I thought this line by Larry Summers (in the context of whether the dollar might be replaced as global reserve currency) was worth sharing.
“Europe is a museum, Japan is a nursing home and China is a jail.”
Britain’s demographics are not actually that bad. There’s a lot of pessimism around right now, but I don’t believe there’s any inherent cultural reason why Britain can’t succeed.
The one think I liked about Truss is that she believed that a more dynamic future is possible.
America is a shooting range.
America Is A Gun
England is a cup of tea. France, a wheel of ripened brie. Greece, a short, squat olive tree. America is a gun.
Brazil is football on the sand. Argentina, Maradona's hand. Germany, an oompah band. America is a gun.
Holland is a wooden shoe. Hungary, a goulash stew. Australia, a kangaroo. America is a gun.
Japan is a thermal spring. Scotland is a highland fling. Oh, better to be anything than America as a gun. Brian Bilston
Yeah, his is quite an achievement. I've been following him for years.
But... (and I whisper this quietly): when you spend over five years doing the walk full-time, then it doesn't become quite a walk: it becomes a lifestyle. Which is fine, but it's a very different sort of walk. Possibly more enjoyable than what I did.
I'll have to get 'Finding Hildasay'; I think I've got every other book written by coastal walkers, from 'I met Granny Vera' to 'Two feet, Four Paws'. It's a rather odd collection, both of books and their very different authors.
It all comes back to the perennial question - is there anyone in the Conservative Parliamentary party under whose leadership the Party's polling numbers would be any better? There's no polling evidence indicating such an individual exists.
In 1995, after the Party lost 2,000 councillors in a single night, the challenger to John Major was John Redwood - I believe there was some polling done at the time which indicated the Conservatives under Redwood would be polling even worse than they were under Major. Redwood still got 89 votes in the Parliamentary party despite the infamous picture of him and his supporters.
The other question is, put simply, who'd want it? When the music stops, you don't want to be the one holding the grenade with the pin removed.
The three "B"s - Badenoch, Braverman and Barclay - are all well placed to survive the severest of defeats but with a 10 year road back (probably), there's a fair chance the one taking the first step won't be the one reaching the destination (ask Neil Kinnock). Badenoch has time on her side.
As for the LDs, I think it's lazy to assume Daisy Cooper will win if/when Davey stands down. On the assumption Labour wins big and the LDs come out with 25 MPs (not inconceivable the Party will scavenge some scraps from the Conservative carcass while the Labour dinosaur gets most of the meal), Cooper could well be challenged by either Munira Wilson or Sarah Olney. I'd be interested to hear more from Sarah Green but she'll have a fight to hold her seat.
The point about the Tories is not that a better person with more charisma is what is needed (though obviously some Boris supporters think that's the case), it's that the Tories must be seen to be acting vigorously to counter the gloomy economic narrative (and stop the boats, and be seen to start fixing the NHS), and improve the cost of living. By the by, exploiting some of the more obvious Brexit advantages, and fixing NI, would also be good. As Liz Truss points out in her article, and nobody has really disagreed, there are powerful forces aligned against these happening, Sunak cannot please everyone - he can either be a good boy and please the mandarins, the IMF, and Joe Biden, or he can fix the country and save the Tory party. He seems to have made his decision in favour of the former.
None of the issues you've mentioned has appeared overnight - to be blunt, the Conservatives have been in power for the last (nearly) 13 years, the EU Referendum was more than six and a half years ago. The Party's inability to offer any kind of meaningful solution to these issues is why it's probably condemned to defeat at the next GE.
Truss made a complete horlicks of her opportunity - the main reason she failed was her policy of reducing tax for the wealthiest ran contrary to the prevailing notion of "fairness" or, in Conservative terms the "we're in all this together" meme. She and those who think like her are now casting round for "forces" to blame - no, she got it wrong because the policy, however attractive in economic theory, failed to pass the smell test of public opinion.
She couldn't convince the electorate the idea of giving more money to the very wealthiest was economically sound. You might think it's a brilliant idea, I understand the economic theory but most people don't see it in those terms. Truss and Kwarteng thought we were all still Thatcher's children but we've moved on.
I think there was an element of that, and Truss herself argues that the Tories had let the argument slip away from them. But it was the market turmoil and the impact on borrowing that did for Truss, not an ideological disagreement between her and the public (though that may have existed).
Where I feel Truss went wrong was not to have ensured that she was working in lock step with the BOE, with her Government as the senior partner. She was played like a tambourine by the Bank, who contributed to the general instability with their bond-selling programme (unique amongst central banks) and called it an 'emergency intervention' when they were forced to stop and buy some back. In the end, as Tom Harwood notes, they made £4bn profit doing this anyway. It felt at the time like the Government and the Bank were competing - the one to put money in peoples' pockets to combat recession, the other to take it out to combat inflation. Now it feels like the Government has just given up and given in to the Bank. A more desirable situation is that the two work together to ensure a growing economy AND keep inflation at bay.
Yes, but she didn't cooperate with the BOE or give a report to the OBR.
Liz and Kwasi seemed to antogonise the bank and the OBR, but without actually achieving the upper hand. That was a mistake.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I would have tried to ensure that the Bank froze their bond sale programme until the bonds reached their former value, in line with the ECB. With the OBR, I might have commissioned a report, but insisted that their methodology took into account the dynamic affect of changes to corporation tax etc., or failing that insisted on a 'minority report' that did.
So. You'd have insisted that the "independent" OBR, came up with an answer which agreed with the government?
Not at all, I'd have done exactly what I said above. The report could still come back and even taking into account the dynamic effect of tax reductions, still make recommendations opposed to Government policy. A report isn't useful if it's wrong. But the fact is that far from being an inviolable gold standard, OBR forecasts are seldom correct.
The problem for a lot of people on the right is that the dynamic effect of tax cuts, while it exists, is nowhere near enough to make up for fiscal shortfall of the tax cuts. So you just go into ever greater deficits, which prompts them to argue for more tax cuts.
The exact same problem exists for Keynesians on the left, who think you can spend your way to growth and balanced budgets.
British bonds yields were already diverging from G7 peers.
The market was already beginning to worry about some of the promises made by Truss.
The market reaction to her budget was pretty much immediate.
She is right to blame bad luck (LDIs) and push back from vested interests, but she almost entirely neglects her own idiocy, communications, and madness.
The risk is that she has actually tarnished the whole idea of “growth” as something too risky and politically impossible.
But if her recipe was "growth" we wouldn't need it. As we'd have grown so fast already. It's the same old failed ideology that got us here.
We have not deregulated, we have not reduced the tax burden, we have not eased planning laws, so I am not sure how you see Truss's recipe for growth as any kind of continuation.
It’s entirely possible, indeed, it’s my contention, that we are both over-regulated and under-regulated.
There’s a reason why childcare costs in the UK are the highest in the OECD.
But there’s also a regulatory dysfunction behind the grotesque rent seeking and behaviour of utility providers.
Ditto being simultaneously over (income, capital investment) and under (wealth, rentierism) taxed.
British bonds yields were already diverging from G7 peers.
The market was already beginning to worry about some of the promises made by Truss.
The market reaction to her budget was pretty much immediate.
She is right to blame bad luck (LDIs) and push back from vested interests, but she almost entirely neglects her own idiocy, communications, and madness.
The risk is that she has actually tarnished the whole idea of “growth” as something too risky and politically impossible.
More optimistically I'd hope what she's tarnished is just the facile notion that you can borrow or print money to cut tax for the wealthy and that'll somehow make us all better off.
It all comes back to the perennial question - is there anyone in the Conservative Parliamentary party under whose leadership the Party's polling numbers would be any better? There's no polling evidence indicating such an individual exists.
In 1995, after the Party lost 2,000 councillors in a single night, the challenger to John Major was John Redwood - I believe there was some polling done at the time which indicated the Conservatives under Redwood would be polling even worse than they were under Major. Redwood still got 89 votes in the Parliamentary party despite the infamous picture of him and his supporters.
The other question is, put simply, who'd want it? When the music stops, you don't want to be the one holding the grenade with the pin removed.
The three "B"s - Badenoch, Braverman and Barclay - are all well placed to survive the severest of defeats but with a 10 year road back (probably), there's a fair chance the one taking the first step won't be the one reaching the destination (ask Neil Kinnock). Badenoch has time on her side.
As for the LDs, I think it's lazy to assume Daisy Cooper will win if/when Davey stands down. On the assumption Labour wins big and the LDs come out with 25 MPs (not inconceivable the Party will scavenge some scraps from the Conservative carcass while the Labour dinosaur gets most of the meal), Cooper could well be challenged by either Munira Wilson or Sarah Olney. I'd be interested to hear more from Sarah Green but she'll have a fight to hold her seat.
The point about the Tories is not that a better person with more charisma is what is needed (though obviously some Boris supporters think that's the case), it's that the Tories must be seen to be acting vigorously to counter the gloomy economic narrative (and stop the boats, and be seen to start fixing the NHS), and improve the cost of living. By the by, exploiting some of the more obvious Brexit advantages, and fixing NI, would also be good. As Liz Truss points out in her article, and nobody has really disagreed, there are powerful forces aligned against these happening, Sunak cannot please everyone - he can either be a good boy and please the mandarins, the IMF, and Joe Biden, or he can fix the country and save the Tory party. He seems to have made his decision in favour of the former.
None of the issues you've mentioned has appeared overnight - to be blunt, the Conservatives have been in power for the last (nearly) 13 years, the EU Referendum was more than six and a half years ago. The Party's inability to offer any kind of meaningful solution to these issues is why it's probably condemned to defeat at the next GE.
Truss made a complete horlicks of her opportunity - the main reason she failed was her policy of reducing tax for the wealthiest ran contrary to the prevailing notion of "fairness" or, in Conservative terms the "we're in all this together" meme. She and those who think like her are now casting round for "forces" to blame - no, she got it wrong because the policy, however attractive in economic theory, failed to pass the smell test of public opinion.
She couldn't convince the electorate the idea of giving more money to the very wealthiest was economically sound. You might think it's a brilliant idea, I understand the economic theory but most people don't see it in those terms. Truss and Kwarteng thought we were all still Thatcher's children but we've moved on.
I think there was an element of that, and Truss herself argues that the Tories had let the argument slip away from them. But it was the market turmoil and the impact on borrowing that did for Truss, not an ideological disagreement between her and the public (though that may have existed).
Where I feel Truss went wrong was not to have ensured that she was working in lock step with the BOE, with her Government as the senior partner. She was played like a tambourine by the Bank, who contributed to the general instability with their bond-selling programme (unique amongst central banks) and called it an 'emergency intervention' when they were forced to stop and buy some back. In the end, as Tom Harwood notes, they made £4bn profit doing this anyway. It felt at the time like the Government and the Bank were competing - the one to put money in peoples' pockets to combat recession, the other to take it out to combat inflation. Now it feels like the Government has just given up and given in to the Bank. A more desirable situation is that the two work together to ensure a growing economy AND keep inflation at bay.
Yes, but she didn't cooperate with the BOE or give a report to the OBR.
Liz and Kwasi seemed to antogonise the bank and the OBR, but without actually achieving the upper hand. That was a mistake.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I would have tried to ensure that the Bank froze their bond sale programme until the bonds reached their former value, in line with the ECB. With the OBR, I might have commissioned a report, but insisted that their methodology took into account the dynamic affect of changes to corporation tax etc., or failing that insisted on a 'minority report' that did.
So. You'd have insisted that the "independent" OBR, came up with an answer which agreed with the government?
Not at all, I'd have done exactly what I said above. The report could still come back and even taking into account the dynamic effect of tax reductions, still make recommendations opposed to Government policy. A report isn't useful if it's wrong. But the fact is that far from being an inviolable gold standard, OBR forecasts are seldom correct.
The problem for a lot of people on the right is that the dynamic effect of tax cuts, while it exists, is nowhere near enough to make up for fiscal shortfall of the tax cuts. So you just go into ever greater deficits, which prompts them to argue for more tax cuts.
The exact same problem exists for Keynesians on the left, who think you can spend your way to growth and balanced budgets.
What Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng proposed was very similar to 1960s/70s deficit spending.
While the question ‘Who on earth should a right-thinking person vote for?’ remains moot, at least one matter has been settled.
It seems the era of ‘no debate’, imposed on public life by the trans lobby group Stonewall, is officially over.
Politicians need to recognise that that the mantra ‘trans women are women’ is now recognised as the ludicrous, flat-earth statement that it is. The entire house of cards is collapsing, and our political parties need to catch up.
The country is no longer in a fugue state when it comes to transgender doctrine – and I look forward to the day when every political leader roundly denounces it.
As I said earlier, if you can find the odds, bet on Italy to beat England next week
Over 10/1 would be great value. Probably won’t get that now tho
If Italy can manage not to run out of steam for the last quarter of the match that would be almost as big an achievement as a win. I’d fancy your bet in that scenario.
The Tory internal debates are so detached from reality as to be almost from a quantum dimension.
This is akin to the Lib Dems panicking about Davey being unexciting and arguing among themselves whether to bring back Clegg or Swinson.
Personally, I like Davey, but the LDs get little platform.
I wouldn't mind Farron back as leader, but think the next LD leader is Daisy.
Well, she has her faults, but at least she's not Layla Moran.
She has a competitor in Wera Hobhouse, who not only said 5G conspiracy theorists should be listened too, but also is both strongly for and strongly against expansion of Bristol airport:
I think it's great that we have MPs who can genuinely see both sides of an argument.
It all comes back to the perennial question - is there anyone in the Conservative Parliamentary party under whose leadership the Party's polling numbers would be any better? There's no polling evidence indicating such an individual exists.
In 1995, after the Party lost 2,000 councillors in a single night, the challenger to John Major was John Redwood - I believe there was some polling done at the time which indicated the Conservatives under Redwood would be polling even worse than they were under Major. Redwood still got 89 votes in the Parliamentary party despite the infamous picture of him and his supporters.
The other question is, put simply, who'd want it? When the music stops, you don't want to be the one holding the grenade with the pin removed.
The three "B"s - Badenoch, Braverman and Barclay - are all well placed to survive the severest of defeats but with a 10 year road back (probably), there's a fair chance the one taking the first step won't be the one reaching the destination (ask Neil Kinnock). Badenoch has time on her side.
As for the LDs, I think it's lazy to assume Daisy Cooper will win if/when Davey stands down. On the assumption Labour wins big and the LDs come out with 25 MPs (not inconceivable the Party will scavenge some scraps from the Conservative carcass while the Labour dinosaur gets most of the meal), Cooper could well be challenged by either Munira Wilson or Sarah Olney. I'd be interested to hear more from Sarah Green but she'll have a fight to hold her seat.
The point about the Tories is not that a better person with more charisma is what is needed (though obviously some Boris supporters think that's the case), it's that the Tories must be seen to be acting vigorously to counter the gloomy economic narrative (and stop the boats, and be seen to start fixing the NHS), and improve the cost of living. By the by, exploiting some of the more obvious Brexit advantages, and fixing NI, would also be good. As Liz Truss points out in her article, and nobody has really disagreed, there are powerful forces aligned against these happening, Sunak cannot please everyone - he can either be a good boy and please the mandarins, the IMF, and Joe Biden, or he can fix the country and save the Tory party. He seems to have made his decision in favour of the former.
None of the issues you've mentioned has appeared overnight - to be blunt, the Conservatives have been in power for the last (nearly) 13 years, the EU Referendum was more than six and a half years ago. The Party's inability to offer any kind of meaningful solution to these issues is why it's probably condemned to defeat at the next GE.
Truss made a complete horlicks of her opportunity - the main reason she failed was her policy of reducing tax for the wealthiest ran contrary to the prevailing notion of "fairness" or, in Conservative terms the "we're in all this together" meme. She and those who think like her are now casting round for "forces" to blame - no, she got it wrong because the policy, however attractive in economic theory, failed to pass the smell test of public opinion.
She couldn't convince the electorate the idea of giving more money to the very wealthiest was economically sound. You might think it's a brilliant idea, I understand the economic theory but most people don't see it in those terms. Truss and Kwarteng thought we were all still Thatcher's children but we've moved on.
I think there was an element of that, and Truss herself argues that the Tories had let the argument slip away from them. But it was the market turmoil and the impact on borrowing that did for Truss, not an ideological disagreement between her and the public (though that may have existed).
Where I feel Truss went wrong was not to have ensured that she was working in lock step with the BOE, with her Government as the senior partner. She was played like a tambourine by the Bank, who contributed to the general instability with their bond-selling programme (unique amongst central banks) and called it an 'emergency intervention' when they were forced to stop and buy some back. In the end, as Tom Harwood notes, they made £4bn profit doing this anyway. It felt at the time like the Government and the Bank were competing - the one to put money in peoples' pockets to combat recession, the other to take it out to combat inflation. Now it feels like the Government has just given up and given in to the Bank. A more desirable situation is that the two work together to ensure a growing economy AND keep inflation at bay.
Yes, but she didn't cooperate with the BOE or give a report to the OBR.
Liz and Kwasi seemed to antogonise the bank and the OBR, but without actually achieving the upper hand. That was a mistake.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I would have tried to ensure that the Bank froze their bond sale programme until the bonds reached their former value, in line with the ECB. With the OBR, I might have commissioned a report, but insisted that their methodology took into account the dynamic affect of changes to corporation tax etc., or failing that insisted on a 'minority report' that did.
So. You'd have insisted that the "independent" OBR, came up with an answer which agreed with the government?
Not at all, I'd have done exactly what I said above. The report could still come back and even taking into account the dynamic effect of tax reductions, still make recommendations opposed to Government policy. A report isn't useful if it's wrong. But the fact is that far from being an inviolable gold standard, OBR forecasts are seldom correct.
The problem for a lot of people on the right is that the dynamic effect of tax cuts, while it exists, is nowhere near enough to make up for fiscal shortfall of the tax cuts. So you just go into ever greater deficits, which prompts them to argue for more tax cuts.
The exact same problem exists for Keynesians on the left, who think you can spend your way to growth and balanced budgets.
I don't think that you can say that that is a hard and fast rule, any more than you can say that any tax cut will improve tax take. The individual circumstances matter. I have seen John Redwood in recent weeks argue that every time the UK Government cut corporation tax, it took more in corporation tax. I don't have the resources to check this, but it wouldn't surprise me.
As I said earlier, if you can find the odds, bet on Italy to beat England next week
Over 10/1 would be great value. Probably won’t get that now tho
If Italy can manage not to run out of steam for the last quarter of the match that would be almost as big an achievement as a win. I’d fancy your bet in that scenario.
Italy are finally turning into a real threat in the 6 Nations. No one’s whipping boy
Great for the competition. Just a shame - for a wearied England rugby fan like me - that it might well be England struggling to avoid the wooden spoon
It all comes back to the perennial question - is there anyone in the Conservative Parliamentary party under whose leadership the Party's polling numbers would be any better? There's no polling evidence indicating such an individual exists.
In 1995, after the Party lost 2,000 councillors in a single night, the challenger to John Major was John Redwood - I believe there was some polling done at the time which indicated the Conservatives under Redwood would be polling even worse than they were under Major. Redwood still got 89 votes in the Parliamentary party despite the infamous picture of him and his supporters.
The other question is, put simply, who'd want it? When the music stops, you don't want to be the one holding the grenade with the pin removed.
The three "B"s - Badenoch, Braverman and Barclay - are all well placed to survive the severest of defeats but with a 10 year road back (probably), there's a fair chance the one taking the first step won't be the one reaching the destination (ask Neil Kinnock). Badenoch has time on her side.
As for the LDs, I think it's lazy to assume Daisy Cooper will win if/when Davey stands down. On the assumption Labour wins big and the LDs come out with 25 MPs (not inconceivable the Party will scavenge some scraps from the Conservative carcass while the Labour dinosaur gets most of the meal), Cooper could well be challenged by either Munira Wilson or Sarah Olney. I'd be interested to hear more from Sarah Green but she'll have a fight to hold her seat.
The point about the Tories is not that a better person with more charisma is what is needed (though obviously some Boris supporters think that's the case), it's that the Tories must be seen to be acting vigorously to counter the gloomy economic narrative (and stop the boats, and be seen to start fixing the NHS), and improve the cost of living. By the by, exploiting some of the more obvious Brexit advantages, and fixing NI, would also be good. As Liz Truss points out in her article, and nobody has really disagreed, there are powerful forces aligned against these happening, Sunak cannot please everyone - he can either be a good boy and please the mandarins, the IMF, and Joe Biden, or he can fix the country and save the Tory party. He seems to have made his decision in favour of the former.
None of the issues you've mentioned has appeared overnight - to be blunt, the Conservatives have been in power for the last (nearly) 13 years, the EU Referendum was more than six and a half years ago. The Party's inability to offer any kind of meaningful solution to these issues is why it's probably condemned to defeat at the next GE.
Truss made a complete horlicks of her opportunity - the main reason she failed was her policy of reducing tax for the wealthiest ran contrary to the prevailing notion of "fairness" or, in Conservative terms the "we're in all this together" meme. She and those who think like her are now casting round for "forces" to blame - no, she got it wrong because the policy, however attractive in economic theory, failed to pass the smell test of public opinion.
She couldn't convince the electorate the idea of giving more money to the very wealthiest was economically sound. You might think it's a brilliant idea, I understand the economic theory but most people don't see it in those terms. Truss and Kwarteng thought we were all still Thatcher's children but we've moved on.
I think there was an element of that, and Truss herself argues that the Tories had let the argument slip away from them. But it was the market turmoil and the impact on borrowing that did for Truss, not an ideological disagreement between her and the public (though that may have existed).
Where I feel Truss went wrong was not to have ensured that she was working in lock step with the BOE, with her Government as the senior partner. She was played like a tambourine by the Bank, who contributed to the general instability with their bond-selling programme (unique amongst central banks) and called it an 'emergency intervention' when they were forced to stop and buy some back. In the end, as Tom Harwood notes, they made £4bn profit doing this anyway. It felt at the time like the Government and the Bank were competing - the one to put money in peoples' pockets to combat recession, the other to take it out to combat inflation. Now it feels like the Government has just given up and given in to the Bank. A more desirable situation is that the two work together to ensure a growing economy AND keep inflation at bay.
Yes, but she didn't cooperate with the BOE or give a report to the OBR.
Liz and Kwasi seemed to antogonise the bank and the OBR, but without actually achieving the upper hand. That was a mistake.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I would have tried to ensure that the Bank froze their bond sale programme until the bonds reached their former value, in line with the ECB. With the OBR, I might have commissioned a report, but insisted that their methodology took into account the dynamic affect of changes to corporation tax etc., or failing that insisted on a 'minority report' that did.
So. You'd have insisted that the "independent" OBR, came up with an answer which agreed with the government?
Not at all, I'd have done exactly what I said above. The report could still come back and even taking into account the dynamic effect of tax reductions, still make recommendations opposed to Government policy. A report isn't useful if it's wrong. But the fact is that far from being an inviolable gold standard, OBR forecasts are seldom correct.
The problem for a lot of people on the right is that the dynamic effect of tax cuts, while it exists, is nowhere near enough to make up for fiscal shortfall of the tax cuts. So you just go into ever greater deficits, which prompts them to argue for more tax cuts.
The exact same problem exists for Keynesians on the left, who think you can spend your way to growth and balanced budgets.
Sound Money has few friends these days. For me there's no conflict between No Magic Money Tree and being on the Left but it's not a crowded space I occupy.
It all comes back to the perennial question - is there anyone in the Conservative Parliamentary party under whose leadership the Party's polling numbers would be any better? There's no polling evidence indicating such an individual exists.
In 1995, after the Party lost 2,000 councillors in a single night, the challenger to John Major was John Redwood - I believe there was some polling done at the time which indicated the Conservatives under Redwood would be polling even worse than they were under Major. Redwood still got 89 votes in the Parliamentary party despite the infamous picture of him and his supporters.
The other question is, put simply, who'd want it? When the music stops, you don't want to be the one holding the grenade with the pin removed.
The three "B"s - Badenoch, Braverman and Barclay - are all well placed to survive the severest of defeats but with a 10 year road back (probably), there's a fair chance the one taking the first step won't be the one reaching the destination (ask Neil Kinnock). Badenoch has time on her side.
As for the LDs, I think it's lazy to assume Daisy Cooper will win if/when Davey stands down. On the assumption Labour wins big and the LDs come out with 25 MPs (not inconceivable the Party will scavenge some scraps from the Conservative carcass while the Labour dinosaur gets most of the meal), Cooper could well be challenged by either Munira Wilson or Sarah Olney. I'd be interested to hear more from Sarah Green but she'll have a fight to hold her seat.
The point about the Tories is not that a better person with more charisma is what is needed (though obviously some Boris supporters think that's the case), it's that the Tories must be seen to be acting vigorously to counter the gloomy economic narrative (and stop the boats, and be seen to start fixing the NHS), and improve the cost of living. By the by, exploiting some of the more obvious Brexit advantages, and fixing NI, would also be good. As Liz Truss points out in her article, and nobody has really disagreed, there are powerful forces aligned against these happening, Sunak cannot please everyone - he can either be a good boy and please the mandarins, the IMF, and Joe Biden, or he can fix the country and save the Tory party. He seems to have made his decision in favour of the former.
None of the issues you've mentioned has appeared overnight - to be blunt, the Conservatives have been in power for the last (nearly) 13 years, the EU Referendum was more than six and a half years ago. The Party's inability to offer any kind of meaningful solution to these issues is why it's probably condemned to defeat at the next GE.
Truss made a complete horlicks of her opportunity - the main reason she failed was her policy of reducing tax for the wealthiest ran contrary to the prevailing notion of "fairness" or, in Conservative terms the "we're in all this together" meme. She and those who think like her are now casting round for "forces" to blame - no, she got it wrong because the policy, however attractive in economic theory, failed to pass the smell test of public opinion.
She couldn't convince the electorate the idea of giving more money to the very wealthiest was economically sound. You might think it's a brilliant idea, I understand the economic theory but most people don't see it in those terms. Truss and Kwarteng thought we were all still Thatcher's children but we've moved on.
I think there was an element of that, and Truss herself argues that the Tories had let the argument slip away from them. But it was the market turmoil and the impact on borrowing that did for Truss, not an ideological disagreement between her and the public (though that may have existed).
Where I feel Truss went wrong was not to have ensured that she was working in lock step with the BOE, with her Government as the senior partner. She was played like a tambourine by the Bank, who contributed to the general instability with their bond-selling programme (unique amongst central banks) and called it an 'emergency intervention' when they were forced to stop and buy some back. In the end, as Tom Harwood notes, they made £4bn profit doing this anyway. It felt at the time like the Government and the Bank were competing - the one to put money in peoples' pockets to combat recession, the other to take it out to combat inflation. Now it feels like the Government has just given up and given in to the Bank. A more desirable situation is that the two work together to ensure a growing economy AND keep inflation at bay.
Yes, but she didn't cooperate with the BOE or give a report to the OBR.
Liz and Kwasi seemed to antogonise the bank and the OBR, but without actually achieving the upper hand. That was a mistake.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I would have tried to ensure that the Bank froze their bond sale programme until the bonds reached their former value, in line with the ECB. With the OBR, I might have commissioned a report, but insisted that their methodology took into account the dynamic affect of changes to corporation tax etc., or failing that insisted on a 'minority report' that did.
So. You'd have insisted that the "independent" OBR, came up with an answer which agreed with the government?
Not at all, I'd have done exactly what I said above. The report could still come back and even taking into account the dynamic effect of tax reductions, still make recommendations opposed to Government policy. A report isn't useful if it's wrong. But the fact is that far from being an inviolable gold standard, OBR forecasts are seldom correct.
The problem for a lot of people on the right is that the dynamic effect of tax cuts, while it exists, is nowhere near enough to make up for fiscal shortfall of the tax cuts. So you just go into ever greater deficits, which prompts them to argue for more tax cuts.
The exact same problem exists for Keynesians on the left, who think you can spend your way to growth and balanced budgets.
I don't think that you can say that that is a hard and fast rule, any more than you can say that any tax cut will improve tax take. The individual circumstances matter. I have seen John Redwood in recent weeks argue that every time the UK Government cut corporation tax, it took more in corporation tax. I don't have the resources to check this, but it wouldn't surprise me.
That will be true of essentially all taxes, due to the combination of inflation and economic growth.
Did corporation tax receipts grow as a percentage of GDP or not?
As I said earlier, if you can find the odds, bet on Italy to beat England next week
Over 10/1 would be great value. Probably won’t get that now tho
If Italy can manage not to run out of steam for the last quarter of the match that would be almost as big an achievement as a win. I’d fancy your bet in that scenario.
Italy are finally turning into a real threat in the 6 Nations. No one’s whipping boy
Great for the competition. Just a shame - for a wearied England rugby fan like me - that it might well be England struggling to avoid the wooden spoon
Scotland well deserved their victory yesterday
Where was our New Manager Bounce like Everton got?
It all comes back to the perennial question - is there anyone in the Conservative Parliamentary party under whose leadership the Party's polling numbers would be any better? There's no polling evidence indicating such an individual exists.
In 1995, after the Party lost 2,000 councillors in a single night, the challenger to John Major was John Redwood - I believe there was some polling done at the time which indicated the Conservatives under Redwood would be polling even worse than they were under Major. Redwood still got 89 votes in the Parliamentary party despite the infamous picture of him and his supporters.
The other question is, put simply, who'd want it? When the music stops, you don't want to be the one holding the grenade with the pin removed.
The three "B"s - Badenoch, Braverman and Barclay - are all well placed to survive the severest of defeats but with a 10 year road back (probably), there's a fair chance the one taking the first step won't be the one reaching the destination (ask Neil Kinnock). Badenoch has time on her side.
As for the LDs, I think it's lazy to assume Daisy Cooper will win if/when Davey stands down. On the assumption Labour wins big and the LDs come out with 25 MPs (not inconceivable the Party will scavenge some scraps from the Conservative carcass while the Labour dinosaur gets most of the meal), Cooper could well be challenged by either Munira Wilson or Sarah Olney. I'd be interested to hear more from Sarah Green but she'll have a fight to hold her seat.
The point about the Tories is not that a better person with more charisma is what is needed (though obviously some Boris supporters think that's the case), it's that the Tories must be seen to be acting vigorously to counter the gloomy economic narrative (and stop the boats, and be seen to start fixing the NHS), and improve the cost of living. By the by, exploiting some of the more obvious Brexit advantages, and fixing NI, would also be good. As Liz Truss points out in her article, and nobody has really disagreed, there are powerful forces aligned against these happening, Sunak cannot please everyone - he can either be a good boy and please the mandarins, the IMF, and Joe Biden, or he can fix the country and save the Tory party. He seems to have made his decision in favour of the former.
None of the issues you've mentioned has appeared overnight - to be blunt, the Conservatives have been in power for the last (nearly) 13 years, the EU Referendum was more than six and a half years ago. The Party's inability to offer any kind of meaningful solution to these issues is why it's probably condemned to defeat at the next GE.
Truss made a complete horlicks of her opportunity - the main reason she failed was her policy of reducing tax for the wealthiest ran contrary to the prevailing notion of "fairness" or, in Conservative terms the "we're in all this together" meme. She and those who think like her are now casting round for "forces" to blame - no, she got it wrong because the policy, however attractive in economic theory, failed to pass the smell test of public opinion.
She couldn't convince the electorate the idea of giving more money to the very wealthiest was economically sound. You might think it's a brilliant idea, I understand the economic theory but most people don't see it in those terms. Truss and Kwarteng thought we were all still Thatcher's children but we've moved on.
I think there was an element of that, and Truss herself argues that the Tories had let the argument slip away from them. But it was the market turmoil and the impact on borrowing that did for Truss, not an ideological disagreement between her and the public (though that may have existed).
Where I feel Truss went wrong was not to have ensured that she was working in lock step with the BOE, with her Government as the senior partner. She was played like a tambourine by the Bank, who contributed to the general instability with their bond-selling programme (unique amongst central banks) and called it an 'emergency intervention' when they were forced to stop and buy some back. In the end, as Tom Harwood notes, they made £4bn profit doing this anyway. It felt at the time like the Government and the Bank were competing - the one to put money in peoples' pockets to combat recession, the other to take it out to combat inflation. Now it feels like the Government has just given up and given in to the Bank. A more desirable situation is that the two work together to ensure a growing economy AND keep inflation at bay.
Yes, but she didn't cooperate with the BOE or give a report to the OBR.
Liz and Kwasi seemed to antogonise the bank and the OBR, but without actually achieving the upper hand. That was a mistake.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I would have tried to ensure that the Bank froze their bond sale programme until the bonds reached their former value, in line with the ECB. With the OBR, I might have commissioned a report, but insisted that their methodology took into account the dynamic affect of changes to corporation tax etc., or failing that insisted on a 'minority report' that did.
So. You'd have insisted that the "independent" OBR, came up with an answer which agreed with the government?
Not at all, I'd have done exactly what I said above. The report could still come back and even taking into account the dynamic effect of tax reductions, still make recommendations opposed to Government policy. A report isn't useful if it's wrong. But the fact is that far from being an inviolable gold standard, OBR forecasts are seldom correct.
The problem for a lot of people on the right is that the dynamic effect of tax cuts, while it exists, is nowhere near enough to make up for fiscal shortfall of the tax cuts. So you just go into ever greater deficits, which prompts them to argue for more tax cuts.
The exact same problem exists for Keynesians on the left, who think you can spend your way to growth and balanced budgets.
I don't think that you can say that that is a hard and fast rule, any more than you can say that any tax cut will improve tax take. The individual circumstances matter. I have seen John Redwood in recent weeks argue that every time the UK Government cut corporation tax, it took more in corporation tax. I don't have the resources to check this, but it wouldn't surprise me.
That will be true of essentially all taxes, due to the combination of inflation and economic growth.
Did corporation tax receipts grow as a percentage of GDP or not?
Also - of course - there's the potential impact of any shift in earnings between corporate profits and wages.
As I said earlier, if you can find the odds, bet on Italy to beat England next week
Over 10/1 would be great value. Probably won’t get that now tho
If Italy can manage not to run out of steam for the last quarter of the match that would be almost as big an achievement as a win. I’d fancy your bet in that scenario.
Italy are finally turning into a real threat in the 6 Nations. No one’s whipping boy
Great for the competition. Just a shame - for a wearied England rugby fan like me - that it might well be England struggling to avoid the wooden spoon
Scotland well deserved their victory yesterday
Where was our New Manager Bounce like Everton got?
We chose an inferior version of Gareth “the loser” Southgate as coach
Tho in truth, as I said earlier, I believe England simply don’t have the players right now. This is not a sleeping giant like the England cricket team, ready to be turned into world beaters by a brilliant leader. Our players are… not very good. Outclassed in too many departments and positions
It all comes back to the perennial question - is there anyone in the Conservative Parliamentary party under whose leadership the Party's polling numbers would be any better? There's no polling evidence indicating such an individual exists.
In 1995, after the Party lost 2,000 councillors in a single night, the challenger to John Major was John Redwood - I believe there was some polling done at the time which indicated the Conservatives under Redwood would be polling even worse than they were under Major. Redwood still got 89 votes in the Parliamentary party despite the infamous picture of him and his supporters.
The other question is, put simply, who'd want it? When the music stops, you don't want to be the one holding the grenade with the pin removed.
The three "B"s - Badenoch, Braverman and Barclay - are all well placed to survive the severest of defeats but with a 10 year road back (probably), there's a fair chance the one taking the first step won't be the one reaching the destination (ask Neil Kinnock). Badenoch has time on her side.
As for the LDs, I think it's lazy to assume Daisy Cooper will win if/when Davey stands down. On the assumption Labour wins big and the LDs come out with 25 MPs (not inconceivable the Party will scavenge some scraps from the Conservative carcass while the Labour dinosaur gets most of the meal), Cooper could well be challenged by either Munira Wilson or Sarah Olney. I'd be interested to hear more from Sarah Green but she'll have a fight to hold her seat.
The point about the Tories is not that a better person with more charisma is what is needed (though obviously some Boris supporters think that's the case), it's that the Tories must be seen to be acting vigorously to counter the gloomy economic narrative (and stop the boats, and be seen to start fixing the NHS), and improve the cost of living. By the by, exploiting some of the more obvious Brexit advantages, and fixing NI, would also be good. As Liz Truss points out in her article, and nobody has really disagreed, there are powerful forces aligned against these happening, Sunak cannot please everyone - he can either be a good boy and please the mandarins, the IMF, and Joe Biden, or he can fix the country and save the Tory party. He seems to have made his decision in favour of the former.
None of the issues you've mentioned has appeared overnight - to be blunt, the Conservatives have been in power for the last (nearly) 13 years, the EU Referendum was more than six and a half years ago. The Party's inability to offer any kind of meaningful solution to these issues is why it's probably condemned to defeat at the next GE.
Truss made a complete horlicks of her opportunity - the main reason she failed was her policy of reducing tax for the wealthiest ran contrary to the prevailing notion of "fairness" or, in Conservative terms the "we're in all this together" meme. She and those who think like her are now casting round for "forces" to blame - no, she got it wrong because the policy, however attractive in economic theory, failed to pass the smell test of public opinion.
She couldn't convince the electorate the idea of giving more money to the very wealthiest was economically sound. You might think it's a brilliant idea, I understand the economic theory but most people don't see it in those terms. Truss and Kwarteng thought we were all still Thatcher's children but we've moved on.
I think there was an element of that, and Truss herself argues that the Tories had let the argument slip away from them. But it was the market turmoil and the impact on borrowing that did for Truss, not an ideological disagreement between her and the public (though that may have existed).
Where I feel Truss went wrong was not to have ensured that she was working in lock step with the BOE, with her Government as the senior partner. She was played like a tambourine by the Bank, who contributed to the general instability with their bond-selling programme (unique amongst central banks) and called it an 'emergency intervention' when they were forced to stop and buy some back. In the end, as Tom Harwood notes, they made £4bn profit doing this anyway. It felt at the time like the Government and the Bank were competing - the one to put money in peoples' pockets to combat recession, the other to take it out to combat inflation. Now it feels like the Government has just given up and given in to the Bank. A more desirable situation is that the two work together to ensure a growing economy AND keep inflation at bay.
Yes, but she didn't cooperate with the BOE or give a report to the OBR.
Liz and Kwasi seemed to antogonise the bank and the OBR, but without actually achieving the upper hand. That was a mistake.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I would have tried to ensure that the Bank froze their bond sale programme until the bonds reached their former value, in line with the ECB. With the OBR, I might have commissioned a report, but insisted that their methodology took into account the dynamic affect of changes to corporation tax etc., or failing that insisted on a 'minority report' that did.
So. You'd have insisted that the "independent" OBR, came up with an answer which agreed with the government?
Not at all, I'd have done exactly what I said above. The report could still come back and even taking into account the dynamic effect of tax reductions, still make recommendations opposed to Government policy. A report isn't useful if it's wrong. But the fact is that far from being an inviolable gold standard, OBR forecasts are seldom correct.
The problem for a lot of people on the right is that the dynamic effect of tax cuts, while it exists, is nowhere near enough to make up for fiscal shortfall of the tax cuts. So you just go into ever greater deficits, which prompts them to argue for more tax cuts.
The exact same problem exists for Keynesians on the left, who think you can spend your way to growth and balanced budgets.
I don't think that you can say that that is a hard and fast rule, any more than you can say that any tax cut will improve tax take. The individual circumstances matter. I have seen John Redwood in recent weeks argue that every time the UK Government cut corporation tax, it took more in corporation tax. I don't have the resources to check this, but it wouldn't surprise me.
That will be true of essentially all taxes, due to the combination of inflation and economic growth.
Did corporation tax receipts grow as a percentage of GDP or not?
That won't tell you much, unfortunately, because they government is always tinkering with things like capital allowances and asset lives, which very few people really understand or care about, but which can in themselves have significant effects on corporate tax take. So isolating the effect of a change in the headline rate is close to impossible.
With that caveat in mind, for people who really want to explore this further, here are some studies to while away an idle Sunday:
- Economic Policy Institute, Hungerford (2013). US corporate tax rates don't affect economic growth. - Devereux, Michael P., Giorgia Maffini and Jing Xing (2019) “Corporate tax incentives and capital structure: new evidence from UK tax returns”, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 11.3, 361-89. - HMRC CGE modelling (2013) – assessed the effects of reducing the main Corporation Tax rate from 28% to 20% and found a boost to investment of 2.5-4.5% and 0.6-0.8% in GDP in the long term. (YES, THAT'S RIGHT, HMRC ARGUED FOR A TAX CUT!) - Madsen, Minniti and Venturini (National Institute of Economic and Social Research, 2021) looking into the effects of taxes on investment using data for 21 countries, this research found corporate taxes reduce investment in tangible assets and R&D; a 1 percentage point increase in Corporation Tax rate was found to lead to a 1.5 percentage point reduction in the investment rate. - Cloyne et al. (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2022) – analysed the effects of temporary changes in US tax rates and found a corporate income tax cut leads to a sustained increase in GDP and productivity, with peak effects between five and eight years. - Djankov et al. (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2008) – explored the effects of corporate income tax rates and found that corporate taxes are negatively correlated with growth with a 10% increase in the effective Corporation Tax rate found to reduce the investment-to-GDP ratio by 2 percentage points. - Social Europe, predictably, found that corporate tax cuts don't boost economic growth. They do so using a meta-analysis of 42 studies https://www.socialeurope.eu/corporate-tax-cuts-do-not-boost-growth
Of those I find the MMV and HMRC most persuasive. But, as usual, people usually quote the studies that fit their preexisting conclusions, rather than using the former to shape the latter.
As I said earlier, if you can find the odds, bet on Italy to beat England next week
Over 10/1 would be great value. Probably won’t get that now tho
I think England will win next week. 1) Italy rarely do two great performances back to back at the start of the six nations. 2) it’s at Twickenham - even now away wins are scarce in the six nations. 3) England actually played ok yesterday. I know they’ve lost the last couple against Scotland, but could easily have won both. Englands biggest challenge is getting over the line/finishing the job.
I’d take a look at Italy plus points as the best option.
As I said earlier, if you can find the odds, bet on Italy to beat England next week
Over 10/1 would be great value. Probably won’t get that now tho
I think England will win next week. 1) Italy rarely do two great performances back to back at the start of the six nations. 2) it’s at Twickenham - even now away wins are scarce in the six nations. 3) England actually played ok yesterday. I know they’ve lost the last couple against Scotland, but could easily have won both. Englands biggest challenge is getting over the line/finishing the job.
I’d take a look at Italy plus points as the best option.
England's defence never looked like stopping Scotland when they got going, though.
On the Truss and tax questions, it was the Conservatives who created the OBR in 2010 (it was an Osborne idea, backed by the LDs, as an antidote to the politically-biased forecasts of the Brown/Darling era).
It's curious how far some Conservatives have travelled they now advocate to abolish they themselves created.
On the wider tax issue, the Coalition sought to take the lowest paid out of paying tax (but not NI) by raising tax thresholds. With hindsight, laudable though this was, it missed the point of tax which is as a collective contribution to services and functions provided for all. The more people pay tax (even if many pay only a small amount) the better. If the tax burden falls disproportionately on the few very wealthiest, that also looks unfair. The notion of everyone paying their share is where I think we need to be.
While this LD supporter is happy with tax cuts and sees the argument for them, the truth is we need to get the public finances under control first. The deficit is too large, there is too much borrowing and we are now paying absurd amounts of debt interest (more than we spend on things we really need) so we have to try to deal with that £120 billion millstone round our necks.
The Lafferites will argue cutting taxes and stimulating growth will bring in the receipts needed to close the gap but I'm not convinced and I don't think the markets were either. There will be a time for cutting taxes but the priority now is to close the deficit (and apparently doing so is now being described by some as "managed decline").
To translate this, those ardent Conservatives who see no future for the country under any other Government, and especially a Labour Government, believe tax cuts are the route to re-election. These were the same siren calls urging Clarke to cut taxes in 1996 and early 1997 - it would have made no difference politically then. Acting in the national interest might just mean handing a good economic inheritance to Labour (whether you think they will waste it or not).
The Liam Byrne response of 2010 would be the irresponsible course.
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
While the question ‘Who on earth should a right-thinking person vote for?’ remains moot, at least one matter has been settled.
It seems the era of ‘no debate’, imposed on public life by the trans lobby group Stonewall, is officially over.
Politicians need to recognise that that the mantra ‘trans women are women’ is now recognised as the ludicrous, flat-earth statement that it is. The entire house of cards is collapsing, and our political parties need to catch up.
The country is no longer in a fugue state when it comes to transgender doctrine – and I look forward to the day when every political leader roundly denounces it.
On the Truss and tax questions, it was the Conservatives who created the OBR in 2010 (it was an Osborne idea, backed by the LDs, as an antidote to the politically-biased forecasts of the Brown/Darling era).
It's curious how far some Conservatives have travelled they now advocate to abolish they themselves created.
On the wider tax issue, the Coalition sought to take the lowest paid out of paying tax (but not NI) by raising tax thresholds. With hindsight, laudable though this was, it missed the point of tax which is as a collective contribution to services and functions provided for all. The more people pay tax (even if many pay only a small amount) the better. If the tax burden falls disproportionately on the few very wealthiest, that also looks unfair. The notion of everyone paying their share is where I think we need to be.
While this LD supporter is happy with tax cuts and sees the argument for them, the truth is we need to get the public finances under control first. The deficit is too large, there is too much borrowing and we are now paying absurd amounts of debt interest (more than we spend on things we really need) so we have to try to deal with that £120 billion millstone round our necks.
The Lafferites will argue cutting taxes and stimulating growth will bring in the receipts needed to close the gap but I'm not convinced and I don't think the markets were either. There will be a time for cutting taxes but the priority now is to close the deficit (and apparently doing so is now being described by some as "managed decline").
To translate this, those ardent Conservatives who see no future for the country under any other Government, and especially a Labour Government, believe tax cuts are the route to re-election. These were the same siren calls urging Clarke to cut taxes in 1996 and early 1997 - it would have made no difference politically then. Acting in the national interest might just mean handing a good economic inheritance to Labour (whether you think they will waste it or not).
The Liam Byrne response of 2010 would be the irresponsible course.
I think the interesting (and troubling) thing here is index-linked gilts - historically they were linked to rpi, perhaps they all are now. That's created a huge black hole. Modest amounts of rpi/cpi/etc debt make some sense, but we now see that the BoE has gone too far.
As I said earlier, if you can find the odds, bet on Italy to beat England next week
Over 10/1 would be great value. Probably won’t get that now tho
I think England will win next week. 1) Italy rarely do two great performances back to back at the start of the six nations. 2) it’s at Twickenham - even now away wins are scarce in the six nations. 3) England actually played ok yesterday. I know they’ve lost the last couple against Scotland, but could easily have won both. Englands biggest challenge is getting over the line/finishing the job.
I’d take a look at Italy plus points as the best option.
England's defence never looked like stopping Scotland when they got going, though.
A fair point. Scots attack was pretty good and I expect the English defence to tighten up a bit.
I think if that had been England playing Italy away today we would have lost.
Strikes me if we hadn't wasted a decade and more calling for a referendum, debating it, voting on it, arguing about its implementation, negotiating it, fruitlessly rooting around for its benefits, and now, doubtless wasting yet more time legislating for divergence, because, well because. Then we may have possibly made some kind of start on confronting the issues that always were ours alone to solve? But we didn't, so we haven't.
The group who are now most guilty of banging on about Europe and ignoring our real problems are those still fighting the referendum.
Now remember lads, first rule of Brexit: Everything, everywhere is always the fault of Remoaners.
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
I have a suspicion, as in 1914, what the two powers thought would happen is very different from what has happened. The conflict has bogged down into an attritional stalemate (for now) and it remains to be seen how much Russia can expend in another offensive this spring/early summer.
The departure of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory has to be the prerequisite for peace. That has to include Crimea though I would offer the Crimeans the choice between independence and being part of the Ukraine with the former option excluding the basing of Russian forces on its soil. The West, while guaranteeing Ukrainian independence, may also have to guarantee Crimean independence as well.
I certainly wouldn't want NATO and Russian troops to be eyeballing each other at each end of the bridge across the Kerch Strait for example.
It may be the Russian military departure will be joined by a Russian civilian departure from Crimea and the Donbass as those who cannot stomach living under anything other than pro-Moscow rule are forced to leave (ethnic cleansing, it's happened before with all the dreadful humanitarian consequences) though that will in turn alleviate the political issues.
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
His view is that Russia is the gendarme of Eastern Europe.
It all comes back to the perennial question - is there anyone in the Conservative Parliamentary party under whose leadership the Party's polling numbers would be any better? There's no polling evidence indicating such an individual exists.
In 1995, after the Party lost 2,000 councillors in a single night, the challenger to John Major was John Redwood - I believe there was some polling done at the time which indicated the Conservatives under Redwood would be polling even worse than they were under Major. Redwood still got 89 votes in the Parliamentary party despite the infamous picture of him and his supporters.
The other question is, put simply, who'd want it? When the music stops, you don't want to be the one holding the grenade with the pin removed.
The three "B"s - Badenoch, Braverman and Barclay - are all well placed to survive the severest of defeats but with a 10 year road back (probably), there's a fair chance the one taking the first step won't be the one reaching the destination (ask Neil Kinnock). Badenoch has time on her side.
As for the LDs, I think it's lazy to assume Daisy Cooper will win if/when Davey stands down. On the assumption Labour wins big and the LDs come out with 25 MPs (not inconceivable the Party will scavenge some scraps from the Conservative carcass while the Labour dinosaur gets most of the meal), Cooper could well be challenged by either Munira Wilson or Sarah Olney. I'd be interested to hear more from Sarah Green but she'll have a fight to hold her seat.
The point about the Tories is not that a better person with more charisma is what is needed (though obviously some Boris supporters think that's the case), it's that the Tories must be seen to be acting vigorously to counter the gloomy economic narrative (and stop the boats, and be seen to start fixing the NHS), and improve the cost of living. By the by, exploiting some of the more obvious Brexit advantages, and fixing NI, would also be good. As Liz Truss points out in her article, and nobody has really disagreed, there are powerful forces aligned against these happening, Sunak cannot please everyone - he can either be a good boy and please the mandarins, the IMF, and Joe Biden, or he can fix the country and save the Tory party. He seems to have made his decision in favour of the former.
None of the issues you've mentioned has appeared overnight - to be blunt, the Conservatives have been in power for the last (nearly) 13 years, the EU Referendum was more than six and a half years ago. The Party's inability to offer any kind of meaningful solution to these issues is why it's probably condemned to defeat at the next GE.
Truss made a complete horlicks of her opportunity - the main reason she failed was her policy of reducing tax for the wealthiest ran contrary to the prevailing notion of "fairness" or, in Conservative terms the "we're in all this together" meme. She and those who think like her are now casting round for "forces" to blame - no, she got it wrong because the policy, however attractive in economic theory, failed to pass the smell test of public opinion.
She couldn't convince the electorate the idea of giving more money to the very wealthiest was economically sound. You might think it's a brilliant idea, I understand the economic theory but most people don't see it in those terms. Truss and Kwarteng thought we were all still Thatcher's children but we've moved on.
I think there was an element of that, and Truss herself argues that the Tories had let the argument slip away from them. But it was the market turmoil and the impact on borrowing that did for Truss, not an ideological disagreement between her and the public (though that may have existed).
Where I feel Truss went wrong was not to have ensured that she was working in lock step with the BOE, with her Government as the senior partner. She was played like a tambourine by the Bank, who contributed to the general instability with their bond-selling programme (unique amongst central banks) and called it an 'emergency intervention' when they were forced to stop and buy some back. In the end, as Tom Harwood notes, they made £4bn profit doing this anyway. It felt at the time like the Government and the Bank were competing - the one to put money in peoples' pockets to combat recession, the other to take it out to combat inflation. Now it feels like the Government has just given up and given in to the Bank. A more desirable situation is that the two work together to ensure a growing economy AND keep inflation at bay.
Yes, but she didn't cooperate with the BOE or give a report to the OBR.
Liz and Kwasi seemed to antogonise the bank and the OBR, but without actually achieving the upper hand. That was a mistake.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I would have tried to ensure that the Bank froze their bond sale programme until the bonds reached their former value, in line with the ECB. With the OBR, I might have commissioned a report, but insisted that their methodology took into account the dynamic affect of changes to corporation tax etc., or failing that insisted on a 'minority report' that did.
So. You'd have insisted that the "independent" OBR, came up with an answer which agreed with the government?
Not at all, I'd have done exactly what I said above. The report could still come back and even taking into account the dynamic effect of tax reductions, still make recommendations opposed to Government policy. A report isn't useful if it's wrong. But the fact is that far from being an inviolable gold standard, OBR forecasts are seldom correct.
The problem for a lot of people on the right is that the dynamic effect of tax cuts, while it exists, is nowhere near enough to make up for fiscal shortfall of the tax cuts. So you just go into ever greater deficits, which prompts them to argue for more tax cuts.
The exact same problem exists for Keynesians on the left, who think you can spend your way to growth and balanced budgets.
I don't think that you can say that that is a hard and fast rule, any more than you can say that any tax cut will improve tax take. The individual circumstances matter. I have seen John Redwood in recent weeks argue that every time the UK Government cut corporation tax, it took more in corporation tax. I don't have the resources to check this, but it wouldn't surprise me.
That will be true of essentially all taxes, due to the combination of inflation and economic growth.
Did corporation tax receipts grow as a percentage of GDP or not?
That won't tell you much, unfortunately, because they government is always tinkering with things like capital allowances and asset lives, which very few people really understand or care about, but which can in themselves have significant effects on corporate tax take. So isolating the effect of a change in the headline rate is close to impossible.
With that caveat in mind, for people who really want to explore this further, here are some studies to while away an idle Sunday:
- Economic Policy Institute, Hungerford (2013). US corporate tax rates don't affect economic growth. - Devereux, Michael P., Giorgia Maffini and Jing Xing (2019) “Corporate tax incentives and capital structure: new evidence from UK tax returns”, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 11.3, 361-89. - HMRC CGE modelling (2013) – assessed the effects of reducing the main Corporation Tax rate from 28% to 20% and found a boost to investment of 2.5-4.5% and 0.6-0.8% in GDP in the long term. (YES, THAT'S RIGHT, HMRC ARGUED FOR A TAX CUT!) - Madsen, Minniti and Venturini (National Institute of Economic and Social Research, 2021) looking into the effects of taxes on investment using data for 21 countries, this research found corporate taxes reduce investment in tangible assets and R&D; a 1 percentage point increase in Corporation Tax rate was found to lead to a 1.5 percentage point reduction in the investment rate. - Cloyne et al. (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2022) – analysed the effects of temporary changes in US tax rates and found a corporate income tax cut leads to a sustained increase in GDP and productivity, with peak effects between five and eight years. - Djankov et al. (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2008) – explored the effects of corporate income tax rates and found that corporate taxes are negatively correlated with growth with a 10% increase in the effective Corporation Tax rate found to reduce the investment-to-GDP ratio by 2 percentage points. - Social Europe, predictably, found that corporate tax cuts don't boost economic growth. They do so using a meta-analysis of 42 studies https://www.socialeurope.eu/corporate-tax-cuts-do-not-boost-growth
Of those I find the MMV and HMRC most persuasive. But, as usual, people usually quote the studies that fit their preexisting conclusions, rather than using the former to shape the latter.
That's an excellent point: likewise, there has been the clamping down on the use of tax havens to avoid tax, that will also have had an impact.
Similarly, corporation tax does not take place in a vacuum. If we cut taxes, and other countries do not, then there will be a bigger benefit than if everyone cuts at the same time.
Finally, there are almost certainly diminishing marginal gains. A reduction in tax from 35% to 25% means a bigger increase in post tax profits, than a reduction from 25% to 15%.
Strikes me if we hadn't wasted a decade and more calling for a referendum, debating it, voting on it, arguing about its implementation, negotiating it, fruitlessly rooting around for its benefits, and now, doubtless wasting yet more time legislating for divergence, because, well because. Then we may have possibly made some kind of start on confronting the issues that always were ours alone to solve? But we didn't, so we haven't.
As I said yesterday, without Brexit Corbyn may now be PM.
Had Remain narrowly won in 2016, Cameron would have handed over to the less charismatic Osborne as PM just before a 2020 general election. UKIP though would have been polling about 20%+, the Tories and Labour stuck in the mid 30s. Corbyn may then have become PM on an anti austerity agenda in a hung parliament with SNP support.
It was only Boris and getting Brexit done that enabled the Tories to win over most of the 12% UKIP vote from 2015 and to win over Labour Leave voters in the redwall in 2019
A lot of remainers who voted for Labour in 2017 would not have done so if Brexit hadn't occurred. If the Lib Dems hadn't toxified themselves by being in the coalition and had a capable leader (not Farron) they would have posed a serious threat to a Corbyn led Labour Party.
What you mean, young HY, is that the malevolent Tory strategists managed to pass on their own toxicity to the Lib Dems, and Clegg and others did not want to see what was happening. And so failed to take steps to counter it.
On the Truss and tax questions, it was the Conservatives who created the OBR in 2010 (it was an Osborne idea, backed by the LDs, as an antidote to the politically-biased forecasts of the Brown/Darling era).
It's curious how far some Conservatives have travelled they now advocate to abolish they themselves created.
On the wider tax issue, the Coalition sought to take the lowest paid out of paying tax (but not NI) by raising tax thresholds. With hindsight, laudable though this was, it missed the point of tax which is as a collective contribution to services and functions provided for all. The more people pay tax (even if many pay only a small amount) the better. If the tax burden falls disproportionately on the few very wealthiest, that also looks unfair. The notion of everyone paying their share is where I think we need to be.
While this LD supporter is happy with tax cuts and sees the argument for them, the truth is we need to get the public finances under control first. The deficit is too large, there is too much borrowing and we are now paying absurd amounts of debt interest (more than we spend on things we really need) so we have to try to deal with that £120 billion millstone round our necks.
The Lafferites will argue cutting taxes and stimulating growth will bring in the receipts needed to close the gap but I'm not convinced and I don't think the markets were either. There will be a time for cutting taxes but the priority now is to close the deficit (and apparently doing so is now being described by some as "managed decline").
To translate this, those ardent Conservatives who see no future for the country under any other Government, and especially a Labour Government, believe tax cuts are the route to re-election. These were the same siren calls urging Clarke to cut taxes in 1996 and early 1997 - it would have made no difference politically then. Acting in the national interest might just mean handing a good economic inheritance to Labour (whether you think they will waste it or not).
The Liam Byrne response of 2010 would be the irresponsible course.
Yep, tax cuts with a deficit is irrational and reckless. It's like a gambler chasing losses. A right wing politician worth their salt needs to be complementing tax cuts for the rich - sorry wealth creators - with spending cuts for the poor and some serious 'supply side reforms' aka a bonfire of employment, consumer and environmental protections. Otherwise the strategy has no heft or coherence and is just peddling cakeism.
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
I was talking, not long ago, to one of these Power Politics types.
I rather floored him, by suggesting that Ukraine is a regional power, and Russia is a former great power, now rapidly becoming North Korea with oil.
Great Power politics means that then we should ally with Ukraine, the rising power, and strip Russia (the losing power) for parts.
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
Does your notion that pre-existing state boundaries are good ever enter into conflict with your apparent view - perhaps drenched in Oxford or Cambridge, neocolonial-flavoured pragmatism - that Johnny Straightback the Englishman is good at complicated stuff, unlike foreigners?
1. What country do the residents in the territories want to live in? 2. What's wrong with accepting the results of the three 2014 referendums? 3. What's wrong with accepting the results of the two 2022 referendums?
(Answer to 2-3 such as "Everything" or "Whatever it is, it's the same" or "F*** off, Russian-paid scum" won't cut much mustard.)
Then there is what happened between 2014 and 2022, the direct immediate background to the current stage of the war.
"Principle", my arse. What did you say at the time of the genocide in Rwanda? Does "Don't do genocide" vanish into unimportance relative to "Pre-2014 borders are good regardless of what residents want?"
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
Does your notion that pre-existing state boundaries are good ever enter into conflict with your apparent view - perhaps drenched in Oxford or Cambridge, neocolonial-flavoured pragmatism - that Johnny Straightback the Englishman is good at complicated stuff, unlike foreigners?
1. What country do the residents in the territories want to live in? 2. What's wrong with accepting the results of the three 2014 referendums? 3. What's wrong with accepting the results of the two 2022 referendums?
(Answer to 2-3 such as "Everything" or "Whatever it is, it's the same" or "F*** off, Russian-paid scum" won't cut much mustard.)
Then there is what happened between 2014 and 2022, the direct immediate background to the current stage of the war.
"Principle", my arse. What did you say at the time of the genocide in Rwanda? Does "Don't do genocide" vanish into unimportance relative to "Pre-2014 borders are good regardless of what residents want?"
The referenda in 2014 and 2022 you refer to, didn’t even reach the farcical level of the plebiscites held by Napoleon, where his brother counted the votes and arranged for the murder of those trying to organise no votes.
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
Does your notion that pre-existing state boundaries are good ever enter into conflict with your apparent view - perhaps drenched in Oxford or Cambridge, neocolonial-flavoured pragmatism - that Johnny Straightback the Englishman is good at complicated stuff, unlike foreigners?
1. What country do the residents in the territories want to live in? 2. What's wrong with accepting the results of the three 2014 referendums? 3. What's wrong with accepting the results of the two 2022 referendums?
(Answer to 2-3 such as "Everything" or "Whatever it is, it's the same" or "F*** off, Russian-paid scum" won't cut much mustard.)
Then there is what happened between 2014 and 2022, the direct immediate background to the current stage of the war.
"Principle", my arse. What did you say at the time of the genocide in Rwanda? Does "Don't do genocide" vanish into unimportance relative to "Pre-2014 borders are good regardless of what residents want?"
The UK is one of the only states in the world that *does* treat its borders as negotiable depending on the wishes of the population.
What is the process for, say, Chechnya to secede from the Russian federation?
Strikes me if we hadn't wasted a decade and more calling for a referendum, debating it, voting on it, arguing about its implementation, negotiating it, fruitlessly rooting around for its benefits, and now, doubtless wasting yet more time legislating for divergence, because, well because. Then we may have possibly made some kind of start on confronting the issues that always were ours alone to solve? But we didn't, so we haven't.
As I said yesterday, without Brexit Corbyn may now be PM.
Had Remain narrowly won in 2016, Cameron would have handed over to the less charismatic Osborne as PM just before a 2020 general election. UKIP though would have been polling about 20%+, the Tories and Labour stuck in the mid 30s. Corbyn may then have become PM on an anti austerity agenda in a hung parliament with SNP support.
It was only Boris and getting Brexit done that enabled the Tories to win over most of the 12% UKIP vote from 2015 and to win over Labour Leave voters in the redwall in 2019
A lot of remainers who voted for Labour in 2017 would not have done so if Brexit hadn't occurred. If the Lib Dems hadn't toxified themselves by being in the coalition and had a capable leader (not Farron) they would have posed a serious threat to a Corbyn led Labour Party.
What you mean, young HY, is that the malevolent Tory strategists managed to pass on their own toxicity to the Lib Dems, and Clegg and others did not want to see what was happening. And so failed to take steps to counter it.
Clegg was actually a proper Liberal, ie a dry classical economic liberal who wants to cut spending and tax and a social liberal who backed homosexual marriage and a relaxed approach to drugs and was open to immigration and pro EU, not a Social Democrat or ex SDP who would otherwise basically be on the right of the Labour Party.
Just unfortunately for the LDs in 2015 they discovered that only 8% of the UK electorate are proper Liberals
There will be at least six teams who will reckon they have an actual serious chance of winning the Rugby World Cup
Ireland France NZ Oz South Africa England (barely)
That’s probably the most balanced World Cup yet. Meanwhile Scotland, Argentina and even Italy will fancy riding their luck
I'd stick Scotland in the mix. They were a trifle lucky yesterday, but their play was really good. Refreshingly good. (Just stuck a tenner on them)
England, so far as I can see, aren't likely to feature.
Ireland and SA seem a bit short to my mind.
England lack world class stars and their coaching is mediocre, BUT they have the muscle memory of World Cup wins and final appearances, plus a huge depth of decent talent and lot of money
They are a bit like a rather sub par Germany going into a football World Cup. You don’t bet against them entirely, because. They could sneak through to the semis and once there, who knows
I’d have France as favourites, just - coz they’re at home - with Ireland, SA and NZ all equal and right behind. Could be a great tournament
It all comes back to the perennial question - is there anyone in the Conservative Parliamentary party under whose leadership the Party's polling numbers would be any better? There's no polling evidence indicating such an individual exists.
In 1995, after the Party lost 2,000 councillors in a single night, the challenger to John Major was John Redwood - I believe there was some polling done at the time which indicated the Conservatives under Redwood would be polling even worse than they were under Major. Redwood still got 89 votes in the Parliamentary party despite the infamous picture of him and his supporters.
The other question is, put simply, who'd want it? When the music stops, you don't want to be the one holding the grenade with the pin removed.
The three "B"s - Badenoch, Braverman and Barclay - are all well placed to survive the severest of defeats but with a 10 year road back (probably), there's a fair chance the one taking the first step won't be the one reaching the destination (ask Neil Kinnock). Badenoch has time on her side.
As for the LDs, I think it's lazy to assume Daisy Cooper will win if/when Davey stands down. On the assumption Labour wins big and the LDs come out with 25 MPs (not inconceivable the Party will scavenge some scraps from the Conservative carcass while the Labour dinosaur gets most of the meal), Cooper could well be challenged by either Munira Wilson or Sarah Olney. I'd be interested to hear more from Sarah Green but she'll have a fight to hold her seat.
The point about the Tories is not that a better person with more charisma is what is needed (though obviously some Boris supporters think that's the case), it's that the Tories must be seen to be acting vigorously to counter the gloomy economic narrative (and stop the boats, and be seen to start fixing the NHS), and improve the cost of living. By the by, exploiting some of the more obvious Brexit advantages, and fixing NI, would also be good. As Liz Truss points out in her article, and nobody has really disagreed, there are powerful forces aligned against these happening, Sunak cannot please everyone - he can either be a good boy and please the mandarins, the IMF, and Joe Biden, or he can fix the country and save the Tory party. He seems to have made his decision in favour of the former.
None of the issues you've mentioned has appeared overnight - to be blunt, the Conservatives have been in power for the last (nearly) 13 years, the EU Referendum was more than six and a half years ago. The Party's inability to offer any kind of meaningful solution to these issues is why it's probably condemned to defeat at the next GE.
Truss made a complete horlicks of her opportunity - the main reason she failed was her policy of reducing tax for the wealthiest ran contrary to the prevailing notion of "fairness" or, in Conservative terms the "we're in all this together" meme. She and those who think like her are now casting round for "forces" to blame - no, she got it wrong because the policy, however attractive in economic theory, failed to pass the smell test of public opinion.
She couldn't convince the electorate the idea of giving more money to the very wealthiest was economically sound. You might think it's a brilliant idea, I understand the economic theory but most people don't see it in those terms. Truss and Kwarteng thought we were all still Thatcher's children but we've moved on.
I think there was an element of that, and Truss herself argues that the Tories had let the argument slip away from them. But it was the market turmoil and the impact on borrowing that did for Truss, not an ideological disagreement between her and the public (though that may have existed).
Where I feel Truss went wrong was not to have ensured that she was working in lock step with the BOE, with her Government as the senior partner. She was played like a tambourine by the Bank, who contributed to the general instability with their bond-selling programme (unique amongst central banks) and called it an 'emergency intervention' when they were forced to stop and buy some back. In the end, as Tom Harwood notes, they made £4bn profit doing this anyway. It felt at the time like the Government and the Bank were competing - the one to put money in peoples' pockets to combat recession, the other to take it out to combat inflation. Now it feels like the Government has just given up and given in to the Bank. A more desirable situation is that the two work together to ensure a growing economy AND keep inflation at bay.
Yes, but she didn't cooperate with the BOE or give a report to the OBR.
Liz and Kwasi seemed to antogonise the bank and the OBR, but without actually achieving the upper hand. That was a mistake.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I would have tried to ensure that the Bank froze their bond sale programme until the bonds reached their former value, in line with the ECB. With the OBR, I might have commissioned a report, but insisted that their methodology took into account the dynamic affect of changes to corporation tax etc., or failing that insisted on a 'minority report' that did.
So. You'd have insisted that the "independent" OBR, came up with an answer which agreed with the government?
Not at all, I'd have done exactly what I said above. The report could still come back and even taking into account the dynamic effect of tax reductions, still make recommendations opposed to Government policy. A report isn't useful if it's wrong. But the fact is that far from being an inviolable gold standard, OBR forecasts are seldom correct.
The problem for a lot of people on the right is that the dynamic effect of tax cuts, while it exists, is nowhere near enough to make up for fiscal shortfall of the tax cuts. So you just go into ever greater deficits, which prompts them to argue for more tax cuts.
The exact same problem exists for Keynesians on the left, who think you can spend your way to growth and balanced budgets.
I don't think that you can say that that is a hard and fast rule, any more than you can say that any tax cut will improve tax take. The individual circumstances matter. I have seen John Redwood in recent weeks argue that every time the UK Government cut corporation tax, it took more in corporation tax. I don't have the resources to check this, but it wouldn't surprise me.
That will be true of essentially all taxes, due to the combination of inflation and economic growth.
Did corporation tax receipts grow as a percentage of GDP or not?
That won't tell you much, unfortunately, because they government is always tinkering with things like capital allowances and asset lives, which very few people really understand or care about, but which can in themselves have significant effects on corporate tax take. So isolating the effect of a change in the headline rate is close to impossible.
With that caveat in mind, for people who really want to explore this further, here are some studies to while away an idle Sunday:
- Economic Policy Institute, Hungerford (2013). US corporate tax rates don't affect economic growth. - Devereux, Michael P., Giorgia Maffini and Jing Xing (2019) “Corporate tax incentives and capital structure: new evidence from UK tax returns”, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 11.3, 361-89. - HMRC CGE modelling (2013) – assessed the effects of reducing the main Corporation Tax rate from 28% to 20% and found a boost to investment of 2.5-4.5% and 0.6-0.8% in GDP in the long term. (YES, THAT'S RIGHT, HMRC ARGUED FOR A TAX CUT!) - Madsen, Minniti and Venturini (National Institute of Economic and Social Research, 2021) looking into the effects of taxes on investment using data for 21 countries, this research found corporate taxes reduce investment in tangible assets and R&D; a 1 percentage point increase in Corporation Tax rate was found to lead to a 1.5 percentage point reduction in the investment rate. - Cloyne et al. (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2022) – analysed the effects of temporary changes in US tax rates and found a corporate income tax cut leads to a sustained increase in GDP and productivity, with peak effects between five and eight years. - Djankov et al. (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2008) – explored the effects of corporate income tax rates and found that corporate taxes are negatively correlated with growth with a 10% increase in the effective Corporation Tax rate found to reduce the investment-to-GDP ratio by 2 percentage points. - Social Europe, predictably, found that corporate tax cuts don't boost economic growth. They do so using a meta-analysis of 42 studies https://www.socialeurope.eu/corporate-tax-cuts-do-not-boost-growth
Of those I find the MMV and HMRC most persuasive. But, as usual, people usually quote the studies that fit their preexisting conclusions, rather than using the former to shape the latter.
That's why corporation taxes tend to be much lower than income taxes, even though corporations are owned by wealthy people like people with pension funds and millionaires.
Yes, in general, Western governments recently have been trying a blend of policies to tax different corporate activities at different rates - like trying to reward R&D or fixed capital investment, and punish highly carbon-intensive businesses. Even more pervasively, prior to tax policy, some places have less-mobile businesses and so are able to set higher tax rates than places competing with many rivals for new investment. That's why New York can set its tax rates higher than Mississippi. These studies are valuable to isolate the specific impact of tax out from all those effects.
Strikes me if we hadn't wasted a decade and more calling for a referendum, debating it, voting on it, arguing about its implementation, negotiating it, fruitlessly rooting around for its benefits, and now, doubtless wasting yet more time legislating for divergence, because, well because. Then we may have possibly made some kind of start on confronting the issues that always were ours alone to solve? But we didn't, so we haven't.
As I said yesterday, without Brexit Corbyn may now be PM.
Had Remain narrowly won in 2016, Cameron would have handed over to the less charismatic Osborne as PM just before a 2020 general election. UKIP though would have been polling about 20%+, the Tories and Labour stuck in the mid 30s. Corbyn may then have become PM on an anti austerity agenda in a hung parliament with SNP support.
It was only Boris and getting Brexit done that enabled the Tories to win over most of the 12% UKIP vote from 2015 and to win over Labour Leave voters in the redwall in 2019
A lot of remainers who voted for Labour in 2017 would not have done so if Brexit hadn't occurred. If the Lib Dems hadn't toxified themselves by being in the coalition and had a capable leader (not Farron) they would have posed a serious threat to a Corbyn led Labour Party.
What you mean, young HY, is that the malevolent Tory strategists managed to pass on their own toxicity to the Lib Dems, and Clegg and others did not want to see what was happening. And so failed to take steps to counter it.
Clegg was actually a proper Liberal, ie a dry classical economic liberal who wants to cut spending and tax and a social liberal who backed homosexual marriage and a relaxed approach to drugs and was open to immigration and pro EU, not a Social Democrat or ex SDP who would otherwise basically be on the right of the Labour Party.
Just unfortunately for the LDs in 2015 they discovered that only 8% of the UK electorate are proper Liberals
Which is about the same share of the vote that the FDP - with very similar policies - gets in Germany.
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
I have a suspicion, as in 1914, what the two powers thought would happen is very different from what has happened. The conflict has bogged down into an attritional stalemate (for now) and it remains to be seen how much Russia can expend in another offensive this spring/early summer.
The departure of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory has to be the prerequisite for peace. That has to include Crimea though I would offer the Crimeans the choice between independence and being part of the Ukraine with the former option excluding the basing of Russian forces on its soil. The West, while guaranteeing Ukrainian independence, may also have to guarantee Crimean independence as well.
I certainly wouldn't want NATO and Russian troops to be eyeballing each other at each end of the bridge across the Kerch Strait for example.
It may be the Russian military departure will be joined by a Russian civilian departure from Crimea and the Donbass as those who cannot stomach living under anything other than pro-Moscow rule are forced to leave (ethnic cleansing, it's happened before with all the dreadful humanitarian consequences) though that will in turn alleviate the political issues.
Sounds great - displacing practically the entire population of an area larger than Wales, while scoffing at them sarcastically in the western media market. I take it the state of Ukraine would then be allowed to grant a US naval presence in Sevastopol?
That is a complete fantasy and won't happen.
As for limited independence in east-central Europe, that was once known as the Brezhnev doctrine.
What would you have thought in 1972 of a Soviet figure who said he would offer people in Northern Ireland a choice between 1) becoming part of the Irish Republic and 2) six counties independence without the right to have any British bases?
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
Does your notion that pre-existing state boundaries are good ever enter into conflict with your apparent view - perhaps drenched in Oxford or Cambridge, neocolonial-flavoured pragmatism - that Johnny Straightback the Englishman is good at complicated stuff, unlike foreigners?
1. What country do the residents in the territories want to live in? 2. What's wrong with accepting the results of the three 2014 referendums? 3. What's wrong with accepting the results of the two 2022 referendums?
(Answer to 2-3 such as "Everything" or "Whatever it is, it's the same" or "F*** off, Russian-paid scum" won't cut much mustard.)
Then there is what happened between 2014 and 2022, the direct immediate background to the current stage of the war.
"Principle", my arse. What did you say at the time of the genocide in Rwanda? Does "Don't do genocide" vanish into unimportance relative to "Pre-2014 borders are good regardless of what residents want?"
1. We will never know what the residents of the territories *before* military affairs happened wanted. The nearest we can get to that is the 1991 referendum (1). 2. You can only really believe in self-determination if it is not at the barrel of a gun. In the case of the 2014 referendums, it's far from clear they were not utterly bogus. 3. The same applies for the 2022 referendums as well, with the added problem of massive population movements having occurred.
Basically; a referendum after someone has invaded an area, killed lots of people and lots of other residents have moved away for their own safety, will have results that may not (and probably will not) match the views of the previous population. It is therefore pretty bogus.
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
I have a suspicion, as in 1914, what the two powers thought would happen is very different from what has happened. The conflict has bogged down into an attritional stalemate (for now) and it remains to be seen how much Russia can expend in another offensive this spring/early summer.
The departure of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory has to be the prerequisite for peace. That has to include Crimea though I would offer the Crimeans the choice between independence and being part of the Ukraine with the former option excluding the basing of Russian forces on its soil. The West, while guaranteeing Ukrainian independence, may also have to guarantee Crimean independence as well.
I certainly wouldn't want NATO and Russian troops to be eyeballing each other at each end of the bridge across the Kerch Strait for example.
It may be the Russian military departure will be joined by a Russian civilian departure from Crimea and the Donbass as those who cannot stomach living under anything other than pro-Moscow rule are forced to leave (ethnic cleansing, it's happened before with all the dreadful humanitarian consequences) though that will in turn alleviate the political issues.
Sounds great - displacing practically the entire population of an area larger than Wales, while scoffing at them sarcastically in the western media market. I take it the state of Ukraine would then be allowed to grant a US naval presence in Sevastopol?
That is a complete fantasy and won't happen.
As for limited independence in east-central Europe, that was once known as the Brezhnev doctrine.
What would you have thought in 1972 of a Soviet figure who said he would offer people in Northern Ireland a choice between 1) becoming part of the Irish Republic and 2) six counties independence without the right to have any British bases?
Where there's a will there's a way
"Estimates from a variety of sources, including the Russian government, indicate that Russian authorities have interrogated, detained, and forcibly deported between 900,000 and 1.6 million Ukrainian citizens, including 260,000 children, from their homes to Russia – often to isolated regions in the Far East."
Strikes me if we hadn't wasted a decade and more calling for a referendum, debating it, voting on it, arguing about its implementation, negotiating it, fruitlessly rooting around for its benefits, and now, doubtless wasting yet more time legislating for divergence, because, well because. Then we may have possibly made some kind of start on confronting the issues that always were ours alone to solve? But we didn't, so we haven't.
As I said yesterday, without Brexit Corbyn may now be PM.
Had Remain narrowly won in 2016, Cameron would have handed over to the less charismatic Osborne as PM just before a 2020 general election. UKIP though would have been polling about 20%+, the Tories and Labour stuck in the mid 30s. Corbyn may then have become PM on an anti austerity agenda in a hung parliament with SNP support.
It was only Boris and getting Brexit done that enabled the Tories to win over most of the 12% UKIP vote from 2015 and to win over Labour Leave voters in the redwall in 2019
A lot of remainers who voted for Labour in 2017 would not have done so if Brexit hadn't occurred. If the Lib Dems hadn't toxified themselves by being in the coalition and had a capable leader (not Farron) they would have posed a serious threat to a Corbyn led Labour Party.
What you mean, young HY, is that the malevolent Tory strategists managed to pass on their own toxicity to the Lib Dems, and Clegg and others did not want to see what was happening. And so failed to take steps to counter it.
Nope. Nobody on the Tory side made the LDs demolish their own USP.
Strikes me if we hadn't wasted a decade and more calling for a referendum, debating it, voting on it, arguing about its implementation, negotiating it, fruitlessly rooting around for its benefits, and now, doubtless wasting yet more time legislating for divergence, because, well because. Then we may have possibly made some kind of start on confronting the issues that always were ours alone to solve? But we didn't, so we haven't.
As I said yesterday, without Brexit Corbyn may now be PM.
Had Remain narrowly won in 2016, Cameron would have handed over to the less charismatic Osborne as PM just before a 2020 general election. UKIP though would have been polling about 20%+, the Tories and Labour stuck in the mid 30s. Corbyn may then have become PM on an anti austerity agenda in a hung parliament with SNP support.
It was only Boris and getting Brexit done that enabled the Tories to win over most of the 12% UKIP vote from 2015 and to win over Labour Leave voters in the redwall in 2019
A lot of remainers who voted for Labour in 2017 would not have done so if Brexit hadn't occurred. If the Lib Dems hadn't toxified themselves by being in the coalition and had a capable leader (not Farron) they would have posed a serious threat to a Corbyn led Labour Party.
What you mean, young HY, is that the malevolent Tory strategists managed to pass on their own toxicity to the Lib Dems, and Clegg and others did not want to see what was happening. And so failed to take steps to counter it.
Clegg was actually a proper Liberal, ie a dry classical economic liberal who wants to cut spending and tax and a social liberal who backed homosexual marriage and a relaxed approach to drugs and was open to immigration and pro EU, not a Social Democrat or ex SDP who would otherwise basically be on the right of the Labour Party.
Just unfortunately for the LDs in 2015 they discovered that only 8% of the UK electorate are proper Liberals
Which is about the same share of the vote that the FDP - with very similar policies - gets in Germany.
Or indeed Citizens in Spain or the Liberals in Sweden also on the same platform (the US Libertarian Party too has never got more than 10%)
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
I have a suspicion, as in 1914, what the two powers thought would happen is very different from what has happened. The conflict has bogged down into an attritional stalemate (for now) and it remains to be seen how much Russia can expend in another offensive this spring/early summer.
The departure of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory has to be the prerequisite for peace. That has to include Crimea though I would offer the Crimeans the choice between independence and being part of the Ukraine with the former option excluding the basing of Russian forces on its soil. The West, while guaranteeing Ukrainian independence, may also have to guarantee Crimean independence as well.
I certainly wouldn't want NATO and Russian troops to be eyeballing each other at each end of the bridge across the Kerch Strait for example.
It may be the Russian military departure will be joined by a Russian civilian departure from Crimea and the Donbass as those who cannot stomach living under anything other than pro-Moscow rule are forced to leave (ethnic cleansing, it's happened before with all the dreadful humanitarian consequences) though that will in turn alleviate the political issues.
Sounds great - displacing practically the entire population of an area larger than Wales, while scoffing at them sarcastically in the western media market. I take it the state of Ukraine would then be allowed to grant a US naval presence in Sevastopol?
That is a complete fantasy and won't happen.
As for limited independence in east-central Europe, that was once known as the Brezhnev doctrine.
What would you have thought in 1972 of a Soviet figure who said he would offer people in Northern Ireland a choice between 1) becoming part of the Irish Republic and 2) six counties independence without the right to have any British bases?
Your argument is essentially that might is right: a country can invade, deport / kill / force out any population who do not like them, and then hold a sham referendum by gunpoint to show that the territory is now theirs.
That's not a good way to get peace in the world. In fact, it's an argument that will lead to much more war and bloodshed.
And BTW, are you not just 'scoffing' at the pro-Ukrainians who have been forced out of Crimea and the Donbass by Russia since their invasions?
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
Does your notion that pre-existing state boundaries are good ever enter into conflict with your apparent view - perhaps drenched in Oxford or Cambridge, neocolonial-flavoured pragmatism - that Johnny Straightback the Englishman is good at complicated stuff, unlike foreigners?
1. What country do the residents in the territories want to live in? 2. What's wrong with accepting the results of the three 2014 referendums? 3. What's wrong with accepting the results of the two 2022 referendums?
(Answer to 2-3 such as "Everything" or "Whatever it is, it's the same" or "F*** off, Russian-paid scum" won't cut much mustard.)
Then there is what happened between 2014 and 2022, the direct immediate background to the current stage of the war.
"Principle", my arse. What did you say at the time of the genocide in Rwanda? Does "Don't do genocide" vanish into unimportance relative to "Pre-2014 borders are good regardless of what residents want?"
The UK is one of the only states in the world that *does* treat its borders as negotiable depending on the wishes of the population.
What is the process for, say, Chechnya to secede from the Russian federation?
The process is quite well defined, for attempting to leave Russia.
1) All the separatists are killed 2) Anyone supporting them is killed 3) Burj the place to the ground 4) the nastiest non-separatist you can find is put in charge and given Carte Blanche to rape, rob and murder 5) Any questions? See 1-4
Strikes me if we hadn't wasted a decade and more calling for a referendum, debating it, voting on it, arguing about its implementation, negotiating it, fruitlessly rooting around for its benefits, and now, doubtless wasting yet more time legislating for divergence, because, well because. Then we may have possibly made some kind of start on confronting the issues that always were ours alone to solve? But we didn't, so we haven't.
As I said yesterday, without Brexit Corbyn may now be PM.
Had Remain narrowly won in 2016, Cameron would have handed over to the less charismatic Osborne as PM just before a 2020 general election. UKIP though would have been polling about 20%+, the Tories and Labour stuck in the mid 30s. Corbyn may then have become PM on an anti austerity agenda in a hung parliament with SNP support.
It was only Boris and getting Brexit done that enabled the Tories to win over most of the 12% UKIP vote from 2015 and to win over Labour Leave voters in the redwall in 2019
A lot of remainers who voted for Labour in 2017 would not have done so if Brexit hadn't occurred. If the Lib Dems hadn't toxified themselves by being in the coalition and had a capable leader (not Farron) they would have posed a serious threat to a Corbyn led Labour Party.
What you mean, young HY, is that the malevolent Tory strategists managed to pass on their own toxicity to the Lib Dems, and Clegg and others did not want to see what was happening. And so failed to take steps to counter it.
Nope. Nobody on the Tory side made the LDs demolish their own USP.
The problem for the LDs now is Starmer could basically be an ex SDP LD, what is the purpose of the LDs now? If they are not an economically dry but socially liberal party which is anti Brexit why on earth would we need the LDs?
Even Residents' Associations can do the same NIMBYISM LD councillors do in the South of England
Strikes me if we hadn't wasted a decade and more calling for a referendum, debating it, voting on it, arguing about its implementation, negotiating it, fruitlessly rooting around for its benefits, and now, doubtless wasting yet more time legislating for divergence, because, well because. Then we may have possibly made some kind of start on confronting the issues that always were ours alone to solve? But we didn't, so we haven't.
As I said yesterday, without Brexit Corbyn may now be PM.
Had Remain narrowly won in 2016, Cameron would have handed over to the less charismatic Osborne as PM just before a 2020 general election. UKIP though would have been polling about 20%+, the Tories and Labour stuck in the mid 30s. Corbyn may then have become PM on an anti austerity agenda in a hung parliament with SNP support.
It was only Boris and getting Brexit done that enabled the Tories to win over most of the 12% UKIP vote from 2015 and to win over Labour Leave voters in the redwall in 2019
A lot of remainers who voted for Labour in 2017 would not have done so if Brexit hadn't occurred. If the Lib Dems hadn't toxified themselves by being in the coalition and had a capable leader (not Farron) they would have posed a serious threat to a Corbyn led Labour Party.
What you mean, young HY, is that the malevolent Tory strategists managed to pass on their own toxicity to the Lib Dems, and Clegg and others did not want to see what was happening. And so failed to take steps to counter it.
Nope. Nobody on the Tory side made the LDs demolish their own USP.
By 2010, 90% of the USP was "not the Tories in places without an organised, electable Labour party"; "for left-behind white-people places, against the mainstream parties, while not being racist"; and "more left-wing than Labour, and against Iraq". Coalition with Cameron killed #1; any coalition at all was likely to kill #2, and Ukip legitimised themselves to take this role; #3 was already wearing thin and they kept losing this kind of seat in 2017 even where they held in 2015.
On the Truss and tax questions, it was the Conservatives who created the OBR in 2010 (it was an Osborne idea, backed by the LDs, as an antidote to the politically-biased forecasts of the Brown/Darling era).
It's curious how far some Conservatives have travelled they now advocate to abolish they themselves created.
On the wider tax issue, the Coalition sought to take the lowest paid out of paying tax (but not NI) by raising tax thresholds. With hindsight, laudable though this was, it missed the point of tax which is as a collective contribution to services and functions provided for all. The more people pay tax (even if many pay only a small amount) the better. If the tax burden falls disproportionately on the few very wealthiest, that also looks unfair. The notion of everyone paying their share is where I think we need to be.
While this LD supporter is happy with tax cuts and sees the argument for them, the truth is we need to get the public finances under control first. The deficit is too large, there is too much borrowing and we are now paying absurd amounts of debt interest (more than we spend on things we really need) so we have to try to deal with that £120 billion millstone round our necks.
The Lafferites will argue cutting taxes and stimulating growth will bring in the receipts needed to close the gap but I'm not convinced and I don't think the markets were either. There will be a time for cutting taxes but the priority now is to close the deficit (and apparently doing so is now being described by some as "managed decline").
To translate this, those ardent Conservatives who see no future for the country under any other Government, and especially a Labour Government, believe tax cuts are the route to re-election. These were the same siren calls urging Clarke to cut taxes in 1996 and early 1997 - it would have made no difference politically then. Acting in the national interest might just mean handing a good economic inheritance to Labour (whether you think they will waste it or not).
The Liam Byrne response of 2010 would be the irresponsible course.
Yes, it was the Tories who introduced the OBR, but with time, we understand the layers underlying this decision (and all decisions). In actual fact, the OBR's remit (to ensure that state debt is falling as a percentage of GDP) was a European Union ambition, based on harmonising the EU economies with a view to everyone joining monetary and economic union. Osborne at the time put the policy in drag as a lefty-chancellor-bashing policy, as they did with so many EU initiatives.
As with so many EU initiatives, the remit of the OBR could do with being revisited to be more relevant to the needs of the British economy. Why does the OBR not have a growth target? It should imo monitor inflation, growth, and public debt, to give a more rounded picture of our economy and greater assistance to policy makers.
The Tory internal debates are so detached from reality as to be almost from a quantum dimension.
This is akin to the Lib Dems panicking about Davey being unexciting and arguing among themselves whether to bring back Clegg or Swinson.
Personally, I like Davey, but the LDs get little platform.
I wouldn't mind Farron back as leader, but think the next LD leader is Daisy.
Well, she has her faults, but at least she's not Layla Moran.
My money is on Sarah Olney
The next LD leader will almost certainly be a woman. My money is on Munira Wilson. She ticks a lot of boxes - remember she got a bigger majority in Twickenham than Vince Cable.
I'm going to make a Ukraine prediction, that may look very foolish very quickly.
I think a (swift) Russian collapse is increasingly likely. I think their ability to sustain the current Bakhmut offensive is going to be limited, especially as Ukraine is getting better and better weapons, while Russia is forced to rely on ever older ones.
At some point (probably when a large number of Russians are captured), force of will loses out to inability to sustain an offensive.
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
I was talking, not long ago, to one of these Power Politics types.
I rather floored him, by suggesting that Ukraine is a regional power, and Russia is a former great power, now rapidly becoming North Korea with oil.
Great Power politics means that then we should ally with Ukraine, the rising power, and strip Russia (the losing power) for parts.
Free Ukraine is an American protectorate. Occupied Ukraine is a Russian one. It's never going to be an independent country/ies (on either side of the divide). The best that can be hoped for is peace, massive rebuilding investment by the respective sponsor powers, and a heavily policed border in an effective new Cold War (which beats a hot war).
I'm going to make a Ukraine prediction, that may look very foolish very quickly.
I think a (swift) Russian collapse is increasingly likely. I think their ability to sustain the current Bakhmut offensive is going to be limited, especially as Ukraine is getting better and better weapons, while Russia is forced to rely on ever older ones.
At some point (probably when a large number of Russians are captured), force of will loses out to inability to sustain an offensive.
I'm going for end of February.
I'm probably more pessimistic for Ukraine than I've been for six months. I still don't think they'll 'lose' (for certain definitions of that word), but I think the next two months is going to be tortuous for them.
Putin's had plenty of chances to withdraw and claim mission accomplished, and he's never taken them. He's going to continue to throw men and material into the meat grinder, with two vague hopes:
1) Ukraine will collapse; 2) The west will get bored of supporting Ukraine, or they get distracted (China / Taiwan).
I think he's going to be disappointed on both those counts, but it's going to be massively hard for Ukraine. we should have supported them more, sooner.
20 September, 2021 Perhaps the defining issue of her career will not, after all, be Scottish independence, but whether biological sex is real. Such is the surreal state of politics in Scotland today.
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
I was talking, not long ago, to one of these Power Politics types.
I rather floored him, by suggesting that Ukraine is a regional power, and Russia is a former great power, now rapidly becoming North Korea with oil.
Great Power politics means that then we should ally with Ukraine, the rising power, and strip Russia (the losing power) for parts.
Free Ukraine is an American protectorate. Occupied Ukraine is a Russian one. It's never going to be an independent country/ies (on either side of the divide). The best that can be hoped for is peace, massive rebuilding investment by the respective sponsor powers, and a heavily policed border in an effective new Cold War (which beats a hot war).
Wrong.
Free Ukraine, with a non-threatening Russia, is an independent country, free to choose its own path (NATO, EU, whatever).
Occupied Ukraine becomes Russia.
Your attempts at equivalence is just shit. Then again, you've been wrong about Russia time and time again. Tell me, have you read the MH17 reports yet?
We should note how bad the Con performance was in 2019. It finally did for PM May. Anything less than gaining councillors counts as a bad Con result this year. However, a degree of losses could be spun as better than expected/the polls/feared. If the Con losses are dramatic then they probably should have a Vote of Confidence.
But would Sunak lose it? It would only lead to the return of Johnson and that would be a disaster for the Con party as most of its MPs should know very well. Sunak could hang on with 50 percent plus one just to block Johnson. Getting 50 percent plus one to vote him out may be very very difficult. Johnson had his fan club but at least as many Con MPs fear/despise/hate him.
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
Does your notion that pre-existing state boundaries are good ever enter into conflict with your apparent view - perhaps drenched in Oxford or Cambridge, neocolonial-flavoured pragmatism - that Johnny Straightback the Englishman is good at complicated stuff, unlike foreigners?
1. What country do the residents in the territories want to live in? 2. What's wrong with accepting the results of the three 2014 referendums? 3. What's wrong with accepting the results of the two 2022 referendums?
(Answer to 2-3 such as "Everything" or "Whatever it is, it's the same" or "F*** off, Russian-paid scum" won't cut much mustard.)
Then there is what happened between 2014 and 2022, the direct immediate background to the current stage of the war.
"Principle", my arse. What did you say at the time of the genocide in Rwanda? Does "Don't do genocide" vanish into unimportance relative to "Pre-2014 borders are good regardless of what residents want?"
The UK is one of the only states in the world that *does* treat its borders as negotiable depending on the wishes of the population.
What is the process for, say, Chechnya to secede from the Russian federation?
The process is quite well defined, for attempting to leave Russia.
1) All the separatists are killed 2) Anyone supporting them is killed 3) Burj the place to the ground 4) the nastiest non-separatist you can find is put in charge and given Carte Blanche to rape, rob and murder 5) Any questions? See 1-4
Having watched the excellent 3 part BBC documentary on Putin the obvious missed chance seems to have been with the Minsk agreement. The capture of Crimea was bad enough but the Ukrainians effectively agreed to allow a private militia to control the separatist areas in the east as autonomous entities. Why? Because they feared that said terrorists might march on Kyiv. How could a rabble of malcontents from the Donbass defeat the Ukrainian army? Only with the full throttled support of the Russian state of course. Yet the west's response to this outrage was not a doubling down on sanctions or even a commitment by all Nato members to spend 2% GDP on defence. As President Hollande put it 'if you don't punch back at first, you end up having to punch back harder later.'
We should note how bad the Con performance was in 2019. It finally did for PM May. Anything less than gaining councillors counts as a bad Con result this year. However, a degree of losses could be spun as better than expected/the polls/feared. If the Con losses are dramatic then they probably should have a Vote of Confidence.
But would Sunak lose it? It would only lead to the return of Johnson and that would be a disaster for the Con party as most of its MPs should know very well. Sunak could hang on with 50 percent plus one just to block Johnson. Getting 50 percent plus one to vote him out may be very very difficult. Johnson had his fan club but at least as many Con MPs fear/despise/hate him.
If the bus has three flat tyres it doesn’t matter that much who is driving.
We should note how bad the Con performance was in 2019. It finally did for PM May. Anything less than gaining councillors counts as a bad Con result this year. However, a degree of losses could be spun as better than expected/the polls/feared. If the Con losses are dramatic then they probably should have a Vote of Confidence.
But would Sunak lose it? It would only lead to the return of Johnson and that would be a disaster for the Con party as most of its MPs should know very well. Sunak could hang on with 50 percent plus one just to block Johnson. Getting 50 percent plus one to vote him out may be very very difficult. Johnson had his fan club but at least as many Con MPs fear/despise/hate him.
They need to be thinking about an alternative leader acceptable to most factions. I don't like a coronation but I don't see the public tolerating another full leadership election.
We should note how bad the Con performance was in 2019. It finally did for PM May. Anything less than gaining councillors counts as a bad Con result this year. However, a degree of losses could be spun as better than expected/the polls/feared. If the Con losses are dramatic then they probably should have a Vote of Confidence.
But would Sunak lose it? It would only lead to the return of Johnson and that would be a disaster for the Con party as most of its MPs should know very well. Sunak could hang on with 50 percent plus one just to block Johnson. Getting 50 percent plus one to vote him out may be very very difficult. Johnson had his fan club but at least as many Con MPs fear/despise/hate him.
Leaders don't lose VONcs, they survive them and then go a few months down the line. The GE cycle makes that problematic. Sunak will already be saying: VONC me, I call a GE. Unless you think I can't afford to forgo a year's worth of salary...
I'm going to make a Ukraine prediction, that may look very foolish very quickly.
I think a (swift) Russian collapse is increasingly likely. I think their ability to sustain the current Bakhmut offensive is going to be limited, especially as Ukraine is getting better and better weapons, while Russia is forced to rely on ever older ones.
At some point (probably when a large number of Russians are captured), force of will loses out to inability to sustain an offensive.
I'm going for end of February.
The trouble is that it's a bit like the Euro crisis. The west wants to do just enough - in this case to defend Ukraine without taking any major risks. It was dumb of the Russians to have all those ammo dumps near the fighting but I presume now they have adapted and are using longer supply lines. So the Ukrainians need longer range artillery. Have they been sent it?
We should note how bad the Con performance was in 2019. It finally did for PM May. Anything less than gaining councillors counts as a bad Con result this year. However, a degree of losses could be spun as better than expected/the polls/feared. If the Con losses are dramatic then they probably should have a Vote of Confidence.
But would Sunak lose it? It would only lead to the return of Johnson and that would be a disaster for the Con party as most of its MPs should know very well. Sunak could hang on with 50 percent plus one just to block Johnson. Getting 50 percent plus one to vote him out may be very very difficult. Johnson had his fan club but at least as many Con MPs fear/despise/hate him.
I expect some Tory losses to Labour in the North and Midlands but a few Tory gains from the LDs in the South too.
Overall a shrug shoulders result for Sunak and certainly nowhere near as bad as the 1,330 Tory Council seats lost in May 2019
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
Does your notion that pre-existing state boundaries are good ever enter into conflict with your apparent view - perhaps drenched in Oxford or Cambridge, neocolonial-flavoured pragmatism - that Johnny Straightback the Englishman is good at complicated stuff, unlike foreigners?
1. What country do the residents in the territories want to live in? 2. What's wrong with accepting the results of the three 2014 referendums? 3. What's wrong with accepting the results of the two 2022 referendums?
(Answer to 2-3 such as "Everything" or "Whatever it is, it's the same" or "F*** off, Russian-paid scum" won't cut much mustard.)
Then there is what happened between 2014 and 2022, the direct immediate background to the current stage of the war.
"Principle", my arse. What did you say at the time of the genocide in Rwanda? Does "Don't do genocide" vanish into unimportance relative to "Pre-2014 borders are good regardless of what residents want?"
The UK is one of the only states in the world that *does* treat its borders as negotiable depending on the wishes of the population.
What is the process for, say, Chechnya to secede from the Russian federation?
The process is quite well defined, for attempting to leave Russia.
1) All the separatists are killed 2) Anyone supporting them is killed 3) Burj the place to the ground 4) the nastiest non-separatist you can find is put in charge and given Carte Blanche to rape, rob and murder 5) Any questions? See 1-4
Having watched the excellent 3 part BBC documentary on Putin the obvious missed chance seems to have been with the Minsk agreement. The capture of Crimea was bad enough but the Ukrainians effectively agreed to allow a private militia to control the separatist areas in the east as autonomous entities. Why? Because they feared that said terrorists might march on Kyiv. How could a rabble of malcontents from the Donbass defeat the Ukrainian army? Only with the full throttled support of the Russian state of course. Yet the west's response to this outrage was not a doubling down on sanctions or even a commitment by all Nato members to spend 2% GDP on defence. As President Hollande put it 'if you don't punch back at first, you end up having to punch back harder later.'
I've been listening to a few podcasts on this, and the failures go back further: Putin's invasion of Georgia occurred in August 2008, when the US was in full election swing. It was the dying days of Bush's second term, and he apparently felt unable to react heavily because of everything that was going on. Then Obama came in, and there was the great 'reset' of relations with Ukraine (although the button Clinton pressed actually read 'overload'), and he did not want sanctions to mark the start of their relations.
As ever with Russia, we reacted in a lacklustre manner to their aggression at every step, giving Putin and the regime the impression that we would react in a similar manner the next time. Allegedly, before the 2014 invasions, Putin had known that there would be sanctions, but that they would not be heavy. They were a price of doing 'business'.
It's different this time, but it should have been different a decade or more ago.
We should note how bad the Con performance was in 2019. It finally did for PM May. Anything less than gaining councillors counts as a bad Con result this year. However, a degree of losses could be spun as better than expected/the polls/feared. If the Con losses are dramatic then they probably should have a Vote of Confidence.
But would Sunak lose it? It would only lead to the return of Johnson and that would be a disaster for the Con party as most of its MPs should know very well. Sunak could hang on with 50 percent plus one just to block Johnson. Getting 50 percent plus one to vote him out may be very very difficult. Johnson had his fan club but at least as many Con MPs fear/despise/hate him.
They need to be thinking about an alternative leader acceptable to most factions. I don't like a coronation but I don't see the public tolerating another full leadership election.
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
Does your notion that pre-existing state boundaries are good ever enter into conflict with your apparent view - perhaps drenched in Oxford or Cambridge, neocolonial-flavoured pragmatism - that Johnny Straightback the Englishman is good at complicated stuff, unlike foreigners?
1. What country do the residents in the territories want to live in? 2. What's wrong with accepting the results of the three 2014 referendums? 3. What's wrong with accepting the results of the two 2022 referendums?
(Answer to 2-3 such as "Everything" or "Whatever it is, it's the same" or "F*** off, Russian-paid scum" won't cut much mustard.)
Then there is what happened between 2014 and 2022, the direct immediate background to the current stage of the war.
"Principle", my arse. What did you say at the time of the genocide in Rwanda? Does "Don't do genocide" vanish into unimportance relative to "Pre-2014 borders are good regardless of what residents want?"
The UK is one of the only states in the world that *does* treat its borders as negotiable depending on the wishes of the population.
What is the process for, say, Chechnya to secede from the Russian federation?
The process is quite well defined, for attempting to leave Russia.
1) All the separatists are killed 2) Anyone supporting them is killed 3) Burj the place to the ground 4) the nastiest non-separatist you can find is put in charge and given Carte Blanche to rape, rob and murder 5) Any questions? See 1-4
Having watched the excellent 3 part BBC documentary on Putin the obvious missed chance seems to have been with the Minsk agreement. The capture of Crimea was bad enough but the Ukrainians effectively agreed to allow a private militia to control the separatist areas in the east as autonomous entities. Why? Because they feared that said terrorists might march on Kyiv. How could a rabble of malcontents from the Donbass defeat the Ukrainian army? Only with the full throttled support of the Russian state of course. Yet the west's response to this outrage was not a doubling down on sanctions or even a commitment by all Nato members to spend 2% GDP on defence. As President Hollande put it 'if you don't punch back at first, you end up having to punch back harder later.'
I've been listening to a few podcasts on this, and the failures go back further: Putin's invasion of Georgia occurred in August 2008, when the US was in full election swing. It was the dying days of Bush's second term, and he apparently felt unable to react heavily because of everything that was going on. Then Obama came in, and there was the great 'reset' of relations with Ukraine (although the button Clinton pressed actually read 'overload'), and he did not want sanctions to mark the start of their relations.
As ever with Russia, we reacted in a lacklustre manner to their aggression at every step, giving Putin and the regime the impression that we would react in a similar manner the next time. Allegedly, before the 2014 invasions, Putin had known that there would be sanctions, but that they would not be heavy. They were a price of doing 'business'.
It's different this time, but it should have been different a decade or more ago.
Yet but in many ways the Donbass conflict was overlooked in comparison to Crimea and Georgia. It's almost as if it was tolerated as a new normal.
20 September, 2021 Perhaps the defining issue of her career will not, after all, be Scottish independence, but whether biological sex is real. Such is the surreal state of politics in Scotland today.
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
I was talking, not long ago, to one of these Power Politics types.
I rather floored him, by suggesting that Ukraine is a regional power, and Russia is a former great power, now rapidly becoming North Korea with oil.
Great Power politics means that then we should ally with Ukraine, the rising power, and strip Russia (the losing power) for parts.
Free Ukraine is an American protectorate. Occupied Ukraine is a Russian one. It's never going to be an independent country/ies (on either side of the divide). The best that can be hoped for is peace, massive rebuilding investment by the respective sponsor powers, and a heavily policed border in an effective new Cold War (which beats a hot war).
Is Canada a US protectorate? Is Germany? Is Poland? Is Lithuania? Is Estonia? Is Latvia?
We should note how bad the Con performance was in 2019. It finally did for PM May. Anything less than gaining councillors counts as a bad Con result this year. However, a degree of losses could be spun as better than expected/the polls/feared. If the Con losses are dramatic then they probably should have a Vote of Confidence.
But would Sunak lose it? It would only lead to the return of Johnson and that would be a disaster for the Con party as most of its MPs should know very well. Sunak could hang on with 50 percent plus one just to block Johnson. Getting 50 percent plus one to vote him out may be very very difficult. Johnson had his fan club but at least as many Con MPs fear/despise/hate him.
They need to be thinking about an alternative leader acceptable to most factions. I don't like a coronation but I don't see the public tolerating another full leadership election.
Most likely Steve Barclay but as Leader of the Opposition to PM Starmer.
Sunak will stay PM and Tory leader until the general election now in my view
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
I was talking, not long ago, to one of these Power Politics types.
I rather floored him, by suggesting that Ukraine is a regional power, and Russia is a former great power, now rapidly becoming North Korea with oil.
Great Power politics means that then we should ally with Ukraine, the rising power, and strip Russia (the losing power) for parts.
Free Ukraine is an American protectorate. Occupied Ukraine is a Russian one. It's never going to be an independent country/ies (on either side of the divide). The best that can be hoped for is peace, massive rebuilding investment by the respective sponsor powers, and a heavily policed border in an effective new Cold War (which beats a hot war).
Free Ukraine is um... free.
Russia is descending into a primitive and brutal parody of fascism. There is no possibility of peace with an aggressive, neo-fascist state.
I'm going to make a Ukraine prediction, that may look very foolish very quickly.
I think a (swift) Russian collapse is increasingly likely. I think their ability to sustain the current Bakhmut offensive is going to be limited, especially as Ukraine is getting better and better weapons, while Russia is forced to rely on ever older ones.
At some point (probably when a large number of Russians are captured), force of will loses out to inability to sustain an offensive.
I'm going for end of February.
The trouble is that it's a bit like the Euro crisis. The west wants to do just enough - in this case to defend Ukraine without taking any major risks. It was dumb of the Russians to have all those ammo dumps near the fighting but I presume now they have adapted and are using longer supply lines. So the Ukrainians need longer range artillery. Have they been sent it?
Does your notion that pre-existing state boundaries are good ever enter into conflict with your apparent view - perhaps drenched in Oxford or Cambridge, neocolonial-flavoured pragmatism - that Johnny Straightback the Englishman is good at complicated stuff, unlike foreigners?
Never been near Oxford or Cambridge. Actually, I lie. I spent a night at a friends place in Cambridge in my first year of University. Aberystwyth, if you must know. Very Not Oxbridge. I went to a bizarre born again christian music festival in Oxford as a teenager, though. Perhaps I unconsciously absorbed neocolonialist vibes radiating out of the university? Who knows. Feel free to project onto me whatever you want with your unnecessarily agressive post, though. Hell, that seems to be what social media is all about, these days.
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
I was talking, not long ago, to one of these Power Politics types.
I rather floored him, by suggesting that Ukraine is a regional power, and Russia is a former great power, now rapidly becoming North Korea with oil.
Great Power politics means that then we should ally with Ukraine, the rising power, and strip Russia (the losing power) for parts.
1. What country do the residents in the territories want to live in? 2. What's wrong with accepting the results of the three 2014 referendums? 3. What's wrong with accepting the results of the two 2022 referendums?
(Answer to 2-3 such as "Everything" or "Whatever it is, it's the same" or "F*** off, Russian-paid scum" won't cut much mustard.)
The residents of Ukraine made clear in the 1990's which country they want to live in - in a referendum that is generally regarded as free and fair. The 2014/22 referendums have no democratic legitimacy. I don't say things like "F*** off, Russian paid scum" - indeed if you had followed my occasional posts on here, you'd know I have, on occasion, questioned the moderators decision to ban posters who tend towards the pro-Russian position, or are anti-vaxx or whatever. But It's Mike's site and Mike's rules and he can do what he likes. Feel free to project onto me whatever you want, though. I don't care. It's highly unusual that I engage with such people. This post is a rare exception. Perhaps if you reassess your social media argument strategy you may get more out of your time? Just an idea. Maybe winning imaginary internet points is your goal?
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
I was talking, not long ago, to one of these Power Politics types.
I rather floored him, by suggesting that Ukraine is a regional power, and Russia is a former great power, now rapidly becoming North Korea with oil.
Great Power politics means that then we should ally with Ukraine, the rising power, and strip Russia (the losing power) for parts.
Free Ukraine is an American protectorate. Occupied Ukraine is a Russian one. It's never going to be an independent country/ies (on either side of the divide). The best that can be hoped for is peace, massive rebuilding investment by the respective sponsor powers, and a heavily policed border in an effective new Cold War (which beats a hot war).
Free Ukraine is um... free.
Russia is descending into a primitive and brutal parody of fascism. There is no possibility of peace with an aggressive, neo-fascist state.
Hang on, let's get one thing straight. A pacifist acquaintance of mine says we cannot call Russia 'fascist', as 'fascist' is a Second World War construct that has no relevance to the modern world. On the other hand, it's perfectly fine for him to insinuate that Ukrainians are all neo-Nazis...
I guess I'll just have to add 'neo' on to the front of fascist.
Then there is what happened between 2014 and 2022, the direct immediate background to the current stage of the war.
"Principle", my arse.
Who, or what point are you arguing with here? You've lost me.
What did you say at the time of the genocide in Rwanda? Does "Don't do genocide" vanish into unimportance relative to "Pre-2014 borders are good regardless of what residents want?"
Well, forgive me, but I was a small child in 1994. At that age I got my news from, iirc, BBC Newsround. What did I say at the time? Probably something along the lines of "Oh no, that's awful" and then watched neighbours.
A decade later, though, while still a teenager, I spent a weekend in Rwanda, which included visiting a school at Gikongoro and standing a foot away from the lime covered bodies of dead Tutsis and moderate Hutus. I saw with my own eyes the slit achiles tendons on the bottom of the childrens legs - done so to prevent their victims running away, while the perpetrators could have lunch and a few beers before getting back to their genocide.
I've also read a few books and spent some time at university engaging with the literature on various genocides. Grim stuff. In the mid-2000's there was a brief debate about a"responsibility to protect" principle - how and whether it should be enshrined in International law. My conclusion isn't that state sovereignty should be inviolable, but it should be largely respected as the best long term stategy for reducing aggregate human misery and death from violence. The tiny proportion of the world population killed through violent conflict since 1945 - relative to pretty much any point prior to that is, in my considered view, largely down to the respecting of borders and national sovereignty. Russia's justification for their war is a cynical perversion of the R2P principle. It's bullshit framing for domestic consumption.
Mearsheimer, in fairness to him, sees straight through Russia's humanitarian justifications. It's all about power politics in his worldview.
There is nothing that happened in the Donbass or Crimea between the 1990's and 2014/2022 that justified Russia violating Ukraine's sovereignty.
I'm going to make a Ukraine prediction, that may look very foolish very quickly.
I think a (swift) Russian collapse is increasingly likely. I think their ability to sustain the current Bakhmut offensive is going to be limited, especially as Ukraine is getting better and better weapons, while Russia is forced to rely on ever older ones.
At some point (probably when a large number of Russians are captured), force of will loses out to inability to sustain an offensive.
I'm going for end of February.
The trouble is that it's a bit like the Euro crisis. The west wants to do just enough - in this case to defend Ukraine without taking any major risks. It was dumb of the Russians to have all those ammo dumps near the fighting but I presume now they have adapted and are using longer supply lines. So the Ukrainians need longer range artillery. Have they been sent it?
I don’t think the Russians will collapse - they will fight an increasingly “broken backed” war, where humans replace machines.
There was an excellent book on Hitlers army, forget the title. The author describes how, on the Eastern front, losses of equipment slowly reverted the German army to infantry with some artillery. Tanks, APCs and large quantities if hi tech weapons became reserved for smaller and smaller specialist formations.
As they reverted further and further from modernity, savage discipline was used to keep the troops in line and fighting. This in turn provoked more atrocities, by the well know phenomenon of brutalised soldiers abusing victims in their turn.
Comments
England is a cup of tea.
France, a wheel of ripened brie.
Greece, a short, squat olive tree.
America is a gun.
Brazil is football on the sand.
Argentina, Maradona's hand.
Germany, an oompah band.
America is a gun.
Holland is a wooden shoe.
Hungary, a goulash stew.
Australia, a kangaroo.
America is a gun.
Japan is a thermal spring.
Scotland is a highland fling.
Oh, better to be anything
than America as a gun.
Brian Bilston
But... (and I whisper this quietly): when you spend over five years doing the walk full-time, then it doesn't become quite a walk: it becomes a lifestyle. Which is fine, but it's a very different sort of walk. Possibly more enjoyable than what I did.
I'll have to get 'Finding Hildasay'; I think I've got every other book written by coastal walkers, from 'I met Granny Vera' to 'Two feet, Four Paws'. It's a rather odd collection, both of books and their very different authors.
Over 10/1 would be great value. Probably won’t get that now tho
The exact same problem exists for Keynesians on the left, who think you can spend your way to growth and balanced budgets.
There’s a reason why childcare costs in the UK are the highest in the OECD.
But there’s also a regulatory dysfunction behind the grotesque rent seeking and behaviour of utility providers.
Ditto being simultaneously over (income, capital investment) and under (wealth, rentierism) taxed.
Great for the competition. Just a shame - for a wearied England rugby fan like me - that it might well be England struggling to avoid the wooden spoon
Scotland well deserved their victory yesterday
Did corporation tax receipts grow as a percentage of GDP or not?
Tho in truth, as I said earlier, I believe England simply don’t have the players right now. This is not a sleeping giant like the England cricket team, ready to be turned into world beaters by a brilliant leader. Our players are… not very good. Outclassed in too many departments and positions
Ireland
France
NZ
Oz
South Africa
England (barely)
That’s probably the most balanced World Cup yet. Meanwhile Scotland, Argentina and even Italy will fancy riding their luck
With that caveat in mind, for people who really want to explore this further, here are some studies to while away an idle Sunday:
- Economic Policy Institute, Hungerford (2013). US corporate tax rates don't affect economic growth.
- Devereux, Michael P., Giorgia Maffini and Jing Xing (2019) “Corporate tax incentives and capital structure: new evidence from UK tax returns”, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 11.3, 361-89.
- HMRC CGE modelling (2013) – assessed the effects of reducing the main Corporation Tax rate from 28% to 20% and found a boost to investment of 2.5-4.5% and 0.6-0.8% in GDP in the long term. (YES, THAT'S RIGHT, HMRC ARGUED FOR A TAX CUT!)
- Madsen, Minniti and Venturini (National Institute of Economic and Social Research, 2021) looking into the effects of taxes on investment using data for 21 countries, this research found corporate taxes reduce investment in tangible assets and R&D; a 1 percentage point increase in Corporation Tax rate was found to lead to a 1.5 percentage point reduction in the investment rate.
- Cloyne et al. (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2022) – analysed the effects of temporary changes in US tax rates and found a corporate income tax cut leads to a sustained increase in GDP and productivity, with peak effects between five and eight years.
- Djankov et al. (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2008) – explored the effects of corporate income tax rates and found that corporate taxes are negatively correlated with growth with a 10% increase in the effective Corporation Tax rate found to reduce the investment-to-GDP ratio by 2 percentage points.
- Social Europe, predictably, found that corporate tax cuts don't boost economic growth. They do so using a meta-analysis of 42 studies https://www.socialeurope.eu/corporate-tax-cuts-do-not-boost-growth
Of those I find the MMV and HMRC most persuasive. But, as usual, people usually quote the studies that fit their preexisting conclusions, rather than using the former to shape the latter.
England, so far as I can see, aren't likely to feature.
Ireland and SA seem a bit short to my mind.
1) Italy rarely do two great performances back to back at the start of the six nations.
2) it’s at Twickenham - even now away wins are scarce in the six nations.
3) England actually played ok yesterday. I know they’ve lost the last couple against Scotland, but could easily have won both. Englands biggest challenge is getting over the line/finishing the job.
I’d take a look at Italy plus points as the best option.
On the Truss and tax questions, it was the Conservatives who created the OBR in 2010 (it was an Osborne idea, backed by the LDs, as an antidote to the politically-biased forecasts of the Brown/Darling era).
It's curious how far some Conservatives have travelled they now advocate to abolish they themselves created.
On the wider tax issue, the Coalition sought to take the lowest paid out of paying tax (but not NI) by raising tax thresholds. With hindsight, laudable though this was, it missed the point of tax which is as a collective contribution to services and functions provided for all. The more people pay tax (even if many pay only a small amount) the better. If the tax burden falls disproportionately on the few very wealthiest, that also looks unfair. The notion of everyone paying their share is where I think we need to be.
While this LD supporter is happy with tax cuts and sees the argument for them, the truth is we need to get the public finances under control first. The deficit is too large, there is too much borrowing and we are now paying absurd amounts of debt interest (more than we spend on things we really need) so we have to try to deal with that £120 billion millstone round our necks.
The Lafferites will argue cutting taxes and stimulating growth will bring in the receipts needed to close the gap but I'm not convinced and I don't think the markets were either. There will be a time for cutting taxes but the priority now is to close the deficit (and apparently doing so is now being described by some as "managed decline").
To translate this, those ardent Conservatives who see no future for the country under any other Government, and especially a Labour Government, believe tax cuts are the route to re-election. These were the same siren calls urging Clarke to cut taxes in 1996 and early 1997 - it would have made no difference politically then. Acting in the national interest might just mean handing a good economic inheritance to Labour (whether you think they will waste it or not).
The Liam Byrne response of 2010 would be the irresponsible course.
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/best-of-the-spectator/id793236670
He’s still sticking to his guns. In his view, Russia is fighting a legitimate war of defence.
The most compelling critique is, imo, one that Freddie Gray doesn’t cover - that Mearsheimer’s perspective completely ignores Ukraines agency. He pays lip service to smaller state sovereignty - the implication being that those of us who think that principle is quite important and worth upholding (pretty much everybody who isn’t of the strict realist theory of international relations - ie most of us who live in the, ahem, real world) - are naive.
His theoretical worldview is one where only superpowers, backed by military might, matter. Sovereignty of smaller nations is traded between the great powers.
You can’t ignore Mearsheimer. He’s a giant of international relations theory. But his worldview is a straitjacket into which he desperately squeezes Ukraine. But the situation doesn’t fit.
The real world is more complicated.
Well worth a listen, imo. Even though I find a lot to disagree with, he does at times, nail things. His very last point - that Ukraine will end up being - or at least, feeling - betrayed by the West, is hard to argue.
I think if that had been England playing Italy away today we would have lost.
The departure of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory has to be the prerequisite for peace. That has to include Crimea though I would offer the Crimeans the choice between independence and being part of the Ukraine with the former option excluding the basing of Russian forces on its soil. The West, while guaranteeing Ukrainian independence, may also have to guarantee Crimean independence as well.
I certainly wouldn't want NATO and Russian troops to be eyeballing each other at each end of the bridge across the Kerch Strait for example.
It may be the Russian military departure will be joined by a Russian civilian departure from Crimea and the Donbass as those who cannot stomach living under anything other than pro-Moscow rule are forced to leave (ethnic cleansing, it's happened before with all the dreadful humanitarian consequences) though that will in turn alleviate the political issues.
Eastern Europeans disagree.
Similarly, corporation tax does not take place in a vacuum. If we cut taxes, and other countries do not, then there will be a bigger benefit than if everyone cuts at the same time.
Finally, there are almost certainly diminishing marginal gains. A reduction in tax from 35% to 25% means a bigger increase in post tax profits, than a reduction from 25% to 15%.
I rather floored him, by suggesting that Ukraine is a regional power, and Russia is a former great power, now rapidly becoming North Korea with oil.
Great Power politics means that then we should ally with Ukraine, the rising power, and strip Russia (the losing power) for parts.
1. What country do the residents in the territories want to live in?
2. What's wrong with accepting the results of the three 2014 referendums?
3. What's wrong with accepting the results of the two 2022 referendums?
(Answer to 2-3 such as "Everything" or "Whatever it is, it's the same" or "F*** off, Russian-paid scum" won't cut much mustard.)
Then there is what happened between 2014 and 2022, the direct immediate background to the current stage of the war.
"Principle", my arse. What did you say at the time of the genocide in Rwanda? Does "Don't do genocide" vanish into unimportance relative to "Pre-2014 borders are good regardless of what residents want?"
What is the process for, say, Chechnya to secede from the Russian federation?
Just unfortunately for the LDs in 2015 they discovered that only 8% of the UK electorate are proper Liberals
They are a bit like a rather sub par Germany going into a football World Cup. You don’t bet against them entirely, because. They could sneak through to the semis and once there, who knows
I’d have France as favourites, just - coz they’re at home - with Ireland, SA and NZ all equal and right behind. Could be a great tournament
Yes, in general, Western governments recently have been trying a blend of policies to tax different corporate activities at different rates - like trying to reward R&D or fixed capital investment, and punish highly carbon-intensive businesses. Even more pervasively, prior to tax policy, some places have less-mobile businesses and so are able to set higher tax rates than places competing with many rivals for new investment. That's why New York can set its tax rates higher than Mississippi. These studies are valuable to isolate the specific impact of tax out from all those effects.
That is a complete fantasy and won't happen.
As for limited independence in east-central Europe, that was once known as the Brezhnev doctrine.
What would you have thought in 1972 of a Soviet figure who said he would offer people in Northern Ireland a choice between 1) becoming part of the Irish Republic and 2) six counties independence without the right to have any British bases?
That might indeed be worth a frivolous tenner. They have at least one world class player - Finn Russell. Maybe 2 with that Dutch dude
2. You can only really believe in self-determination if it is not at the barrel of a gun. In the case of the 2014 referendums, it's far from clear they were not utterly bogus.
3. The same applies for the 2022 referendums as well, with the added problem of massive population movements having occurred.
Basically; a referendum after someone has invaded an area, killed lots of people and lots of other residents have moved away for their own safety, will have results that may not (and probably will not) match the views of the previous population. It is therefore pretty bogus.
(1): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum
"Estimates from a variety of sources, including the Russian government, indicate that Russian authorities have interrogated, detained, and forcibly deported between 900,000 and 1.6 million Ukrainian citizens, including 260,000 children, from their homes to Russia – often to isolated regions in the Far East."
https://www.state.gov/russias-filtration-operations-forced-disappearances-and-mass-deportations-of-ukrainian-citizens/#:~:text=Estimates from a variety of,regions in the Far East.
That's about the equivalent of 60% of the population of Crimea, right there.
That's not a good way to get peace in the world. In fact, it's an argument that will lead to much more war and bloodshed.
And BTW, are you not just 'scoffing' at the pro-Ukrainians who have been forced out of Crimea and the Donbass by Russia since their invasions?
1) All the separatists are killed
2) Anyone supporting them is killed
3) Burj the place to the ground
4) the nastiest non-separatist you can find is put in charge and given Carte Blanche to rape, rob and murder
5) Any questions? See 1-4
Even Residents' Associations can do the same NIMBYISM LD councillors do in the South of England
As with so many EU initiatives, the remit of the OBR could do with being revisited to be more relevant to the needs of the British economy. Why does the OBR not have a growth target? It should imo monitor inflation, growth, and public debt, to give a more rounded picture of our economy and greater assistance to policy makers.
Always liked you really
Cheers and beers
Arsenal Fan, Hampstead Progressive Wing
I think a (swift) Russian collapse is increasingly likely. I think their ability to sustain the current Bakhmut offensive is going to be limited, especially as Ukraine is getting better and better weapons, while Russia is forced to rely on ever older ones.
At some point (probably when a large number of Russians are captured), force of will loses out to inability to sustain an offensive.
I'm going for end of February.
Putin's had plenty of chances to withdraw and claim mission accomplished, and he's never taken them. He's going to continue to throw men and material into the meat grinder, with two vague hopes:
1) Ukraine will collapse;
2) The west will get bored of supporting Ukraine, or they get distracted (China / Taiwan).
I think he's going to be disappointed on both those counts, but it's going to be massively hard for Ukraine. we should have supported them more, sooner.
Perhaps the defining issue of her career will not, after all, be Scottish independence, but whether biological sex is real. Such is the surreal state of politics in Scotland today.
https://thecritic.co.uk/sturgeon-on-the-hook/
Free Ukraine, with a non-threatening Russia, is an independent country, free to choose its own path (NATO, EU, whatever).
Occupied Ukraine becomes Russia.
Your attempts at equivalence is just shit. Then again, you've been wrong about Russia time and time again. Tell me, have you read the MH17 reports yet?
But would Sunak lose it? It would only lead to the return of Johnson and that would be a disaster for the Con party as most of its MPs should know very well. Sunak could hang on with 50 percent plus one just to block Johnson. Getting 50 percent plus one to vote him out may be very very difficult. Johnson had his fan club but at least as many Con MPs fear/despise/hate him.
It wasn't her or Kwarteng or all those tory Leavers who put them there.
It's our fault again.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/05/snp-opposition-to-gender-recognition-reform-should-be-respected-commons-leader-says
Overall a shrug shoulders result for Sunak and certainly nowhere near as bad as the 1,330 Tory Council seats lost in May 2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reset
As ever with Russia, we reacted in a lacklustre manner to their aggression at every step, giving Putin and the regime the impression that we would react in a similar manner the next time. Allegedly, before the 2014 invasions, Putin had known that there would be sanctions, but that they would not be heavy. They were a price of doing 'business'.
It's different this time, but it should have been different a decade or more ago.
Bizarre….
Why is Ukraine special?
It's Nelson wearing a Che Guevara mask.
Sunak will stay PM and Tory leader until the general election now in my view
Russia is descending into a primitive and brutal parody of fascism. There is no possibility of peace with an aggressive, neo-fascist state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Launched_Small_Diameter_Bomb
The Che picture on canvas, with eyes cut out and replaced with those swirly muck-with-your- eyes patterns rotated by a motor. Price 30k.
According to the expensive catalogue I was given, this was a profound statement against capitalism.
The champagne was vintage. Outside, in the cold, some large security guards kept he homeless away.
I hope you're keeping score, cos nobody else is.
I guess I'll just have to add 'neo' on to the front of fascist.
A decade later, though, while still a teenager, I spent a weekend in Rwanda, which included visiting a school at Gikongoro and standing a foot away from the lime covered bodies of dead Tutsis and moderate Hutus. I saw with my own eyes the slit achiles tendons on the bottom of the childrens legs - done so to prevent their victims running away, while the perpetrators could have lunch and a few beers before getting back to their genocide.
I've also read a few books and spent some time at university engaging with the literature on various genocides. Grim stuff. In the mid-2000's there was a brief debate about a"responsibility to protect" principle - how and whether it should be enshrined in International law. My conclusion isn't that state sovereignty should be inviolable, but it should be largely respected as the best long term stategy for reducing aggregate human misery and death from violence. The tiny proportion of the world population killed through violent conflict since 1945 - relative to pretty much any point prior to that is, in my considered view, largely down to the respecting of borders and national sovereignty. Russia's justification for their war is a cynical perversion of the R2P principle. It's bullshit framing for domestic consumption.
Mearsheimer, in fairness to him, sees straight through Russia's humanitarian justifications. It's all about power politics in his worldview.
There is nothing that happened in the Donbass or Crimea between the 1990's and 2014/2022 that justified Russia violating Ukraine's sovereignty.
The internet would benefit from less tldr; imo.
There was an excellent book on Hitlers army, forget the title. The author describes how, on the Eastern front, losses of equipment slowly reverted the German army to infantry with some artillery. Tanks, APCs and large quantities if hi tech weapons became reserved for smaller and smaller specialist formations.
As they reverted further and further from modernity, savage discipline was used to keep the troops in line and fighting. This in turn provoked more atrocities, by the well know phenomenon of brutalised soldiers abusing victims in their turn.