helped to ferment and support the rebellion.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,792

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Yuriy Ignat, the spokesman of the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, said that the USA has already decided on the type of aircraft to be supplied to Ukraine, as well as on the terms of pilot training.
    https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1617834435025698816

    OOHHHHHHH!!!!!

    Sounds like it could be F-16s heading to Ukraine. Game-changer if that’s the case.
    Depends on the model - If it's the F16A/B that was supposed to be sold to Pakistan way back when, then they'd be useful (maybe).

    A F16C/D Block 52 - that would be a game changer.
    How? Establishing air superiority? Or taking out targets on the ground? Or both?
    A current model F16 would do both quite well. And have the defensive capability to have some chance of survival against SAMs. And have a fair amount of capability fro destroying SAM system (SEAD).

    No. Only CJ/DJ Vipers in the 'WW' units have the AN/ASQ-213 HARM targeting computer and the US won't be parting with any of those. Hence why the SEAD/DEAD mission is primarily executed by USN Growlers.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,765
    Good luck OGH - hope all goes well. I found the NHS really good at the important stuff (operations) but poor on the admin (admission/discharge). Got a date for my postponed December op….February 6!
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Have you read what Erich Vad actually wrote?

    This is all starting to feel like 2003 again, except that this time we are risking nuclear annihilation. I'm guessing that those who are keen to go in against Russia with guns blazing are the same people who were beating the drum for the invasion of Iraq.

    Yes, Russia needs to be pushed out of Ukraine, but not at the cost of sparking a nuclear disaster.
    Yes, I read his article.
    It basically argues, in terms, that Washington and Moscow should agree to partition Ukraine as the war cannot be won.
    His argument is actually for self-determination, but whether that can actually be achieved now is a moot point.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,765

    Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Have you read what Erich Vld actually wrote?

    This is all starting to feel like 2003 again, except that this time we are risking nuclear annihilation. I'm guessing that those who are keen to go in against Russia with guns blazing are the same people who were beating the drum for the invasion of Iraq.

    Yes, Russia needs to be pushed out of Ukraine, but not at the cost of sparking a nuclear disaster.
    He's selling the "Civil war in Ukraine" narrative vs the reality of a Russian invasion, followed by Russia spending a lot of time and money creating "rebellions" in Eastern Ukraine.
    The truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. It is a fact that was was a large Russian speaking minority in the Donbas who were very unhappy with the government in Kyiv. It is also a fact that the Russians took advantage of this situation and helped to ferment and support the rebellion.
    None of which justifies Russias invasion or war crimes.
  • Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Have you read what Erich Vld actually wrote?

    This is all starting to feel like 2003 again, except that this time we are risking nuclear annihilation. I'm guessing that those who are keen to go in against Russia with guns blazing are the same people who were beating the drum for the invasion of Iraq.

    Yes, Russia needs to be pushed out of Ukraine, but not at the cost of sparking a nuclear disaster.
    He's selling the "Civil war in Ukraine" narrative vs the reality of a Russian invasion, followed by Russia spending a lot of time and money creating "rebellions" in Eastern Ukraine.
    The truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. It is a fact that was was a large Russian speaking minority in the Donbas who were very unhappy with the government in Kyiv. It is also a fact that the Russians took advantage of this situation and helped to ferment and support the rebellion.
    None of which justifies Russias invasion or war crimes.
    No, of course not.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Have you read what Erich Vad actually wrote?

    This is all starting to feel like 2003 again, except that this time we are risking nuclear annihilation. I'm guessing that those who are keen to go in against Russia with guns blazing are the same people who were beating the drum for the invasion of Iraq.

    Yes, Russia needs to be pushed out of Ukraine, but not at the cost of sparking a nuclear disaster.
    Yes, I read his article.
    It basically argues, in terms, that Washington and Moscow should agree to partition Ukraine as the war cannot be won.
    His argument is actually for self-determination, but whether that can actually be achieved now is a moot point.
    These are his words.
    ….Der Schlüssel für die Lösung des Konfliktes liegt nicht in Kiew, er liegt auch nicht in Berlin, Brüssel oder Paris, er liegt in Washington und Moskau. Es ist doch lächerlich zu sagen, die Ukraine müsse das entscheiden...
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093
    HYUFD said:

    Trump now beats DeSantis 61% to 39% amongst Republican primary voters on a forced choice in a Big Village poll

    https://big-village.com/public-opinion-polling/

    I would have thought DeSantis ticked all your boxes. All the mind bending right-wingery of Trump but with lots of out-there divinity, a calm demeanour and killer instinct.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,816

    Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Have you read what Erich Vad actually wrote?

    This is all starting to feel like 2003 again, except that this time we are risking nuclear annihilation. I'm guessing that those who are keen to go in against Russia with guns blazing are the same people who were beating the drum for the invasion of Iraq.

    Yes, Russia needs to be pushed out of Ukraine, but not at the cost of sparking a nuclear disaster.
    So you say there's a significant risk of a nuclear disaster if we continue this course.

    Fair enough.

    But what about the other side of the equation? What are the risks of a Russian victory, or a stalemate that Russia can sell as a substantive victory? I'd argue that it's clear Russia wants further western expansion, and a 'loss' for the west will embolden them and weaken the coalition against them.

    Basically: we'd be fighting the same war in five or ten years, either in western Ukraine, or Poland, or Romania, or the Baltics, with a weakened NATO and a Russia that will have probably learnt lessons.

    I'd strongly argue that would be much worse.
  • Curse of the new thread! FPT:

    The fundamental problem is population ageing, which has been exacerbated by policy failures. Between 1980 and 2009 the old age dependency ratio (numbers aged 65+ to those aged 15-64) was stable, moving from 0.23 to 0.24. Since then it has increased to 0.31. In 10 years it is expected to be 0.37 and by the end of this century 0.6 - so in terms of the ageing shock this has only just started. (UN data). Ageing has a number of effects that are contributing to the current crisis:
    * direct costs on working age people via taxation
    * A shortage of workers that increases costs to business and encourages/requires immigration
    * immigration plus old people remaining in family homes creates a housing shortage
    * higher taxes and housing costs encourages emigration of mobile and higher skilled workers, increasing tax burden on those remaining.
    Policy failures include regulatory impediments to housing supply, self defeating austerity policies that shrank the economy, and failure to raise the pension age sufficiently and to improve public health. Plus Brexit that has added to business costs and reduced tax revenue (also made it harder for retirees to move overseas). Ultimately, we have to realise that ageing poses an existential threat to our way of life that requires a complete rethink of our lifestyles, the welfare state, everything. We simply cannot afford to support increasing numbers of elderly people living in poor health - younger workers won't take it. This isn't an attack on old people - a group I love and respect and who I will be a member of sooner than I'd like to think. It's just arithmetic.

    As a pensioner closing in on 80 I agree completely with this and not just arithmetic but a very serious problem for all politicians
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,232
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Yuriy Ignat, the spokesman of the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, said that the USA has already decided on the type of aircraft to be supplied to Ukraine, as well as on the terms of pilot training.
    https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1617834435025698816

    OOHHHHHHH!!!!!

    Sounds like it could be F-16s heading to Ukraine. Game-changer if that’s the case.
    Depends on the model - If it's the F16A/B that was supposed to be sold to Pakistan way back when, then they'd be useful (maybe).

    A F16C/D Block 52 - that would be a game changer.
    It’ll likely be the older ones. The Septics won’t want the most modern NATO kit ending up shot down and in enemy hands, nor non-NATO pilots and technicians knowing too much about them.

    What’s needed, is sufficient numbers to provide air cover for the Western tanks. We know that the enemy can’t field more than a handful of their latest-gen fighter aircraft in opposition, so they’ll mostly be fighting the Cold-War-era Soviet birds - and even then, likely not many of them.
    https://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article9.html

    claims that the older ones aren’t capable of firing modern missiles (like HARM anti-radiation missiles, JDAMs, Harpoons etc etc), so if you want to send those to Ukraine then it’s F16C/D Block 52 or nothing. (The HARM missiles Ukraine are currently using are being fired in a pre-set mode that doesn’t integrate with the fire control in the aircraft.)

    That said, these aircraft started being produced in 1991, so the electronics presumably date from the late 80s. Is any of that stuff really that secret any more?

    Apparently there’s a “block 50/52 plus” which sounds like it’s full of stuff the US might not want to send anywhere near the Russian military, but presumably there are a few hundred of the originals still flying around?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,147
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Yuriy Ignat, the spokesman of the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, said that the USA has already decided on the type of aircraft to be supplied to Ukraine, as well as on the terms of pilot training.
    https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1617834435025698816

    OOHHHHHHH!!!!!

    Sounds like it could be F-16s heading to Ukraine. Game-changer if that’s the case.
    Depends on the model - If it's the F16A/B that was supposed to be sold to Pakistan way back when, then they'd be useful (maybe).

    A F16C/D Block 52 - that would be a game changer.
    How? Establishing air superiority? Or taking out targets on the ground? Or both?
    A current model F16 would do both quite well. And have the defensive capability to have some chance of survival against SAMs. And have a fair amount of capability fro destroying SAM system (SEAD).

    No. Only CJ/DJ Vipers in the 'WW' units have the AN/ASQ-213 HARM targeting computer and the US won't be parting with any of those. Hence why the SEAD/DEAD mission is primarily executed by USN Growlers.
    It wold surely be better (offering more modes) than the lash up the Ukrainians are using
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Have you read what Erich Vad actually wrote?

    This is all starting to feel like 2003 again, except that this time we are risking nuclear annihilation. I'm guessing that those who are keen to go in against Russia with guns blazing are the same people who were beating the drum for the invasion of Iraq.

    Yes, Russia needs to be pushed out of Ukraine, but not at the cost of sparking a nuclear disaster.
    Yes, I read his article.
    It basically argues, in terms, that Washington and Moscow should agree to partition Ukraine as the war cannot be won.
    His argument is actually for self-determination, but whether that can actually be achieved now is a moot point.
    These are his words.
    ….Der Schlüssel für die Lösung des Konfliktes liegt nicht in Kiew, er liegt auch nicht in Berlin, Brüssel oder Paris, er liegt in Washington und Moskau. Es ist doch lächerlich zu sagen, die Ukraine müsse das entscheiden...
    These are also his words:

    Man sollte die Menschen in der Region, also im Donbass und auf der Krim, einfach fragen, zu wem sie gehören wollen. Man müsste die territoriale Integrität der Ukraine wiederherstellen, mit bestimmten westlichen Garantien.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    Farage says Boris wants Ukraine to join NATO which he calls 'madness'

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1617826030877802496?s=20&t=Y0lJ8R4c4A0l1A1RZFszSA
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,147
    Phil said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Yuriy Ignat, the spokesman of the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, said that the USA has already decided on the type of aircraft to be supplied to Ukraine, as well as on the terms of pilot training.
    https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1617834435025698816

    OOHHHHHHH!!!!!

    Sounds like it could be F-16s heading to Ukraine. Game-changer if that’s the case.
    Depends on the model - If it's the F16A/B that was supposed to be sold to Pakistan way back when, then they'd be useful (maybe).

    A F16C/D Block 52 - that would be a game changer.
    It’ll likely be the older ones. The Septics won’t want the most modern NATO kit ending up shot down and in enemy hands, nor non-NATO pilots and technicians knowing too much about them.

    What’s needed, is sufficient numbers to provide air cover for the Western tanks. We know that the enemy can’t field more than a handful of their latest-gen fighter aircraft in opposition, so they’ll mostly be fighting the Cold-War-era Soviet birds - and even then, likely not many of them.
    https://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article9.html

    claims that the older ones aren’t capable of firing modern missiles (like HARM anti-radiation missiles, JDAMs, Harpoons etc etc), so if you want to send those to Ukraine then it’s F16C/D Block 52 or nothing. (The HARM missiles Ukraine are currently using are being fired in a pre-set mode that doesn’t integrate with the fire control in the aircraft.)

    That said, these aircraft started being produced in 1991, so the electronics presumably date from the late 80s. Is any of that stuff really that secret any more?

    Apparently there’s a “block 50/52 plus” which sounds like it’s full of stuff the US might not want to send anywhere near the Russian military, but presumably there are a few hundred of the originals still flying around?
    The American military seems averse to even model numbers to describe the very considerable changes they implement in their systems over the years.

    In any other country, the F16 would have a new number by now. As with the Russians and the decedents of the Su-27.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Have you read what Erich Vad actually wrote?

    This is all starting to feel like 2003 again, except that this time we are risking nuclear annihilation. I'm guessing that those who are keen to go in against Russia with guns blazing are the same people who were beating the drum for the invasion of Iraq.

    Yes, Russia needs to be pushed out of Ukraine, but not at the cost of sparking a nuclear disaster.
    Yes, I read his article.
    It basically argues, in terms, that Washington and Moscow should agree to partition Ukraine as the war cannot be won.
    His argument is actually for self-determination, but whether that can actually be achieved now is a moot point.
    These are his words.
    ….Der Schlüssel für die Lösung des Konfliktes liegt nicht in Kiew, er liegt auch nicht in Berlin, Brüssel oder Paris, er liegt in Washington und Moskau. Es ist doch lächerlich zu sagen, die Ukraine müsse das entscheiden...
    These are also his words:

    Man sollte die Menschen in der Region, also im Donbass und auf der Krim, einfach fragen, zu wem sie gehören wollen. Man müsste die territoriale Integrität der Ukraine wiederherstellen, mit bestimmten westlichen Garantien.
    Referendums in occupied territories are worth what ?
  • Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Have you read what Erich Vad actually wrote?

    This is all starting to feel like 2003 again, except that this time we are risking nuclear annihilation. I'm guessing that those who are keen to go in against Russia with guns blazing are the same people who were beating the drum for the invasion of Iraq.

    Yes, Russia needs to be pushed out of Ukraine, but not at the cost of sparking a nuclear disaster.
    So you say there's a significant risk of a nuclear disaster if we continue this course.

    Fair enough.

    But what about the other side of the equation? What are the risks of a Russian victory, or a stalemate that Russia can sell as a substantive victory? I'd argue that it's clear Russia wants further western expansion, and a 'loss' for the west will embolden them and weaken the coalition against them.

    Basically: we'd be fighting the same war in five or ten years, either in western Ukraine, or Poland, or Romania, or the Baltics, with a weakened NATO and a Russia that will have probably learnt lessons.

    I'd strongly argue that would be much worse.
    I'm not saying that we should back down in the face of Russian aggression. Far from it. What I am saying is that the war against Russia needs to be won in a way that minimises the risk of nuclear escalation. And, to me, that means gradually wearing down the Russian forces and economy, not going in with guns blazing in an attempt to secure a quick victory.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,127

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Have you read what Erich Vad actually wrote?

    This is all starting to feel like 2003 again, except that this time we are risking nuclear annihilation. I'm guessing that those who are keen to go in against Russia with guns blazing are the same people who were beating the drum for the invasion of Iraq.

    Yes, Russia needs to be pushed out of Ukraine, but not at the cost of sparking a nuclear disaster.
    Yes, I read his article.
    It basically argues, in terms, that Washington and Moscow should agree to partition Ukraine as the war cannot be won.
    His argument is actually for self-determination, but whether that can actually be achieved now is a moot point.
    These are his words.
    ….Der Schlüssel für die Lösung des Konfliktes liegt nicht in Kiew, er liegt auch nicht in Berlin, Brüssel oder Paris, er liegt in Washington und Moskau. Es ist doch lächerlich zu sagen, die Ukraine müsse das entscheiden...
    These are also his words:

    Man sollte die Menschen in der Region, also im Donbass und auf der Krim, einfach fragen, zu wem sie gehören wollen. Man müsste die territoriale Integrität der Ukraine wiederherstellen, mit bestimmten westlichen Garantien.
    Well, for one, "die Menschen in der Region" are just those left after Russian war crimes.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,792

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Yuriy Ignat, the spokesman of the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, said that the USA has already decided on the type of aircraft to be supplied to Ukraine, as well as on the terms of pilot training.
    https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1617834435025698816

    OOHHHHHHH!!!!!

    Sounds like it could be F-16s heading to Ukraine. Game-changer if that’s the case.
    Depends on the model - If it's the F16A/B that was supposed to be sold to Pakistan way back when, then they'd be useful (maybe).

    A F16C/D Block 52 - that would be a game changer.
    It’ll likely be the older ones. The Septics won’t want the most modern NATO kit ending up shot down and in enemy hands, nor non-NATO pilots and technicians knowing too much about them.

    What’s needed, is sufficient numbers to provide air cover for the Western tanks. We know that the enemy can’t field more than a handful of their latest-gen fighter aircraft in opposition, so they’ll mostly be fighting the Cold-War-era Soviet birds - and even then, likely not many of them.
    Older covers a multitude of sins. The F16 has been continuously upgraded since the 1970s. The early models would be hopelessly obsolete - which is why the US spent years shopping the Pakistani ordered planes around and had no takers.
    The Pakistani order is going to be good enough for Ukraine. Right now, they need whatever planes they can get their hands on in numbers. They’ll be prepared to lose a few, in the battle for air superiority, knowing that the enemy has very few serviceable aircraft to oppose them.
    The original Pakistan order ended with USN/USMC Aggressor units where they have been beat to fuck.
    IIRC they weren't upgraded (much) either - is that right?
    They were downgraded and had systems removed to optimise them for WVR combat. Very fucking hard to kill if you didn't get the first shot. Popularly referred to as the "Hot Rods".
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    DavidL said:

    Can I just say that that was yet another excellent thread header by @Cyclefree on the previous thread which I am sorry to have missed through ill health. It is slightly disappointing that the thread went off topic so fast but I suppose there is not much more that can be said about this.

    One novel spin came from an SNP councillor in Dundee at the weekend. She compared, in all seriousness, the actions of the UK government in blocking the Gender Recognition bill with those of the Nazis at Auschwitz. Both, apparently, involved persecuting minorities for their sexual orientation. Every day is a learning day in the City of DIscovery.

    So apparently most Scots are Nazis then, given every Scottish poll shows most Scots oppose the Gender Recognition Bill?
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Have you read what Erich Vad actually wrote?

    This is all starting to feel like 2003 again, except that this time we are risking nuclear annihilation. I'm guessing that those who are keen to go in against Russia with guns blazing are the same people who were beating the drum for the invasion of Iraq.

    Yes, Russia needs to be pushed out of Ukraine, but not at the cost of sparking a nuclear disaster.
    Yes, I read his article.
    It basically argues, in terms, that Washington and Moscow should agree to partition Ukraine as the war cannot be won.
    His argument is actually for self-determination, but whether that can actually be achieved now is a moot point.
    These are his words.
    ….Der Schlüssel für die Lösung des Konfliktes liegt nicht in Kiew, er liegt auch nicht in Berlin, Brüssel oder Paris, er liegt in Washington und Moskau. Es ist doch lächerlich zu sagen, die Ukraine müsse das entscheiden...
    These are also his words:

    Man sollte die Menschen in der Region, also im Donbass und auf der Krim, einfach fragen, zu wem sie gehören wollen. Man müsste die territoriale Integrität der Ukraine wiederherstellen, mit bestimmten westlichen Garantien.
    Referendums in occupied territories are worth what ?
    It is true that organising a fair referendum would be very difficult now. That boat has probably sailed.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Ukraine’s deputy prosecutor general, Oleksiy Symonenko, has been removed from his post during a shake-up of senior officials, the prosecutor general’s office said.

    Reuters reports the statement announcing his removal on Tuesday gave no reason for the decision but said it had been “according to his own wish”.

    Earlier, the presidential aide Kyrylo Tymoshenko and deputy defence minister Vyacheslav Shapovalov both resigned, as Ukraine is gripped in a corruption scandal within its government.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/jan/24/russia-ukraine-war-live-zelenskiy-flags-more-changes-in-corruption-purge-german-defence-group-offers-to-send-tanks-if-needed

    Ukraine’s state broadcaster Suspilne is reporting on Telegram that the heads of administration in five of Ukraine’s regions have been dismissed, naming Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhzhya, Kyiv, Sumy and Kherson as the regions affected.
    Cheating on their taxes or dodgy loans?
    It seems to be an anti-corruption drive.
    Though given that is also a preferred tool of autocrats for cementing their power (see eg China, and, laughably, Putin's Russia), it will be a while before the motivation is for sure.

    Zelensky has said he'll step down once the war is over, so I'm hopeful it's the former rather than the latter.
    It does sounds like the usual thing that happens in times of crisis - someone offers to ‘help out’ the decision-maker, in exchange for a contract to help with the crisis.

    It could be argued that something similar, albeit more indirectly, happened in the West as the pandemic hit. When the PM says to the Cabinet “Does anyone know anyone, who knows anyone, who can get their hands on PPE, money no object?”, then it’s no surprise that companies pop up, that manage to insert themselves into the supply chain, run by people who know people who know ministers.

    As far as Ukraine is concerned, well done to Zelensky for sidelining those caught with their hand in the cookie jar, but this should be a wake-up call to international supporters, that we need to get the war ended quickly before Ukraine itself fractures.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,486
    I note that the PB Toy Soldiers are out in force again today.

    Atten-shun!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 38,072

    boulay said:

    Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Does anyone know what the penalty is to a country should they transfer weapons without consent of the manufacturing country?

    Suppose Poland sends Leopards to Ukraine without German permission, Germany says “we aren’t going to sell you anymore weapons and we will take you to the European court (or whatever forum is relevant).

    Poland says “no problem, we will pay a fine and never buy a German kit again.”

    Germany loses an arms customer who is going to be upping their spending on arms and also is damaged in PR terms.
    Dunno but which other countries will want to do business with a customer who ignores licence terms?
    Amazed that any country can sell bombs etc but contract that they decide who can fire them, crazy buying the kit in teh first place with those conditions.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503
    HYUFD said:

    Farage says Boris wants Ukraine to join NATO which he calls 'madness'

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1617826030877802496?s=20&t=Y0lJ8R4c4A0l1A1RZFszSA

    We are back to that horse-shoe. Farage and Corbyn want Russia to win and think they were provoked by NATO. The other 90% of us, take a different view.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,877
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Can I just say that that was yet another excellent thread header by @Cyclefree on the previous thread which I am sorry to have missed through ill health. It is slightly disappointing that the thread went off topic so fast but I suppose there is not much more that can be said about this.

    One novel spin came from an SNP councillor in Dundee at the weekend. She compared, in all seriousness, the actions of the UK government in blocking the Gender Recognition bill with those of the Nazis at Auschwitz. Both, apparently, involved persecuting minorities for their sexual orientation. Every day is a learning day in the City of DIscovery.

    Hope you are better soon David and it is a mild complaint
    Thanks Malcolm. I am pretty sure my wife would take issue with the idea that I am a mild complainer though. There have been mutterings about patients from hell...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    edited January 24

    Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Have you read what Erich Vad actually wrote?

    This is all starting to feel like 2003 again, except that this time we are risking nuclear annihilation. I'm guessing that those who are keen to go in against Russia with guns blazing are the same people who were beating the drum for the invasion of Iraq.

    Yes, Russia needs to be pushed out of Ukraine, but not at the cost of sparking a nuclear disaster.
    So you say there's a significant risk of a nuclear disaster if we continue this course.

    Fair enough.

    But what about the other side of the equation? What are the risks of a Russian victory, or a stalemate that Russia can sell as a substantive victory? I'd argue that it's clear Russia wants further western expansion, and a 'loss' for the west will embolden them and weaken the coalition against them.

    Basically: we'd be fighting the same war in five or ten years, either in western Ukraine, or Poland, or Romania, or the Baltics, with a weakened NATO and a Russia that will have probably learnt lessons.

    I'd strongly argue that would be much worse.
    I'm not saying that we should back down in the face of Russian aggression. Far from it. What I am saying is that the war against Russia needs to be won in a way that minimises the risk of nuclear escalation. And, to me, that means gradually wearing down the Russian forces and economy, not going in with guns blazing in an attempt to secure a quick victory.
    But that very much isn't what Vad is saying.

    His article argues that the war cannot be won; indeed that Russia will likely prevail in the Donbass even if we supply Leopard tanks.
    ...Dann stellt sich erneut die Frage, was mit den Lieferungen der Panzer überhaupt passieren soll. Um die Krim oder den Donbass zu übernehmen, reichen die Marder und Leoparden nicht aus. In der Ostkukraine, im Raum Bachmut, sind die Russen eindeutig auf dem Vormarsch. Sie werden wahrscheinlich den Donbass in Kürze vollständig erobert haben. Man muss sich nur allein die numerische Überlegenheit der Russen gegenüber der Ukraine vor Augen führen. Russland kann bis zu zwei Millionen Reservisten mobil machen. Da kann der Westen 100 Marder und 100 Leoparden hinschicken, sie ändern an der militärischen Gesamtlage nichts. ..

    And that - as I posted upthread - Moscow and Washington must agree to partition the country,
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,792

    Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Have you read what Erich Vld actually wrote?

    This is all starting to feel like 2003 again, except that this time we are risking nuclear annihilation. I'm guessing that those who are keen to go in against Russia with guns blazing are the same people who were beating the drum for the invasion of Iraq.

    Yes, Russia needs to be pushed out of Ukraine, but not at the cost of sparking a nuclear disaster.
    He's selling the "Civil war in Ukraine" narrative vs the reality of a Russian invasion, followed by Russia spending a lot of time and money creating "rebellions" in Eastern Ukraine.
    The truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. It is a fact that was was a large Russian speaking minority in the Donbas who were very unhappy with the government in Kyiv. It is also a fact that the Russians took advantage of this situation and helped to ferment and support the rebellion.
    Until relatively recently (last 5 years maybe) almost everybody in Ukraine spoke Russian in my experience. Ukrainian was thought of as the language of hillbillies and peasants, Zarkappatia oblatst excepted where they speak Hungarian.

    The Servant of the People show that propelled the Ukrainian Les Dennis to the Presidency was recorded and broadcast with 99% Russian dialogue.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,078
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Have you read what Erich Vad actually wrote?

    This is all starting to feel like 2003 again, except that this time we are risking nuclear annihilation. I'm guessing that those who are keen to go in against Russia with guns blazing are the same people who were beating the drum for the invasion of Iraq.

    Yes, Russia needs to be pushed out of Ukraine, but not at the cost of sparking a nuclear disaster.
    Yes, I read his article.
    It basically argues, in terms, that Washington and Moscow should agree to partition Ukraine as the war cannot be won.
    His argument is actually for self-determination, but whether that can actually be achieved now is a moot point.
    These are his words.
    ….Der Schlüssel für die Lösung des Konfliktes liegt nicht in Kiew, er liegt auch nicht in Berlin, Brüssel oder Paris, er liegt in Washington und Moskau. Es ist doch lächerlich zu sagen, die Ukraine müsse das entscheiden...
    These are also his words:

    Man sollte die Menschen in der Region, also im Donbass und auf der Krim, einfach fragen, zu wem sie gehören wollen. Man müsste die territoriale Integrität der Ukraine wiederherstellen, mit bestimmten westlichen Garantien.
    Referendums in occupied territories are worth what ?
    Given that the SNP regard Scotland as an occupied terriority does that make any Scottish Referendum biased

    Throws post into the mix and goes back to work...
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,907
    edited January 24
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Have you read what Erich Vad actually wrote?

    This is all starting to feel like 2003 again, except that this time we are risking nuclear annihilation. I'm guessing that those who are keen to go in against Russia with guns blazing are the same people who were beating the drum for the invasion of Iraq.

    Yes, Russia needs to be pushed out of Ukraine, but not at the cost of sparking a nuclear disaster.
    Yes, I read his article.
    It basically argues, in terms, that Washington and Moscow should agree to partition Ukraine as the war cannot be won.
    His argument is actually for self-determination, but whether that can actually be achieved now is a moot point.
    These are his words.
    ….Der Schlüssel für die Lösung des Konfliktes liegt nicht in Kiew, er liegt auch nicht in Berlin, Brüssel oder Paris, er liegt in Washington und Moskau. Es ist doch lächerlich zu sagen, die Ukraine müsse das entscheiden...
    These are also his words:

    Man sollte die Menschen in der Region, also im Donbass und auf der Krim, einfach fragen, zu wem sie gehören wollen. Man müsste die territoriale Integrität der Ukraine wiederherstellen, mit bestimmten westlichen Garantien.
    Referendums in occupied territories are worth what ?
    They have been done before. Unsurprisingly, when a territory is in dispute, it is also normally occupied by someone or other.

    Given where we are, we should draw an arbitrary squiggly line and give the Eastern portion to Russia.

    The only argument is where the squiggly line should be placed to minimize future conflict.

    It won't be possible to eliminate all future conflict, but a grossly unfair squiggly line will guarantee another War. A solution returning Crimea to Ukraine 100 per cent guarantees another War.

    So, it is a non-linear optimization with penalty problem.

    There are some who venerate Khrushchev & think he solved the non-linear optimization problem correctly.
  • Selebian said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Progressive taxation under Labour the Tories:
    FYI, a couple of interesting (🤓) tables on income #tax from #HMRC (basically showing 'the rich' *are* paying more tax)...

    1. the % shares of total income tax paid by different income groups (the shares paid by the top 10%, 5% and 1% have all risen over the last decade... (1/2)


    2. the percentage shares of total income for each percentile group (these haven't changed much over the last decade, meaning that higher earners are paying more #tax on roughly the same share of income). (2/2)
    https://twitter.com/julianhjessop/status/1617601327856586752

    Oh no, not data!

    Opinion, that “the rich” need to be taxed more, is much easier to sell to the electorate as a whole, who never think it will affect *them*. IIRC the top decile starts at about £60k annual income, way lower than most people think it would be.

    More seriously, those numbers are a precursor to emigration (and immigration forgone), and it doesn’t need many of the top 1% to change their behavior, to have a large effect on the total tax take.
    ...says our resident tax haven ex-pat.
    Yes, your resident tax haven ex-pat.

    Who sees stories like this in his local newspaper:
    https://www.thenationalnews.com/weekend/2023/01/13/all-roads-lead-to-dubai-for-the-workers-deserting-britains-sinking-ship/
    That tiktok video is absolutely devastating. It explains middle class impoverishment in the UK, the guy was an experienced primary school teacher in the UK in his mid 30's earning £33k, and only had £170 per month to live on after he had paid his living expenses... So actually, you would have to increase his wage by about 10k to make it worth him staying in the UK, IE so he could save up to buy a house, and THEN uprate the pay by inflation every year going forward. None of that will happen. What we have now got is the problems of London of the past 2 decades (where you can only live if you are a co-habiting couple or live in a houseshare) expanded to the whole country.
    Yes, absolutely. The problems are housing costs, housing costs, and housing costs.

    Build more houses. Lots more houses. Then build yet more houses.
    The problems are deeper than this I am afraid. I think that you could build as many houses as you want in Redcar but build costs and regulation mean that a 1 bed flat will always be £600 per month either in terms of rent or mortgage payments... The problem is everything to do with the cost of building and regulation. Unfortunately, unless you want to try and reduce regulation or find a way of building housing for less... The only real solution is to increase wages.
    A large portion of the cost of construction is the wages. Not just direct, but in the cost of materials.

    Wages, especially for the lower paid, are defined, largely, by housing cost.

    Note, historically, the interest by forward thinking employers in providing reasonable quality homes close to their bsuinesses.
    It is about a 70/30 split I think, wages/materials for the basic standard of housebuilding, which is based on a lot of manual labour. But there have been big increases in the minimum wage, obviously reflecting general inflation. If demand for housebuilding goes down, then build costs could go down, but this will be symptomatic of not much housebuilding going on, which would have its own negative consequences.
    Build costs might well go up, if there was a serious contraction in house building.

    If house prices go down, the pressure will be on build costs.
    The way to fix build costs, is with technology. Prefab houses offsite, and ship them in on half a dozen lorries. Government to underwrite 20-year mortgages on them if built to a defined standard. A handful of factories could churn out hundreds of units per week. Target price £100k for a 3-bed, plus land cost.

    It requires the same effort that went into housebuilding post-WWII - and an understanding from government, that housing is the nation’s highest priority.
    It's interesting how pre-fabs have taken off in some areas (e.g. quite a few on Shetland - I've stayed in one, which was a great house) but almost unknown in others. We need to get out of the mindset that pre-fab = post-war tin bungalow, I guess.
    Selebian, I grew up in such a tin-shed in Hackney Wick. It was warm, dry, comfortable and had a fridge and a bath, luxuries that were indeed rare in the neighbourhood at that time. It also had a large garden and a couple of sheds, one for the coal and the other for storage.

    It was a delight and a privilege to live there and I can only think that post-war planners must have made a mistake in their calculations when making such generous housing available to oiks like us.

    Would that the inhabitants of Grenfell Towers and the like have been so lucky. Even if not incinerated, the residents of such blocks would have envied us our delightful little detached bungalows.
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Have you read what Erich Vad actually wrote?

    This is all starting to feel like 2003 again, except that this time we are risking nuclear annihilation. I'm guessing that those who are keen to go in against Russia with guns blazing are the same people who were beating the drum for the invasion of Iraq.

    Yes, Russia needs to be pushed out of Ukraine, but not at the cost of sparking a nuclear disaster.
    So you say there's a significant risk of a nuclear disaster if we continue this course.

    Fair enough.

    But what about the other side of the equation? What are the risks of a Russian victory, or a stalemate that Russia can sell as a substantive victory? I'd argue that it's clear Russia wants further western expansion, and a 'loss' for the west will embolden them and weaken the coalition against them.

    Basically: we'd be fighting the same war in five or ten years, either in western Ukraine, or Poland, or Romania, or the Baltics, with a weakened NATO and a Russia that will have probably learnt lessons.

    I'd strongly argue that would be much worse.
    I'm not saying that we should back down in the face of Russian aggression. Far from it. What I am saying is that the war against Russia needs to be won in a way that minimises the risk of nuclear escalation. And, to me, that means gradually wearing down the Russian forces and economy, not going in with guns blazing in an attempt to secure a quick victory.
    But that very much isn't wha Vad is saying.

    His article argues that the war cannot be won; indeed that Russia will likely prevail in the Donbass even if we supply Leopard tanks.
    ...Dann stellt sich erneut die Frage, was mit den Lieferungen der Panzer überhaupt passieren soll. Um die Krim oder den Donbass zu übernehmen, reichen die Marder und Leoparden nicht aus. In der Ostkukraine, im Raum Bachmut, sind die Russen eindeutig auf dem Vormarsch. Sie werden wahrscheinlich den Donbass in Kürze vollständig erobert haben. Man muss sich nur allein die numerische Überlegenheit der Russen gegenüber der Ukraine vor Augen führen. Russland kann bis zu zwei Millionen Reservisten mobil machen. Da kann der Westen 100 Marder und 100 Leoparden hinschicken, sie ändern an der militärischen Gesamtlage nichts. ..

    And that - as I posted upthread - Moscow and Washington must agree to partition the country,
    That's his opinion. An opinion isn't a lie.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,501
    Muesli said:

    FPT


    felix said:

    felix said:

    A long shot I know but does anyone know what a trebuchet is?

    Medieval catapult.
    Ah I see - early morning irony beyond my range...

    In my excuse one always assumes TSE historical awareness stops around the Battle of Marathon..
    Snickers
    I'm surprised more of you aren't racing to make the obvious Marathon puns
    You're just a wet cornflake!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    edited January 24

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Have you read what Erich Vad actually wrote?

    This is all starting to feel like 2003 again, except that this time we are risking nuclear annihilation. I'm guessing that those who are keen to go in against Russia with guns blazing are the same people who were beating the drum for the invasion of Iraq.

    Yes, Russia needs to be pushed out of Ukraine, but not at the cost of sparking a nuclear disaster.
    So you say there's a significant risk of a nuclear disaster if we continue this course.

    Fair enough.

    But what about the other side of the equation? What are the risks of a Russian victory, or a stalemate that Russia can sell as a substantive victory? I'd argue that it's clear Russia wants further western expansion, and a 'loss' for the west will embolden them and weaken the coalition against them.

    Basically: we'd be fighting the same war in five or ten years, either in western Ukraine, or Poland, or Romania, or the Baltics, with a weakened NATO and a Russia that will have probably learnt lessons.

    I'd strongly argue that would be much worse.
    I'm not saying that we should back down in the face of Russian aggression. Far from it. What I am saying is that the war against Russia needs to be won in a way that minimises the risk of nuclear escalation. And, to me, that means gradually wearing down the Russian forces and economy, not going in with guns blazing in an attempt to secure a quick victory.
    But that very much isn't wha Vad is saying.

    His article argues that the war cannot be won; indeed that Russia will likely prevail in the Donbass even if we supply Leopard tanks.
    ...Dann stellt sich erneut die Frage, was mit den Lieferungen der Panzer überhaupt passieren soll. Um die Krim oder den Donbass zu übernehmen, reichen die Marder und Leoparden nicht aus. In der Ostkukraine, im Raum Bachmut, sind die Russen eindeutig auf dem Vormarsch. Sie werden wahrscheinlich den Donbass in Kürze vollständig erobert haben. Man muss sich nur allein die numerische Überlegenheit der Russen gegenüber der Ukraine vor Augen führen. Russland kann bis zu zwei Millionen Reservisten mobil machen. Da kann der Westen 100 Marder und 100 Leoparden hinschicken, sie ändern an der militärischen Gesamtlage nichts. ..

    And that - as I posted upthread - Moscow and Washington must agree to partition the country,
    That's his opinion. An opinion isn't a lie.
    Calling 2014 a 'civil war' was the lie.
    Which I think is a reasonable characterisation, even if some might argue it's just an opinion.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,816

    Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Have you read what Erich Vad actually wrote?

    This is all starting to feel like 2003 again, except that this time we are risking nuclear annihilation. I'm guessing that those who are keen to go in against Russia with guns blazing are the same people who were beating the drum for the invasion of Iraq.

    Yes, Russia needs to be pushed out of Ukraine, but not at the cost of sparking a nuclear disaster.
    So you say there's a significant risk of a nuclear disaster if we continue this course.

    Fair enough.

    But what about the other side of the equation? What are the risks of a Russian victory, or a stalemate that Russia can sell as a substantive victory? I'd argue that it's clear Russia wants further western expansion, and a 'loss' for the west will embolden them and weaken the coalition against them.

    Basically: we'd be fighting the same war in five or ten years, either in western Ukraine, or Poland, or Romania, or the Baltics, with a weakened NATO and a Russia that will have probably learnt lessons.

    I'd strongly argue that would be much worse.
    I'm not saying that we should back down in the face of Russian aggression. Far from it. What I am saying is that the war against Russia needs to be won in a way that minimises the risk of nuclear escalation. And, to me, that means gradually wearing down the Russian forces and economy, not going in with guns blazing in an attempt to secure a quick victory.
    I've no idea what strategy reduces the risk, when someone would have to be literally MAD to risk nuclear conflagration. We are not threatening to invade Russia's internationally-agreed borders. The only threat to Russia comes from their own actions in Ukraine.

    But the 'gradually wearing down' argument has one massive moral flaw: it's not our blood that's flowing. You're asking the Ukrainian people - and the Russian mobniks - to lose tens, or hundreds, of thousands of lives on a vague idea that it keeps you safer.

    This war needs to be ended ASAP, and in a way that disuades Russia, and other potential aggressor nations, from trying this sort of madness again.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,816
    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Have you read what Erich Vld actually wrote?

    This is all starting to feel like 2003 again, except that this time we are risking nuclear annihilation. I'm guessing that those who are keen to go in against Russia with guns blazing are the same people who were beating the drum for the invasion of Iraq.

    Yes, Russia needs to be pushed out of Ukraine, but not at the cost of sparking a nuclear disaster.
    He's selling the "Civil war in Ukraine" narrative vs the reality of a Russian invasion, followed by Russia spending a lot of time and money creating "rebellions" in Eastern Ukraine.
    The truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. It is a fact that was was a large Russian speaking minority in the Donbas who were very unhappy with the government in Kyiv. It is also a fact that the Russians took advantage of this situation and helped to ferment and support the rebellion.
    Until relatively recently (last 5 years maybe) almost everybody in Ukraine spoke Russian in my experience. Ukrainian was thought of as the language of hillbillies and peasants, Zarkappatia oblatst excepted where they speak Hungarian.

    The Servant of the People show that propelled the Ukrainian Les Dennis to the Presidency was recorded and broadcast with 99% Russian dialogue.
    I mean, I know you're a Russophile, but don't you think that phrases like "Ukrainian was thought of as the language of hillbillies and peasants" highlights exactly why so many Ukrainians are fighting to rid themselves of the poisonous Russian influence?
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,907
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Erich Vad, ex advisor to Merkel and co-architect of her flawed policy towards Russia, is back again advocating against arms supplies to Ukraine. He has been consistently wrong on Ukraine/Russia since Feb24, but this time he is also spreading lies

    https://twitter.com/dszeligowski/status/1614293389780090880

    Have you read what Erich Vad actually wrote?

    This is all starting to feel like 2003 again, except that this time we are risking nuclear annihilation. I'm guessing that those who are keen to go in against Russia with guns blazing are the same people who were beating the drum for the invasion of Iraq.

    Yes, Russia needs to be pushed out of Ukraine, but not at the cost of sparking a nuclear disaster.
    Yes, I read his article.
    It basically argues, in terms, that Washington and Moscow should agree to partition Ukraine as the war cannot be won.
    His argument is actually for self-determination, but whether that can actually be achieved now is a moot point.
    These are his words.
    ….Der Schlüssel für die Lösung des Konfliktes liegt nicht in Kiew, er liegt auch nicht in Berlin, Brüssel oder Paris, er liegt in Washington und Moskau. Es ist doch lächerlich zu sagen, die Ukraine müsse das entscheiden...
    These are also his words:

    Man sollte die Menschen in der Region, also im Donbass und auf der Krim, einfach fragen, zu wem sie gehören wollen. Man müsste die territoriale Integrität der Ukraine wiederherstellen, mit bestimmten westlichen Garantien.
    Referendums in occupied territories are worth what ?
    They have been done before. Unsurprisingly, when a territory is in dispute, it is also normally occupied by someone or other.

    Given where we are, we should draw an arbitrary squiggly line and give the Eastern portion to Russia.

    The only argument is where the squiggly line should be placed to minimize future conflict.

    It won't be possible to eliminate all future conflict, but a grossly unfair squiggly line will guarantee another War. A solution returning Crimea to Ukraine 100 per cent guarantees another War.

    So, it is a non-linear optimization with penalty problem.

    There are some who venerate Khrushchev & think he solved the non-linear optimization problem correctly.
    There was a perfectly good line drawn between Russia and Ukraine from 1991 until 2014, under international treaty accepted by the rest of the world. No-one, except Putin, would object to that line being restored.
    The line should be chosen to solve an optimization problem to minimize future conflict.

    There is nothing special about any squiggly line, and it can change with time.

    The squiggly line in N. Ireland was drawn (by the British) to solve an optimization problem in 1921: What is the maximum amount of territory that could be safely claimed to ensure a Unionist majority?

    I expect the squiggly line in N Ireland will change in the future. Ditto any squiggly line between Country X and Country Y.

    No squiggly line is inviolate.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 32,308
    DavidL said:

    Can I just say that that was yet another excellent thread header by @Cyclefree on the previous thread which I am sorry to have missed through ill health. It is slightly disappointing that the thread went off topic so fast but I suppose there is not much more that can be said about this.

    One novel spin came from an SNP councillor in Dundee at the weekend. She compared, in all seriousness, the actions of the UK government in blocking the Gender Recognition bill with those of the Nazis at Auschwitz. Both, apparently, involved persecuting minorities for their sexual orientation. Every day is a learning day in the City of DIscovery.

    What is it with people comparing things they dislike to the Holocaust?
This discussion has been closed.