I have been in near constant pain in my right leg since before Easter which has sometimes caused me complete immobility. Driving has been difficult. Physio only provided temporary alleviation. I was referred for an X-ray which finally happened last week.
This morning I have tried contacting my surgery to get an appointment with the GP to find out the results. After 35 minutes on the phone I finally get through. X-results still not back but I have a GP appointment in mid-June. So I just have to pray that the results will be back by then so that I can get an idea of what the problem is and, maybe, even start the process of waiting to get treatment.
Stoicism and/or opiate addiction. That seems the choice on offer from the NHS these days.
Meanwhile I have decided to tackle some brutal overgrown brambles in the back garden, with just my arms, gloves and secateurs. Plus a lot of sweat - it is pretty hot here. It's like doing battle with Edward Scissorhands. Heist knows how I go about getting the roots out though the mattock my other half gave me as a birthday present (I married the last romantic in Cumbria) may help.
I really need a strong gardener to assist. You'd have thought in such an area there would be plenty of gardening companies to assist - from some simple design ideas to doing the harder jobs & general maintenance etc.,. But no. It is an obvious gap in the market and should I get through my current vale of tears I may look into setting one up. There are lots of keen gardeners around but also a lot of older folks so you'd have thought there'd be the need.
Has anyone who loves the NHS ever lived in another country? It’s totally bonkers to have to wait months for scans and results, and must be costing the country billions in time off work.
The comment I had from a private consultant was the mistake the NHS makes in cases like this (I had something not dissimilar) is not doing all the possible scans and tests up front. Then sending them through the to the various consultants.
I had an X ray, MRI and nerve conduction study in 2 days. Privately. They apologised for not doing them on the same day.
Perhaps the single biggest value for money in the NHS, would be training up more radiologists to keep that expensive capital equipment running as long as possible. In an ideal world, like where I live, most MRI and CT scanners operate on a drop-in basis. You get a referral from the doc, and go stand in line for a few minutes.
How are they owned and operated? Is imaging run as a separate service?
Privately operated, either inside the larger hospitals, or run as a separate service for the smaller clinics to refer patients. Last time I had a CT, I think I paid £50 and my insurance paid £200.
It’s a scandal that the NHS runs expensive pieces of capital equipment for eight hours a day, five days a week. A commercial operator runs them for 16 hours a day, seven days a week, and does maintainance overnight. Because of course they do.
Our national faith only allows high priests of the religion to make such decisions on our behalf. They know best. Always.
I have been in near constant pain in my right leg since before Easter which has sometimes caused me complete immobility. Driving has been difficult. Physio only provided temporary alleviation. I was referred for an X-ray which finally happened last week.
This morning I have tried contacting my surgery to get an appointment with the GP to find out the results. After 35 minutes on the phone I finally get through. X-results still not back but I have a GP appointment in mid-June. So I just have to pray that the results will be back by then so that I can get an idea of what the problem is and, maybe, even start the process of waiting to get treatment.
Stoicism and/or opiate addiction. That seems the choice on offer from the NHS these days.
Meanwhile I have decided to tackle some brutal overgrown brambles in the back garden, with just my arms, gloves and secateurs. Plus a lot of sweat - it is pretty hot here. It's like doing battle with Edward Scissorhands. Heist knows how I go about getting the roots out though the mattock my other half gave me as a birthday present (I married the last romantic in Cumbria) may help.
I really need a strong gardener to assist. You'd have thought in such an area there would be plenty of gardening companies to assist - from some simple design ideas to doing the harder jobs & general maintenance etc.,. But no. It is an obvious gap in the market and should I get through my current vale of tears I may look into setting one up. There are lots of keen gardeners around but also a lot of older folks so you'd have thought there'd be the need.
Has anyone who loves the NHS ever lived in another country? It’s totally bonkers to have to wait months for scans and results, and must be costing the country billions in time off work.
The comment I had from a private consultant was the mistake the NHS makes in cases like this (I had something not dissimilar) is not doing all the possible scans and tests up front. Then sending them through the to the various consultants.
I had an X ray, MRI and nerve conduction study in 2 days. Privately. They apologised for not doing them on the same day.
Perhaps the single biggest value for money in the NHS, would be training up more radiologists to keep that expensive capital equipment running as long as possible. In an ideal world, like where I live, most MRI and CT scanners operate on a drop-in basis. You get a referral from the doc, and go stand in line for a few minutes.
How are they owned and operated? Is imaging run as a separate service?
Privately operated, either inside the larger hospitals, or run as a separate service for the smaller clinics to refer patients. Last time I had a CT, I think I paid £50 and my insurance paid £200.
It’s a scandal that the NHS runs expensive pieces of capital equipment for eight hours a day, five days a week. A commercial operator runs them for 16 hours a day, seven days a week, and does maintainance overnight. Because of course they do.
It seems like an unnecessary bottleneck in the NHS at the moment. People can wait months for a basic scan that could easily be performed by a private operator without compromising the patient's experience of the NHS model in any way.
Sunak takes the Tories back to 1997 levels of 165 MPs with Nowcast after the sub 50 seats Truss was heading for. Smaller Starmer majority than Blair got though at 134 Nowcast Model + Interactive Map (31/05):
The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.
You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."
*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.
And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?
Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.
Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.
The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.
It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.
The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.
The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.
You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."
*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.
And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?
Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.
Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.
The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.
It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.
The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.
I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.
This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.
Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades
Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics
What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.
The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.
Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.
We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?
The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).
I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.
And once the British left most of Ireland (after an early terror campaign by the IRA including murdering British soldiers and government officials and burning down homes of Anglo Irish nobility) Catholicism dominated Irish society in such a way that divorce, abortion and homosexuality remained illegal in the Republic of Ireland long after they had been legalised in mainland GB.
My mother reckons that being a Protestant in 1940's and 1950's Dublin was much better than being a Catholic, because the Catholic Church was indifferent to you, being convinced that you were going to hell, anyway. They took a lot of interest in the Catholics however, and that was not good news for the Catholics.
I was somewhat shocked to read that de Valera essentially aspired to run Ireland as a Catholic theocracy.
After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century, certainly until the Soviet block fell
Close call with Franco's Spain. Especially considering the number of Opus Dei members who were ministers at various times.
This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.
Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades
Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics
What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.
The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.
Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.
We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?
The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).
I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.
And once the British left most of Ireland (after an early terror campaign by the IRA including murdering British soldiers and government officials and burning down homes of Anglo Irish nobility) Catholicism dominated Irish society in such a way that divorce, abortion and homosexuality remained illegal in the Republic of Ireland long after they had been legalised in mainland GB.
My mother reckons that being a Protestant in 1940's and 1950's Dublin was much better than being a Catholic, because the Catholic Church was indifferent to you, being convinced that you were going to hell, anyway. They took a lot of interest in the Catholics however, and that was not good news for the Catholics.
I was somewhat shocked to read that de Valera essentially aspired to run Ireland as a Catholic theocracy.
I think that would have been a "good luck with that idea" moment. I think a lot of English people are quite shocked to discover that while there are a small number of RC zealots in Ireland, the majority of Irish people see the Catholic Church as part of their identity but something to be ignored when inconvenient. A little how most southern European governments see the EU; the rules are only for the obeyance of fools.
Well I think that's the case now. I think Catholicism was rather more important to Irish people 100 years ago.
Without the benefit of a time machine I cannot agree or disagree. What I do know is that historical anti-Catholic sentiment in UK mainland makes people believe that Catholicism is rigorously adhered to by its flock, rather like some other religious fundamentalists, when in practice this is a very long way from the truth, particularly in Ireland.
Religion was more important to everyone in the Western world at that time.
Indeed, the sense that this was slipping away was a big motivator for the Forward To The Past ideas of De Valera - who coopted the power of the Catholic Church on the basis that together they could save Ireland from Sin.
Certainly, for many years, Catholicism and rigid adherence to it was woven into the daily life of the Irish State.
The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.
You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."
*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.
And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?
Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.
Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.
The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.
It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.
The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.
I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.
Sunak takes the Tories back to 1997 levels of 165 MPs with Nowcast after the sub 50 seats Truss was heading for. Smaller Starmer majority than Blair got though at 134 Nowcast Model + Interactive Map (31/05):
Sunak takes the Tories back to 1997 levels of 165 MPs with Nowcast after the sub 50 seats Truss was heading for. Smaller Starmer majority than Blair got though at 134 Nowcast Model + Interactive Map (31/05):
The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.
You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."
*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.
And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?
Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.
Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.
The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.
It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.
The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.
I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.
But they only need that supply of weapons until the Russians are defeated, or decide to retreat (ala Afghanistan). It's not surprising that pro-Russian shills are desperately calling out for negotiations now based on the current lines; they're aware that the Ukrainians have a significant offensive force being developed, whilst they have little to counter that.
Now, it's perfectly possible that the Ukrainian offensive will be a busted flush. But importantly, it appears that the Ukrainians are willing to risk the lives of many of their people in order to regain their land. Calling for negotiations now is just asking Ukraine to be defeated by fascism. If Ukraine decides for negotiations themselves; fair enough.
More, Nick's thinking is mind-bendingly stupid if you want wider peace. Such territorial land grabs are a great risk for world peace; if Russia is seen as having 'gained' in Ukraine (*), then it just encourages other countries to perform similar adventures. In terms of world peace, a Russian 'defeat' is vital. We should have pushed back on Russia much harder after Crimea; not appeased them.
(*) It's not a zero-sum game; Russia may play a gain in territory as a 'win' (as they did in Crimea in 2014); but the damage to their economy, their military, and their reputation is massive.
The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.
You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."
*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.
And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?
Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.
Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.
The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.
It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.
The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.
I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.
The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.
You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."
*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.
And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?
Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.
Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.
The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.
It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.
The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.
I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.
Russia does not have an unlimited capacity to throw men and materiel into Ukraine.
The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.
You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."
*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.
And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?
Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.
Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.
The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.
It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.
The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.
I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.
Russia does not have an unlimited capacity to throw men and materiel into Ukraine.
The combined West has a much closer to unlimited capacity, to throw materiel and training at the Ukranians. (And maybe a few very good men!)
Sunak takes the Tories back to 1997 levels of 165 MPs with Nowcast after the sub 50 seats Truss was heading for. Smaller Starmer majority than Blair got though at 134 Nowcast Model + Interactive Map (31/05):
Big news: country where women have done most to explain how sex-denialism is incompatible with women's and gay people's rights, sex-denialism is least popular
Minutes before the deadline for handing over Johnson's messages, diaries, and notebooks to the inquiry, Sunak says the government is still "carefully considering next steps".
The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.
You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."
*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.
And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?
Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.
Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.
The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.
It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.
The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.
I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.
Russia does not have an unlimited capacity to throw men and materiel into Ukraine.
There are already reports of severe labour shortages in certain sectors in Russia. It's not just young men (and not just the young...) being sent to the front; there's also been a significant brain drain amongst the mobile.
I fear Putin and the top bods in Russia just think back to the Great Patriotic War, when they could mobilise millions of men to fight the war. The issue with that is that Russia's economy has changed. Back then, Russia's agricultural workforce was massive (as it was in many countries - see (1). This meant policies of semi-starvation, plus millions of tons of food from the west, freed up vast numbers of agricultural workers to fight or work in the factories.
Modern economies employ far fewer people in agricultural endeavours, and many, many more in semi- and highly-skilled parts of the economy. These are hard to train and replace, and the interrelated nature of technology means that production shortfalls can have large effects elsewhere in the economy.
TLDR; Russia doesn't have that many men to throw into battle, relatively speaking.
In all seriousness, (1) is a fascinating chart. Look at how few people the UK employed in agriculture in 1930 compared to our competitors.
Minutes before the deadline for handing over Johnson's messages, diaries, and notebooks to the inquiry, Sunak says the government is still "carefully considering next steps".
What’s going on here then, it’s obviously something that makes Sunak look bad.
That said, there does need to be some sort of an agreement that casual messages won’t end up published. The point of the inquiry is to learn lessons, not to castigate individuals. Publishing messages will mean that the next emergency leaves government totally flat-footed, as they all primarily consider how they come across to the inquiry.
The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.
You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."
*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.
And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?
Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.
Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.
The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.
It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.
The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.
I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.
Ukraine will I think have a choice. Just having a choice is huge achievement by Ukraine, but it might be a grim choice. I also think Ukraine has a good chance of imposing a cost on Russia for its occupation that Russia ultimately will be unwilling to pay.
Problem is, Ukraine might be ruined in the process. Challenge is Ukraine getting a settlement it can live with and then go onto be a successful country.
This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.
Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades
Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics
What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.
The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.
Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.
We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?
The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).
I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.
And once the British left most of Ireland (after an early terror campaign by the IRA including murdering British soldiers and government officials and burning down homes of Anglo Irish nobility) Catholicism dominated Irish society in such a way that divorce, abortion and homosexuality remained illegal in the Republic of Ireland long after they had been legalised in mainland GB.
My mother reckons that being a Protestant in 1940's and 1950's Dublin was much better than being a Catholic, because the Catholic Church was indifferent to you, being convinced that you were going to hell, anyway. They took a lot of interest in the Catholics however, and that was not good news for the Catholics.
I was somewhat shocked to read that de Valera essentially aspired to run Ireland as a Catholic theocracy.
After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century, certainly until the Soviet block fell
Close call with Franco's Spain. Especially considering the number of Opus Dei members who were ministers at various times.
Opus Dei ministers were, comparitively speaking, the liberals among Franco's ministers. Their main concern was getting the economy functioning again.
The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.
You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."
*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.
And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?
Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.
Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.
The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.
It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.
The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.
I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.
Russia does not have an unlimited capacity to throw men and materiel into Ukraine.
There are already reports of severe labour shortages in certain sectors in Russia. It's not just young men (and not just the young...) being sent to the front; there's also been a significant brain drain amongst the mobile.
I fear Putin and the top bods in Russia just think back to the Great Patriotic War, when they could mobilise millions of men to fight the war. The issue with that is that Russia's economy has changed. Back then, Russia's agricultural workforce was massive (as it was in many countries - see (1). This meant policies of semi-starvation, plus millions of tons of food from the west, freed up vast numbers of agricultural workers to fight or work in the factories.
Modern economies employ far fewer people in agricultural endeavours, and many, many more in semi- and highly-skilled parts of the economy. These are hard to train and replace, and the interrelated nature of technology means that production shortfalls can have large effects elsewhere in the economy.
TLDR; Russia doesn't have that many men to throw into battle, relatively speaking.
In all seriousness, (1) is a fascinating chart. Look at how few people the UK employed in agriculture in 1930 compared to our competitors.
The other thing that Putin forgets (or more likely chooses to ignore) is the vast flow of materiel from the UK, and then the USA, delivered on UK merchant and allied ships to the USSR. The "USSR won WWII" is a myth - the allies won - with Allied materiel and USSR/Allied manpower. Only a fool believes his own propaganda.
Minutes before the deadline for handing over Johnson's messages, diaries, and notebooks to the inquiry, Sunak says the government is still "carefully considering next steps".
This Tuesday the COVID enquiry handed the British Government a Final Note stating that unless we heard from them by 4 o'clock that they were prepared at once to hand over the notebooks and WhatsApps a state of war would exist between us. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this enquiry is at war with Rishi Sunak.
The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.
You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."
*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.
And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?
Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.
Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.
The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.
It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.
The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.
I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.
But they only need that supply of weapons until the Russians are defeated, or decide to retreat (ala Afghanistan). It's not surprising that pro-Russian shills are desperately calling out for negotiations now based on the current lines; they're aware that the Ukrainians have a significant offensive force being developed, whilst they have little to counter that.
Now, it's perfectly possible that the Ukrainian offensive will be a busted flush. But importantly, it appears that the Ukrainians are willing to risk the lives of many of their people in order to regain their land. Calling for negotiations now is just asking Ukraine to be defeated by fascism. If Ukraine decides for negotiations themselves; fair enough.
More, Nick's thinking is mind-bendingly stupid if you want wider peace. Such territorial land grabs are a great risk for world peace; if Russia is seen as having 'gained' in Ukraine (*), then it just encourages other countries to perform similar adventures. In terms of world peace, a Russian 'defeat' is vital. We should have pushed back on Russia much harder after Crimea; not appeased them.
(*) It's not a zero-sum game; Russia may play a gain in territory as a 'win' (as they did in Crimea in 2014); but the damage to their economy, their military, and their reputation is massive.
TBF they had already done similar in Georgia, albeit resulting in occupied client 'states'.
Astonishing . No 10 is refusing to hand over the information requested by its own Covid Inquiry . So in effect this ends up in legal action in which they intend to use the Human Rights Act as defence , the same act many Tories want to get rid of .
Utter vomit inducing hypocrisy and this looks appalling to most of the public .
The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.
You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."
*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.
And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?
Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.
Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.
The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.
It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.
The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.
I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.
But they only need that supply of weapons until the Russians are defeated, or decide to retreat (ala Afghanistan). It's not surprising that pro-Russian shills are desperately calling out for negotiations now based on the current lines; they're aware that the Ukrainians have a significant offensive force being developed, whilst they have little to counter that.
Now, it's perfectly possible that the Ukrainian offensive will be a busted flush. But importantly, it appears that the Ukrainians are willing to risk the lives of many of their people in order to regain their land. Calling for negotiations now is just asking Ukraine to be defeated by fascism. If Ukraine decides for negotiations themselves; fair enough.
More, Nick's thinking is mind-bendingly stupid if you want wider peace. Such territorial land grabs are a great risk for world peace; if Russia is seen as having 'gained' in Ukraine (*), then it just encourages other countries to perform similar adventures. In terms of world peace, a Russian 'defeat' is vital. We should have pushed back on Russia much harder after Crimea; not appeased them.
(*) It's not a zero-sum game; Russia may play a gain in territory as a 'win' (as they did in Crimea in 2014); but the damage to their economy, their military, and their reputation is massive.
TBF they had already done similar in Georgia, albeit resulting in occupied client 'states'.
Indeed. And out response to that was lamentable as well.
The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.
You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."
*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.
And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?
Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.
Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.
The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.
It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.
The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.
I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.
Ukraine will I think have a choice. Just having a choice is huge achievement by Ukraine, but it might be a grim choice. I also think Ukraine has a good chance of imposing a cost on Russia for its occupation that Russia ultimately will be unwilling to pay.
Problem is, Ukraine might be ruined in the process. Challenge is Ukraine getting a settlement it can live with and then go onto be a successful country.
Ukraine has $1trn of international goodwill heading its way, once the war is over. Some of which may have been confiscated from a bunch of Russian oligarchs.
Russia has $1trn of sanctions, that are going to remain in place for years after the formal war ends.
Which country would you want to live in, as a resident of a border town?
The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.
You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."
*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.
And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?
Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.
Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.
The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.
It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.
The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.
I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.
Russia does not have an unlimited capacity to throw men and materiel into Ukraine.
But it does have something Ukraine doesn't have and isn't likely to get: a large stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons. For some reason, there seems to be a widespread belief that Putin wouldn't be mad enough to use them. I'm not so sure. He's not exactly got form for rational decision-making.
I have been in near constant pain in my right leg since before Easter which has sometimes caused me complete immobility. Driving has been difficult. Physio only provided temporary alleviation. I was referred for an X-ray which finally happened last week.
This morning I have tried contacting my surgery to get an appointment with the GP to find out the results. After 35 minutes on the phone I finally get through. X-results still not back but I have a GP appointment in mid-June. So I just have to pray that the results will be back by then so that I can get an idea of what the problem is and, maybe, even start the process of waiting to get treatment.
Stoicism and/or opiate addiction. That seems the choice on offer from the NHS these days.
Meanwhile I have decided to tackle some brutal overgrown brambles in the back garden, with just my arms, gloves and secateurs. Plus a lot of sweat - it is pretty hot here. It's like doing battle with Edward Scissorhands. Heist knows how I go about getting the roots out though the mattock my other half gave me as a birthday present (I married the last romantic in Cumbria) may help.
I really need a strong gardener to assist. You'd have thought in such an area there would be plenty of gardening companies to assist - from some simple design ideas to doing the harder jobs & general maintenance etc.,. But no. It is an obvious gap in the market and should I get through my current vale of tears I may look into setting one up. There are lots of keen gardeners around but also a lot of older folks so you'd have thought there'd be the need.
Has anyone who loves the NHS ever lived in another country? It’s totally bonkers to have to wait months for scans and results, and must be costing the country billions in time off work.
The comment I had from a private consultant was the mistake the NHS makes in cases like this (I had something not dissimilar) is not doing all the possible scans and tests up front. Then sending them through the to the various consultants.
I had an X ray, MRI and nerve conduction study in 2 days. Privately. They apologised for not doing them on the same day.
Perhaps the single biggest value for money in the NHS, would be training up more radiologists to keep that expensive capital equipment running as long as possible. In an ideal world, like where I live, most MRI and CT scanners operate on a drop-in basis. You get a referral from the doc, and go stand in line for a few minutes.
How are they owned and operated? Is imaging run as a separate service?
Privately operated, either inside the larger hospitals, or run as a separate service for the smaller clinics to refer patients. Last time I had a CT, I think I paid £50 and my insurance paid £200.
It’s a scandal that the NHS runs expensive pieces of capital equipment for eight hours a day, five days a week. A commercial operator runs them for 16 hours a day, seven days a week, and does maintainance overnight. Because of course they do.
Love to know where you get that idea from. Most of the equipment is used all hours staff are available.
Mrs Eek had an MRI scan on Easter Sunday afternoon.
The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.
You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."
*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.
And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?
Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.
Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.
The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.
It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.
The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.
I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.
Russia does not have an unlimited capacity to throw men and materiel into Ukraine.
But it does have something Ukraine doesn't have and isn't likely to get: a large stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons. For some reason, there seems to be a widespread belief that Putin wouldn't be mad enough to use them. I'm not so sure. He's not exactly got form for rational decision-making.
How would the use of tactical nuclear weapons settle anything in Russia's favour?
I have been in near constant pain in my right leg since before Easter which has sometimes caused me complete immobility. Driving has been difficult. Physio only provided temporary alleviation. I was referred for an X-ray which finally happened last week.
This morning I have tried contacting my surgery to get an appointment with the GP to find out the results. After 35 minutes on the phone I finally get through. X-results still not back but I have a GP appointment in mid-June. So I just have to pray that the results will be back by then so that I can get an idea of what the problem is and, maybe, even start the process of waiting to get treatment.
Stoicism and/or opiate addiction. That seems the choice on offer from the NHS these days.
Meanwhile I have decided to tackle some brutal overgrown brambles in the back garden, with just my arms, gloves and secateurs. Plus a lot of sweat - it is pretty hot here. It's like doing battle with Edward Scissorhands. Heist knows how I go about getting the roots out though the mattock my other half gave me as a birthday present (I married the last romantic in Cumbria) may help.
I really need a strong gardener to assist. You'd have thought in such an area there would be plenty of gardening companies to assist - from some simple design ideas to doing the harder jobs & general maintenance etc.,. But no. It is an obvious gap in the market and should I get through my current vale of tears I may look into setting one up. There are lots of keen gardeners around but also a lot of older folks so you'd have thought there'd be the need.
Has anyone who loves the NHS ever lived in another country? It’s totally bonkers to have to wait months for scans and results, and must be costing the country billions in time off work.
The comment I had from a private consultant was the mistake the NHS makes in cases like this (I had something not dissimilar) is not doing all the possible scans and tests up front. Then sending them through the to the various consultants.
I had an X ray, MRI and nerve conduction study in 2 days. Privately. They apologised for not doing them on the same day.
Perhaps the single biggest value for money in the NHS, would be training up more radiologists to keep that expensive capital equipment running as long as possible. In an ideal world, like where I live, most MRI and CT scanners operate on a drop-in basis. You get a referral from the doc, and go stand in line for a few minutes.
How are they owned and operated? Is imaging run as a separate service?
Privately operated, either inside the larger hospitals, or run as a separate service for the smaller clinics to refer patients. Last time I had a CT, I think I paid £50 and my insurance paid £200.
It’s a scandal that the NHS runs expensive pieces of capital equipment for eight hours a day, five days a week. A commercial operator runs them for 16 hours a day, seven days a week, and does maintainance overnight. Because of course they do.
Love to know where you get that idea from. Most of the equipment is used all hours staff are available.
Mrs Eek had an MRI scan on Easter Sunday afternoon.
Good to hear that some NHS facilities are finally entering the 21st century. AIUI staffing is the primary issue, not enough radiologists.
The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.
You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."
*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.
And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?
Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.
Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.
The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.
It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.
The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.
I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.
Ukraine will I think have a choice. Just having a choice is huge achievement by Ukraine, but it might be a grim choice. I also think Ukraine has a good chance of imposing a cost on Russia for its occupation that Russia ultimately will be unwilling to pay.
Problem is, Ukraine might be ruined in the process. Challenge is Ukraine getting a settlement it can live with and then go onto be a successful country.
The history of countries backed by the developed world after wars is a pretty good one: Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc.
In fact, the destruction of all your old fixed assets (like copper telephone cables) and the replacement of them with modern equivalents (like fiber) is often a positive for long-term growth and prosperity. (One of the reasons why Germany outperformed the UK post WW2 was because all our factories were full of kit from the 1920s and 30s, while the Germans got new stuff.)
The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.
You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."
*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.
And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?
Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.
Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.
The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.
It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.
The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.
I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.
Russia does not have an unlimited capacity to throw men and materiel into Ukraine.
But it does have something Ukraine doesn't have and isn't likely to get: a large stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons. For some reason, there seems to be a widespread belief that Putin wouldn't be mad enough to use them. I'm not so sure. He's not exactly got form for rational decision-making.
Russia have threatened their use many times, and every time we've done what they've argued against - whether it's supply of HIMARS, long-range missiles, or tanks - they haven't gone nuclear.
And there's a reason for that: use of nuclear weapons would mean the end of everything for them. Even if other countries did not respond with nuclear weapons in response, they would lose friends. Even China would find it hard to maintain their on-the-fence stance. Russia under its current regime (and that means not just Putin) would not be able to find a way back.
But also think where your view leads: what other stuff are you willing to let a rogue nuclear power do just because they wave their nukes about as a replacement for their tiny dicks?
(If Russia were to use a nuclear weapon in a tactical manner, I don't think we'd respond with nukes. We - meaning the west - would further tighten sanctions, prevent shipping into Russia, and bombard anything Russian inside Ukraine.)
The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.
You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."
*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.
And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?
Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.
Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.
The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.
It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.
The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.
I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.
Russia does not have an unlimited capacity to throw men and materiel into Ukraine.
But it does have something Ukraine doesn't have and isn't likely to get: a large stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons. For some reason, there seems to be a widespread belief that Putin wouldn't be mad enough to use them. I'm not so sure. He's not exactly got form for rational decision-making.
How would the use of tactical nuclear weapons settle anything in Russia's favour?
It is worth noting that the use of nuclear weapons of any kind would be an absolute red line for China. Because once the nuclear genie is out the bottle, it inevitably means South Korea, Japan and yes Taiwan would get them. And that is very much not in China's interests.
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
I have been in near constant pain in my right leg since before Easter which has sometimes caused me complete immobility. Driving has been difficult. Physio only provided temporary alleviation. I was referred for an X-ray which finally happened last week.
This morning I have tried contacting my surgery to get an appointment with the GP to find out the results. After 35 minutes on the phone I finally get through. X-results still not back but I have a GP appointment in mid-June. So I just have to pray that the results will be back by then so that I can get an idea of what the problem is and, maybe, even start the process of waiting to get treatment.
Stoicism and/or opiate addiction. That seems the choice on offer from the NHS these days.
Meanwhile I have decided to tackle some brutal overgrown brambles in the back garden, with just my arms, gloves and secateurs. Plus a lot of sweat - it is pretty hot here. It's like doing battle with Edward Scissorhands. Heist knows how I go about getting the roots out though the mattock my other half gave me as a birthday present (I married the last romantic in Cumbria) may help.
I really need a strong gardener to assist. You'd have thought in such an area there would be plenty of gardening companies to assist - from some simple design ideas to doing the harder jobs & general maintenance etc.,. But no. It is an obvious gap in the market and should I get through my current vale of tears I may look into setting one up. There are lots of keen gardeners around but also a lot of older folks so you'd have thought there'd be the need.
Has anyone who loves the NHS ever lived in another country? It’s totally bonkers to have to wait months for scans and results, and must be costing the country billions in time off work.
The comment I had from a private consultant was the mistake the NHS makes in cases like this (I had something not dissimilar) is not doing all the possible scans and tests up front. Then sending them through the to the various consultants.
I had an X ray, MRI and nerve conduction study in 2 days. Privately. They apologised for not doing them on the same day.
Perhaps the single biggest value for money in the NHS, would be training up more radiologists to keep that expensive capital equipment running as long as possible. In an ideal world, like where I live, most MRI and CT scanners operate on a drop-in basis. You get a referral from the doc, and go stand in line for a few minutes.
How are they owned and operated? Is imaging run as a separate service?
Privately operated, either inside the larger hospitals, or run as a separate service for the smaller clinics to refer patients. Last time I had a CT, I think I paid £50 and my insurance paid £200.
It’s a scandal that the NHS runs expensive pieces of capital equipment for eight hours a day, five days a week. A commercial operator runs them for 16 hours a day, seven days a week, and does maintainance overnight. Because of course they do.
Love to know where you get that idea from. Most of the equipment is used all hours staff are available.
Mrs Eek had an MRI scan on Easter Sunday afternoon.
Good to hear that some NHS facilities are finally entering the 21st century. AIUI staffing is the primary issue, not enough radiologists.
I had an audiology appointment on a Sunday. Mrs C. had an MRI at 7.30am, admittedly on a weekday.
The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.
You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."
*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.
And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?
Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.
Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.
The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.
It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.
The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.
I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.
Russia does not have an unlimited capacity to throw men and materiel into Ukraine.
But it does have something Ukraine doesn't have and isn't likely to get: a large stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons. For some reason, there seems to be a widespread belief that Putin wouldn't be mad enough to use them. I'm not so sure. He's not exactly got form for rational decision-making.
Russia have threatened their use many times, and every time we've done what they've argued against - whether it's supply of HIMARS, long-range missiles, or tanks - they haven't gone nuclear.
And there's a reason for that: use of nuclear weapons would mean the end of everything for them. Even if other countries did not respond with nuclear weapons in response, they would lose friends. Even China would find it hard to maintain their on-the-fence stance. Russia under its current regime (and that means not just Putin) would not be able to find a way back.
But also think where your view leads: what other stuff are you willing to let a rogue nuclear power do just because they wave their nukes about as a replacement for their tiny dicks?
(If Russia were to use a nuclear weapon in a tactical manner, I don't think we'd respond with nukes. We - meaning the west - would further tighten sanctions, prevent shipping into Russia, and bombard anything Russian inside Ukraine.)
Yes, I think the plan is that something small and tactical from the Russians, would be met by an overwhelming conventional attack by NATO nations. Just to let them know that the West is holding back, and prepared to match any escalation. Do it again, and Moscow gets turned into glass.
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
I'm away from my computer right now, but will post the full poll later. There's nothing in there that suggests that significant numbers of Ukrainians - even in the East - want to join Russia
This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.
Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades
Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics
What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.
The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.
Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.
We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?
The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).
I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.
And once the British left most of Ireland (after an early terror campaign by the IRA including murdering British soldiers and government officials and burning down homes of Anglo Irish nobility) Catholicism dominated Irish society in such a way that divorce, abortion and homosexuality remained illegal in the Republic of Ireland long after they had been legalised in mainland GB.
My mother reckons that being a Protestant in 1940's and 1950's Dublin was much better than being a Catholic, because the Catholic Church was indifferent to you, being convinced that you were going to hell, anyway. They took a lot of interest in the Catholics however, and that was not good news for the Catholics.
I was somewhat shocked to read that de Valera essentially aspired to run Ireland as a Catholic theocracy.
After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century, certainly until the Soviet block fell
Close call with Franco's Spain. Especially considering the number of Opus Dei members who were ministers at various times.
Italy might want to put in a claim also. Oh, and Portugal. France has quite a few too. I believe Malta has the highest number of practicing Catholics per capita in Europe.
Do I sense a little bit of Catholic-phobia in this discussion? A prejudice that basically says: "oh yes, well the paddies are a bit backward 'cos they are all condom-phobic left footers, innit"
I have been in near constant pain in my right leg since before Easter which has sometimes caused me complete immobility. Driving has been difficult. Physio only provided temporary alleviation. I was referred for an X-ray which finally happened last week.
This morning I have tried contacting my surgery to get an appointment with the GP to find out the results. After 35 minutes on the phone I finally get through. X-results still not back but I have a GP appointment in mid-June. So I just have to pray that the results will be back by then so that I can get an idea of what the problem is and, maybe, even start the process of waiting to get treatment.
Stoicism and/or opiate addiction. That seems the choice on offer from the NHS these days.
Meanwhile I have decided to tackle some brutal overgrown brambles in the back garden, with just my arms, gloves and secateurs. Plus a lot of sweat - it is pretty hot here. It's like doing battle with Edward Scissorhands. Heist knows how I go about getting the roots out though the mattock my other half gave me as a birthday present (I married the last romantic in Cumbria) may help.
I really need a strong gardener to assist. You'd have thought in such an area there would be plenty of gardening companies to assist - from some simple design ideas to doing the harder jobs & general maintenance etc.,. But no. It is an obvious gap in the market and should I get through my current vale of tears I may look into setting one up. There are lots of keen gardeners around but also a lot of older folks so you'd have thought there'd be the need.
Has anyone who loves the NHS ever lived in another country? It’s totally bonkers to have to wait months for scans and results, and must be costing the country billions in time off work.
The comment I had from a private consultant was the mistake the NHS makes in cases like this (I had something not dissimilar) is not doing all the possible scans and tests up front. Then sending them through the to the various consultants.
I had an X ray, MRI and nerve conduction study in 2 days. Privately. They apologised for not doing them on the same day.
Perhaps the single biggest value for money in the NHS, would be training up more radiologists to keep that expensive capital equipment running as long as possible. In an ideal world, like where I live, most MRI and CT scanners operate on a drop-in basis. You get a referral from the doc, and go stand in line for a few minutes.
How are they owned and operated? Is imaging run as a separate service?
Privately operated, either inside the larger hospitals, or run as a separate service for the smaller clinics to refer patients. Last time I had a CT, I think I paid £50 and my insurance paid £200.
It’s a scandal that the NHS runs expensive pieces of capital equipment for eight hours a day, five days a week. A commercial operator runs them for 16 hours a day, seven days a week, and does maintainance overnight. Because of course they do.
Love to know where you get that idea from. Most of the equipment is used all hours staff are available.
Mrs Eek had an MRI scan on Easter Sunday afternoon.
Good to hear that some NHS facilities are finally entering the 21st century. AIUI staffing is the primary issue, not enough radiologists.
I had an audiology appointment on a Sunday. Mrs C. had an MRI at 7.30am, admittedly on a weekday.
Good to hear, so long at those times were voluntary and the patients didn’t need to rely on public transport.
The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.
You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."
*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.
And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?
Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.
Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.
The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.
It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.
The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.
I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.
Russia does not have an unlimited capacity to throw men and materiel into Ukraine.
But it does have something Ukraine doesn't have and isn't likely to get: a large stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons. For some reason, there seems to be a widespread belief that Putin wouldn't be mad enough to use them. I'm not so sure. He's not exactly got form for rational decision-making.
Russia have threatened their use many times, and every time we've done what they've argued against - whether it's supply of HIMARS, long-range missiles, or tanks - they haven't gone nuclear.
And there's a reason for that: use of nuclear weapons would mean the end of everything for them. Even if other countries did not respond with nuclear weapons in response, they would lose friends. Even China would find it hard to maintain their on-the-fence stance. Russia under its current regime (and that means not just Putin) would not be able to find a way back.
But also think where your view leads: what other stuff are you willing to let a rogue nuclear power do just because they wave their nukes about as a replacement for their tiny dicks?
(If Russia were to use a nuclear weapon in a tactical manner, I don't think we'd respond with nukes. We - meaning the west - would further tighten sanctions, prevent shipping into Russia, and bombard anything Russian inside Ukraine.)
You're over-interpreting my post. I'm certainly not suggesting that Russia should be allowed to get away with anything, and I think the Western approach in resisting Russia's invasion has been broadly correct. But pointing out that Putin has nuclear weapons and that there is a chance he may use them if desperate enough isn't a view; it is simply a fact, and one that should not be forgotten.
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
I'm away from my computer right now, but will post the full poll later. There's nothing in there that suggests that significant numbers of Ukrainians - even in the East - want to join Russia
I have been in near constant pain in my right leg since before Easter which has sometimes caused me complete immobility. Driving has been difficult. Physio only provided temporary alleviation. I was referred for an X-ray which finally happened last week.
This morning I have tried contacting my surgery to get an appointment with the GP to find out the results. After 35 minutes on the phone I finally get through. X-results still not back but I have a GP appointment in mid-June. So I just have to pray that the results will be back by then so that I can get an idea of what the problem is and, maybe, even start the process of waiting to get treatment.
Stoicism and/or opiate addiction. That seems the choice on offer from the NHS these days.
Meanwhile I have decided to tackle some brutal overgrown brambles in the back garden, with just my arms, gloves and secateurs. Plus a lot of sweat - it is pretty hot here. It's like doing battle with Edward Scissorhands. Heist knows how I go about getting the roots out though the mattock my other half gave me as a birthday present (I married the last romantic in Cumbria) may help.
I really need a strong gardener to assist. You'd have thought in such an area there would be plenty of gardening companies to assist - from some simple design ideas to doing the harder jobs & general maintenance etc.,. But no. It is an obvious gap in the market and should I get through my current vale of tears I may look into setting one up. There are lots of keen gardeners around but also a lot of older folks so you'd have thought there'd be the need.
Has anyone who loves the NHS ever lived in another country? It’s totally bonkers to have to wait months for scans and results, and must be costing the country billions in time off work.
The comment I had from a private consultant was the mistake the NHS makes in cases like this (I had something not dissimilar) is not doing all the possible scans and tests up front. Then sending them through the to the various consultants.
I had an X ray, MRI and nerve conduction study in 2 days. Privately. They apologised for not doing them on the same day.
Perhaps the single biggest value for money in the NHS, would be training up more radiologists to keep that expensive capital equipment running as long as possible. In an ideal world, like where I live, most MRI and CT scanners operate on a drop-in basis. You get a referral from the doc, and go stand in line for a few minutes.
How are they owned and operated? Is imaging run as a separate service?
Privately operated, either inside the larger hospitals, or run as a separate service for the smaller clinics to refer patients. Last time I had a CT, I think I paid £50 and my insurance paid £200.
It’s a scandal that the NHS runs expensive pieces of capital equipment for eight hours a day, five days a week. A commercial operator runs them for 16 hours a day, seven days a week, and does maintainance overnight. Because of course they do.
Love to know where you get that idea from. Most of the equipment is used all hours staff are available.
Mrs Eek had an MRI scan on Easter Sunday afternoon.
Good to hear that some NHS facilities are finally entering the 21st century. AIUI staffing is the primary issue, not enough radiologists.
I had an audiology appointment on a Sunday. Mrs C. had an MRI at 7.30am, admittedly on a weekday.
Good to hear, so long at those times were voluntary and the patients didn’t need to rely on public transport.
Take your point, and we didn’t need it, but both were, at the time, manageable by public transport.
The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.
You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."
*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.
And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?
Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.
Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.
The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.
It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.
The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.
I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.
Russia does not have an unlimited capacity to throw men and materiel into Ukraine.
But it does have something Ukraine doesn't have and isn't likely to get: a large stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons. For some reason, there seems to be a widespread belief that Putin wouldn't be mad enough to use them. I'm not so sure. He's not exactly got form for rational decision-making.
Russia have threatened their use many times, and every time we've done what they've argued against - whether it's supply of HIMARS, long-range missiles, or tanks - they haven't gone nuclear.
And there's a reason for that: use of nuclear weapons would mean the end of everything for them. Even if other countries did not respond with nuclear weapons in response, they would lose friends. Even China would find it hard to maintain their on-the-fence stance. Russia under its current regime (and that means not just Putin) would not be able to find a way back.
But also think where your view leads: what other stuff are you willing to let a rogue nuclear power do just because they wave their nukes about as a replacement for their tiny dicks?
(If Russia were to use a nuclear weapon in a tactical manner, I don't think we'd respond with nukes. We - meaning the west - would further tighten sanctions, prevent shipping into Russia, and bombard anything Russian inside Ukraine.)
You're over-interpreting my post. I'm certainly not suggesting that Russia should be allowed to get away with anything, and I think the Western approach in resisting Russia's invasion has been broadly correct. But pointing out that Putin has nuclear weapons and that there is a chance he may use them if desperate enough isn't a view; it is simply a fact, and one that should not be forgotten.
Fair enough, and apologies if I over-interepreted your comments.
However: whilst it should not be forgotten, what good does factoring their possession of nukes into our policy towards Ukraine do?
To paraphrase only slightly, “I’m not anti-Semitic, I just hate the Jews”
Chris Williamson of course famously said he wasn't an anti-Semite, and people who said he was were part of an international Zionist conspiracy to discredit him.
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
Trump lawyer Jim Trusty’s frustrations with the legal team emerged over dinner at the five-star Breakers hotel hours after the special master hearing. He was overheard by this @guardian reporter who happened to be sitting at the table next to them. https://twitter.com/hugolowell/status/1664265373972037632
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
I have been in near constant pain in my right leg since before Easter which has sometimes caused me complete immobility. Driving has been difficult. Physio only provided temporary alleviation. I was referred for an X-ray which finally happened last week.
This morning I have tried contacting my surgery to get an appointment with the GP to find out the results. After 35 minutes on the phone I finally get through. X-results still not back but I have a GP appointment in mid-June. So I just have to pray that the results will be back by then so that I can get an idea of what the problem is and, maybe, even start the process of waiting to get treatment.
Stoicism and/or opiate addiction. That seems the choice on offer from the NHS these days.
Meanwhile I have decided to tackle some brutal overgrown brambles in the back garden, with just my arms, gloves and secateurs. Plus a lot of sweat - it is pretty hot here. It's like doing battle with Edward Scissorhands. Heist knows how I go about getting the roots out though the mattock my other half gave me as a birthday present (I married the last romantic in Cumbria) may help.
I really need a strong gardener to assist. You'd have thought in such an area there would be plenty of gardening companies to assist - from some simple design ideas to doing the harder jobs & general maintenance etc.,. But no. It is an obvious gap in the market and should I get through my current vale of tears I may look into setting one up. There are lots of keen gardeners around but also a lot of older folks so you'd have thought there'd be the need.
Has anyone who loves the NHS ever lived in another country? It’s totally bonkers to have to wait months for scans and results, and must be costing the country billions in time off work.
The comment I had from a private consultant was the mistake the NHS makes in cases like this (I had something not dissimilar) is not doing all the possible scans and tests up front. Then sending them through the to the various consultants.
I had an X ray, MRI and nerve conduction study in 2 days. Privately. They apologised for not doing them on the same day.
Perhaps the single biggest value for money in the NHS, would be training up more radiologists to keep that expensive capital equipment running as long as possible. In an ideal world, like where I live, most MRI and CT scanners operate on a drop-in basis. You get a referral from the doc, and go stand in line for a few minutes.
How are they owned and operated? Is imaging run as a separate service?
Privately operated, either inside the larger hospitals, or run as a separate service for the smaller clinics to refer patients. Last time I had a CT, I think I paid £50 and my insurance paid £200.
It’s a scandal that the NHS runs expensive pieces of capital equipment for eight hours a day, five days a week. A commercial operator runs them for 16 hours a day, seven days a week, and does maintainance overnight. Because of course they do.
Love to know where you get that idea from. Most of the equipment is used all hours staff are available.
Mrs Eek had an MRI scan on Easter Sunday afternoon.
Good to hear that some NHS facilities are finally entering the 21st century. AIUI staffing is the primary issue, not enough radiologists.
I had an audiology appointment on a Sunday. Mrs C. had an MRI at 7.30am, admittedly on a weekday.
Good to hear, so long at those times were voluntary and the patients didn’t need to rely on public transport.
He's lucky to be in the team, given the number of ducks and low scores he's got this year in first-class cricket. I saw him get two in one day at Edgbaston about 5 weeks ago.
I have been in near constant pain in my right leg since before Easter which has sometimes caused me complete immobility. Driving has been difficult. Physio only provided temporary alleviation. I was referred for an X-ray which finally happened last week.
This morning I have tried contacting my surgery to get an appointment with the GP to find out the results. After 35 minutes on the phone I finally get through. X-results still not back but I have a GP appointment in mid-June. So I just have to pray that the results will be back by then so that I can get an idea of what the problem is and, maybe, even start the process of waiting to get treatment.
Stoicism and/or opiate addiction. That seems the choice on offer from the NHS these days.
Meanwhile I have decided to tackle some brutal overgrown brambles in the back garden, with just my arms, gloves and secateurs. Plus a lot of sweat - it is pretty hot here. It's like doing battle with Edward Scissorhands. Heist knows how I go about getting the roots out though the mattock my other half gave me as a birthday present (I married the last romantic in Cumbria) may help.
I really need a strong gardener to assist. You'd have thought in such an area there would be plenty of gardening companies to assist - from some simple design ideas to doing the harder jobs & general maintenance etc.,. But no. It is an obvious gap in the market and should I get through my current vale of tears I may look into setting one up. There are lots of keen gardeners around but also a lot of older folks so you'd have thought there'd be the need.
Has anyone who loves the NHS ever lived in another country? It’s totally bonkers to have to wait months for scans and results, and must be costing the country billions in time off work.
The comment I had from a private consultant was the mistake the NHS makes in cases like this (I had something not dissimilar) is not doing all the possible scans and tests up front. Then sending them through the to the various consultants.
I had an X ray, MRI and nerve conduction study in 2 days. Privately. They apologised for not doing them on the same day.
Perhaps the single biggest value for money in the NHS, would be training up more radiologists to keep that expensive capital equipment running as long as possible. In an ideal world, like where I live, most MRI and CT scanners operate on a drop-in basis. You get a referral from the doc, and go stand in line for a few minutes.
How are they owned and operated? Is imaging run as a separate service?
Privately operated, either inside the larger hospitals, or run as a separate service for the smaller clinics to refer patients. Last time I had a CT, I think I paid £50 and my insurance paid £200.
It’s a scandal that the NHS runs expensive pieces of capital equipment for eight hours a day, five days a week. A commercial operator runs them for 16 hours a day, seven days a week, and does maintainance overnight. Because of course they do.
Love to know where you get that idea from. Most of the equipment is used all hours staff are available.
Mrs Eek had an MRI scan on Easter Sunday afternoon.
Good to hear that some NHS facilities are finally entering the 21st century. AIUI staffing is the primary issue, not enough radiologists.
I had an audiology appointment on a Sunday. Mrs C. had an MRI at 7.30am, admittedly on a weekday.
Good to hear, so long at those times were voluntary and the patients didn’t need to rely on public transport.
This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.
Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades
Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics
What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.
The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.
Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.
We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?
The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).
I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.
And once the British left most of Ireland (after an early terror campaign by the IRA including murdering British soldiers and government officials and burning down homes of Anglo Irish nobility) Catholicism dominated Irish society in such a way that divorce, abortion and homosexuality remained illegal in the Republic of Ireland long after they had been legalised in mainland GB.
My mother reckons that being a Protestant in 1940's and 1950's Dublin was much better than being a Catholic, because the Catholic Church was indifferent to you, being convinced that you were going to hell, anyway. They took a lot of interest in the Catholics however, and that was not good news for the Catholics.
I was somewhat shocked to read that de Valera essentially aspired to run Ireland as a Catholic theocracy.
After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century, certainly until the Soviet block fell
Close call with Franco's Spain. Especially considering the number of Opus Dei members who were ministers at various times.
Italy might want to put in a claim also. Oh, and Portugal. France has quite a few too. I believe Malta has the highest number of practicing Catholics per capita in Europe.
Do I sense a little bit of Catholic-phobia in this discussion? A prejudice that basically says: "oh yes, well the paddies are a bit backward 'cos they are all condom-phobic left footers, innit"
Sigh.
After Dev got in charge, he and his chums set out to massively increase the political and social power of the Catholic Church in Ireland.
The Catholic Church was made a part of the State, and both in effect and in practise had considerable immunity under the law.
This began to erode from the late seventies - and today we see the Catholic Church in Ireland vastly reduced in power from what it was.
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
He's lucky to be in the team, given the number of ducks and low scores he's got this year in first-class cricket. I saw him get two in one day at Edgbaston about 5 weeks ago.
That's two more than he usually gets in a fi...or sorry, you mean two ducks?
Ben Foakes is entitled to feel very miffed that he's dropped for being outside Stokes' clique while somebody with a poorer batting record survives.
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.
You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."
*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.
And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?
Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.
Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.
The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.
It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.
The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.
I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.
Russia does not have an unlimited capacity to throw men and materiel into Ukraine.
But it does have something Ukraine doesn't have and isn't likely to get: a large stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons. For some reason, there seems to be a widespread belief that Putin wouldn't be mad enough to use them. I'm not so sure. He's not exactly got form for rational decision-making.
Russia have threatened their use many times, and every time we've done what they've argued against - whether it's supply of HIMARS, long-range missiles, or tanks - they haven't gone nuclear.
And there's a reason for that: use of nuclear weapons would mean the end of everything for them. Even if other countries did not respond with nuclear weapons in response, they would lose friends. Even China would find it hard to maintain their on-the-fence stance. Russia under its current regime (and that means not just Putin) would not be able to find a way back.
But also think where your view leads: what other stuff are you willing to let a rogue nuclear power do just because they wave their nukes about as a replacement for their tiny dicks?
(If Russia were to use a nuclear weapon in a tactical manner, I don't think we'd respond with nukes. We - meaning the west - would further tighten sanctions, prevent shipping into Russia, and bombard anything Russian inside Ukraine.)
You're over-interpreting my post. I'm certainly not suggesting that Russia should be allowed to get away with anything, and I think the Western approach in resisting Russia's invasion has been broadly correct. But pointing out that Putin has nuclear weapons and that there is a chance he may use them if desperate enough isn't a view; it is simply a fact, and one that should not be forgotten.
Fair enough, and apologies if I over-interepreted your comments.
However: whilst it should not be forgotten, what good does factoring their possession of nukes into our policy towards Ukraine do?
It dictates that the West needs to give Ukraine just enough help to resist the Russian occupation and grind Russia down rather than imposing such defeats on the Russians that Putin might feel that recourse to nuclear weapons is his only remaining option.
The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.
You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."
*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.
And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?
Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.
Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.
The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.
It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.
The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.
I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.
Russia does not have an unlimited capacity to throw men and materiel into Ukraine.
But it does have something Ukraine doesn't have and isn't likely to get: a large stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons. For some reason, there seems to be a widespread belief that Putin wouldn't be mad enough to use them. I'm not so sure. He's not exactly got form for rational decision-making.
Russia have threatened their use many times, and every time we've done what they've argued against - whether it's supply of HIMARS, long-range missiles, or tanks - they haven't gone nuclear.
And there's a reason for that: use of nuclear weapons would mean the end of everything for them. Even if other countries did not respond with nuclear weapons in response, they would lose friends. Even China would find it hard to maintain their on-the-fence stance. Russia under its current regime (and that means not just Putin) would not be able to find a way back.
But also think where your view leads: what other stuff are you willing to let a rogue nuclear power do just because they wave their nukes about as a replacement for their tiny dicks?
(If Russia were to use a nuclear weapon in a tactical manner, I don't think we'd respond with nukes. We - meaning the west - would further tighten sanctions, prevent shipping into Russia, and bombard anything Russian inside Ukraine.)
You're over-interpreting my post. I'm certainly not suggesting that Russia should be allowed to get away with anything, and I think the Western approach in resisting Russia's invasion has been broadly correct. But pointing out that Putin has nuclear weapons and that there is a chance he may use them if desperate enough isn't a view; it is simply a fact, and one that should not be forgotten.
Fair enough, and apologies if I over-interepreted your comments.
However: whilst it should not be forgotten, what good does factoring their possession of nukes into our policy towards Ukraine do?
It dictates that the West needs to give Ukraine just enough help to resist the Russian occupation and grind Russia down rather than imposing such defeats on the Russians that Putin might feel that recourse to nuclear weapons is his only remaining option.
Assume that despite our caution, Putin wakes up tomorrow with the conviction that recourse to nuclear weapons is his only remaining option. How do you see him securing victory?
This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.
Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades
Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics
What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.
The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.
Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.
We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?
The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).
I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.
And once the British left most of Ireland (after an early terror campaign by the IRA including murdering British soldiers and government officials and burning down homes of Anglo Irish nobility) Catholicism dominated Irish society in such a way that divorce, abortion and homosexuality remained illegal in the Republic of Ireland long after they had been legalised in mainland GB.
My mother reckons that being a Protestant in 1940's and 1950's Dublin was much better than being a Catholic, because the Catholic Church was indifferent to you, being convinced that you were going to hell, anyway. They took a lot of interest in the Catholics however, and that was not good news for the Catholics.
I was somewhat shocked to read that de Valera essentially aspired to run Ireland as a Catholic theocracy.
After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century, certainly until the Soviet block fell
Close call with Franco's Spain. Especially considering the number of Opus Dei members who were ministers at various times.
Italy might want to put in a claim also. Oh, and Portugal. France has quite a few too. I believe Malta has the highest number of practicing Catholics per capita in Europe.
Do I sense a little bit of Catholic-phobia in this discussion? A prejudice that basically says: "oh yes, well the paddies are a bit backward 'cos they are all condom-phobic left footers, innit"
Sigh.
After Dev got in charge, he and his chums set out to massively increase the political and social power of the Catholic Church in Ireland.
The Catholic Church was made a part of the State, and both in effect and in practise had considerable immunity under the law.
This began to erode from the late seventies - and today we see the Catholic Church in Ireland vastly reduced in power from what it was.
No need for a sigh, @Malmesbury . My post was in response to HYUFD's simplistic post which stated "After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century"
Now I guess that one could ask "by what definition", but on a number of levels it is wrong. I am British with Irish ancestry, brought up a Catholic, though no longer "practicing" (and therefore not getting better at it). The reality is that there is an inbuilt cultural prejudice in this country toward Catholicism that goes all the way back to the reformation, combined (and possibly connected) with a prejudice that believes Irish people are backward and stupid. Hence my post, so forgive me for my violent Irish nature that comes to the fore when I see ignorant simplistic crap written about Ireland.
Maybe yes. Maybe no. Some polling companies like Opinium compensate for the Don't Know effect Mike refers to, but they are also showing landslide Labour leads at the moment.
I think it’s elections like 1997 where usual so expected swing-back doesn’t happen, Mike’s d/k fail to vote on the day and HY’s If’s confirmed as If only.
and how to spot swingback won’t happen. Nothing from the pollsters or psephologists convince me they know how to spot it.
This is going to leave a lot of Republicans seriously conflicted. (My guess, FWIW, is that the fools will go with the pro gun argument.)
Could Hunter Biden be the next poster child for Second Amendment rights? The president’s son is under investigation for potentially breaking the law banning drug users from owning guns – but the law’s constitutionality faces growing challenges. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/01/hunter-biden-supreme-court-second-amendment-00099544 The president’s son is the target of a Justice Department investigation scrutinizing his purchase of a gun in 2018 — a time when he has said he was regularly using crack cocaine. Federal law bans drug users from owning guns.
But the constitutionality of that law — like many other provisions restricting gun ownership — is newly in question after a precedent-rocking decision the Supreme Court handed down almost a year ago.
His lawyers have already told Justice Department officials that, if their client is charged with the gun crime, they will challenge the law under the Second Amendment, according to a person familiar with the private discussions granted anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly. That could turn a case that is already fraught with political consequences into a high-profile showdown over the right to bear arms...
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.
Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades
Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics
What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.
The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.
Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.
We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?
The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).
I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.
When did British Rule of Ireland first begin?
Was it the hideous Oliver Cromwell’s fault, or before him? Were the Romans interested in going there so it’s leftover from Roman occupation? Was it the reformation?
What a weirdo. If I had views like that, I would be inclined to keep them to myself rather than broadcast them to the world.
It's a common symptom of Israel Derangement Syndrome though.
It has the weird side effect of shielding Israel from the criticism it ought to get from actual sensible people who don't want to sound like Barry from Four Lions.
This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.
Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades
Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics
What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.
The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.
Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.
We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?
The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).
I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.
And once the British left most of Ireland (after an early terror campaign by the IRA including murdering British soldiers and government officials and burning down homes of Anglo Irish nobility) Catholicism dominated Irish society in such a way that divorce, abortion and homosexuality remained illegal in the Republic of Ireland long after they had been legalised in mainland GB.
My mother reckons that being a Protestant in 1940's and 1950's Dublin was much better than being a Catholic, because the Catholic Church was indifferent to you, being convinced that you were going to hell, anyway. They took a lot of interest in the Catholics however, and that was not good news for the Catholics.
I was somewhat shocked to read that de Valera essentially aspired to run Ireland as a Catholic theocracy.
After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century, certainly until the Soviet block fell
Close call with Franco's Spain. Especially considering the number of Opus Dei members who were ministers at various times.
Italy might want to put in a claim also. Oh, and Portugal. France has quite a few too. I believe Malta has the highest number of practicing Catholics per capita in Europe.
Do I sense a little bit of Catholic-phobia in this discussion? A prejudice that basically says: "oh yes, well the paddies are a bit backward 'cos they are all condom-phobic left footers, innit"
Sigh.
After Dev got in charge, he and his chums set out to massively increase the political and social power of the Catholic Church in Ireland.
The Catholic Church was made a part of the State, and both in effect and in practise had considerable immunity under the law.
This began to erode from the late seventies - and today we see the Catholic Church in Ireland vastly reduced in power from what it was.
No need for a sigh, @Malmesbury . My post was in response to HYUFD's simplistic post which stated "After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century"
Now I guess that one could ask "by what definition", but on a number of levels it is wrong. I am British with Irish ancestry, brought up a Catholic, though no longer "practicing" (and therefore not getting better at it). The reality is that there is an inbuilt cultural prejudice in this country toward Catholicism that goes all the way back to the reformation, combined (and possibly connected) with a prejudice that believes Irish people are backward and stupid. Hence my post, so forgive me for my violent Irish nature that comes to the fore when I see ignorant simplistic crap written about Ireland.
I regularly drink with a relative of Archbishop McQuaid. He is not a fan of his relative, or the system he was a part of....
His version, and that of other Irish people I've met who were brought up in Ireland at the time in question, was that the Irish States was trying to be more Catholic than the Pope. This was as a result of deliberate political usage of Catholicism to prop up the politicians in Dublin - the priests would preach on how you should vote, under instruction from the bishops. In return, a big chunk of the Irish social order was handed over to the Church.
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
This is going to leave a lot of Republicans seriously conflicted. (My guess, FWIW, is that the fools will go with the pro gun argument.)
Could Hunter Biden be the next poster child for Second Amendment rights? The president’s son is under investigation for potentially breaking the law banning drug users from owning guns – but the law’s constitutionality faces growing challenges. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/01/hunter-biden-supreme-court-second-amendment-00099544 The president’s son is the target of a Justice Department investigation scrutinizing his purchase of a gun in 2018 — a time when he has said he was regularly using crack cocaine. Federal law bans drug users from owning guns.
But the constitutionality of that law — like many other provisions restricting gun ownership — is newly in question after a precedent-rocking decision the Supreme Court handed down almost a year ago.
His lawyers have already told Justice Department officials that, if their client is charged with the gun crime, they will challenge the law under the Second Amendment, according to a person familiar with the private discussions granted anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly. That could turn a case that is already fraught with political consequences into a high-profile showdown over the right to bear arms...
Astonishing . No 10 is refusing to hand over the information requested by its own Covid Inquiry . So in effect this ends up in legal action in which they intend to use the Human Rights Act as defence , the same act many Tories want to get rid of .
Utter vomit inducing hypocrisy and this looks appalling to most of the public .
# Cover-up
I see the free speech Tsar has been announced in an interview to one newspaper. He won't be speaking to any other media nor taking any questions either
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
It will.
The map will be rendered ob-solete.
Crimea a river
No need to be Volga.
When it comes to Putin, you can be Volga azov ten as you like.
What a weirdo. If I had views like that, I would be inclined to keep them to myself rather than broadcast them to the world.
It's a common symptom of Israel Derangement Syndrome though.
It has the weird side effect of shielding Israel from the criticism it ought to get from actual sensible people who don't want to sound like Barry from Four Lions.
That's right. People self-censor on Israel Palestine for fear of being called antisemitic.
This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.
Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades
Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics
What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.
The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.
Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.
We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?
The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).
I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.
When did British Rule of Ireland first begin?
Was it the hideous Oliver Cromwell’s fault, or before him? Were the Romans interested in going there so it’s leftover from Roman occupation? Was it the reformation?
The Romans traded with Ireland. There many or may not have been some very limited military expeditions there. There may or may not have been slave trading - selling your defeated opponents in tribal wars - with the Romans.
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
It will.
The map will be rendered ob-solete.
Crimea a river
Two cracking puns in the space of 2 minutes - bravo.
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
Minutes before the deadline for handing over Johnson's messages, diaries, and notebooks to the inquiry, Sunak says the government is still "carefully considering next steps".
What’s going on here then, it’s obviously something that makes Sunak look bad.
That said, there does need to be some sort of an agreement that casual messages won’t end up published. The point of the inquiry is to learn lessons, not to castigate individuals. Publishing messages will mean that the next emergency leaves government totally flat-footed, as they all primarily consider how they come across to the inquiry.
If it were something that reflected poorly on Johnson, the Cabinet Office would have given it to the enquiry tied with a pink bow. Clearly it's Sunak in the firing line.
Comments
Indeed, the sense that this was slipping away was a big motivator for the Forward To The Past ideas of De Valera - who coopted the power of the Catholic Church on the basis that together they could save Ireland from Sin.
Certainly, for many years, Catholicism and rigid adherence to it was woven into the daily life of the Irish State.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
The real scandal, is why there wasn’t a much more robust response to Russia’s land grab in 2014.
To give more of a global 2023 context, what does the West abandoning Ukraine say to China about Taiwan?
1 MP and a majority of 134.
Now, it's perfectly possible that the Ukrainian offensive will be a busted flush. But importantly, it appears that the Ukrainians are willing to risk the lives of many of their people in order to regain their land. Calling for negotiations now is just asking Ukraine to be defeated by fascism. If Ukraine decides for negotiations themselves; fair enough.
More, Nick's thinking is mind-bendingly stupid if you want wider peace. Such territorial land grabs are a great risk for world peace; if Russia is seen as having 'gained' in Ukraine (*), then it just encourages other countries to perform similar adventures. In terms of world peace, a Russian 'defeat' is vital. We should have pushed back on Russia much harder after Crimea; not appeased them.
(*) It's not a zero-sum game; Russia may play a gain in territory as a 'win' (as they did in Crimea in 2014); but the damage to their economy, their military, and their reputation is massive.
2022 was trying to grab the rest of Czechoslovakia
I do wonder if the Greens can pull out another seat (Bristol West presumably).
Big news: country where women have done most to explain how sex-denialism is incompatible with women's and gay people's rights, sex-denialism is least popular
https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1664237241223315456?s=20
The results are absolutely striking.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-government-boris-johnson-prime-minister-volodymyr-zelensky-b1085055.html
I fear Putin and the top bods in Russia just think back to the Great Patriotic War, when they could mobilise millions of men to fight the war. The issue with that is that Russia's economy has changed. Back then, Russia's agricultural workforce was massive (as it was in many countries - see (1). This meant policies of semi-starvation, plus millions of tons of food from the west, freed up vast numbers of agricultural workers to fight or work in the factories.
Modern economies employ far fewer people in agricultural endeavours, and many, many more in semi- and highly-skilled parts of the economy. These are hard to train and replace, and the interrelated nature of technology means that production shortfalls can have large effects elsewhere in the economy.
TLDR; Russia doesn't have that many men to throw into battle, relatively speaking.
In all seriousness, (1) is a fascinating chart. Look at how few people the UK employed in agriculture in 1930 compared to our competitors.
(1); https://www.statista.com/statistics/1005657/share-working-population-agriculture-europe-1930-1980/
That said, there does need to be some sort of an agreement that casual messages won’t end up published. The point of the inquiry is to learn lessons, not to castigate individuals. Publishing messages will mean that the next emergency leaves government totally flat-footed, as they all primarily consider how they come across to the inquiry.
Problem is, Ukraine might be ruined in the process. Challenge is Ukraine getting a settlement it can live with and then go onto be a successful country.
Utter vomit inducing hypocrisy and this looks appalling to most of the public .
# Cover-up
Russia has $1trn of sanctions, that are going to remain in place for years after the formal war ends.
Which country would you want to live in, as a resident of a border town?
Mrs Eek had an MRI scan on Easter Sunday afternoon.
"Russia should fuck off back to their own country." Agree/Strongly Agree - would be better.
In fact, the destruction of all your old fixed assets (like copper telephone cables) and the replacement of them with modern equivalents (like fiber) is often a positive for long-term growth and prosperity. (One of the reasons why Germany outperformed the UK post WW2 was because all our factories were full of kit from the 1920s and 30s, while the Germans got new stuff.)
And there's a reason for that: use of nuclear weapons would mean the end of everything for them. Even if other countries did not respond with nuclear weapons in response, they would lose friends. Even China would find it hard to maintain their on-the-fence stance. Russia under its current regime (and that means not just Putin) would not be able to find a way back.
But also think where your view leads: what other stuff are you willing to let a rogue nuclear power do just because they wave their nukes about as a replacement for their tiny dicks?
(If Russia were to use a nuclear weapon in a tactical manner, I don't think we'd respond with nukes. We - meaning the west - would further tighten sanctions, prevent shipping into Russia, and bombard anything Russian inside Ukraine.)
Roger Waters with a rather interesting take on recent history:
https://twitter.com/HeidiBachram/status/1663967904470016000
Ireland need to be given more opportunities to play test cricket, instead of just 7 in about 7 years.
Do I sense a little bit of Catholic-phobia in this discussion? A prejudice that basically says: "oh yes, well the paddies are a bit backward 'cos they are all condom-phobic left footers, innit"
If I had views like that, I would be inclined to keep them to myself rather than broadcast them to the world.
To paraphrase only slightly, “I’m not anti-Semitic, I just hate the Jews”
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia
(b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2022/02/europe/russia-ukraine-crisis-poll-intl/index.html
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2022/02/europe/russia-ukraine-crisis-poll-intl/index.html
However: whilst it should not be forgotten, what good does factoring their possession of nukes into our policy towards Ukraine do?
Trump lawyer Jim Trusty’s frustrations with the legal team emerged over dinner at the five-star Breakers hotel hours after the special master hearing. He was overheard by this @guardian reporter who happened to be sitting at the table next to them.
https://twitter.com/hugolowell/status/1664265373972037632
Great way to justify your expenses btw
Think I had Wagyu sliders and oysters..
After Dev got in charge, he and his chums set out to massively increase the political and social power of the Catholic Church in Ireland.
The Catholic Church was made a part of the State, and both in effect and in practise had considerable immunity under the law.
This began to erode from the late seventies - and today we see the Catholic Church in Ireland vastly reduced in power from what it was.
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Ben Foakes is entitled to feel very miffed that he's dropped for being outside Stokes' clique while somebody with a poorer batting record survives.
Now I guess that one could ask "by what definition", but on a number of levels it is wrong. I am British with Irish ancestry, brought up a Catholic, though no longer "practicing" (and therefore not getting better at it). The reality is that there is an inbuilt cultural prejudice in this country toward Catholicism that goes all the way back to the reformation, combined (and possibly connected) with a prejudice that believes Irish people are backward and stupid. Hence my post, so forgive me for my violent Irish nature that comes to the fore when I see ignorant simplistic crap written about Ireland.
(My guess, FWIW, is that the fools will go with the pro gun argument.)
Could Hunter Biden be the next poster child for Second Amendment rights?
The president’s son is under investigation for potentially breaking the law banning drug users from owning guns – but the law’s constitutionality faces growing challenges.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/01/hunter-biden-supreme-court-second-amendment-00099544
The president’s son is the target of a Justice Department investigation scrutinizing his purchase of a gun in 2018 — a time when he has said he was regularly using crack cocaine. Federal law bans drug users from owning guns.
But the constitutionality of that law — like many other provisions restricting gun ownership — is newly in question after a precedent-rocking decision the Supreme Court handed down almost a year ago.
His lawyers have already told Justice Department officials that, if their client is charged with the gun crime, they will challenge the law under the Second Amendment, according to a person familiar with the private discussions granted anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly. That could turn a case that is already fraught with political consequences into a high-profile showdown over the right to bear arms...
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/articles/property-news/cheapest-cities-first-time-buyers/
Mind you, between the SNP and Labour both Dundee and Aberdeen might get cheaper....
Was it the hideous Oliver Cromwell’s fault, or before him?
Were the Romans interested in going there so it’s leftover from Roman occupation?
Was it the reformation?
It has the weird side effect of shielding Israel from the criticism it ought to get from actual sensible people who don't want to sound like Barry from Four Lions.
His version, and that of other Irish people I've met who were brought up in Ireland at the time in question, was that the Irish States was trying to be more Catholic than the Pope. This was as a result of deliberate political usage of Catholicism to prop up the politicians in Dublin - the priests would preach on how you should vote, under instruction from the bishops. In return, a big chunk of the Irish social order was handed over to the Church.
He won't be speaking to any other media nor taking any questions either
Surprised Aberdeen is on there though. I'd always thought it was notoriously expensive?
20s
BREAKING 💥
The Cabinet Office digs in and says it will take Covid-19 Inquiry to court over what WhatsApp messages it must disclose.