I would be more sympathetic to the 'Russian speakers are a oppressed minority' claims if the Russian state hadn't oppressed non-Russian minorities for centuries.
That's the same kind of "remember what they did in 1845" stuff that poisoned Ireland for centuries. In any inter-ethnic rivalry there are always examples of oppression and indeed atrocities, and extremists justify oppression by pointing to the last thing the other side did. It's entirely understandable, but bystanders like us should try to avoid buying totally into either narrative and promote a lasting settlement. We should be doing all we can to prevent Ukraine being defeated, without providing unlimited assistance to endorse the "every inch of our soil is sacred and must be reconquered" stuff.
The Baltic States and Kazakhstan have sizeable Russian minorities. I’d be reluctant to set a precedent that Russia can simply hive off majority-Russian areas in neighbouring countries, in the absence of persecution.
Russia might also note the rising Chinese population in SE Siberia.
I’m curious - say Ukraine takes a chunk of Russia. Kicks all the Russians out. Does hat mean that in the interest of “peace” and “facts on the ground” the Russians should give that territory to Ukraine?
Yes, it can't be pointed out often enough that language <> nationality. There are plenty of Russian speaking Ukrainians who don't feel in the least bit Russian. There are also Russian speaking Ukrainians who do consider themselves Russian, but my understanding is that these are mainly in Crimea.
I say this only for information, and not to advance any particular solution.
Being a native Russian speaker doesn't necessarily mean a Russian identity (though it often does). After all, Zelly himself is a native Russian speaker who affects a spectacularly mangled version of Ukrainian.
There are plenty of people in the Southern and Eastern oblasts (and Kiev) who both speak Russian and identify as Russian. I wouldn't like to guess at the proportion though electoral support for pro Russian parties like the (now banned) Party of the Regions would be a rough guide. They are known as 'zhdaniy'. Literally, "The Ones Who Wait"; the implication being that they are waiting for the RF to arrive.
They were heavily concentrated in the east of the country, with over 50% of the vote in the eastern provinces and under 5% in the far west like Lviv (see https://tinyurl.com/forlife1 ). We are seeing Ukrainian soldiers in the current frontline complaining that the locals are pro-Russian (though that's partly many pro-Ukrainian residents may well have fled when rthe invasion started), which certainly wasn't the case when it looked as though Russia might conquer the whole country.
There is a clear distinction between the borders of Ukraine and the border of the area where people want to be in Ukraine, and how one feels about that depends partly on nationalism vs local choice and partly on whether the invasion entirely delegitimises pro-Russian sentiment in the east. It's possible to be disgusted by the invasion but to hope that the outcome isn't total Ukrainian nationalist domination of people who hate it - not least as that would cement conflict indefinitely.
A Slesvig-Holstein solution with genuine UN-supervised referenda to show where each area actually wants to be is probably the only way to resolve it without permanent conflict - just as Denmark's willingness to offer that when they could have taken the whole province solved the issue permanently there. People who have been displaced should be entitled to vote in the area that they fled from, to avoid the outcome being biased to the invader.
Frankly I have very little sympathy for this. Ukraine has had a functioning democracy since 1991. Where was the separatism problem before Russia invaded? The only serious 'oppression' people seem able to point to is the lack of official status for the Russian language. If these people want to know about real oppression they should probably go and live in Russia itself.
We should remember that the Party of Regions President Yanukyovich only got elected on the basis of doing an agreement with the EU which of course he reneged on. Over 80% of both Donbass regions voted to leave the Soviet Union. Crimea I would accept is trickier. I have no more sympathy for the increasingly geriatric types in Eastern Ukraine who want the Soviet Union back as I do for whites in South Africa wanting the return of the British Empire. If they are so keen on being Russian they should go and live there.
I would be more sympathetic to the 'Russian speakers are a oppressed minority' claims if the Russian state hadn't oppressed non-Russian minorities for centuries.
That's the same kind of "remember what they did in 1845" stuff that poisoned Ireland for centuries. In any inter-ethnic rivalry there are always examples of oppression and indeed atrocities, and extremists justify oppression by pointing to the last thing the other side did. It's entirely understandable, but bystanders like us should try to avoid buying totally into either narrative and promote a lasting settlement. We should be doing all we can to prevent Ukraine being defeated, without providing unlimited assistance to endorse the "every inch of our soil is sacred and must be reconquered" stuff.
We should be doing all we can to prevent Ukraine being defeated, without providing unlimited assistance to endorse the "every inch of our soil is sacred and must be reconquered" stuff.
And does Ukraine get a choice in this matter ?
They might feel to accept the second part of your sentence would mean that they had been defeated.
And should Russia have to secede any territory to achieve your brave new world ?
Ethnic Ukrainian villages on the Russian side of the border ?
Kaliningrad - surely a strategic threat to Poland and the Baltic countries ?
Musing about price increases against pay increases consider:
Monthly Income £2,000 Monthly expenditure £1,000 Wealth increase £1,000
Now say prices increase by 10% and pay by only 8% - seemingly a real terms pay cut but in monetary terms:
Monthly income £2,160 Monthly expenditure £1,100 Wealth increase £1,060
The vital thing is to have income greater than expenditure and the key determinant of that is your housing situation.
For those who have paid off their mortgages then cost of living crises should be things that happen to other people.
Good morning
You can also say increased interest rates increase saving returns including from mortgage free home owners
Indeed, there will be many PBers whose increase in savings interest is more than paying for their increase in food and energy costs.
The costs of living increases will be affecting some people badly and others not at all.
I'm not sure how previous periods of high inflation affected the country but currently there seems to be a wide spit in how people are being affected.
It's a problem for the BOE. Raising interest rates is a powerful tool for curbing demand, slowing the economy and bringing down inflation, but with fewer mortgage holders than before and more on fixed deals it means that the impact of a given rate increase may be smaller and slower to impact the economy than before. But equally, the people it does affect are going to really feel it, all the more so if the Bank has to act more strongly to offset the blunted macro impact. Although I think the BOE hasn't covered itself in glory over the last few years, I don't envy them, they've got some tough calls to make.
That is a good point, the interest rates alone won’t deliver the recession they want, the government are going to have to be a lot less generous at the same time to additionally squeeze things. main thing what’s tipped Germany into technical recession is the turning off of government support, so Hunts levers likely more powerful than BoE at cooling things off quickly.
I'd be interested to know how much the German economy had benefitted from cheap Russian gas and cheap but dirty lignite in recent years.
Its likely now paying the economic cost for the strategic risk of the first.
With possibly the economic cost of the environmental damage of the second still to come at some point.
There is some merit in the argument, over-simplified as it is of course, that the relative outperformance of the US and German economies in last decade was down to their cheaper energy. US from its vast domestic fracked gas and oil output, Germany from its Russian gas and coal imports.
May also give a hint as to why France has done economically relatively well since the invasion, with its once much more expensive but now comparatively price-competitive nuclear power.
I would be more sympathetic to the 'Russian speakers are a oppressed minority' claims if the Russian state hadn't oppressed non-Russian minorities for centuries.
That's the same kind of "remember what they did in 1845" stuff that poisoned Ireland for centuries. In any inter-ethnic rivalry there are always examples of oppression and indeed atrocities, and extremists justify oppression by pointing to the last thing the other side did. It's entirely understandable, but bystanders like us should try to avoid buying totally into either narrative and promote a lasting settlement. We should be doing all we can to prevent Ukraine being defeated, without providing unlimited assistance to endorse the "every inch of our soil is sacred and must be reconquered" stuff.
We should be doing all we can to prevent Ukraine being defeated, without providing unlimited assistance to endorse the "every inch of our soil is sacred and must be reconquered" stuff.
And does Ukraine get a choice in this matter ?
Not really. They are completely dependent on US money and weapons so piper, tunes, etc.
I would be more sympathetic to the 'Russian speakers are a oppressed minority' claims if the Russian state hadn't oppressed non-Russian minorities for centuries.
That's the same kind of "remember what they did in 1845" stuff that poisoned Ireland for centuries. In any inter-ethnic rivalry there are always examples of oppression and indeed atrocities, and extremists justify oppression by pointing to the last thing the other side did. It's entirely understandable, but bystanders like us should try to avoid buying totally into either narrative and promote a lasting settlement. We should be doing all we can to prevent Ukraine being defeated, without providing unlimited assistance to endorse the "every inch of our soil is sacred and must be reconquered" stuff.
To be honest I think that's a rather condescending view of national sovereignty - and democracy too, for that matter.
I would be more sympathetic to the 'Russian speakers are a oppressed minority' claims if the Russian state hadn't oppressed non-Russian minorities for centuries.
That's the same kind of "remember what they did in 1845" stuff that poisoned Ireland for centuries. In any inter-ethnic rivalry there are always examples of oppression and indeed atrocities, and extremists justify oppression by pointing to the last thing the other side did. It's entirely understandable, but bystanders like us should try to avoid buying totally into either narrative and promote a lasting settlement. We should be doing all we can to prevent Ukraine being defeated, without providing unlimited assistance to endorse the "every inch of our soil is sacred and must be reconquered" stuff.
The Baltic States and Kazakhstan have sizeable Russian minorities. I’d be reluctant to set a precedent that Russia can simply hive off majority-Russian areas in neighbouring countries, in the absence of persecution.
Russia might also note the rising Chinese population in SE Siberia.
I’m curious - say Ukraine takes a chunk of Russia. Kicks all the Russians out. Does hat mean that in the interest of “peace” and “facts on the ground” the Russians should give that territory to Ukraine?
IMV this is one of the major reasons so few countries have accepted Russia's blatant annexation of regions of Ukraine - including areas they do not hold. Countries that might quite like the idea of being able to grab parts of neighbouring countries are well aware the same thing could happen to them. All a neighbour needs to do is spend a few years fomenting trouble amongst a minority in a country, then claim they're entering to protect that minority. Then that becomes annexation - to protect the minroity.
Musing about price increases against pay increases consider:
Monthly Income £2,000 Monthly expenditure £1,000 Wealth increase £1,000
Now say prices increase by 10% and pay by only 8% - seemingly a real terms pay cut but in monetary terms:
Monthly income £2,160 Monthly expenditure £1,100 Wealth increase £1,060
The vital thing is to have income greater than expenditure and the key determinant of that is your housing situation.
For those who have paid off their mortgages then cost of living crises should be things that happen to other people.
Good morning
You can also say increased interest rates increase saving returns including from mortgage free home owners
Indeed, there will be many PBers whose increase in savings interest is more than paying for their increase in food and energy costs.
The costs of living increases will be affecting some people badly and others not at all.
I'm not sure how previous periods of high inflation affected the country but currently there seems to be a wide spit in how people are being affected.
It's a problem for the BOE. Raising interest rates is a powerful tool for curbing demand, slowing the economy and bringing down inflation, but with fewer mortgage holders than before and more on fixed deals it means that the impact of a given rate increase may be smaller and slower to impact the economy than before. But equally, the people it does affect are going to really feel it, all the more so if the Bank has to act more strongly to offset the blunted macro impact. Although I think the BOE hasn't covered itself in glory over the last few years, I don't envy them, they've got some tough calls to make.
That is a good point, the interest rates alone won’t deliver the recession they want, the government are going to have to be a lot less generous at the same time to additionally squeeze things. main thing what’s tipped Germany into technical recession is the turning off of government support, so Hunts levers likely more powerful than BoE at cooling things off quickly.
I'd be interested to know how much the German economy had benefitted from cheap Russian gas and cheap but dirty lignite in recent years.
Its likely now paying the economic cost for the strategic risk of the first.
With possibly the economic cost of the environmental damage of the second still to come at some point.
Germany's gas was at market rates, they didn't get a discount. That being said, because the gas was piped, and didn't have to come (relatively) far, they will have saved on transport costs.
It's also important to note that countries don't buy gas: German power and industrial companies entered into purchase agreements with Russian and Norwegian energy companies. Some will have been on long-term fixed price contracts, but most were based on benchmark natural gas prices (sometimes with an oil price kicker.)
Musing about price increases against pay increases consider:
Monthly Income £2,000 Monthly expenditure £1,000 Wealth increase £1,000
Now say prices increase by 10% and pay by only 8% - seemingly a real terms pay cut but in monetary terms:
Monthly income £2,160 Monthly expenditure £1,100 Wealth increase £1,060
The vital thing is to have income greater than expenditure and the key determinant of that is your housing situation.
For those who have paid off their mortgages then cost of living crises should be things that happen to other people.
Good morning
You can also say increased interest rates increase saving returns including from mortgage free home owners
Indeed, there will be many PBers whose increase in savings interest is more than paying for their increase in food and energy costs.
The costs of living increases will be affecting some people badly and others not at all.
I'm not sure how previous periods of high inflation affected the country but currently there seems to be a wide spit in how people are being affected.
It's a problem for the BOE. Raising interest rates is a powerful tool for curbing demand, slowing the economy and bringing down inflation, but with fewer mortgage holders than before and more on fixed deals it means that the impact of a given rate increase may be smaller and slower to impact the economy than before. But equally, the people it does affect are going to really feel it, all the more so if the Bank has to act more strongly to offset the blunted macro impact. Although I think the BOE hasn't covered itself in glory over the last few years, I don't envy them, they've got some tough calls to make.
That is a good point, the interest rates alone won’t deliver the recession they want, the government are going to have to be a lot less generous at the same time to additionally squeeze things. main thing what’s tipped Germany into technical recession is the turning off of government support, so Hunts levers likely more powerful than BoE at cooling things off quickly.
I'd be interested to know how much the German economy had benefitted from cheap Russian gas and cheap but dirty lignite in recent years.
Its likely now paying the economic cost for the strategic risk of the first.
With possibly the economic cost of the environmental damage of the second still to come at some point.
There is some merit in the argument, over-simplified as it is of course, that the relative outperformance of the US and German economies in last decade was down to their cheaper energy.
I would be more sympathetic to the 'Russian speakers are a oppressed minority' claims if the Russian state hadn't oppressed non-Russian minorities for centuries.
That's the same kind of "remember what they did in 1845" stuff that poisoned Ireland for centuries. In any inter-ethnic rivalry there are always examples of oppression and indeed atrocities, and extremists justify oppression by pointing to the last thing the other side did. It's entirely understandable, but bystanders like us should try to avoid buying totally into either narrative and promote a lasting settlement. We should be doing all we can to prevent Ukraine being defeated, without providing unlimited assistance to endorse the "every inch of our soil is sacred and must be reconquered" stuff.
The Baltic States and Kazakhstan have sizeable Russian minorities. I’d be reluctant to set a precedent that Russia can simply hive off majority-Russian areas in neighbouring countries, in the absence of persecution.
Russia might also note the rising Chinese population in SE Siberia.
I’m curious - say Ukraine takes a chunk of Russia. Kicks all the Russians out. Does hat mean that in the interest of “peace” and “facts on the ground” the Russians should give that territory to Ukraine?
We do have these difficult problems all over the world, where identities don’t overlap with national borders. In peacetime there are ways to deal with them. War makes everything twice as hard.
Particularly difficult when a minority population is a legacy of former empire. It took me a while to clock that’s how the former Ottoman Bosnian Muslims and Kosovo Albanians were seen by the Serbs. Obviously the case too in Zimbabwe and S Africa, the pieds noirs in Algeria, the Ulster Scots, and no doubt many more.
I would be more sympathetic to the 'Russian speakers are a oppressed minority' claims if the Russian state hadn't oppressed non-Russian minorities for centuries.
That's the same kind of "remember what they did in 1845" stuff that poisoned Ireland for centuries. In any inter-ethnic rivalry there are always examples of oppression and indeed atrocities, and extremists justify oppression by pointing to the last thing the other side did. It's entirely understandable, but bystanders like us should try to avoid buying totally into either narrative and promote a lasting settlement. We should be doing all we can to prevent Ukraine being defeated, without providing unlimited assistance to endorse the "every inch of our soil is sacred and must be reconquered" stuff.
The Baltic States and Kazakhstan have sizeable Russian minorities. I’d be reluctant to set a precedent that Russia can simply hive off majority-Russian areas in neighbouring countries, in the absence of persecution.
Russia might also note the rising Chinese population in SE Siberia.
I’m curious - say Ukraine takes a chunk of Russia. Kicks all the Russians out. Does hat mean that in the interest of “peace” and “facts on the ground” the Russians should give that territory to Ukraine?
This is exactly why anyone genuinely interested in peace should want a full Ukrainian victory. The precedent set by a Russian victory (even a partial one) would be disastrous for peace, as malign countries will know they can just grab territory - and if they don't get it all, they can try again in a few years.
Which is also why Corbyn et al are not genuinely interested in peace.
I would be more sympathetic to the 'Russian speakers are a oppressed minority' claims if the Russian state hadn't oppressed non-Russian minorities for centuries.
That's the same kind of "remember what they did in 1845" stuff that poisoned Ireland for centuries. In any inter-ethnic rivalry there are always examples of oppression and indeed atrocities, and extremists justify oppression by pointing to the last thing the other side did. It's entirely understandable, but bystanders like us should try to avoid buying totally into either narrative and promote a lasting settlement. We should be doing all we can to prevent Ukraine being defeated, without providing unlimited assistance to endorse the "every inch of our soil is sacred and must be reconquered" stuff.
We should be doing all we can to prevent Ukraine being defeated, without providing unlimited assistance to endorse the "every inch of our soil is sacred and must be reconquered" stuff.
And does Ukraine get a choice in this matter ?
Not really. They are completely dependent on US money and weapons so piper, tunes, etc.
To be fair, Russia's given Ukraine a fair amount of equipment as well. I look forward to that largesse increasing in the next few weeks.
If you look at the programme of Opposition Platform - For Life it is NOT about joining Russia or ceceding from Ukraine. It does however favour Donbass autonomy. Where is the evidence for a substantial minority let alone a majority of people in any part of Ukraine wanting to be part of Russia?
Football fans are weird. "We finished fourth; let's all laugh at this team that finished fifth." "We finished fifth; let's all laugh at this team that finished second."
It was unplugged for a few minutes so someone could use a vacuum. It’s currently rebooting.
I wish that was funny.
Until a few years ago one of the key immigration systems did run from an office building next to the runways at Heathrow and it was major project to move it into a real data centre.
In slightly related matters, there might be a peace deal in the offing over the Nagorno-Karabakh region, perhaps stopping the on-off Azerbaijan/Armenian conflicts.
It looks like the deal will heavily favour Azerbaijan, as Armenia is not receiving much help from its usual helper Russia. This has upset Armenia so much that they may be leaving Russia's version of NATO, the CTSO.
In turn, this news *may* have a small effect on the Turkish presidential election second round, as Azerbaijan receives massive aid from Turkey.
If you look at the programme of Opposition Platform - For Life it is NOT about joining Russia or ceceding from Ukraine. It does however favour Donbass autonomy. Where is the evidence for a substantial minority let alone a majority of people in any part of Ukraine wanting to be part of Russia?
I am so so glad I am on a five year fixed signed just before Truss but God I am terrified about when it comes to an end
I signed a 2-year fix in Nov 2021 at 0.89% - not taking the five year was possibly the worst decision I've made in my entire life.
I will probably have to sell my soul when it comes up for renewal this November.
I know à Labour strategist who thinks Labour will be able to Truss/Kwarteng mortgages line for the next decade like the Tories did with the winter of discontent from 1979 onwards.
Musing about price increases against pay increases consider:
Monthly Income £2,000 Monthly expenditure £1,000 Wealth increase £1,000
Now say prices increase by 10% and pay by only 8% - seemingly a real terms pay cut but in monetary terms:
Monthly income £2,160 Monthly expenditure £1,100 Wealth increase £1,060
The vital thing is to have income greater than expenditure and the key determinant of that is your housing situation.
For those who have paid off their mortgages then cost of living crises should be things that happen to other people.
Good morning
You can also say increased interest rates increase saving returns including from mortgage free home owners
Indeed, there will be many PBers whose increase in savings interest is more than paying for their increase in food and energy costs.
The costs of living increases will be affecting some people badly and others not at all.
I'm not sure how previous periods of high inflation affected the country but currently there seems to be a wide spit in how people are being affected.
It's a problem for the BOE. Raising interest rates is a powerful tool for curbing demand, slowing the economy and bringing down inflation, but with fewer mortgage holders than before and more on fixed deals it means that the impact of a given rate increase may be smaller and slower to impact the economy than before. But equally, the people it does affect are going to really feel it, all the more so if the Bank has to act more strongly to offset the blunted macro impact. Although I think the BOE hasn't covered itself in glory over the last few years, I don't envy them, they've got some tough calls to make.
That is a good point, the interest rates alone won’t deliver the recession they want, the government are going to have to be a lot less generous at the same time to additionally squeeze things. main thing what’s tipped Germany into technical recession is the turning off of government support, so Hunts levers likely more powerful than BoE at cooling things off quickly.
I'd be interested to know how much the German economy had benefitted from cheap Russian gas and cheap but dirty lignite in recent years.
Its likely now paying the economic cost for the strategic risk of the first.
With possibly the economic cost of the environmental damage of the second still to come at some point.
There is some merit in the argument, over-simplified as it is of course, that the relative outperformance of the US and German economies in last decade was down to their cheaper energy.
I would be more sympathetic to the 'Russian speakers are a oppressed minority' claims if the Russian state hadn't oppressed non-Russian minorities for centuries.
That's the same kind of "remember what they did in 1845" stuff that poisoned Ireland for centuries. In any inter-ethnic rivalry there are always examples of oppression and indeed atrocities, and extremists justify oppression by pointing to the last thing the other side did. It's entirely understandable, but bystanders like us should try to avoid buying totally into either narrative and promote a lasting settlement. We should be doing all we can to prevent Ukraine being defeated, without providing unlimited assistance to endorse the "every inch of our soil is sacred and must be reconquered" stuff.
The Baltic States and Kazakhstan have sizeable Russian minorities. I’d be reluctant to set a precedent that Russia can simply hive off majority-Russian areas in neighbouring countries, in the absence of persecution.
Russia might also note the rising Chinese population in SE Siberia.
I’m curious - say Ukraine takes a chunk of Russia. Kicks all the Russians out. Does hat mean that in the interest of “peace” and “facts on the ground” the Russians should give that territory to Ukraine?
We do have these difficult problems all over the world, where identities don’t overlap with national borders. In peacetime there are ways to deal with them. War makes everything twice as hard.
Particularly difficult when a minority population is a legacy of former empire. It took me a while to clock that’s how the former Ottoman Bosnian Muslims and Kosovo Albanians were seen by the Serbs. Obviously the case too in Zimbabwe and S Africa, the pieds noirs in Algeria, the Ulster Scots, and no doubt many more.
Perhaps Neville Chamberlain thought that agreeing to the surrender of Sudetenland to Hitler in 1938 would lead to a 'lasting settlement'. Perhaps he ridiculed the idea of Czech sovereignty.
See this knife, it’s the one that’s stabbed us in the back.
Daily Mail goes full Dolchstoßlegende. This is proper fascist stuff and ought to put to bed once and for all the idea that Brexit was some kind of cathartic event. Quite the opposite - it opened the door to a new style of paranoid, post-truth politics that only gets more extreme and dangerous the more its delusions are indulged and get roughed up by reality.
These fuckers are going to be like the Japanese at Okinawa 1945 when the UK rejoins the EU.
Football fans are weird. "We finished fourth; let's all laugh at this team that finished fifth." "We finished fifth; let's all laugh at this team that finished second."
Long and lurid thread on the American healthcare racket. Literally a racket involving industrial production of fake medicines, false accounting, murder, endemic fraud and widespread killing of patients.
US healthcare is the one comparison which makes the NHS look brilliant.
US healthcare is in the UK lobby system, showing politicians the lolly and explaining they can help the crumbling and expensive UK socialised healthcare out, help bring it into the 21st century. The NHS will be replaced by the US system at some point for sure.
Running down, the unsustainable in its present form, NHS makes perfect sense if you have friends of influence in US life science and big pharma organisations.
This Chomskyite trope about "running down" services as a prelude to privatisation makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense if you believe privatisation, rather than good delivery, is the goal.
Only if you are susceptible to tenuous conspiracy theories dreamt up by loony academics.
The opposite would make much more sense as a conspiracy: flooding the NHS with public investment before selling it off on the cheap.
It's not a tenuous conspiracy theory to believe that some politicians are driven more by ideological purity and less by practical considerations or effective outcomes. You know they exist in all walks of politics.
Proving the case is rather more difficult, but the theory is much more coherent than you give credit for.
The theory depends on the idea that someone who wants to privatise the NHS needs to "manufacture consent" so they deliverately set about making the service as bad as possible, regardless of its effect on their electability. It's on a par with Chomsky's more recent thoughts on Ukraine.
The only practical effect of the theory is to make people think irrationally about government spending decisions.
But objectively speaking, sometimes certain things get a lot worse without it stopping the ruling party being elected. The response of the electorate is only a part of the calculation, if people do indeed calculate along these lines.
Likelier, it's not a matter of calculating electoral effects at all, but having an ideology and aiming at it, and worrying less about collateral damage such as the service users who need it to be working today. You know that people like this exist, and you know that there are those for whom the public or private status of this or that takes on a near-religious tenor.
The question of whether this is something that's actually happening is one question. But the idea that it could be happening is utterly sensible. To believe that it's too ridiculous to contemplate would be to have a view that politicians are somehow supremely above all this game playing nonsense and would never dream of anything other that sober honest dealings with the public. Let me gently suggest that such an analysis might find itself fragile when exposed to reality.
Just out of curiosity, can anyone clarify for me exactly why Phillip Schofield has been sacked?
Was it because: (1) He is gay (2) He was unfaithful to his wife (3) He had an affair with a colleague (4) He was asked by his employer whether he had had/was having an affair with a colleague and falsely denied it?
Musing about price increases against pay increases consider:
Monthly Income £2,000 Monthly expenditure £1,000 Wealth increase £1,000
Now say prices increase by 10% and pay by only 8% - seemingly a real terms pay cut but in monetary terms:
Monthly income £2,160 Monthly expenditure £1,100 Wealth increase £1,060
The vital thing is to have income greater than expenditure and the key determinant of that is your housing situation.
For those who have paid off their mortgages then cost of living crises should be things that happen to other people.
Good morning
You can also say increased interest rates increase saving returns including from mortgage free home owners
Indeed, there will be many PBers whose increase in savings interest is more than paying for their increase in food and energy costs.
The costs of living increases will be affecting some people badly and others not at all.
I'm not sure how previous periods of high inflation affected the country but currently there seems to be a wide spit in how people are being affected.
It's a problem for the BOE. Raising interest rates is a powerful tool for curbing demand, slowing the economy and bringing down inflation, but with fewer mortgage holders than before and more on fixed deals it means that the impact of a given rate increase may be smaller and slower to impact the economy than before. But equally, the people it does affect are going to really feel it, all the more so if the Bank has to act more strongly to offset the blunted macro impact. Although I think the BOE hasn't covered itself in glory over the last few years, I don't envy them, they've got some tough calls to make.
That is a good point, the interest rates alone won’t deliver the recession they want, the government are going to have to be a lot less generous at the same time to additionally squeeze things. main thing what’s tipped Germany into technical recession is the turning off of government support, so Hunts levers likely more powerful than BoE at cooling things off quickly.
I'd be interested to know how much the German economy had benefitted from cheap Russian gas and cheap but dirty lignite in recent years.
Its likely now paying the economic cost for the strategic risk of the first.
With possibly the economic cost of the environmental damage of the second still to come at some point.
There is some merit in the argument, over-simplified as it is of course, that the relative outperformance of the US and German economies in last decade was down to their cheaper energy.
I would be more sympathetic to the 'Russian speakers are a oppressed minority' claims if the Russian state hadn't oppressed non-Russian minorities for centuries.
That's the same kind of "remember what they did in 1845" stuff that poisoned Ireland for centuries. In any inter-ethnic rivalry there are always examples of oppression and indeed atrocities, and extremists justify oppression by pointing to the last thing the other side did. It's entirely understandable, but bystanders like us should try to avoid buying totally into either narrative and promote a lasting settlement. We should be doing all we can to prevent Ukraine being defeated, without providing unlimited assistance to endorse the "every inch of our soil is sacred and must be reconquered" stuff.
The Baltic States and Kazakhstan have sizeable Russian minorities. I’d be reluctant to set a precedent that Russia can simply hive off majority-Russian areas in neighbouring countries, in the absence of persecution.
Russia might also note the rising Chinese population in SE Siberia.
I’m curious - say Ukraine takes a chunk of Russia. Kicks all the Russians out. Does hat mean that in the interest of “peace” and “facts on the ground” the Russians should give that territory to Ukraine?
We do have these difficult problems all over the world, where identities don’t overlap with national borders. In peacetime there are ways to deal with them. War makes everything twice as hard.
Particularly difficult when a minority population is a legacy of former empire. It took me a while to clock that’s how the former Ottoman Bosnian Muslims and Kosovo Albanians were seen by the Serbs. Obviously the case too in Zimbabwe and S Africa, the pieds noirs in Algeria, the Ulster Scots, and no doubt many more.
Perhaps Neville Chamberlain thought that agreeing to the surrender of Sudetenland to Hitler in 1938 would lead to a 'lasting settlement'. Perhaps he ridiculed the idea of Czech sovereignty.
Just out of curiosity, can anyone clarify for me exactly why Phillip Schofield has been sacked?
Was it because: (1) He is gay (2) He was unfaithful to his wife (3) He had an affair with a colleague (4) He was asked by his employer whether he had had/was having an affair with a colleague and falsely denied it?
(5) an affair with someone who works directly for you is problematic.
From what I understand of the situation, a sacking doesn't sound over the top. The coverage, though, probably is.
Just out of curiosity, can anyone clarify for me exactly why Phillip Schofield has been sacked?
Was it because: (1) He is gay (2) He was unfaithful to his wife (3) He had an affair with a colleague (4) He was asked by his employer whether he had had/was having an affair with a colleague and falsely denied it?
General rule if somebody works under you then you really shouldn’t have them under you in bed without declaring it to HR.
Even if it consensual and no quid pro quo is involved.
If you look at the programme of Opposition Platform - For Life it is NOT about joining Russia or ceceding from Ukraine. It does however favour Donbass autonomy. Where is the evidence for a substantial minority let alone a majority of people in any part of Ukraine wanting to be part of Russia?
Just out of curiosity, can anyone clarify for me exactly why Phillip Schofield has been sacked?
Was it because: (1) He is gay (2) He was unfaithful to his wife (3) He had an affair with a colleague (4) He was asked by his employer whether he had had/was having an affair with a colleague and falsely denied it?
General rule if somebody works under you then you really shouldn’t have them under you in bed without declaring it to HR.
Even if it consensual and no quid pro quo is involved.
I am so so glad I am on a five year fixed signed just before Truss but God I am terrified about when it comes to an end
I signed a 2-year fix in Nov 2021 at 0.89% - not taking the five year was possibly the worst decision I've made in my entire life.
I will probably have to sell my soul when it comes up for renewal this November.
I know à Labour strategist who thinks Labour will be able to Truss/Kwarteng mortgages line for the next decade like the Tories did with the winter of discontent from 1979 onwards.
It was a massive own goal, even if such high interest rates would have been reached eventually anyway.
Just out of curiosity, can anyone clarify for me exactly why Phillip Schofield has been sacked?
Was it because: (1) He is gay (2) He was unfaithful to his wife (3) He had an affair with a colleague (4) He was asked by his employer whether he had had/was having an affair with a colleague and falsely denied it?
General rule if somebody works under you then you really shouldn’t have them under you in bed without declaring it to HR.
Even if it consensual and no quid pro quo is involved.
Is it ok if they're on top?
No.
Some of us even have contracts of employment which specifically enjoin us from from pursuing underlings.
The types of injury led MSF medics to conclude that the border fence, completed last June, was “dangerous.”
An MSF spokesperson later identified numerous cases of potentially infectious biological deposits found in the forests of western Belarus: "we think it's ursine faecal matter."
Just out of curiosity, can anyone clarify for me exactly why Phillip Schofield has been sacked?
Was it because: (1) He is gay (2) He was unfaithful to his wife (3) He had an affair with a colleague (4) He was asked by his employer whether he had had/was having an affair with a colleague and falsely denied it?
General rule if somebody works under you then you really shouldn’t have them under you in bed without declaring it to HR.
Even if it consensual and no quid pro quo is involved.
Is it ok if they're on top?
No.
Some of us even have contracts of employment which specifically enjoin us from from pursuing underlings.
This week's bot was almost impressive. Ranting about woke in schools. How democracy is failing. How strong leadership is needed.
We sure he is a Russian bot? And not one of the NatC speakers? TBH I look at some of the GBeebies people on Twitter and they don't sound much different.
This was one of Mayfair's comments:
"We can avoid recession if we admit 1 million immigrants next year."
Does it have a ring of truth?
I don't know, but it doesn't sound like the sort of thing anyone on GB News might say.
The types of injury led MSF medics to conclude that the border fence, completed last June, was “dangerous.”
An MSF spokesperson later identified numerous cases of potentially infectious biological deposits found in the forests of western Belarus: "we think it's ursine faecal matter."
MSF might be better off criticising Russia and Belarus for their weaponisation of migration; flying migrants to Belarus and then taking them to the border.
It should be treated as an international people-smuggling crime.
The types of injury led MSF medics to conclude that the border fence, completed last June, was “dangerous.”
An MSF spokesperson later identified numerous cases of potentially infectious biological deposits found in the forests of western Belarus: "we think it's ursine faecal matter."
MSF might be better off criticising Russia and Belarus for their weaponisation of migration; flying migrants to Belarus and then taking them to the border.
It should be treated as an international people-smuggling crime.
Completely agree. It just seemed a bit strange to describe a 5 metre high razor-wire fence as "dangerous".
Just out of curiosity, can anyone clarify for me exactly why Phillip Schofield has been sacked?
Was it because: (1) He is gay (2) He was unfaithful to his wife (3) He had an affair with a colleague (4) He was asked by his employer whether he had had/was having an affair with a colleague and falsely denied it?
General rule if somebody works under you then you really shouldn’t have them under you in bed without declaring it to HR.
Even if it consensual and no quid pro quo is involved.
Is it ok if they're on top?
No.
Some of us even have contracts of employment which specifically enjoin us from from pursuing underlings.
Just out of curiosity, can anyone clarify for me exactly why Phillip Schofield has been sacked?
Was it because: (1) He is gay (2) He was unfaithful to his wife (3) He had an affair with a colleague (4) He was asked by his employer whether he had had/was having an affair with a colleague and falsely denied it?
General rule if somebody works under you then you really shouldn’t have them under you in bed without declaring it to HR.
Even if it consensual and no quid pro quo is involved.
So has it been stated that the colleague he had an affair with "worked under him", or are you just assuming that?
Just out of curiosity, can anyone clarify for me exactly why Phillip Schofield has been sacked?
Was it because: (1) He is gay (2) He was unfaithful to his wife (3) He had an affair with a colleague (4) He was asked by his employer whether he had had/was having an affair with a colleague and falsely denied it?
(5) an affair with someone who works directly for you is problematic.
From what I understand of the situation, a sacking doesn't sound over the top. The coverage, though, probably is.
Did the person work directly for him? In Schofield's statement, he is just described as a younger male colleague.
Schofield was just a presenter, wasn't he? Would a presenter normally have other staff working under him, unless in some personal capacity?
Just out of curiosity, can anyone clarify for me exactly why Phillip Schofield has been sacked?
Was it because: (1) He is gay (2) He was unfaithful to his wife (3) He had an affair with a colleague (4) He was asked by his employer whether he had had/was having an affair with a colleague and falsely denied it?
General rule if somebody works under you then you really shouldn’t have them under you in bed without declaring it to HR.
Even if it consensual and no quid pro quo is involved.
So has it been stated that the colleague he had an affair with "worked under him", or are you just assuming that?
Schofield got the boy the job - which puts them in a situation I would expect HR to be concerned about. E.g. what if the boy felt pressured into a relationship because of being got the job?
Schofield was also a 'star' of the show - and therefore had a certain power over the non-talent. As a certain PBer might say...
Just out of curiosity, can anyone clarify for me exactly why Phillip Schofield has been sacked?
Was it because: (1) He is gay (2) He was unfaithful to his wife (3) He had an affair with a colleague (4) He was asked by his employer whether he had had/was having an affair with a colleague and falsely denied it?
(5) an affair with someone who works directly for you is problematic.
From what I understand of the situation, a sacking doesn't sound over the top. The coverage, though, probably is.
Did the person work directly for him? In Schofield's statement, he is just described as a younger male colleague.
Schofield was just a presenter, wasn't he? Would a presenter normally have other staff working under him, unless in some personal capacity?
As I understand it, yes. I may be wrong. Schofield's statement would naturally not seek to emphasise that fact, if it is a fact.
Just out of curiosity, can anyone clarify for me exactly why Phillip Schofield has been sacked?
Was it because: (1) He is gay (2) He was unfaithful to his wife (3) He had an affair with a colleague (4) He was asked by his employer whether he had had/was having an affair with a colleague and falsely denied it?
General rule if somebody works under you then you really shouldn’t have them under you in bed without declaring it to HR.
Even if it consensual and no quid pro quo is involved.
Is it ok if they're on top?
No.
Some of us even have contracts of employment which specifically enjoin us from from pursuing underlings.
Enjoin? Sounds kinky.
I love the word enjoin.
It has two contradictory meanings.
And that's why you cleave to it. Because it cleaves into two distinct meanings.
If you look at the programme of Opposition Platform - For Life it is NOT about joining Russia or ceceding from Ukraine. It does however favour Donbass autonomy. Where is the evidence for a substantial minority let alone a majority of people in any part of Ukraine wanting to be part of Russia?
That's fascinating polling: in 2022, before the invasion, just 9% of Ukrainians thought Russia and Ukraine should be one country.
And even in the far east of the country, the number is just 18%.
The figures are very similar to those in the 1991 Independence referendum.
They have long and different histories. Ukraine started as the Kyivan Rus in the 800s. It was a centre of civilization, with a federal system and constitutional nature. It prospered by trade between the Norse Kingdoms and the Roman Empire during the Byzantine era.
The Duchy of Moscow didn't even begin until five centuries late. It was a remote backwater and tribal monarchy. It achieved no status on its own but after the Mongol conquest, became the main town in that region as the Mongols used it as an administrative base for the region. It rapidly became a collaborationist state, helping the Mongols oppress her fellow Slavs. Moscow embraced Asian despotism and a role in economically exploiting her neighbours as tax collectors for the Tatar yoke, taking its own slice of the cash. Using that money it launched a campaign of brutal conquest, annexing peaceful trading republics. When it got big enough, it stole the name of the Rus and unduly laid claim to its history.
If you look at the programme of Opposition Platform - For Life it is NOT about joining Russia or ceceding from Ukraine. It does however favour Donbass autonomy. Where is the evidence for a substantial minority let alone a majority of people in any part of Ukraine wanting to be part of Russia?
That's fascinating polling: in 2022, before the invasion, just 9% of Ukrainians thought Russia and Ukraine should be one country.
And even in the far east of the country, the number is just 18%.
The figures are very similar to those in the 1991 Independence referendum.
They have long and different histories. Ukraine started as the Kyivan Rus in the 800s. It was a centre of civilization, with a federal system and constitutional nature. It prospered by trade between the Norse Kingdoms and the Roman Empire during the Byzantine era.
The Duchy of Moscow didn't even begin until five centuries late. It was a remote backwater and tribal monarchy. It achieved no status on its own but after the Mongol conquest, became the main town in that region as the Mongols used it as an administrative base for the region. It rapidly became a collaborationist state, helping the Mongols oppress her fellow Slavs. Moscow embraced Asian despotism and a role in economically exploiting her neighbours as tax collectors for the Tatar yoke, taking its own slice of the cash. Using that money it launched a campaign of brutal conquest, annexing peaceful trading republics. When it got big enough, it stole the name of the Rus and unduly laid claim to its history.
Just out of curiosity, can anyone clarify for me exactly why Phillip Schofield has been sacked?
Was it because: (1) He is gay (2) He was unfaithful to his wife (3) He had an affair with a colleague (4) He was asked by his employer whether he had had/was having an affair with a colleague and falsely denied it?
(5) an affair with someone who works directly for you is problematic.
From what I understand of the situation, a sacking doesn't sound over the top. The coverage, though, probably is.
Did the person work directly for him? In Schofield's statement, he is just described as a younger male colleague.
Schofield was just a presenter, wasn't he? Would a presenter normally have other staff working under him, unless in some personal capacity?
Just out of curiosity, can anyone clarify for me exactly why Phillip Schofield has been sacked?
Was it because: (1) He is gay (2) He was unfaithful to his wife (3) He had an affair with a colleague (4) He was asked by his employer whether he had had/was having an affair with a colleague and falsely denied it?
(5) an affair with someone who works directly for you is problematic.
From what I understand of the situation, a sacking doesn't sound over the top. The coverage, though, probably is.
Did the person work directly for him? In Schofield's statement, he is just described as a younger male colleague.
Schofield was just a presenter, wasn't he? Would a presenter normally have other staff working under him, unless in some personal capacity?
As I understand it, yes. I may be wrong.
You don't know the answer, then?
No, I'm conveying what I've heard, not what I'm certain about. The purpose of the phrase "From what I understand of the situation" and "I may be wrong." is to make that clear.
Just out of curiosity, can anyone clarify for me exactly why Phillip Schofield has been sacked?
Was it because: (1) He is gay (2) He was unfaithful to his wife (3) He had an affair with a colleague (4) He was asked by his employer whether he had had/was having an affair with a colleague and falsely denied it?
(5) an affair with someone who works directly for you is problematic.
From what I understand of the situation, a sacking doesn't sound over the top. The coverage, though, probably is.
Did the person work directly for him? In Schofield's statement, he is just described as a younger male colleague.
Schofield was just a presenter, wasn't he? Would a presenter normally have other staff working under him, unless in some personal capacity?
As I understand it, yes. I may be wrong.
You don't know the answer, then?
No, I'm conveying what I've heard, not what I'm certain about. The purpose of the phrase "From what I understand of the situation" and "I may be wrong." is to make that clear.
I think what I'm trying to get at is "Have you heard anything more than Phillip Schofield said in his statement?"
I went to a performance of Missa Solemnis; also quite trippy in a very loud way. You can tell Beethoven was deaf and half mad when he wrote it. Anything but solemnis.
This week's bot was almost impressive. Ranting about woke in schools. How democracy is failing. How strong leadership is needed.
We sure he is a Russian bot? And not one of the NatC speakers? TBH I look at some of the GBeebies people on Twitter and they don't sound much different.
I took as much gay propaganda and perversion I could to school, but the teachers didn’t like it at all. Not one bit. I like to think this has changed in just a dozen years, but strongly suspect the Nat-C’s and GBeebies are completely wrong on this. What a load of hopeful rubbish SovBot’s spout. 👭
Colonel "Bat" Guano: I think you're some kind of deviated prevert. I think General Ripper found out about your preversion, and that you were organizing some kind of mutiny of preverts.
Comments
We should remember that the Party of Regions President Yanukyovich only got elected on the basis of doing an agreement with the EU which of course he reneged on. Over 80% of both Donbass regions voted to leave the Soviet Union. Crimea I would accept is trickier. I have no more sympathy for the increasingly geriatric types in Eastern Ukraine who want the Soviet Union back as I do for whites in South Africa wanting the return of the British Empire. If they are so keen on being Russian they should go and live there.
And does Ukraine get a choice in this matter ?
They might feel to accept the second part of your sentence would mean that they had been defeated.
And should Russia have to secede any territory to achieve your brave new world ?
Ethnic Ukrainian villages on the Russian side of the border ?
Kaliningrad - surely a strategic threat to Poland and the Baltic countries ?
Kurile Islands ?
Ethnic nations in Siberia or the Caucasus ?
This corrupts debate on both health and education, but the other way round for each.
May also give a hint as to why France has done economically relatively well since the invasion, with its once much more expensive but now comparatively price-competitive nuclear power.
Doesn’t explain South Korea though.
I will probably have to sell my soul when it comes up for renewal this November.
Russia's played this terribly from day one.
It's also important to note that countries don't buy gas: German power and industrial companies entered into purchase agreements with Russian and Norwegian energy companies. Some will have been on long-term fixed price contracts, but most were based on benchmark natural gas prices (sometimes with an oil price kicker.)
May also give a hint as to why Franc
Doesn’t explain South Korea though. We do have these difficult problems all over the world, where identities don’t overlap with national borders. In peacetime there are ways to deal with them. War makes everything twice as hard.
Particularly difficult when a minority population is a legacy of former empire. It took me a while to clock that’s how the former Ottoman Bosnian Muslims and Kosovo Albanians were seen by the Serbs. Obviously the case too in Zimbabwe and S Africa, the pieds noirs in Algeria, the Ulster Scots, and no doubt many more.
Which is also why Corbyn et al are not genuinely interested in peace.
"We finished fourth; let's all laugh at this team that finished fifth."
"We finished fifth; let's all laugh at this team that finished second."
Until a few years ago one of the key immigration systems did run from an office building next to the runways at Heathrow and it was major project to move it into a real data centre.
It looks like the deal will heavily favour Azerbaijan, as Armenia is not receiving much help from its usual helper Russia. This has upset Armenia so much that they may be leaving Russia's version of NATO, the CTSO.
In turn, this news *may* have a small effect on the Turkish presidential election second round, as Azerbaijan receives massive aid from Turkey.
Meanwhile outside Old Trafford.
Likelier, it's not a matter of calculating electoral effects at all, but having an ideology and aiming at it, and worrying less about collateral damage such as the service users who need it to be working today. You know that people like this exist, and you know that there are those for whom the public or private status of this or that takes on a near-religious tenor.
The question of whether this is something that's actually happening is one question. But the idea that it could be happening is utterly sensible. To believe that it's too ridiculous to contemplate would be to have a view that politicians are somehow supremely above all this game playing nonsense and would never dream of anything other that sober honest dealings with the public. Let me gently suggest that such an analysis might find itself fragile when exposed to reality.
Was it because:
(1) He is gay
(2) He was unfaithful to his wife
(3) He had an affair with a colleague
(4) He was asked by his employer whether he had had/was having an affair with a colleague and falsely denied it?
Was I think the crucial phrase!
From what I understand of the situation, a sacking doesn't sound over the top. The coverage, though, probably is.
Even if it consensual and no quid pro quo is involved.
And even in the far east of the country, the number is just 18%.
The figures are very similar to those in the 1991 Independence referendum.
Some of us even have contracts of employment which specifically enjoin us from from pursuing underlings.
The types of injury led MSF medics to conclude that the border fence, completed last June, was “dangerous.”
An MSF spokesperson later identified numerous cases of potentially infectious biological deposits found in the forests of western Belarus: "we think it's ursine faecal matter."
It should be treated as an international people-smuggling crime.
It just seemed a bit strange to describe a 5 metre high razor-wire fence as "dangerous".
It has two contradictory meanings.
Schofield was just a presenter, wasn't he? Would a presenter normally have other staff working under him, unless in some personal capacity?
Schofield was also a 'star' of the show - and therefore had a certain power over the non-talent. As a certain PBer might say...
Schofield's statement would naturally not seek to emphasise that fact, if it is a fact.
The Duchy of Moscow didn't even begin until five centuries late. It was a remote backwater and tribal monarchy. It achieved no status on its own but after the Mongol conquest, became the main town in that region as the Mongols used it as an administrative base for the region. It rapidly became a collaborationist state, helping the Mongols oppress her fellow Slavs. Moscow embraced Asian despotism and a role in economically exploiting her neighbours as tax collectors for the Tatar yoke, taking its own slice of the cash. Using that money it launched a campaign of brutal conquest, annexing peaceful trading republics. When it got big enough, it stole the name of the Rus and unduly laid claim to its history.
This thread has abdicated
But never mind.
You can tell Beethoven was deaf and half mad when he wrote it. Anything but solemnis.