No, the same tired old Axis of the 50s and 60s but the role of leading power has shifted several thousand miles to the east. Beijing will be calling the shots this time, not Moscow.
It's a great pity that Russia is ending up as a satrapy of China. If it could have been pulled toward Western Europe, that would have led to a far more positive and stable future both for Russia and its neighbours.
Yes it would have been great if they’d chosen peace. But instead they chose war, and the rest of us are dealing with that decision at the moment.
That is undeniable fact. But in the same way that a rapist is 100% guilty of the rape, but it is still ill-advised to frequent dark alleys alone in a short skirt, there is a role that the US and the EU have played in getting us here. By supporting the Maidan protests that unseated Yanukovich and pulled Ukraine out of Russia's sphere of influence, they added to the chain of events that led us to this point.
Other analogies are available and, in this instance, advisable
Not supporting the Maidan protesters after Yanukovoch sent in his thugs would, to extend the somewhat unseemly analogy, be tantamount to standing idly on the side while someone you know is raped. I’m glad we didn’t do that.
I have enough experience of dealing with the fallout from an abusive ex-husband to know the last thing you should do is stand aside while others get beaten up.
Can’t we use burglary and leaving the windows open instead? It is, as you say, an unseemly analogy.
Well it seems that Putin has snuck in during my holiday and nicked my children’s favourite goldfish, like one big slippery scaly Crimea with fins.
Tbf that is getting more often, where I am done a recce of all the nearby cafe's they all do english breakfasts but none of them have a fried slice which is the best bit
At last, a subject on which I can speak with some authority.
You're quite right - a good fried slice goes a long way but the other two things I look for when judging a cafe is how they cook mushrooms and second, the quality of the sausage not just in terms of how it's cooked but whether it's a decent banger or something cheap and horrible. You can ruin a good sausage by bad cooking but it's impossible to make a bad sausage really good.
Cafes owned and run by Turks, Greeks or Portuguese often do a very good Full English and while you can pay a bit more for quality there's plenty of good places which can still be value. My hint is NOT to order the Set options - choose what you want and tell them. My "normal" is two fried eggs, fried slice, mushrooms and sausage.
I have my favourites - in London, Becks in Red Lion Street offers kidneys as part of the breakfast options and they are a real treat. There's a couple of places in East London where the bubble is exceptional. Pellicci's in Bethnal Green Road is a East London institution. I was in Woolwich yesterday and tried the Arsenal Gate Cafe - unpretentious, good value and while not top notch, well cooked and very tasty albeit not the best quality ingredients.
I am by no means saying its the only thing and what you mentioned is important, I am just noticing more and more its the omitted thing from menu's
It's my experience if you don't see it you can ask and if you catch them at a quiet time or in a good mood they'll do it.
Reason I am looking is a good friend from new orleans and my goddaughter are coming over in july and first uk visit so wanted to give them the full english breakfast experience
Is this London?
My favourite Full English was always in the Austrian style cafe on Swain's Lane at the lower end of Highgate towards the Parish Church before a walk across Parliament Hill.
But the row of shops has been redeveloped since, so it may have been "chicced"-up.
The cafe is still there, but has changed name/ownership. It's fine, but I don't think it's as you remember.
My other local inexpensive favourites were Zamoyski's (sp?) in South Hampstead, and Saturday mornings at the small French opposite the Belsize Park tube station. Looking in Google, I'd forgotten how many shops were near that tube.
It used to be Cafe Mozart, then became Kalendar (can't remember when), then expanded and took over next door, then retracted back in size.
Pete Buttigieg minus the elephant in the room would trounce Trump,.
Sadly I don’t see a gay candidate winning the Presidency.
I was on a cruise full of Americans a few years ago. They were mainly Never Trump Republicans and the concensus was that Mayor Pete's sexuality would not be the problem I suggested it would be. They reckoned those who had a problem would never have voted for him anyway as he was a Dem.
Interesting, I had a similar experience on an American cruise (in Europe) earlier this year. I have a theory that the hard-core MAGA crowd don't travel abroad much, so you're unlikely to meet them outside the US.
Did you read the almost-hilarious but extremely snobby and a tad too long account of a cruise trip in The Atlantic this week?
The writer comes over as the only thing he is communicating is that he is actually a giant arsehole
The Americans haven’t learned subtle understated snobbery yet. Give them time.
Don't think its about snobbery....he would have hated you, he would have hate me. You are on the left I am on the right. Guy just have a chip on his shoulder about the sort of people go on cruises and comes across as "I made no effort to fit in, why will no one talk to me just because I go out of my way not to fit in"
I’m in the middle, supposedly. But yes, this was a New Yorker complaining that a cruise off Florida isn’t like New York.
I was strongly reminded of the stereotype of the English working class man who can’t understand why he can’t get a good fry up at the beach cafe, where ever he is.
“Don’t these bleed’n furinnners know how to cook food?!”
Tbf that is getting more often, where I am done a recce of all the nearby cafe's they all do english breakfasts but none of them have a fried slice which is the best bit
Very true. They all seem to have dropped fried bread for that abomination which is a pre-fabricated 'hash brown' slab.
On the Bates testimony, you've missed an important bit.
He told Allan Leighton, the then Chair, in 2003 about the problems with Horizon and the contract the PO had with the subpostmasters (which it is clear the PO did not understand - as confirmed later by Mr Justice Fraser).
Had his allegations been properly investigated then - as they should have been - the scandal would never have happened. Most of the prosecutions happened long before Paula Vennells became CEO and they happened when the PO was still part of Royal Mail, which the government was desperate to privatise.
So there was every incentive for Royal Mail and PO managers to bury problems and for that desire to be shared by civil servants and by Ministers. What was in the various prospectus documents will make interesting reading. What Susan Crichton, the GC at the time of the privatisation and the later appointment of Second Sight and who left overnight in mysterious circumstances will say in evidence will be interesting.
Allan Leighton's evidence will be interesting too.
The idea that Ministers and civil servants were taking a hands off approach to a company they were keen to fatten up for privatisation, one which was costing them money and they were desperate to make profitable is for the birds. As I stated in one of my headers on this if you are the sole owner when all this crap is happening - and you are being told about it, as Ministers were and are being expected to pay for it all - hands off is not an option and is a big fat lie.
On the Bates testimony, you've missed an important bit.
He told Allan Leighton, the then Chair, in 2003 about the problems with Horizon and the contract the PO had with the subpostmasters (which it is clear the PO did not understand - as confirmed later by Mr Justice Fraser).
Had his allegations been properly investigated then - as they should have been - the scandal would never have happened. Most of the prosecutions happened long before Paula Vennells became CEO and they happened when the PO was still part of Royal Mail, which the government was desperate to privatise.
So there was every incentive for Royal Mail and PO managers to bury problems and for that desire to be shared by civil servants and by Ministers. What was in the various prospectus documents will make interesting reading. What Susan Crichton, the GC at the time of the privatisation and the later appointment of Second Sight and who left overnight in mysterious circumstances will say in evidence will be interesting.
Allan Leighton's evidence will be interesting too.
The idea that Ministers and civil servants were taking a hands off approach to a company they were keen to fatten up for privatisation, one which was costing them money and they were desperate to make profitable is for the birds. As I stated in one of my headers on this if you are the sole owner when all this crap is happening - and you are being told about it, as Ministers were and are being expected to pay for it all - hands off is not an option and is a big fat lie.
In fact, he first identified problems with Horizon and told the Post Office in 2000.
The other interesting piece of evidence which came out was that when his shortfall, which he had been rolling over for 2 years, was written off by the PO, they had a standard printed form for such write-offs, with one of the reasons listed as Horizon problems.
That they knew Horizon was a crock of shit which could not be relied on is a given. The real questions now are how far up into government did this knowledge go and how far was government t involved in covering this up and the miscarriages of justice. People at the top of Royal Mail and the PO were not acting on their own initiative. They were doing what the owners wanted.
On the Bates testimony, you've missed an important bit.
He told Allan Leighton, the then Chair, in 2003 about the problems with Horizon and the contract the PO had with the subpostmasters (which it is clear the PO did not understand - as confirmed later by Mr Justice Fraser).
Had his allegations been properly investigated then - as they should have been - the scandal would never have happened. Most of the prosecutions happened long before Paula Vennells became CEO and they happened when the PO was still part of Royal Mail, which the government was desperate to privatise.
So there was every incentive for Royal Mail and PO managers to bury problems and for that desire to be shared by civil servants and by Ministers. What was in the various prospectus documents will make interesting reading. What Susan Crichton, the GC at the time of the privatisation and the later appointment of Second Sight and who left overnight in mysterious circumstances will say in evidence will be interesting.
Allan Leighton's evidence will be interesting too.
The idea that Ministers and civil servants were taking a hands off approach to a company they were keen to fatten up for privatisation, one which was costing them money and they were desperate to make profitable is for the birds. As I stated in one of my headers on this if you are the sole owner when all this crap is happening - and you are being told about it, as Ministers were and are being expected to pay for it all - hands off is not an option and is a big fat lie.
Good evening.
Trusting you are well.
Evening to you too.
No, not really.
Sorry to hear that.
Me likewise - my bone marrow biopsy is at 9:30am tomorrow .
Alabama Sec of State says Biden can’t be on ballot because since 1975 state law has required nomination by Aug 15, before this year’s Dem convention. Funny how GOP/Dem conventions have been later 13 TIMES since 1975 — including both parties in 2020 — and it never was an issue. https://twitter.com/EricColumbus/status/1777795221151002740
Tbf that is getting more often, where I am done a recce of all the nearby cafe's they all do english breakfasts but none of them have a fried slice which is the best bit
At last, a subject on which I can speak with some authority.
You're quite right - a good fried slice goes a long way but the other two things I look for when judging a cafe is how they cook mushrooms and second, the quality of the sausage not just in terms of how it's cooked but whether it's a decent banger or something cheap and horrible. You can ruin a good sausage by bad cooking but it's impossible to make a bad sausage really good.
Cafes owned and run by Turks, Greeks or Portuguese often do a very good Full English and while you can pay a bit more for quality there's plenty of good places which can still be value. My hint is NOT to order the Set options - choose what you want and tell them. My "normal" is two fried eggs, fried slice, mushrooms and sausage.
I have my favourites - in London, Becks in Red Lion Street offers kidneys as part of the breakfast options and they are a real treat. There's a couple of places in East London where the bubble is exceptional. Pellicci's in Bethnal Green Road is a East London institution. I was in Woolwich yesterday and tried the Arsenal Gate Cafe - unpretentious, good value and while not top notch, well cooked and very tasty albeit not the best quality ingredients.
I am by no means saying its the only thing and what you mentioned is important, I am just noticing more and more its the omitted thing from menu's
It's my experience if you don't see it you can ask and if you catch them at a quiet time or in a good mood they'll do it.
Reason I am looking is a good friend from new orleans and my goddaughter are coming over in july and first uk visit so wanted to give them the full english breakfast experience
Is this London?
My favourite Full English was always in the Austrian style cafe on Swain's Lane at the lower end of Highgate towards the Parish Church before a walk across Parliament Hill.
But the row of shops has been redeveloped since, so it may have been "chicced"-up.
The cafe is still there, but has changed name/ownership. It's fine, but I don't think it's as you remember.
My other local inexpensive favourites were Zamoyski's (sp?) in South Hampstead, and Saturday mornings at the small French opposite the Belsize Park tube station. Looking in Google, I'd forgotten how many shops were near that tube.
It used to be Cafe Mozart, then became Kalendar (can't remember when), then expanded and took over next door, then retracted back in size.
On the Bates testimony, you've missed an important bit.
He told Allan Leighton, the then Chair, in 2003 about the problems with Horizon and the contract the PO had with the subpostmasters (which it is clear the PO did not understand - as confirmed later by Mr Justice Fraser).
Had his allegations been properly investigated then - as they should have been - the scandal would never have happened. Most of the prosecutions happened long before Paula Vennells became CEO and they happened when the PO was still part of Royal Mail, which the government was desperate to privatise.
So there was every incentive for Royal Mail and PO managers to bury problems and for that desire to be shared by civil servants and by Ministers. What was in the various prospectus documents will make interesting reading. What Susan Crichton, the GC at the time of the privatisation and the later appointment of Second Sight and who left overnight in mysterious circumstances will say in evidence will be interesting.
Allan Leighton's evidence will be interesting too.
The idea that Ministers and civil servants were taking a hands off approach to a company they were keen to fatten up for privatisation, one which was costing them money and they were desperate to make profitable is for the birds. As I stated in one of my headers on this if you are the sole owner when all this crap is happening - and you are being told about it, as Ministers were and are being expected to pay for it all - hands off is not an option and is a big fat lie.
Good evening.
Trusting you are well.
Evening to you too.
No, not really.
Sorry to hear that.
Me likewise - my bone marrow biopsy is at 9:30am tomorrow .
At least then it will be over.
I had over twenty bone marrow biopsies over three years. I don’t envy you tomorrow, but you will at least get up to date info on your status. I suffered partly as I have very thick bones - I can claim that some of my weight is down to the heavy bones and doctors have said so.
On November 21, the final tally of votes initially left Mayes leading Hamadeh by just 510 votes out of more than 2.5 million cast. This triggered an automatic recount under Arizona law; the recount was completed on December 29 with the Democrat winning by an even slimmer 280 vote margin and just 0.01%, making it the closest statewide election in any state in 2022 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Arizona_Attorney_General_election
With that, and the Gubernatorial race, and the Presidential result in 2020, Arizona must be just about the most marginal of the swing states - if this issue pushes it for the Democrats once more it would be hugely significant.
Alabama Sec of State says Biden can’t be on ballot because since 1975 state law has required nomination by Aug 15, before this year’s Dem convention. Funny how GOP/Dem conventions have been later 13 TIMES since 1975 — including both parties in 2020 — and it never was an issue. https://twitter.com/EricColumbus/status/1777795221151002740
Was inevitable something like this would occur, but presumably it doesn't matter now as the Supreme Court has basically said states cannot take exclude a presidential candidate?
No, the same tired old Axis of the 50s and 60s but the role of leading power has shifted several thousand miles to the east. Beijing will be calling the shots this time, not Moscow.
It's a great pity that Russia is ending up as a satrapy of China. If it could have been pulled toward Western Europe, that would have led to a far more positive and stable future both for Russia and its neighbours.
Yes and the West tried to welcome Russia post-Soviet Union, but unfortunately Putin had other ideas in mind.
Wasn't our choice what has happened, its entirely his. He has absolutely no interest in a westernised Russia.
It could have happened anyway because of the internal dynamics of the regime: it needs to start a fight to secure its legitimacy. But that said, you can't dismiss the expansion of NATO and invasion of Iraq as insignificant.
No, the same tired old Axis of the 50s and 60s but the role of leading power has shifted several thousand miles to the east. Beijing will be calling the shots this time, not Moscow.
It's a great pity that Russia is ending up as a satrapy of China. If it could have been pulled toward Western Europe, that would have led to a far more positive and stable future both for Russia and its neighbours.
Yes and the West tried to welcome Russia post-Soviet Union, but unfortunately Putin had other ideas in mind.
Wasn't our choice what has happened, its entirely his. He has absolutely no interest in a westernised Russia.
It could have happened anyway because of the internal dynamics of the regime: it needs to start a fight to secure its legitimacy. But that said, you can't dismiss the expansion of NATO and invasion of Iraq as insignificant.
I think we probably can, if they are used as pretexts, which they often are. Each presumably factored into the regime's thinking, but the direction chosen was certainly no inevitability, and that being the case how much does it then really matter if it played some role in their thinking?
Alabama Sec of State says Biden can’t be on ballot because since 1975 state law has required nomination by Aug 15, before this year’s Dem convention. Funny how GOP/Dem conventions have been later 13 TIMES since 1975 — including both parties in 2020 — and it never was an issue. https://twitter.com/EricColumbus/status/1777795221151002740
Ohio has a similar issue - the Dem convention is later than the regulatory deadline. In 2020 there was a similar problem, which required State legislation to over-ride, but there’s the suggestion that a lot of state legislatures are pissed off with the parties running their conventions later than usual, and want to see longer campaigns.
On November 21, the final tally of votes initially left Mayes leading Hamadeh by just 510 votes out of more than 2.5 million cast. This triggered an automatic recount under Arizona law; the recount was completed on December 29 with the Democrat winning by an even slimmer 280 vote margin and just 0.01%, making it the closest statewide election in any state in 2022 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Arizona_Attorney_General_election
With that, and the Gubernatorial race, and the Presidential result in 2020, Arizona must be just about the most marginal of the swing states - if this issue pushes it for the Democrats once more it would be hugely significant.
The polling in Arizona still has Trump with a reasonably comfortable 4.5% lead but results like this make you wonder. It would just be so delicious if Trump stacking the SC to overturn Wade costs him the Presidency.
No, the same tired old Axis of the 50s and 60s but the role of leading power has shifted several thousand miles to the east. Beijing will be calling the shots this time, not Moscow.
It's a great pity that Russia is ending up as a satrapy of China. If it could have been pulled toward Western Europe, that would have led to a far more positive and stable future both for Russia and its neighbours.
Yes and the West tried to welcome Russia post-Soviet Union, but unfortunately Putin had other ideas in mind.
Wasn't our choice what has happened, its entirely his. He has absolutely no interest in a westernised Russia.
It could have happened anyway because of the internal dynamics of the regime: it needs to start a fight to secure its legitimacy. But that said, you can't dismiss the expansion of NATO and invasion of Iraq as insignificant.
“The expansion of NATO” is bollocks.
To argue such is effectively to say that the east European states ought, as a matter of principle, to have remained Russian vassals.
Alabama Sec of State says Biden can’t be on ballot because since 1975 state law has required nomination by Aug 15, before this year’s Dem convention. Funny how GOP/Dem conventions have been later 13 TIMES since 1975 — including both parties in 2020 — and it never was an issue. https://twitter.com/EricColumbus/status/1777795221151002740
Was inevitable something like this would occur, but presumably it doesn't matter now as the Supreme Court has basically said states cannot take exclude a presidential candidate?
The SC ruling was about the States refusing to accept a primary nomination, the current issues in at least two states refer to the election candidates failing to meet the deadlines for filing nomination papers.
The State says that nomination papers must be submitted 90 days before the election, but the Party decides to hold their convention 80 days before the election.
One thing I have not seen discussed much is that the Cons need to score 30% in a poll by April 14th to not become the first governing party in polling history to go six months without hitting 30% once. (In fact, neither major party ever did that in government or opposition)
No, the same tired old Axis of the 50s and 60s but the role of leading power has shifted several thousand miles to the east. Beijing will be calling the shots this time, not Moscow.
It's a great pity that Russia is ending up as a satrapy of China. If it could have been pulled toward Western Europe, that would have led to a far more positive and stable future both for Russia and its neighbours.
Yes and the West tried to welcome Russia post-Soviet Union, but unfortunately Putin had other ideas in mind.
Wasn't our choice what has happened, its entirely his. He has absolutely no interest in a westernised Russia.
Yes. There was at one time talk of bringing Russia into NATO. European leaders in particular went out of their way to bring Putin's Russia on board in the early years. London and other European destinations opening doors to Putin's pet oligarchs. Admittedly fanciful talk of joining NATO. Allying initially in 'the War On Terror'. Nord Stream. Putin even used the American legal system to divvy up Russia's mineral wealth.
Sadly, a thuggish, expanisionist, nationalist dictator will never be a friend and saw Western outreach as weakness to be exploited. And he could never allow Russia to join Western institutions because they would have destroyed his hold on power - which relies on kleptocracy and secrecy.
The mistake made was that of the appeasers in not getting tough far earlier and continuing to hope Putin had a better nature, or foolishly believing Russian propaganda about 'spheres of influence' and feeling threatened.
Fascinating video about the detail of Jury selection wrt the Trump NY case, and the huge rights of lawyers to challenge jurors to get the Jury they want.
On the Bates testimony, you've missed an important bit.
He told Allan Leighton, the then Chair, in 2003 about the problems with Horizon and the contract the PO had with the subpostmasters (which it is clear the PO did not understand - as confirmed later by Mr Justice Fraser).
Had his allegations been properly investigated then - as they should have been - the scandal would never have happened. Most of the prosecutions happened long before Paula Vennells became CEO and they happened when the PO was still part of Royal Mail, which the government was desperate to privatise.
So there was every incentive for Royal Mail and PO managers to bury problems and for that desire to be shared by civil servants and by Ministers. What was in the various prospectus documents will make interesting reading. What Susan Crichton, the GC at the time of the privatisation and the later appointment of Second Sight and who left overnight in mysterious circumstances will say in evidence will be interesting.
Allan Leighton's evidence will be interesting too.
The idea that Ministers and civil servants were taking a hands off approach to a company they were keen to fatten up for privatisation, one which was costing them money and they were desperate to make profitable is for the birds. As I stated in one of my headers on this if you are the sole owner when all this crap is happening - and you are being told about it, as Ministers were and are being expected to pay for it all - hands off is not an option and is a big fat lie.
Good evening.
Trusting you are well.
Evening to you too.
No, not really.
Sorry to hear that.
Me likewise - my bone marrow biopsy is at 9:30am tomorrow .
At least then it will be over.
I had over twenty bone marrow biopsies over three years. I don’t envy you tomorrow, but you will at least get up to date info on your status. I suffered partly as I have very thick bones - I can claim that some of my weight is down to the heavy bones and doctors have said so.
Cheers.
If I get a decent result my condition is back in remission for X years.
I notice quite a difference in discomfort depending on the distraction-patter of the Doctor. I had one who talked to me such that he was half way through before I noticed.
Fascinating video about the detail of Jury selection wrt the Trump NY case, and the huge rights of lawyers to challenge jurors to get the Jury they want.
From following various sources around Trump's legal issues I now know far more about legal procedures in various US States and Courts than I do over here. I have no idea how they select jurors here and if we have voir dire, as they refer to the questioning of jurors.
Small businesses by far the biggest source of so-called Tax Gap between what economy should be generating in tax and what is collected says BBC News.
All those white van guys who never pay VAT as they "just do a few small jobs, now and again. I'm mainly retired me."??
And cash in hand businesses too, which our tax system encourages.
Failing to register cash transactions, and paying your employees via undocumented cash, enables someone to dodge VAT, Employers NIC, Employees NIC, Income Tax and the employee can keep claiming benefits. Employer and Employee both benefit, honest taxpayers lose out.
I've heard of many businesses whereby employees work on the books part time, while working full time, get paid the difference in cash. And the combined tax rate is so high that both parties have reason to cooperate with each other rather than anyone declare what is happening.
Combined between all the taxes (and benefits) the difference can be about 100% coming from the taxpayer.
On the Bates testimony, you've missed an important bit.
He told Allan Leighton, the then Chair, in 2003 about the problems with Horizon and the contract the PO had with the subpostmasters (which it is clear the PO did not understand - as confirmed later by Mr Justice Fraser).
Had his allegations been properly investigated then - as they should have been - the scandal would never have happened. Most of the prosecutions happened long before Paula Vennells became CEO and they happened when the PO was still part of Royal Mail, which the government was desperate to privatise.
So there was every incentive for Royal Mail and PO managers to bury problems and for that desire to be shared by civil servants and by Ministers. What was in the various prospectus documents will make interesting reading. What Susan Crichton, the GC at the time of the privatisation and the later appointment of Second Sight and who left overnight in mysterious circumstances will say in evidence will be interesting.
Allan Leighton's evidence will be interesting too.
The idea that Ministers and civil servants were taking a hands off approach to a company they were keen to fatten up for privatisation, one which was costing them money and they were desperate to make profitable is for the birds. As I stated in one of my headers on this if you are the sole owner when all this crap is happening - and you are being told about it, as Ministers were and are being expected to pay for it all - hands off is not an option and is a big fat lie.
Good evening.
Trusting you are well.
Evening to you too.
No, not really.
Sorry to hear that.
Me likewise - my bone marrow biopsy is at 9:30am tomorrow .
At least then it will be over.
I had over twenty bone marrow biopsies over three years. I don’t envy you tomorrow, but you will at least get up to date info on your status. I suffered partly as I have very thick bones - I can claim that some of my weight is down to the heavy bones and doctors have said so.
Cheers.
If I get a decent result my condition is back in remission for X years.
I notice quite a difference in discomfort depending on the distraction-patter of the Doctor. I had one who talked to me such that he was half way through before I noticed.
I had a couple of bad experiences. One trainee who ended up skewering me in both sides to get a sample. Once a locum sent my bone marrow to the wrong place, requiring another sampling two days later. But the conformation of remission each time (every three months for three years) was worth it every time. Good luck in the morning!
Small businesses by far the biggest source of so-called Tax Gap between what economy should be generating in tax and what is collected says BBC News.
All those white van guys who never pay VAT as they "just do a few small jobs, now and again. I'm mainly retired me."??
That's a serious misrepresentation.
Those self-employed tradespeople whose turnover is below the £90k VAT threshold are not liable to charge VAT on their services - they are doing nothing wrong, them's the rules. £90k pa is more than "a few small jobs, now and again".
Sure, the government could lower the threshold and bring in more revenue but given they've just upped it by £5k that doesn't seem on the cards.
Fascinating video about the detail of Jury selection wrt the Trump NY case, and the huge rights of lawyers to challenge jurors to get the Jury they want.
Small businesses by far the biggest source of so-called Tax Gap between what economy should be generating in tax and what is collected says BBC News.
All those white van guys who never pay VAT as they "just do a few small jobs, now and again. I'm mainly retired me."??
That's a serious misrepresentation.
Those self-employed tradespeople whose turnover is below the £90k VAT threshold are not liable to charge VAT on their services - they are doing nothing wrong, them's the rules. £90k pa is more than "a few small jobs, now and again".
Sure, the government could lower the threshold and bring in more revenue but given they've just upped it by £5k that doesn't seem on the cards.
It was £85k for many years. The raise is below inflation.
Small businesses by far the biggest source of so-called Tax Gap between what economy should be generating in tax and what is collected says BBC News.
All those white van guys who never pay VAT as they "just do a few small jobs, now and again. I'm mainly retired me."??
As I said earlier today - if you want to fix the tax gap, reduce the VAT threshold to £30,000 while reducing it to 17-18%.
And watch the money come in...
If the government want more money they should stop paying me £1000 each year for sticking £4000 into a LISA.
Having taken so much of the private savings of the wealthy out of tax no doubt seemed a good idea to begin with, but taking the wider view was a huge mistake. But it would be a brave government that tries to unwind what is done.
Small businesses by far the biggest source of so-called Tax Gap between what economy should be generating in tax and what is collected says BBC News.
All those white van guys who never pay VAT as they "just do a few small jobs, now and again. I'm mainly retired me."??
That's a serious misrepresentation.
Those self-employed tradespeople whose turnover is below the £90k VAT threshold are not liable to charge VAT on their services - they are doing nothing wrong, them's the rules. £90k pa is more than "a few small jobs, now and again".
Sure, the government could lower the threshold and bring in more revenue but given they've just upped it by £5k that doesn't seem on the cards.
But the Labour Government will need the money and a lower threshold from April 2026 will bring in significant tax revenue at the time it's needed..
Small businesses by far the biggest source of so-called Tax Gap between what economy should be generating in tax and what is collected says BBC News.
All those white van guys who never pay VAT as they "just do a few small jobs, now and again. I'm mainly retired me."??
That's a serious misrepresentation.
Those self-employed tradespeople whose turnover is below the £90k VAT threshold are not liable to charge VAT on their services - they are doing nothing wrong, them's the rules. £90k pa is more than "a few small jobs, now and again".
Sure, the government could lower the threshold and bring in more revenue but given they've just upped it by £5k that doesn't seem on the cards.
Small businesses by far the biggest source of so-called Tax Gap between what economy should be generating in tax and what is collected says BBC News.
All those white van guys who never pay VAT as they "just do a few small jobs, now and again. I'm mainly retired me."??
And cash in hand businesses too, which our tax system encourages.
Failing to register cash transactions, and paying your employees via undocumented cash, enables someone to dodge VAT, Employers NIC, Employees NIC, Income Tax and the employee can keep claiming benefits. Employer and Employee both benefit, honest taxpayers lose out.
I've heard of many businesses whereby employees work on the books part time, while working full time, get paid the difference in cash. And the combined tax rate is so high that both parties have reason to cooperate with each other rather than anyone declare what is happening.
Combined between all the taxes (and benefits) the difference can be about 100% coming from the taxpayer.
Indeed. Essentially any business that demands cash only is likely dodging tax. There is simply no other rational reason for such a policy: cashless is cheaper to run these days, by some distance.
Small businesses by far the biggest source of so-called Tax Gap between what economy should be generating in tax and what is collected says BBC News.
All those white van guys who never pay VAT as they "just do a few small jobs, now and again. I'm mainly retired me."??
That's a serious misrepresentation.
Those self-employed tradespeople whose turnover is below the £90k VAT threshold are not liable to charge VAT on their services - they are doing nothing wrong, them's the rules. £90k pa is more than "a few small jobs, now and again".
Sure, the government could lower the threshold and bring in more revenue but given they've just upped it by £5k that doesn't seem on the cards.
Surely some tax is due on a £100k pa income?
Yes, income tax and national insurance. Being self employed I pay both. But then I don’t take cash.
Small businesses by far the biggest source of so-called Tax Gap between what economy should be generating in tax and what is collected says BBC News.
All those white van guys who never pay VAT as they "just do a few small jobs, now and again. I'm mainly retired me."??
And cash in hand businesses too, which our tax system encourages.
Failing to register cash transactions, and paying your employees via undocumented cash, enables someone to dodge VAT, Employers NIC, Employees NIC, Income Tax and the employee can keep claiming benefits. Employer and Employee both benefit, honest taxpayers lose out.
I've heard of many businesses whereby employees work on the books part time, while working full time, get paid the difference in cash. And the combined tax rate is so high that both parties have reason to cooperate with each other rather than anyone declare what is happening.
Combined between all the taxes (and benefits) the difference can be about 100% coming from the taxpayer.
That's completely different to the sub VAT threshold trader (legitimately) not collecting VAT.
I am not convinced it so big a problem as you imply but to the extent that is it a problem, more resources should be applied to stamping it out. Ultimately though, that means more government snooping.
Maybe make it a specific offence to pay someone for a service if you have reason to believe they are not going to pay tax on the income - offering you a lower price for cash being treated as a 'reason to believe'?
Small businesses by far the biggest source of so-called Tax Gap between what economy should be generating in tax and what is collected says BBC News.
All those white van guys who never pay VAT as they "just do a few small jobs, now and again. I'm mainly retired me."??
That's a serious misrepresentation.
Those self-employed tradespeople whose turnover is below the £90k VAT threshold are not liable to charge VAT on their services - they are doing nothing wrong, them's the rules. £90k pa is more than "a few small jobs, now and again".
Sure, the government could lower the threshold and bring in more revenue but given they've just upped it by £5k that doesn't seem on the cards.
Surely some tax is due on a £100k pa income?
Of course - ICT and NI. But the original poster was talking about VAT, which those with a turnover of <£90k pa aren't required to charge or pass on to the government.
Small businesses by far the biggest source of so-called Tax Gap between what economy should be generating in tax and what is collected says BBC News.
All those white van guys who never pay VAT as they "just do a few small jobs, now and again. I'm mainly retired me."??
And cash in hand businesses too, which our tax system encourages.
Failing to register cash transactions, and paying your employees via undocumented cash, enables someone to dodge VAT, Employers NIC, Employees NIC, Income Tax and the employee can keep claiming benefits. Employer and Employee both benefit, honest taxpayers lose out.
I've heard of many businesses whereby employees work on the books part time, while working full time, get paid the difference in cash. And the combined tax rate is so high that both parties have reason to cooperate with each other rather than anyone declare what is happening.
Combined between all the taxes (and benefits) the difference can be about 100% coming from the taxpayer.
That's completely different to the sub VAT threshold trader (legitimately) not collecting VAT.
I am not convinced it so big a problem as you imply but to the extent that is it a problem, more resources should be applied to stamping it out. Ultimately though, that means more government snooping.
Maybe make it a specific offence to pay someone for a service if you have reason to believe they are not going to pay tax on the income - offering you a lower price for cash being treated as a 'reason to believe'?
I think you'll find (and I think rottenborough was implying) that many of those small traders are not legitimately not collecting VAT. The two are linked completely, small businesses that are doing over £90k in trade who are only putting through the books trade that keeps them below the threshold while not registering other trade whatsoever.
Small businesses by far the biggest source of so-called Tax Gap between what economy should be generating in tax and what is collected says BBC News.
All those white van guys who never pay VAT as they "just do a few small jobs, now and again. I'm mainly retired me."??
And cash in hand businesses too, which our tax system encourages.
Failing to register cash transactions, and paying your employees via undocumented cash, enables someone to dodge VAT, Employers NIC, Employees NIC, Income Tax and the employee can keep claiming benefits. Employer and Employee both benefit, honest taxpayers lose out.
I've heard of many businesses whereby employees work on the books part time, while working full time, get paid the difference in cash. And the combined tax rate is so high that both parties have reason to cooperate with each other rather than anyone declare what is happening.
Combined between all the taxes (and benefits) the difference can be about 100% coming from the taxpayer.
That's completely different to the sub VAT threshold trader (legitimately) not collecting VAT.
I am not convinced it so big a problem as you imply but to the extent that is it a problem, more resources should be applied to stamping it out. Ultimately though, that means more government snooping.
Maybe make it a specific offence to pay someone for a service if you have reason to believe they are not going to pay tax on the income - offering you a lower price for cash being treated as a 'reason to believe'?
I think you'll find (and I think rottenborough was implying) that many of those small traders are not legitimately not collecting VAT. The two are linked completely, small businesses that are doing over £90k in trade who are only putting through the books trade that keeps them below the threshold while not registering other trade whatsoever.
Carpet fitters, for example. Also car bodywork specialists. Any business where the Labour outweighs the materials.
Small businesses by far the biggest source of so-called Tax Gap between what economy should be generating in tax and what is collected says BBC News.
All those white van guys who never pay VAT as they "just do a few small jobs, now and again. I'm mainly retired me."??
That's a serious misrepresentation.
Those self-employed tradespeople whose turnover is below the £90k VAT threshold are not liable to charge VAT on their services - they are doing nothing wrong, them's the rules. £90k pa is more than "a few small jobs, now and again".
Sure, the government could lower the threshold and bring in more revenue but given they've just upped it by £5k that doesn't seem on the cards.
But the Labour Government will need the money and a lower threshold from April 2026 will bring in significant tax revenue at the time it's needed..
It's certainly one approach to raising revenue but not the one I would go for. My top picks would be:
1. Replace (employees) NI with ICT - which would have the effect of harmonising tax on income for unearned income. 2. A wealth or land value tax. 3. A UK version of FATCA to tax foreign earnings of UK citizens.
Small businesses by far the biggest source of so-called Tax Gap between what economy should be generating in tax and what is collected says BBC News.
All those white van guys who never pay VAT as they "just do a few small jobs, now and again. I'm mainly retired me."??
And cash in hand businesses too, which our tax system encourages.
Failing to register cash transactions, and paying your employees via undocumented cash, enables someone to dodge VAT, Employers NIC, Employees NIC, Income Tax and the employee can keep claiming benefits. Employer and Employee both benefit, honest taxpayers lose out.
I've heard of many businesses whereby employees work on the books part time, while working full time, get paid the difference in cash. And the combined tax rate is so high that both parties have reason to cooperate with each other rather than anyone declare what is happening.
Combined between all the taxes (and benefits) the difference can be about 100% coming from the taxpayer.
That's completely different to the sub VAT threshold trader (legitimately) not collecting VAT.
I am not convinced it so big a problem as you imply but to the extent that is it a problem, more resources should be applied to stamping it out. Ultimately though, that means more government snooping.
Maybe make it a specific offence to pay someone for a service if you have reason to believe they are not going to pay tax on the income - offering you a lower price for cash being treated as a 'reason to believe'?
I think you'll find (and I think rottenborough was implying) that many of those small traders are not legitimately not collecting VAT. The two are linked completely, small businesses that are doing over £90k in trade who are only putting through the books trade that keeps them below the threshold while not registering other trade whatsoever.
Ah, well yes that's straightforward tax fraud and should be stamped out, through better surveillance etc.
But many sole traders, have a genuine turnover of <£90k pa. It's not a bad income after all if your expenses are relatively low.
Small businesses by far the biggest source of so-called Tax Gap between what economy should be generating in tax and what is collected says BBC News.
All those white van guys who never pay VAT as they "just do a few small jobs, now and again. I'm mainly retired me."??
And cash in hand businesses too, which our tax system encourages.
Failing to register cash transactions, and paying your employees via undocumented cash, enables someone to dodge VAT, Employers NIC, Employees NIC, Income Tax and the employee can keep claiming benefits. Employer and Employee both benefit, honest taxpayers lose out.
I've heard of many businesses whereby employees work on the books part time, while working full time, get paid the difference in cash. And the combined tax rate is so high that both parties have reason to cooperate with each other rather than anyone declare what is happening.
Combined between all the taxes (and benefits) the difference can be about 100% coming from the taxpayer.
That's completely different to the sub VAT threshold trader (legitimately) not collecting VAT.
I am not convinced it so big a problem as you imply but to the extent that is it a problem, more resources should be applied to stamping it out. Ultimately though, that means more government snooping.
Maybe make it a specific offence to pay someone for a service if you have reason to believe they are not going to pay tax on the income - offering you a lower price for cash being treated as a 'reason to believe'?
I think you'll find (and I think rottenborough was implying) that many of those small traders are not legitimately not collecting VAT. The two are linked completely, small businesses that are doing over £90k in trade who are only putting through the books trade that keeps them below the threshold while not registering other trade whatsoever.
Carpet fitters, for example. Also car bodywork specialists. Any business where the Labour outweighs the materials.
Similarly, AFAIK it's quite legitimate for a trader, e.g. a kitchen fitter, to let the customer buy the kitchen (VATable) and then charge just for the time to fit.
No, the same tired old Axis of the 50s and 60s but the role of leading power has shifted several thousand miles to the east. Beijing will be calling the shots this time, not Moscow.
It's a great pity that Russia is ending up as a satrapy of China. If it could have been pulled toward Western Europe, that would have led to a far more positive and stable future both for Russia and its neighbours.
Yes and the West tried to welcome Russia post-Soviet Union, but unfortunately Putin had other ideas in mind.
Wasn't our choice what has happened, its entirely his. He has absolutely no interest in a westernised Russia.
It could have happened anyway because of the internal dynamics of the regime: it needs to start a fight to secure its legitimacy. But that said, you can't dismiss the expansion of NATO and invasion of Iraq as insignificant.
I think we probably can, if they are used as pretexts, which they often are. Each presumably factored into the regime's thinking, but the direction chosen was certainly no inevitability, and that being the case how much does it then really matter if it played some role in their thinking?
Putin was furious about Iraq back in 2003 when no one was paying any attention to Russia. The reason being that it was an invasion of a sovereign state. This is something that Putin has been going on about for over 20 years. Similarly with NATO getting involved in conflicts in the Balkans and then expanding in Eastern Europe, this was viewed by Russia as an act of aggression. I am not trying to 'excuse' Russian actions but to point out these 'pretexts' that have not just appeared from nowhere.
Small businesses by far the biggest source of so-called Tax Gap between what economy should be generating in tax and what is collected says BBC News.
All those white van guys who never pay VAT as they "just do a few small jobs, now and again. I'm mainly retired me."??
And cash in hand businesses too, which our tax system encourages.
Failing to register cash transactions, and paying your employees via undocumented cash, enables someone to dodge VAT, Employers NIC, Employees NIC, Income Tax and the employee can keep claiming benefits. Employer and Employee both benefit, honest taxpayers lose out.
I've heard of many businesses whereby employees work on the books part time, while working full time, get paid the difference in cash. And the combined tax rate is so high that both parties have reason to cooperate with each other rather than anyone declare what is happening.
Combined between all the taxes (and benefits) the difference can be about 100% coming from the taxpayer.
That's completely different to the sub VAT threshold trader (legitimately) not collecting VAT.
I am not convinced it so big a problem as you imply but to the extent that is it a problem, more resources should be applied to stamping it out. Ultimately though, that means more government snooping.
Maybe make it a specific offence to pay someone for a service if you have reason to believe they are not going to pay tax on the income - offering you a lower price for cash being treated as a 'reason to believe'?
I think you'll find (and I think rottenborough was implying) that many of those small traders are not legitimately not collecting VAT. The two are linked completely, small businesses that are doing over £90k in trade who are only putting through the books trade that keeps them below the threshold while not registering other trade whatsoever.
Carpet fitters, for example. Also car bodywork specialists. Any business where the Labour outweighs the materials.
The general feeling is there is lots of scamming going on.
Small businesses by far the biggest source of so-called Tax Gap between what economy should be generating in tax and what is collected says BBC News.
All those white van guys who never pay VAT as they "just do a few small jobs, now and again. I'm mainly retired me."??
And cash in hand businesses too, which our tax system encourages.
Failing to register cash transactions, and paying your employees via undocumented cash, enables someone to dodge VAT, Employers NIC, Employees NIC, Income Tax and the employee can keep claiming benefits. Employer and Employee both benefit, honest taxpayers lose out.
I've heard of many businesses whereby employees work on the books part time, while working full time, get paid the difference in cash. And the combined tax rate is so high that both parties have reason to cooperate with each other rather than anyone declare what is happening.
Combined between all the taxes (and benefits) the difference can be about 100% coming from the taxpayer.
That's completely different to the sub VAT threshold trader (legitimately) not collecting VAT.
I am not convinced it so big a problem as you imply but to the extent that is it a problem, more resources should be applied to stamping it out. Ultimately though, that means more government snooping.
Maybe make it a specific offence to pay someone for a service if you have reason to believe they are not going to pay tax on the income - offering you a lower price for cash being treated as a 'reason to believe'?
I think you'll find (and I think rottenborough was implying) that many of those small traders are not legitimately not collecting VAT. The two are linked completely, small businesses that are doing over £90k in trade who are only putting through the books trade that keeps them below the threshold while not registering other trade whatsoever.
Ah, well yes that's straightforward tax fraud and should be stamped out, through better surveillance etc.
But many sole traders, have a genuine turnover of less than £90k pa. It's not a bad income after all if your expenses are relatively low.
You'll never be able to have enough surveillance on all small traders, which is why they can and do get away with it. The easy pickings are largely done already.
You could cut the abuse by engaging in tax simplification though, to reduce the incentive to evade taxes. Getting rid of employers NI would mean employers wouldn't have an incentive to under-report their employees wages. Reducing the real tax rate from loss of benefits and all other taxes down from the 80%+ its currently at would reduce the incentive for people on that cliff edge to engage in fraud.
If you insist on 80% real tax rates people are going to find a way of dodging them, because the incentive to do so is just so high. At one extreme that's white collar tax evasion, fancy accountants, lawyers, trusts, etc, etc, at the other extreme its simple cash in hand tax fraud, benefits fraud and so on.
Its sad, but its also human nature. We need to stop encouraging it.
No, the same tired old Axis of the 50s and 60s but the role of leading power has shifted several thousand miles to the east. Beijing will be calling the shots this time, not Moscow.
It's a great pity that Russia is ending up as a satrapy of China. If it could have been pulled toward Western Europe, that would have led to a far more positive and stable future both for Russia and its neighbours.
Yes and the West tried to welcome Russia post-Soviet Union, but unfortunately Putin had other ideas in mind.
Wasn't our choice what has happened, its entirely his. He has absolutely no interest in a westernised Russia.
It could have happened anyway because of the internal dynamics of the regime: it needs to start a fight to secure its legitimacy. But that said, you can't dismiss the expansion of NATO and invasion of Iraq as insignificant.
I think we probably can, if they are used as pretexts, which they often are. Each presumably factored into the regime's thinking, but the direction chosen was certainly no inevitability, and that being the case how much does it then really matter if it played some role in their thinking?
Putin was furious about Iraq back in 2003 when no one was paying any attention to Russia. The reason being that it was an invasion of a sovereign state. This is something that Putin has been going on about for over 20 years. Similarly with NATO getting involved in conflicts in the Balkans and then expanding in Eastern Europe, this was viewed by Russia as an act of aggression. I am not trying to 'excuse' Russian actions but to point out these 'pretexts' that have not just appeared from nowhere.
That's fair enough: but are we therefore allowed to get equally upset about:
- Georgia (2008), where Russia invaded a sovereign nation to get what they wanted - Syria (2015-), when Russia intervened in a civil war - Libya (2015-) where Russian troops have also fought and - the Central African Republic (2018-)
If Russia had been inwardly looking while NATO and the US went around projecting power it would be a fair criticism. But Russian forces have been involved in far more fights in the last twenty years than NATO or US ones.
Small businesses by far the biggest source of so-called Tax Gap between what economy should be generating in tax and what is collected says BBC News.
All those white van guys who never pay VAT as they "just do a few small jobs, now and again. I'm mainly retired me."??
And cash in hand businesses too, which our tax system encourages.
Failing to register cash transactions, and paying your employees via undocumented cash, enables someone to dodge VAT, Employers NIC, Employees NIC, Income Tax and the employee can keep claiming benefits. Employer and Employee both benefit, honest taxpayers lose out.
I've heard of many businesses whereby employees work on the books part time, while working full time, get paid the difference in cash. And the combined tax rate is so high that both parties have reason to cooperate with each other rather than anyone declare what is happening.
Combined between all the taxes (and benefits) the difference can be about 100% coming from the taxpayer.
That's completely different to the sub VAT threshold trader (legitimately) not collecting VAT.
I am not convinced it so big a problem as you imply but to the extent that is it a problem, more resources should be applied to stamping it out. Ultimately though, that means more government snooping.
Which is not ideal, but I wish some of the bastard plumbers and building sector tradesmen I've encountered could be made subject to a level of government snooping sufficiently high to descummify their behaviour. Caveat emptor isn't enough.
For all those of you who do cruises, can you tell me if the bathrooms have a bath (as opposed to just a shower)?
If you want a bath, you’re likely in an expensive suite rather than a standard room. But yes, you can get bathrooms with baths. 90% of the rooms will have only showers.
My wife too.
??
I usually get in trouble if hotel rooms only have showers, as she likes her bath!
Ah right, I'm with your wife there.
(Er...)
For the bath lovers a little add, I have made a couple of sets of stainless steel chain mail now so you can bathe without worrying about being stabbed nods...or going rusty
Possibly one of the most bizarre PB posts ever - and there's a lot of competition.
I think we may have created a new fetish. Nobody tell Tory MPs.
For all those of you who do cruises, can you tell me if the bathrooms have a bath (as opposed to just a shower)?
If you want a bath, you’re likely in an expensive suite rather than a standard room. But yes, you can get bathrooms with baths. 90% of the rooms will have only showers.
My wife too.
??
I usually get in trouble if hotel rooms only have showers, as she likes her bath!
Ah right, I'm with your wife there.
(Er...)
For the bath lovers a little add, I have made a couple of sets of stainless steel chain mail now so you can bathe without worrying about being stabbed nods...or going rusty
Possibly one of the most bizarre PB posts ever - and there's a lot of competition.
I think we may have created a new fetish. Nobody tell Tory MPs.
"Tragedy as MP found dead - it is believed he was unable to lift himself out of the bath wearing chain mail suit"
Small businesses by far the biggest source of so-called Tax Gap between what economy should be generating in tax and what is collected says BBC News.
All those white van guys who never pay VAT as they "just do a few small jobs, now and again. I'm mainly retired me."??
And cash in hand businesses too, which our tax system encourages.
Failing to register cash transactions, and paying your employees via undocumented cash, enables someone to dodge VAT, Employers NIC, Employees NIC, Income Tax and the employee can keep claiming benefits. Employer and Employee both benefit, honest taxpayers lose out.
I've heard of many businesses whereby employees work on the books part time, while working full time, get paid the difference in cash. And the combined tax rate is so high that both parties have reason to cooperate with each other rather than anyone declare what is happening.
Combined between all the taxes (and benefits) the difference can be about 100% coming from the taxpayer.
That's completely different to the sub VAT threshold trader (legitimately) not collecting VAT.
I am not convinced it so big a problem as you imply but to the extent that is it a problem, more resources should be applied to stamping it out. Ultimately though, that means more government snooping.
Maybe make it a specific offence to pay someone for a service if you have reason to believe they are not going to pay tax on the income - offering you a lower price for cash being treated as a 'reason to believe'?
I think you'll find (and I think rottenborough was implying) that many of those small traders are not legitimately not collecting VAT. The two are linked completely, small businesses that are doing over £90k in trade who are only putting through the books trade that keeps them below the threshold while not registering other trade whatsoever.
Ah, well yes that's straightforward tax fraud and should be stamped out, through better surveillance etc.
But many sole traders, have a genuine turnover of less than £90k pa. It's not a bad income after all if your expenses are relatively low.
You'll never be able to have enough surveillance on all small traders, which is why they can and do get away with it. The easy pickings are largely done already.
You could cut the abuse by engaging in tax simplification though, to reduce the incentive to evade taxes. Getting rid of employers NI would mean employers wouldn't have an incentive to under-report their employees wages.
That's £60+bn you've just removed there - Employer NI isn't going anywhere which is why IR35 won't ever go anywhere...
No, the same tired old Axis of the 50s and 60s but the role of leading power has shifted several thousand miles to the east. Beijing will be calling the shots this time, not Moscow.
It's a great pity that Russia is ending up as a satrapy of China. If it could have been pulled toward Western Europe, that would have led to a far more positive and stable future both for Russia and its neighbours.
Yes and the West tried to welcome Russia post-Soviet Union, but unfortunately Putin had other ideas in mind.
Wasn't our choice what has happened, its entirely his. He has absolutely no interest in a westernised Russia.
It could have happened anyway because of the internal dynamics of the regime: it needs to start a fight to secure its legitimacy. But that said, you can't dismiss the expansion of NATO and invasion of Iraq as insignificant.
I think we probably can, if they are used as pretexts, which they often are. Each presumably factored into the regime's thinking, but the direction chosen was certainly no inevitability, and that being the case how much does it then really matter if it played some role in their thinking?
Putin was furious about Iraq back in 2003 when no one was paying any attention to Russia. The reason being that it was an invasion of a sovereign state. This is something that Putin has been going on about for over 20 years. Similarly with NATO getting involved in conflicts in the Balkans and then expanding in Eastern Europe, this was viewed by Russia as an act of aggression. I am not trying to 'excuse' Russian actions but to point out these 'pretexts' that have not just appeared from nowhere.
That's fair enough: but are we therefore allowed to get equally upset about:
- Georgia (2008), where Russia invaded a sovereign nation to get what they wanted - Syria (2015-), when Russia intervened in a civil war - Libya (2015-) where Russian troops have also fought and - the Central African Republic (2018-)
If Russia had been inwardly looking while NATO and the US went around projecting power it would be a fair criticism. But Russian forces have been involved in far more fights in the last twenty years than NATO or US ones.
Is that last statement backed by fact? It's an interesting surmise - I'm not saying it's wrong but I'd like to see the workings.
Regarding Syria, Russia was invited by the sovereign Government of Syria, whilst we were trying to foment an Islamist uprising - I'm not sure who has more right to be upset by whom on that one.
No, the same tired old Axis of the 50s and 60s but the role of leading power has shifted several thousand miles to the east. Beijing will be calling the shots this time, not Moscow.
It's a great pity that Russia is ending up as a satrapy of China. If it could have been pulled toward Western Europe, that would have led to a far more positive and stable future both for Russia and its neighbours.
Yes and the West tried to welcome Russia post-Soviet Union, but unfortunately Putin had other ideas in mind.
Wasn't our choice what has happened, its entirely his. He has absolutely no interest in a westernised Russia.
Yes. There was at one time talk of bringing Russia into NATO. European leaders in particular went out of their way to bring Putin's Russia on board in the early years. London and other European destinations opening doors to Putin's pet oligarchs. Admittedly fanciful talk of joining NATO. Allying initially in 'the War On Terror'. Nord Stream. Putin even used the American legal system to divvy up Russia's mineral wealth.
Sadly, a thuggish, expanisionist, nationalist dictator will never be a friend and saw Western outreach as weakness to be exploited. And he could never allow Russia to join Western institutions because they would have destroyed his hold on power - which relies on kleptocracy and secrecy.
The mistake made was that of the appeasers in not getting tough far earlier and continuing to hope Putin had a better nature, or foolishly believing Russian propaganda about 'spheres of influence' and feeling threatened.
Russia has always indicated that it required a buffer zone of aligned states between itself and NATO, and though it's cold comfort to the poor sods in those states who doesn't want to be Russia-aligned, the invasion of Ukraine is in keeping with that theory. If they start bombing France, the notion will be proven to be false. .
No, the same tired old Axis of the 50s and 60s but the role of leading power has shifted several thousand miles to the east. Beijing will be calling the shots this time, not Moscow.
It's a great pity that Russia is ending up as a satrapy of China. If it could have been pulled toward Western Europe, that would have led to a far more positive and stable future both for Russia and its neighbours.
Yes and the West tried to welcome Russia post-Soviet Union, but unfortunately Putin had other ideas in mind.
Wasn't our choice what has happened, its entirely his. He has absolutely no interest in a westernised Russia.
It could have happened anyway because of the internal dynamics of the regime: it needs to start a fight to secure its legitimacy. But that said, you can't dismiss the expansion of NATO and invasion of Iraq as insignificant.
I think we probably can, if they are used as pretexts, which they often are. Each presumably factored into the regime's thinking, but the direction chosen was certainly no inevitability, and that being the case how much does it then really matter if it played some role in their thinking?
Putin was furious about Iraq back in 2003 when no one was paying any attention to Russia. The reason being that it was an invasion of a sovereign state. This is something that Putin has been going on about for over 20 years. Similarly with NATO getting involved in conflicts in the Balkans and then expanding in Eastern Europe, this was viewed by Russia as an act of aggression. I am not trying to 'excuse' Russian actions but to point out these 'pretexts' that have not just appeared from nowhere.
I don't think you are seeking to excuse the actions, but I think they don't amount to much either. That some action by the West he seizes upon to do whatever or is perceived as aggression against Russia by him does not seem very note worthy. It might go some way in assessing what might be general sentiment in Russia, but they remain pretexts he uses to justify matters unrelated and disproportionate to what he claims they signify.
In which case what does it even really matter? A slither of a reason he sometimes inconsistently uses has a basis in reality, but is clearly inconsequential to simple avarice and power retention, if it was not those it would have been something else.
No, the same tired old Axis of the 50s and 60s but the role of leading power has shifted several thousand miles to the east. Beijing will be calling the shots this time, not Moscow.
It's a great pity that Russia is ending up as a satrapy of China. If it could have been pulled toward Western Europe, that would have led to a far more positive and stable future both for Russia and its neighbours.
Yes and the West tried to welcome Russia post-Soviet Union, but unfortunately Putin had other ideas in mind.
Wasn't our choice what has happened, its entirely his. He has absolutely no interest in a westernised Russia.
It could have happened anyway because of the internal dynamics of the regime: it needs to start a fight to secure its legitimacy. But that said, you can't dismiss the expansion of NATO and invasion of Iraq as insignificant.
I think we probably can, if they are used as pretexts, which they often are. Each presumably factored into the regime's thinking, but the direction chosen was certainly no inevitability, and that being the case how much does it then really matter if it played some role in their thinking?
Putin was furious about Iraq back in 2003 when no one was paying any attention to Russia. The reason being that it was an invasion of a sovereign state. This is something that Putin has been going on about for over 20 years. Similarly with NATO getting involved in conflicts in the Balkans and then expanding in Eastern Europe, this was viewed by Russia as an act of aggression. I am not trying to 'excuse' Russian actions but to point out these 'pretexts' that have not just appeared from nowhere.
That's fair enough: but are we therefore allowed to get equally upset about:
- Georgia (2008), where Russia invaded a sovereign nation to get what they wanted - Syria (2015-), when Russia intervened in a civil war - Libya (2015-) where Russian troops have also fought and - the Central African Republic (2018-)
If Russia had been inwardly looking while NATO and the US went around projecting power it would be a fair criticism. But Russian forces have been involved in far more fights in the last twenty years than NATO or US ones.
Both Russia and the US project their power.
Places where the US has been involved in wars this century include Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Kenya, Libya, Syria, Uganda, and Yemen, none of which are even on the same continent as the US.
No, the same tired old Axis of the 50s and 60s but the role of leading power has shifted several thousand miles to the east. Beijing will be calling the shots this time, not Moscow.
It's a great pity that Russia is ending up as a satrapy of China. If it could have been pulled toward Western Europe, that would have led to a far more positive and stable future both for Russia and its neighbours.
Yes and the West tried to welcome Russia post-Soviet Union, but unfortunately Putin had other ideas in mind.
Wasn't our choice what has happened, its entirely his. He has absolutely no interest in a westernised Russia.
Yes. There was at one time talk of bringing Russia into NATO. European leaders in particular went out of their way to bring Putin's Russia on board in the early years. London and other European destinations opening doors to Putin's pet oligarchs. Admittedly fanciful talk of joining NATO. Allying initially in 'the War On Terror'. Nord Stream. Putin even used the American legal system to divvy up Russia's mineral wealth.
Sadly, a thuggish, expanisionist, nationalist dictator will never be a friend and saw Western outreach as weakness to be exploited. And he could never allow Russia to join Western institutions because they would have destroyed his hold on power - which relies on kleptocracy and secrecy.
The mistake made was that of the appeasers in not getting tough far earlier and continuing to hope Putin had a better nature, or foolishly believing Russian propaganda about 'spheres of influence' and feeling threatened.
Russia has always indicated that it required a buffer zone of aligned states between itself and NATO, and though it's cold comfort to the poor sods in those states who doesn't want to be Russia-aligned, the invasion of Ukraine is in keeping with that theory. If they start bombing France, the notion will be proven to be false. .
Russia shares a border with NATO, so that's a problem.
That argument is full of shit. You don't buy it, do you?
No, the same tired old Axis of the 50s and 60s but the role of leading power has shifted several thousand miles to the east. Beijing will be calling the shots this time, not Moscow.
It's a great pity that Russia is ending up as a satrapy of China. If it could have been pulled toward Western Europe, that would have led to a far more positive and stable future both for Russia and its neighbours.
Yes and the West tried to welcome Russia post-Soviet Union, but unfortunately Putin had other ideas in mind.
Wasn't our choice what has happened, its entirely his. He has absolutely no interest in a westernised Russia.
Yes. There was at one time talk of bringing Russia into NATO. European leaders in particular went out of their way to bring Putin's Russia on board in the early years. London and other European destinations opening doors to Putin's pet oligarchs. Admittedly fanciful talk of joining NATO. Allying initially in 'the War On Terror'. Nord Stream. Putin even used the American legal system to divvy up Russia's mineral wealth.
Sadly, a thuggish, expanisionist, nationalist dictator will never be a friend and saw Western outreach as weakness to be exploited. And he could never allow Russia to join Western institutions because they would have destroyed his hold on power - which relies on kleptocracy and secrecy.
The mistake made was that of the appeasers in not getting tough far earlier and continuing to hope Putin had a better nature, or foolishly believing Russian propaganda about 'spheres of influence' and feeling threatened.
Russia has always indicated that it required a buffer zone of aligned states between itself and NATO, and though it's cold comfort to the poor sods in those states who doesn't want to be Russia-aligned, the invasion of Ukraine is in keeping with that theory. If they start bombing France, the notion will be proven to be false.
It hasn't. See the Nordic region and the Baltic. You could boil it down to Belarus and Ukraine.
I wonder if the GOP now regret the overturning of Roe v Wade .
Whilst that was in place they could hide behind it . Trumps attempt to neutralize the issue won’t stop the Dems from attacking him and the issue will rear its head across many states .
The latest news from Arizona is a gift to the Dems.
Ironically the worst thing to happen to women’s reproductive rights has been the best thing to happen for the Dems .
I wonder if the GOP now regret the overturning of Roe v Wade .
Whilst that was in place they could hide behind it . Trumps attempt to neutralize the issue won’t stop the Dems from attacking him and the issue will rear its head across many states .
The latest news from Arizona is a gift to the Dems.
Ironically the worst thing to happen to women’s reproductive rights has been the best thing to happen for the Dems .
It is right in my view abortion is left to the states, there is nothing in the constitution mandating it.
Evangelicals are of course delighted Roe v Wade has been overturned but they want to go even further, a nationwide abortion ban and even Trump's states rights position is not enough for them
No, the same tired old Axis of the 50s and 60s but the role of leading power has shifted several thousand miles to the east. Beijing will be calling the shots this time, not Moscow.
It's a great pity that Russia is ending up as a satrapy of China. If it could have been pulled toward Western Europe, that would have led to a far more positive and stable future both for Russia and its neighbours.
Yes and the West tried to welcome Russia post-Soviet Union, but unfortunately Putin had other ideas in mind.
Wasn't our choice what has happened, its entirely his. He has absolutely no interest in a westernised Russia.
Yes. There was at one time talk of bringing Russia into NATO. European leaders in particular went out of their way to bring Putin's Russia on board in the early years. London and other European destinations opening doors to Putin's pet oligarchs. Admittedly fanciful talk of joining NATO. Allying initially in 'the War On Terror'. Nord Stream. Putin even used the American legal system to divvy up Russia's mineral wealth.
Sadly, a thuggish, expanisionist, nationalist dictator will never be a friend and saw Western outreach as weakness to be exploited. And he could never allow Russia to join Western institutions because they would have destroyed his hold on power - which relies on kleptocracy and secrecy.
The mistake made was that of the appeasers in not getting tough far earlier and continuing to hope Putin had a better nature, or foolishly believing Russian propaganda about 'spheres of influence' and feeling threatened.
Russia has always indicated that it required a buffer zone of aligned states between itself and NATO, and though it's cold comfort to the poor sods in those states who doesn't want to be Russia-aligned, the invasion of Ukraine is in keeping with that theory. If they start bombing France, the notion will be proven to be false. .
Russia shares a border with NATO, so that's a problem.
That argument is full of shit. You don't buy it, do you?
Yes. The argument was always propaganda claptrap.
The real reasons are that Putin and fellow hardline nationalists believe the break up of the USSR should never have happened and think of lots of their neighbours as part of a greater Russia (and if you can't swallow them up, a client state is next best), and that countries which are to close to home being free and wrapped into Western institutions are a threat to Putin. It's why his belligerence to Ukraine has often been triggered by moving close to the EU.
Putin fears a Ukraine that's a prosperous, free and would be a major player in the EU - which it would likely become if many of the other ex-Soviet countries are anything to go by - would be extremely difficult to contain that there given Ukraine and Russia's cultural closeness.
And if we went 'sucks to be you Ukraine, you have to live under tyranny because we're scared of Vlad' then like with all expansionist dictators, they wouldn't be the last, as perceived weakness only encourages them to push further.
Pete Buttigieg minus the elephant in the room would trounce Trump,.
Sadly I don’t see a gay candidate winning the Presidency.
I was on a cruise full of Americans a few years ago. They were mainly Never Trump Republicans and the concensus was that Mayor Pete's sexuality would not be the problem I suggested it would be. They reckoned those who had a problem would never have voted for him anyway as he was a Dem.
Interesting, I had a similar experience on an American cruise (in Europe) earlier this year. I have a theory that the hard-core MAGA crowd don't travel abroad much, so you're unlikely to meet them outside the US.
I went on a cruise from Miami around the Carribbean last year and there were a load of MAGA twats.
For all those of you who do cruises, can you tell me if the bathrooms have a bath (as opposed to just a shower)?
If you want a bath, you’re likely in an expensive suite rather than a standard room. But yes, you can get bathrooms with baths. 90% of the rooms will have only showers.
My wife too.
??
I usually get in trouble if hotel rooms only have showers, as she likes her bath!
Ah right, I'm with your wife there.
(Er...)
For the bath lovers a little add, I have made a couple of sets of stainless steel chain mail now so you can bathe without worrying about being stabbed nods...or going rusty
For all those of you who do cruises, can you tell me if the bathrooms have a bath (as opposed to just a shower)?
If you want a bath, you’re likely in an expensive suite rather than a standard room. But yes, you can get bathrooms with baths. 90% of the rooms will have only showers.
My wife too.
??
I usually get in trouble if hotel rooms only have showers, as she likes her bath!
Ah right, I'm with your wife there.
(Er...)
For the bath lovers a little add, I have made a couple of sets of stainless steel chain mail now so you can bathe without worrying about being stabbed nods...or going rusty
Whilst this is a response to my question, I'm not sure it constitutes an answer...😀
No, the same tired old Axis of the 50s and 60s but the role of leading power has shifted several thousand miles to the east. Beijing will be calling the shots this time, not Moscow.
It's a great pity that Russia is ending up as a satrapy of China. If it could have been pulled toward Western Europe, that would have led to a far more positive and stable future both for Russia and its neighbours.
Yes and the West tried to welcome Russia post-Soviet Union, but unfortunately Putin had other ideas in mind.
Wasn't our choice what has happened, its entirely his. He has absolutely no interest in a westernised Russia.
It could have happened anyway because of the internal dynamics of the regime: it needs to start a fight to secure its legitimacy. But that said, you can't dismiss the expansion of NATO and invasion of Iraq as insignificant.
I think we probably can, if they are used as pretexts, which they often are. Each presumably factored into the regime's thinking, but the direction chosen was certainly no inevitability, and that being the case how much does it then really matter if it played some role in their thinking?
Putin was furious about Iraq back in 2003 when no one was paying any attention to Russia. The reason being that it was an invasion of a sovereign state. This is something that Putin has been going on about for over 20 years. Similarly with NATO getting involved in conflicts in the Balkans and then expanding in Eastern Europe, this was viewed by Russia as an act of aggression. I am not trying to 'excuse' Russian actions but to point out these 'pretexts' that have not just appeared from nowhere.
It was nothing to do with ‘invading a sovereign state’. He was worried about the billions of dollars of Russian investment in the Iraqi oil industry going up the Swanee if Saddam was toppled.
On the Bates testimony, you've missed an important bit.
He told Allan Leighton, the then Chair, in 2003 about the problems with Horizon and the contract the PO had with the subpostmasters (which it is clear the PO did not understand - as confirmed later by Mr Justice Fraser).
Had his allegations been properly investigated then - as they should have been - the scandal would never have happened. Most of the prosecutions happened long before Paula Vennells became CEO and they happened when the PO was still part of Royal Mail, which the government was desperate to privatise.
So there was every incentive for Royal Mail and PO managers to bury problems and for that desire to be shared by civil servants and by Ministers. What was in the various prospectus documents will make interesting reading. What Susan Crichton, the GC at the time of the privatisation and the later appointment of Second Sight and who left overnight in mysterious circumstances will say in evidence will be interesting.
Allan Leighton's evidence will be interesting too.
The idea that Ministers and civil servants were taking a hands off approach to a company they were keen to fatten up for privatisation, one which was costing them money and they were desperate to make profitable is for the birds. As I stated in one of my headers on this if you are the sole owner when all this crap is happening - and you are being told about it, as Ministers were and are being expected to pay for it all - hands off is not an option and is a big fat lie.
Good evening.
Trusting you are well.
Evening to you too.
No, not really.
Sorry to hear that.
Me likewise - my bone marrow biopsy is at 9:30am tomorrow .
For all those of you who do cruises, can you tell me if the bathrooms have a bath (as opposed to just a shower)?
If you want a bath, you’re likely in an expensive suite rather than a standard room. But yes, you can get bathrooms with baths. 90% of the rooms will have only showers.
My wife too.
??
I usually get in trouble if hotel rooms only have showers, as she likes her bath!
Ah right, I'm with your wife there.
(Er...)
For the bath lovers a little add, I have made a couple of sets of stainless steel chain mail now so you can bathe without worrying about being stabbed nods...or going rusty
Whilst this is a response to my question, I'm not sure it constitutes an answer...😀
Advise drysuits, which can be folded and filled with a jug.
Comments
And another!
BREAKING: Mark Hamill has announced he will be supporting President Biden over Donald tRump.
https://twitter.com/MarkHamill/status/1777792400414663076
No, not really.
PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona can enforce 1864 law criminalizing all abortions except those to save mother’s life, state Supreme Court rules.
https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1777746507921330303
The other interesting piece of evidence which came out was that when his shortfall, which he had been rolling over for 2 years, was written off by the PO, they had a standard printed form for such write-offs, with one of the reasons listed as Horizon problems.
That they knew Horizon was a crock of shit which could not be relied on is a given. The real questions now are how far up into government did this knowledge go and how far was government t involved in covering this up and the miscarriages of justice. People at the top of Royal Mail and the PO were not acting on their own initiative. They were doing what the owners wanted.
ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS WILL NOT ENFORCE STATE'S ABORTION BAN
https://twitter.com/NewsWire_US/status/1777753226814644661
Me likewise - my bone marrow biopsy is at 9:30am tomorrow
At least then it will be over.
https://twitter.com/EricColumbus/status/1777795221151002740
I suffered partly as I have very thick bones - I can claim that some of my weight is down to the heavy bones and doctors have said so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Arizona_Attorney_General_election
With that, and the Gubernatorial race, and the Presidential result in 2020, Arizona must be just about the most marginal of the swing states - if this issue pushes it for the Democrats once more it would be hugely significant.
To argue such is effectively to say that the east European states ought, as a matter of principle, to have remained Russian vassals.
David Frum
@davidfrum
Blue wave in Arizona 2024.
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1777751982091948462
The State says that nomination papers must be submitted 90 days before the election, but the Party decides to hold their convention 80 days before the election.
@sundersays
·
1h
Replying to
@benrileysmith
One thing I have not seen discussed much is that the Cons need to score 30% in a poll by April 14th to not become the first governing party in polling history to go six months without hitting 30% once. (In fact, neither major party ever did that in government or opposition)
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1777789694333378599
Sadly, a thuggish, expanisionist, nationalist dictator will never be a friend and saw Western outreach as weakness to be exploited. And he could never allow Russia to join Western institutions because they would have destroyed his hold on power - which relies on kleptocracy and secrecy.
The mistake made was that of the appeasers in not getting tough far earlier and continuing to hope Putin had a better nature, or foolishly believing Russian propaganda about 'spheres of influence' and feeling threatened.
25 minutes but very interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSkbu3cKxLU
If I get a decent result my condition is back in remission for X years.
I notice quite a difference in discomfort depending on the distraction-patter of the Doctor. I had one who talked to me such that he was half way through before I noticed.
All those white van guys who never pay VAT as they "just do a few small jobs, now and again. I'm mainly retired me."??
And watch the money come in...
Failing to register cash transactions, and paying your employees via undocumented cash, enables someone to dodge VAT, Employers NIC, Employees NIC, Income Tax and the employee can keep claiming benefits. Employer and Employee both benefit, honest taxpayers lose out.
I've heard of many businesses whereby employees work on the books part time, while working full time, get paid the difference in cash. And the combined tax rate is so high that both parties have reason to cooperate with each other rather than anyone declare what is happening.
Combined between all the taxes (and benefits) the difference can be about 100% coming from the taxpayer.
But the conformation of remission each time (every three months for three years) was worth it every time.
Good luck in the morning!
Those self-employed tradespeople whose turnover is below the £90k VAT threshold are not liable to charge VAT on their services - they are doing nothing wrong, them's the rules. £90k pa is more than "a few small jobs, now and again".
Sure, the government could lower the threshold and bring in more revenue but given they've just upped it by £5k that doesn't seem on the cards.
I am not convinced it so big a problem as you imply but to the extent that is it a problem, more resources should be applied to stamping it out. Ultimately though, that means more government snooping.
Maybe make it a specific offence to pay someone for a service if you have reason to believe they are not going to pay tax on the income - offering you a lower price for cash being treated as a 'reason to believe'?
1. Replace (employees) NI with ICT - which would have the effect of harmonising tax on income for unearned income.
2. A wealth or land value tax.
3. A UK version of FATCA to tax foreign earnings of UK citizens.
But many sole traders, have a genuine turnover of <£90k pa. It's not a bad income after all if your expenses are relatively low.
It's what Truss would do.
You could cut the abuse by engaging in tax simplification though, to reduce the incentive to evade taxes. Getting rid of employers NI would mean employers wouldn't have an incentive to under-report their employees wages. Reducing the real tax rate from loss of benefits and all other taxes down from the 80%+ its currently at would reduce the incentive for people on that cliff edge to engage in fraud.
If you insist on 80% real tax rates people are going to find a way of dodging them, because the incentive to do so is just so high. At one extreme that's white collar tax evasion, fancy accountants, lawyers, trusts, etc, etc, at the other extreme its simple cash in hand tax fraud, benefits fraud and so on.
Its sad, but its also human nature. We need to stop encouraging it.
- Georgia (2008), where Russia invaded a sovereign nation to get what they wanted
- Syria (2015-), when Russia intervened in a civil war
- Libya (2015-) where Russian troops have also fought
and
- the Central African Republic (2018-)
If Russia had been inwardly looking while NATO and the US went around projecting power it would be a fair criticism. But Russian forces have been involved in far more fights in the last twenty years than NATO or US ones.
Regarding Syria, Russia was invited by the sovereign Government of Syria, whilst we were trying to foment an Islamist uprising - I'm not sure who has more right to be upset by whom on that one.
.
In which case what does it even really matter? A slither of a reason he sometimes inconsistently uses has a basis in reality, but is clearly inconsequential to simple avarice and power retention, if it was not those it would have been something else.
Places where the US has been involved in wars this century include Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Kenya, Libya, Syria, Uganda, and Yemen, none of which are even on the same continent as the US.
That argument is full of shit. You don't buy it, do you?
Whilst that was in place they could hide behind it . Trumps attempt to neutralize the issue won’t stop the Dems from attacking him and the issue will rear its head across many states .
The latest news from Arizona is a gift to the Dems.
Ironically the worst thing to happen to women’s reproductive rights has been the best thing to happen for the Dems .
Evangelicals are of course delighted Roe v Wade has been overturned but they want to go even further, a nationwide abortion ban and even Trump's states rights position is not enough for them
The real reasons are that Putin and fellow hardline nationalists believe the break up of the USSR should never have happened and think of lots of their neighbours as part of a greater Russia (and if you can't swallow them up, a client state is next best), and that countries which are to close to home being free and wrapped into Western institutions are a threat to Putin. It's why his belligerence to Ukraine has often been triggered by moving close to the EU.
Putin fears a Ukraine that's a prosperous, free and would be a major player in the EU - which it would likely become if many of the other ex-Soviet countries are anything to go by - would be extremely difficult to contain that there given Ukraine and Russia's cultural closeness.
And if we went 'sucks to be you Ukraine, you have to live under tyranny because we're scared of Vlad' then like with all expansionist dictators, they wouldn't be the last, as perceived weakness only encourages them to push further.