I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
It has been a foundation stone of international relations for centuries to oppose wars of conquest that lead to border changes, because otherwise you encourage more war.
We absolutely have to oppose formal recognition of Russian acquisition of any Ukrainian territory by conquest, or we give them green light to any other country that fancies a chunk of its neighbours.
Even if we end up acquiescing to a de facto conquest of parts of Ukraine by Russia, legitimising that conquest formally by recognising the new borders would be an epoch-defining mistake.
The problem with Russia/Ukraine is that, AIUI, a significant number of people who considered themselves Russian, and spoke Russian moved into, particularly, Eastern Ukraine during the Soviet era. These people, or at least a substantial percentage, may well prefer to stay with Russia. In that case the settlement described would simply be a case of legitimatisng the de facto situation.
There was a poll in 1991 ie at independence, where all areas of Ukraine voted to stay in Ukraine.
For me, that is definitive.
The de facto situation is post much ethnic-cleansing.
Thanks. Agree, if that's the way they voted, that's what should happen. Do you have a reference, please; what were the figures in the east?
@MattW is obviously not a second EU referendum guy. Nor second Scottish independence vote guy either, for that matter.
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
It has been a foundation stone of international relations for centuries to oppose wars of conquest that lead to border changes, because otherwise you encourage more war.
We absolutely have to oppose formal recognition of Russian acquisition of any Ukrainian territory by conquest, or we give them green light to any other country that fancies a chunk of its neighbours.
Even if we end up acquiescing to a de facto conquest of parts of Ukraine by Russia, legitimising that conquest formally by recognising the new borders would be an epoch-defining mistake.
The problem with Russia/Ukraine is that, AIUI, a significant number of people who considered themselves Russian, and spoke Russian moved into, particularly, Eastern Ukraine during the Soviet era. These people, or at least a substantial percentage, may well prefer to stay with Russia. In that case the settlement described would simply be a case of legitimatisng the de facto situation.
There was a poll in 1991 ie at independence, where all areas of Ukraine voted to stay in Ukraine.
For me, that is definitive.
The de facto situation is post much ethnic-cleansing.
Thanks. Agree, if that's the way they voted, that's what should happen. Do you have a reference, please; what were the figures in the east?
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
It has been a foundation stone of international relations for centuries to oppose wars of conquest that lead to border changes, because otherwise you encourage more war.
We absolutely have to oppose formal recognition of Russian acquisition of any Ukrainian territory by conquest, or we give them green light to any other country that fancies a chunk of its neighbours.
Even if we end up acquiescing to a de facto conquest of parts of Ukraine by Russia, legitimising that conquest formally by recognising the new borders would be an epoch-defining mistake.
The problem with Russia/Ukraine is that, AIUI, a significant number of people who considered themselves Russian, and spoke Russian moved into, particularly, Eastern Ukraine during the Soviet era. These people, or at least a substantial percentage, may well prefer to stay with Russia. In that case the settlement described would simply be a case of legitimatisng the de facto situation.
There was a poll in 1991 ie at independence, where all areas of Ukraine voted to stay in Ukraine.
For me, that is definitive.
The de facto situation is post much ethnic-cleansing.
Thanks. Agree, if that's the way they voted, that's what should happen. Do you have a reference, please; what were the figures in the east?
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
It has been a foundation stone of international relations for centuries to oppose wars of conquest that lead to border changes, because otherwise you encourage more war.
We absolutely have to oppose formal recognition of Russian acquisition of any Ukrainian territory by conquest, or we give them green light to any other country that fancies a chunk of its neighbours.
Even if we end up acquiescing to a de facto conquest of parts of Ukraine by Russia, legitimising that conquest formally by recognising the new borders would be an epoch-defining mistake.
The problem with Russia/Ukraine is that, AIUI, a significant number of people who considered themselves Russian, and spoke Russian moved into, particularly, Eastern Ukraine during the Soviet era. These people, or at least a substantial percentage, may well prefer to stay with Russia. In that case the settlement described would simply be a case of legitimatisng the de facto situation.
Not sure of the point you are making, but it does suggest that Putin has a reasonable amount of popular support. Or had.
If you look at the polling in Ukraine, it is rather hard to find bits that wanted to part of Russia.
If you polled Brits on their opinion of Macron, I think a fair few would be positive. That might change if French forces had reached the Bristol Channel-The Wash defence line and were exporting children to France.
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
It has been a foundation stone of international relations for centuries to oppose wars of conquest that lead to border changes, because otherwise you encourage more war.
We absolutely have to oppose formal recognition of Russian acquisition of any Ukrainian territory by conquest, or we give them green light to any other country that fancies a chunk of its neighbours.
Even if we end up acquiescing to a de facto conquest of parts of Ukraine by Russia, legitimising that conquest formally by recognising the new borders would be an epoch-defining mistake.
The problem with Russia/Ukraine is that, AIUI, a significant number of people who considered themselves Russian, and spoke Russian moved into, particularly, Eastern Ukraine during the Soviet era. These people, or at least a substantial percentage, may well prefer to stay with Russia. In that case the settlement described would simply be a case of legitimatisng the de facto situation.
People say this despite the actual evidence of referendums and opinion polls that show otherwise. No part of Ukraine had ever wanted to be a part of Russia.
The Russian desire to put all their munitions in one easy-to-explode location is, to put it mildly, bizarre. In peace time maybe. But when you are the aggressor and have had time to put your stuff-go-boom into multiple minor caches, it rather smacks of overconfidence/stupidity...
Overconfidence? Surely not.
Bulgakov's judiciously balanced appraisal of the facility when it opened:
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
Owen Jones is distraught and says Israel has been very, very naughty.
He also says using booby traps is illegal under UN charter which Israel signed. Not surprising seeing the number of innocents left with body parts missing.
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
It has been a foundation stone of international relations for centuries to oppose wars of conquest that lead to border changes, because otherwise you encourage more war.
We absolutely have to oppose formal recognition of Russian acquisition of any Ukrainian territory by conquest, or we give them green light to any other country that fancies a chunk of its neighbours.
Even if we end up acquiescing to a de facto conquest of parts of Ukraine by Russia, legitimising that conquest formally by recognising the new borders would be an epoch-defining mistake.
The problem with Russia/Ukraine is that, AIUI, a significant number of people who considered themselves Russian, and spoke Russian moved into, particularly, Eastern Ukraine during the Soviet era. These people, or at least a substantial percentage, may well prefer to stay with Russia. In that case the settlement described would simply be a case of legitimatisng the de facto situation.
Not sure of the point you are making, but it does suggest that Putin has a reasonable amount of popular support. Or had.
If you look at the polling in Ukraine, it is rather hard to find bits that wanted to part of Russia.
If you polled Brits on their opinion of Macron, I think a fair few would be positive. That might change if French forces had reached the Bristol Channel-The Wash defence line and were exporting children to France.
Firstly you must always implicitly obey orders, without attempting to form any opinion of your own regarding their propriety. Secondly, you must consider every man your enemy who speaks ill of your king; and thirdly you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Marcelo Goulart, of the Zurich-based wealth advisor First Alliance, has been so busy helping clients leave the UK that he’s had no summer holiday. He tells @CityAM that 80 per cent of his “UK exposed” clients have either left the country or are in the final stages of doing so.
This is definitely happening, especially among ‘non-doms’ such as people in Mrs Sunak’s position, who are moving their primary residence to places like the sandpit in anticipation of a tightening of the rules.
UAE is offering 10-year ‘golden visa’ opportunities to anyone with a salary of $100k or making an investment of $500k.
So we get to a point where Government policy is predicated on not "frightening" a tiny group of people who just happen to be very wealthy.
In any case, they could decide to up and move to Singapore or Dubai or wherever at any time anyway.
We know wealth buys speech and presumably those with money are seeking to influence Government policy via articles in CIty AM, the Mail and elsewhere.
From memory 1% pay 60% of the income tax. (A large number of them play football, who have unsuccessfully tried lots of ways to avoid basically being on PAYE).
While I agree with the idea that one shouldn’t make government policy based on not annoying a small handful of very wealthy people, but when the government policy comes across as specifically to screw them to the floor, then it shouldn’t be a surprise that they plan to change their own arrangements to suit that perception.
IFS say 29% not 60%. in March this year That's higher than I expected, though - I had a number of ~27% in my head.
Someone just about in the top 1 per cent of income tax payers, on £200,000, say, will be paying a good £10,000 a year more than in 2009. Our reliance on top earners has continued to grow. That top 1 per cent pay 29 per cent of all income tax now, up from 25 per cent in 2010 and 21 per cent at the turn of the century. Whisper it quietly, but this Tory government has taken a serious chunk out of the incomes of the 1 per cent. https://ifs.org.uk/articles/how-tax-burden-high-when-most-us-are-taxed-so-low
I think the top 1% of earners are about 10% of total income to put that 29% in perspective.
Following the 10 year from Referendum coverage, the one thing missing from the hoo-hah is that we now know,10 years on, that if Independence had won, Scotland would have been in the hands of profoundly unsatisfactory people, and that when this was discovered the consequences for Scotland would have been even more severe, and much less comical, than they were.
The Russian desire to put all their munitions in one easy-to-explode location is, to put it mildly, bizarre. In peace time maybe. But when you are the aggressor and have had time to put your stuff-go-boom into multiple minor caches, it rather smacks of overconfidence/stupidity...
I think it was supposed to be buried underground, or otherwise hard to explode. The Irish Sun describes the ammunition depot as reputedly indestructible.
Dare I say that it would be a perfect Storm Shadow target, though it seems to be twice as far from the Ukrainian border as the maximum Storm Shadow range.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
Owen Jones is distraught and says Israel has been very, very naughty.
He also says using booby traps is illegal under UN charter which Israel signed. Not surprising seeing the number of innocents left with body parts missing.
The devices were not self triggered, apparently. They were triggered by a specific message, it seems. Which means they are not booby traps.
The difference is important, since the driving force behind the bans on booby traps and landmines is the risk of the devices lingering and causing casualties, long after a conflict is over.
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
It has been a foundation stone of international relations for centuries to oppose wars of conquest that lead to border changes, because otherwise you encourage more war.
We absolutely have to oppose formal recognition of Russian acquisition of any Ukrainian territory by conquest, or we give them green light to any other country that fancies a chunk of its neighbours.
Even if we end up acquiescing to a de facto conquest of parts of Ukraine by Russia, legitimising that conquest formally by recognising the new borders would be an epoch-defining mistake.
The problem with Russia/Ukraine is that, AIUI, a significant number of people who considered themselves Russian, and spoke Russian moved into, particularly, Eastern Ukraine during the Soviet era. These people, or at least a substantial percentage, may well prefer to stay with Russia. In that case the settlement described would simply be a case of legitimatisng the de facto situation.
There was a poll in 1991 ie at independence, where all areas of Ukraine voted to stay in Ukraine.
For me, that is definitive.
The de facto situation is post much ethnic-cleansing.
Thanks. Agree, if that's the way they voted, that's what should happen. Do you have a reference, please; what were the figures in the east?
@MattW is obviously not a second EU referendum guy. Nor second Scottish independence vote guy either, for that matter.
What is a possible proposal, when perhaps a number around 15-25% * of the population have been turned into refugees, kidnapped, or killed by an armed invasion?
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
Owen Jones is distraught and says Israel has been very, very naughty.
He also says using booby traps is illegal under UN charter which Israel signed. Not surprising seeing the number of innocents left with body parts missing.
The fact that these bombs are triggered by the aggressor not the victim, seems to put them outside the definition of booby trap.
Marcelo Goulart, of the Zurich-based wealth advisor First Alliance, has been so busy helping clients leave the UK that he’s had no summer holiday. He tells @CityAM that 80 per cent of his “UK exposed” clients have either left the country or are in the final stages of doing so.
This is definitely happening, especially among ‘non-doms’ such as people in Mrs Sunak’s position, who are moving their primary residence to places like the sandpit in anticipation of a tightening of the rules.
UAE is offering 10-year ‘golden visa’ opportunities to anyone with a salary of $100k or making an investment of $500k.
So we get to a point where Government policy is predicated on not "frightening" a tiny group of people who just happen to be very wealthy.
In any case, they could decide to up and move to Singapore or Dubai or wherever at any time anyway.
We know wealth buys speech and presumably those with money are seeking to influence Government policy via articles in CIty AM, the Mail and elsewhere.
From memory 1% pay 60% of the income tax. (A large number of them play football, who have unsuccessfully tried lots of ways to avoid basically being on PAYE).
While I agree with the idea that one shouldn’t make government policy based on not annoying a small handful of very wealthy people, but when the government policy comes across as specifically to screw them to the floor, then it shouldn’t be a surprise that they plan to change their own arrangements to suit that perception.
IFS say 29% not 60%. in March this year That's higher than I expected, though - I had a number of ~27% in my head.
Someone just about in the top 1 per cent of income tax payers, on £200,000, say, will be paying a good £10,000 a year more than in 2009. Our reliance on top earners has continued to grow. That top 1 per cent pay 29 per cent of all income tax now, up from 25 per cent in 2010 and 21 per cent at the turn of the century. Whisper it quietly, but this Tory government has taken a serious chunk out of the incomes of the 1 per cent. https://ifs.org.uk/articles/how-tax-burden-high-when-most-us-are-taxed-so-low
I think the top 1% of earners are about 10% of total income to put that 29% in perspective.
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
It has been a foundation stone of international relations for centuries to oppose wars of conquest that lead to border changes, because otherwise you encourage more war.
We absolutely have to oppose formal recognition of Russian acquisition of any Ukrainian territory by conquest, or we give them green light to any other country that fancies a chunk of its neighbours.
Even if we end up acquiescing to a de facto conquest of parts of Ukraine by Russia, legitimising that conquest formally by recognising the new borders would be an epoch-defining mistake.
The problem with Russia/Ukraine is that, AIUI, a significant number of people who considered themselves Russian, and spoke Russian moved into, particularly, Eastern Ukraine during the Soviet era. These people, or at least a substantial percentage, may well prefer to stay with Russia. In that case the settlement described would simply be a case of legitimatisng the de facto situation.
There was a poll in 1991 ie at independence, where all areas of Ukraine voted to stay in Ukraine.
For me, that is definitive.
The de facto situation is post much ethnic-cleansing.
Thanks. Agree, if that's the way they voted, that's what should happen. Do you have a reference, please; what were the figures in the east?
@MattW is obviously not a second EU referendum guy. Nor second Scottish independence vote guy either, for that matter.
What is a possible proposal, when perhaps a number around 15-25% * of the population have been turned into refugees, kidnapped, or killed by an armed invasion?
* I have no idea what the actual numbers are.
The the Yugoslav War phrase was "facts on the ground"
Here are some facts on the ground. Well, under it.
The Russian desire to put all their munitions in one easy-to-explode location is, to put it mildly, bizarre. In peace time maybe. But when you are the aggressor and have had time to put your stuff-go-boom into multiple minor caches, it rather smacks of overconfidence/stupidity...
Overconfidence? Surely not.
Bulgakov's judiciously balanced appraisal of the facility when it opened:
Marcelo Goulart, of the Zurich-based wealth advisor First Alliance, has been so busy helping clients leave the UK that he’s had no summer holiday. He tells @CityAM that 80 per cent of his “UK exposed” clients have either left the country or are in the final stages of doing so.
I had a meeting yesterday with someone in that business who confirmed to me that enquiries pre election to the local gov arm who handle SHNW relocatirs were about 3 per month. They are currently 12 new per week.
I was also told of a number of Financial companies relocating key parts from London to here and it’s all down to the fear and feeling that Labour are going to screw them.
I’ve said it before - I’m not happy about this, doesn’t improve my life but diminishes the UK which I love.
This is corporate tax, spending with the VAT and jobs associated, stamp duties, staff etc etc going.
Labour's hatred of wealth is going to come up against its love of the NHS.
Wealthy people pay for the NHS.
There is also a further interesting point. I work in IT in bank. Of my team, I am the only one born in the UK. There is one, who is long term settled (married to local, house etc). The others are 1st generation immigrants who have been in the country 3-5 years.
The other day, when we were discussing tax, someone was saying that if CGT was put up substantially, then exiting the country and living abroad for a period of time was in his financial interest. Which led people to accuse that person of being "transactional" and that, if he had that attitude, then leave and good riddance.
The recent immigrant members of the team have started discussing moving (in the bank) to another country or leaving for another country. The reason - concern over future tax rates. Is this transactional? Is it just to be expected? After all, they have lived nearly their entire lives in China, India etc. etc. While they are currently putting down roots - even studying for the citizenship test and spending money on the naturalisation process - they are very shallow roots.
In short - a portion of the highly skilled workforce has very little social and emotional connection to this country. Their "personal cost of changing countries" is quite low. In the case of the bank, they have been told that they can move to any other bank office in the world - we have partial WFH and the team is already split between countries...
The current tax system, which favours enterprise and entrepeneurship, is a major draw for investment and high skilled immigrants. If you whack up the CGT tax rates, then the country becomes less appealing and people will leave, it then loses high rate tax payers and get less CGT and also lose investment.
This is something I learned when I was 17 and doing A-level politics/economics. I thought it was something universally understood and culturally entrenched in the British system, but perhaps the current government are just in denial of it.
If the government want to switch to a different system, IE a north european social democratic model, it takes decades and generations to build up, and a lot of pain in the process; you cannot just switch over to it in one budget.
I don't follow why someone who is employed in IT at a bank is so worried about CGT? Unless they are being paid in shares or are buying loads of shares then why are they facing it? If they have bought property (other than residential) out of their earnings then they could be hit, but, and its a big but, selling now and leaving now is too late. The sale will not go through in time for the October budget so any gain made to date will be hit at new rates.
Maybe I am missing something?
The assumption, on their part, is that other taxes will go up as well. Combined with questions about buying a flat in London, or not.
They are generally investing quite a bit of their income in preparation to buy, if they haven't already.
To them, the marginal cost of moving countries is very low - socially and financially. Why shouldn't they think about it as a lesser issue - less than someone, born here, moving towns?
This doesn't make much sense to me. If Labour raise taxes you don't pay - that's good news for you, why would you assume that means they will raise other taxes? Its the opposite if anything.
In any case, it obviously makes sense to wait until Labour have announced what they will do before making a decision to move country- rather than relying on rumours.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
Owen Jones is distraught and says Israel has been very, very naughty.
He also says using booby traps is illegal under UN charter which Israel signed. Not surprising seeing the number of innocents left with body parts missing.
The legality of targeted killings is contested. As is the concept of "International Law" of course. Here's a good article about what it is or isn't (tl;dr - no one knows).
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
It has been a foundation stone of international relations for centuries to oppose wars of conquest that lead to border changes, because otherwise you encourage more war.
We absolutely have to oppose formal recognition of Russian acquisition of any Ukrainian territory by conquest, or we give them green light to any other country that fancies a chunk of its neighbours.
Even if we end up acquiescing to a de facto conquest of parts of Ukraine by Russia, legitimising that conquest formally by recognising the new borders would be an epoch-defining mistake.
The problem with Russia/Ukraine is that, AIUI, a significant number of people who considered themselves Russian, and spoke Russian moved into, particularly, Eastern Ukraine during the Soviet era. These people, or at least a substantial percentage, may well prefer to stay with Russia. In that case the settlement described would simply be a case of legitimatisng the de facto situation.
People say this despite the actual evidence of referendums and opinion polls that show otherwise. No part of Ukraine had ever wanted to be a part of Russia.
Thanks to those colleagues who have pointed out the facts, and caused me to realise I was wrong. Those wanted to stay Russian made up just over 25% of those voting. Crimea is a somewhat different case.
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
It has been a foundation stone of international relations for centuries to oppose wars of conquest that lead to border changes, because otherwise you encourage more war.
We absolutely have to oppose formal recognition of Russian acquisition of any Ukrainian territory by conquest, or we give them green light to any other country that fancies a chunk of its neighbours.
Even if we end up acquiescing to a de facto conquest of parts of Ukraine by Russia, legitimising that conquest formally by recognising the new borders would be an epoch-defining mistake.
The problem with Russia/Ukraine is that, AIUI, a significant number of people who considered themselves Russian, and spoke Russian moved into, particularly, Eastern Ukraine during the Soviet era. These people, or at least a substantial percentage, may well prefer to stay with Russia. In that case the settlement described would simply be a case of legitimatisng the de facto situation.
There was a poll in 1991 ie at independence, where all areas of Ukraine voted to stay in Ukraine.
For me, that is definitive.
The de facto situation is post much ethnic-cleansing.
Thanks. Agree, if that's the way they voted, that's what should happen. Do you have a reference, please; what were the figures in the east?
@MattW is obviously not a second EU referendum guy. Nor second Scottish independence vote guy either, for that matter.
What is a possible proposal, when perhaps a number around 15-25% * of the population have been turned into refugees, kidnapped, or killed by an armed invasion?
* I have no idea what the actual numbers are.
Following Ukraine's invasion of Kursk Oblast Russia has evacuated some of the civilians. Guess where they've sent them?
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
Owen Jones is distraught and says Israel has been very, very naughty.
He also says using booby traps is illegal under UN charter which Israel signed. Not surprising seeing the number of innocents left with body parts missing.
Everything Israel does is attempted genocide; of course it was illegal
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
Owen Jones is distraught and says Israel has been very, very naughty.
He also says using booby traps is illegal under UN charter which Israel signed. Not surprising seeing the number of innocents left with body parts missing.
The trouble for Owen here is that the protocol in question contains a number of caveats around military use and objectives and not targeting civilians.
e.g. "which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated."
I'm not a war or human rights lawyer but I would say it looks like it is certainly not a definite 'no' based on this protocol.
Marcelo Goulart, of the Zurich-based wealth advisor First Alliance, has been so busy helping clients leave the UK that he’s had no summer holiday. He tells @CityAM that 80 per cent of his “UK exposed” clients have either left the country or are in the final stages of doing so.
I had a meeting yesterday with someone in that business who confirmed to me that enquiries pre election to the local gov arm who handle SHNW relocatirs were about 3 per month. They are currently 12 new per week.
I was also told of a number of Financial companies relocating key parts from London to here and it’s all down to the fear and feeling that Labour are going to screw them.
I’ve said it before - I’m not happy about this, doesn’t improve my life but diminishes the UK which I love.
This is corporate tax, spending with the VAT and jobs associated, stamp duties, staff etc etc going.
Labour's hatred of wealth is going to come up against its love of the NHS.
Wealthy people pay for the NHS.
There is also a further interesting point. I work in IT in bank. Of my team, I am the only one born in the UK. There is one, who is long term settled (married to local, house etc). The others are 1st generation immigrants who have been in the country 3-5 years.
The other day, when we were discussing tax, someone was saying that if CGT was put up substantially, then exiting the country and living abroad for a period of time was in his financial interest. Which led people to accuse that person of being "transactional" and that, if he had that attitude, then leave and good riddance.
The recent immigrant members of the team have started discussing moving (in the bank) to another country or leaving for another country. The reason - concern over future tax rates. Is this transactional? Is it just to be expected? After all, they have lived nearly their entire lives in China, India etc. etc. While they are currently putting down roots - even studying for the citizenship test and spending money on the naturalisation process - they are very shallow roots.
In short - a portion of the highly skilled workforce has very little social and emotional connection to this country. Their "personal cost of changing countries" is quite low. In the case of the bank, they have been told that they can move to any other bank office in the world - we have partial WFH and the team is already split between countries...
The current tax system, which favours enterprise and entrepeneurship, is a major draw for investment and high skilled immigrants. If you whack up the CGT tax rates, then the country becomes less appealing and people will leave, it then loses high rate tax payers and get less CGT and also lose investment.
This is something I learned when I was 17 and doing A-level politics/economics. I thought it was something universally understood and culturally entrenched in the British system, but perhaps the current government are just in denial of it.
If the government want to switch to a different system, IE a north european social democratic model, it takes decades and generations to build up, and a lot of pain in the process; you cannot just switch over to it in one budget.
I don't follow why someone who is employed in IT at a bank is so worried about CGT? Unless they are being paid in shares or are buying loads of shares then why are they facing it? If they have bought property (other than residential) out of their earnings then they could be hit, but, and its a big but, selling now and leaving now is too late. The sale will not go through in time for the October budget so any gain made to date will be hit at new rates.
Maybe I am missing something?
The assumption, on their part, is that other taxes will go up as well. Combined with questions about buying a flat in London, or not.
They are generally investing quite a bit of their income in preparation to buy, if they haven't already.
To them, the marginal cost of moving countries is very low - socially and financially. Why shouldn't they think about it as a lesser issue - less than someone, born here, moving towns?
This doesn't make much sense to me. If Labour raise taxes you don't pay - that's good news for you, why would you assume that means they will raise other taxes? Its the opposite if anything.
In any case, it obviously makes sense to wait until Labour have announced what they will do before making a decision to move country- rather than relying on rumours.
They aren't moving. Yet.
The flip side to having a large chunk of the workforce who have no essential ties to the country is that... they have no essential ties to the country.
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
That's an interesting and surprising post.
What I would say is that it is very unfortunate that people don't feel able to express their views. There is a very obvious path that can be observed, on one day people are making really lucid and impressive comments, then they 'take a side' and the quality of their comments and discourse goes rapidly downhill, to the point where it just reiterates propoganda. I am saying this now because it is something that can often be clearly observed in comments on Russia/Ukraine.
There are certain topics wherefrom people on PB are "not allowed" to dissent.
And if they do then there is a pile on. Most notable as you say on Ukraine/Russia where any deviation from the Ukraine will be in Moscow by next Christmas/Easter/Start of the Grouse Shooting Season line was, and to an extent still is met by the classic PB "pile on" (analogous to being beaten around the head with dandelions, that said).
People on PB get it into their heads that there is a "right" way to look at the world. Trump is of course another and hence Nick's acuity in understanding the dynamics of him posting what he did.
It's disappointing that PB should be like this but there you go.
Is this what is called starting a fight in an empty room?
A deep dive into the UFO conspiracy theorists/grifters who created all the fuss in recent years and convinced some gullible people, including US politicians, that there was something going on: https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/s/p82r0FsKqf
I don't think that was worth carrying over. Skinwalker was always a joke, this is like saying Godzilla never existed so that clears up the dinosaur hoax.
'A group known as "the invisible college" have been pushing for UFO disclosure for decades." (Your Reddit link). What type of theory is being advanced by this sentence? Have you ever in your life seen anything so beautifully circular?
If you want to attack a theory and you find yourself calling its proponents grifters in your first line you are not the best person to attack it, not even if they are in fact grifters. On many contested issues Yeats is spot on:
The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.
Have a read of the pentagon report of March this year. It manages to conclude that there's no evidence of UFOs without calling anyone a grifter.
But that's the point. We know UFOs don't exist. I don't want to attack a theory: UFO bollocks is obviously bollocks and doesn't need me to attack it. The interesting thing is what drove this recent flurry of interest. These conspiracy theories don't just bubble up of their own accord. People drive them, often people who are grifting. (It's not always grifters. Sometimes hostile agents try to sow discord, as with recent examples where Elon Musk is tweeting things that can be traced back directly to Russian propaganda.)
Marcelo Goulart, of the Zurich-based wealth advisor First Alliance, has been so busy helping clients leave the UK that he’s had no summer holiday. He tells @CityAM that 80 per cent of his “UK exposed” clients have either left the country or are in the final stages of doing so.
This is definitely happening, especially among ‘non-doms’ such as people in Mrs Sunak’s position, who are moving their primary residence to places like the sandpit in anticipation of a tightening of the rules.
UAE is offering 10-year ‘golden visa’ opportunities to anyone with a salary of $100k or making an investment of $500k.
So we get to a point where Government policy is predicated on not "frightening" a tiny group of people who just happen to be very wealthy.
In any case, they could decide to up and move to Singapore or Dubai or wherever at any time anyway.
We know wealth buys speech and presumably those with money are seeking to influence Government policy via articles in CIty AM, the Mail and elsewhere.
From memory 1% pay 60% of the income tax. (A large number of them play football, who have unsuccessfully tried lots of ways to avoid basically being on PAYE).
While I agree with the idea that one shouldn’t make government policy based on not annoying a small handful of very wealthy people, but when the government policy comes across as specifically to screw them to the floor, then it shouldn’t be a surprise that they plan to change their own arrangements to suit that perception.
IFS say 29% not 60%. in March this year That's higher than I expected, though - I had a number of ~27% in my head.
Someone just about in the top 1 per cent of income tax payers, on £200,000, say, will be paying a good £10,000 a year more than in 2009. Our reliance on top earners has continued to grow. That top 1 per cent pay 29 per cent of all income tax now, up from 25 per cent in 2010 and 21 per cent at the turn of the century. Whisper it quietly, but this Tory government has taken a serious chunk out of the incomes of the 1 per cent. https://ifs.org.uk/articles/how-tax-burden-high-when-most-us-are-taxed-so-low
I think the top 1% of earners are about 10% of total income to put that 29% in perspective.
Agree - it's still a big number.
Do we have international comparators?
Update: yes we do. Here's a clickable map for 2022.
UK seems to be relatively less skewed in income distribution. UK, Germany, NL ~10%, France. Italy, Sweden, ~13% for the top 1%. Denmark 18%. Ireland 15%. Norway 7%. Switzerland 10.9%.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
Owen Jones is distraught and says Israel has been very, very naughty.
He also says using booby traps is illegal under UN charter which Israel signed. Not surprising seeing the number of innocents left with body parts missing.
The legality of targeted killings is contested. As is the concept of "International Law" of course. Here's a good article about what it is or isn't (tl;dr - no one knows).
Marcelo Goulart, of the Zurich-based wealth advisor First Alliance, has been so busy helping clients leave the UK that he’s had no summer holiday. He tells @CityAM that 80 per cent of his “UK exposed” clients have either left the country or are in the final stages of doing so.
I had a meeting yesterday with someone in that business who confirmed to me that enquiries pre election to the local gov arm who handle SHNW relocatirs were about 3 per month. They are currently 12 new per week.
I was also told of a number of Financial companies relocating key parts from London to here and it’s all down to the fear and feeling that Labour are going to screw them.
I’ve said it before - I’m not happy about this, doesn’t improve my life but diminishes the UK which I love.
This is corporate tax, spending with the VAT and jobs associated, stamp duties, staff etc etc going.
Labour's hatred of wealth is going to come up against its love of the NHS.
Wealthy people pay for the NHS.
There is also a further interesting point. I work in IT in bank. Of my team, I am the only one born in the UK. There is one, who is long term settled (married to local, house etc). The others are 1st generation immigrants who have been in the country 3-5 years.
The other day, when we were discussing tax, someone was saying that if CGT was put up substantially, then exiting the country and living abroad for a period of time was in his financial interest. Which led people to accuse that person of being "transactional" and that, if he had that attitude, then leave and good riddance.
The recent immigrant members of the team have started discussing moving (in the bank) to another country or leaving for another country. The reason - concern over future tax rates. Is this transactional? Is it just to be expected? After all, they have lived nearly their entire lives in China, India etc. etc. While they are currently putting down roots - even studying for the citizenship test and spending money on the naturalisation process - they are very shallow roots.
In short - a portion of the highly skilled workforce has very little social and emotional connection to this country. Their "personal cost of changing countries" is quite low. In the case of the bank, they have been told that they can move to any other bank office in the world - we have partial WFH and the team is already split between countries...
The current tax system, which favours enterprise and entrepeneurship, is a major draw for investment and high skilled immigrants. If you whack up the CGT tax rates, then the country becomes less appealing and people will leave, it then loses high rate tax payers and get less CGT and also lose investment.
This is something I learned when I was 17 and doing A-level politics/economics. I thought it was something universally understood and culturally entrenched in the British system, but perhaps the current government are just in denial of it.
If the government want to switch to a different system, IE a north european social democratic model, it takes decades and generations to build up, and a lot of pain in the process; you cannot just switch over to it in one budget.
I don't follow why someone who is employed in IT at a bank is so worried about CGT? Unless they are being paid in shares or are buying loads of shares then why are they facing it? If they have bought property (other than residential) out of their earnings then they could be hit, but, and its a big but, selling now and leaving now is too late. The sale will not go through in time for the October budget so any gain made to date will be hit at new rates.
Maybe I am missing something?
The assumption, on their part, is that other taxes will go up as well. Combined with questions about buying a flat in London, or not.
They are generally investing quite a bit of their income in preparation to buy, if they haven't already.
To them, the marginal cost of moving countries is very low - socially and financially. Why shouldn't they think about it as a lesser issue - less than someone, born here, moving towns?
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
That's an interesting and surprising post.
What I would say is that it is very unfortunate that people don't feel able to express their views. There is a very obvious path that can be observed, on one day people are making really lucid and impressive comments, then they 'take a side' and the quality of their comments and discourse goes rapidly downhill, to the point where it just reiterates propoganda. I am saying this now because it is something that can often be clearly observed in comments on Russia/Ukraine.
There are certain topics wherefrom people on PB are "not allowed" to dissent.
And if they do then there is a pile on. Most notable as you say on Ukraine/Russia where any deviation from the Ukraine will be in Moscow by next Christmas/Easter/Start of the Grouse Shooting Season line was, and to an extent still is met by the classic PB "pile on" (analogous to being beaten around the head with dandelions, that said).
People on PB get it into their heads that there is a "right" way to look at the world. Trump is of course another and hence Nick's acuity in understanding the dynamics of him posting what he did.
It's disappointing that PB should be like this but there you go.
Is this what is called starting a fight in an empty room?
Not at all. Look at Nick's hesitancy to put forward his view on Russia/Ukraine. It is because of the reaction to anything dissenting posted about Russia/Ukraine on PB.
Marcelo Goulart, of the Zurich-based wealth advisor First Alliance, has been so busy helping clients leave the UK that he’s had no summer holiday. He tells @CityAM that 80 per cent of his “UK exposed” clients have either left the country or are in the final stages of doing so.
This is definitely happening, especially among ‘non-doms’ such as people in Mrs Sunak’s position, who are moving their primary residence to places like the sandpit in anticipation of a tightening of the rules.
UAE is offering 10-year ‘golden visa’ opportunities to anyone with a salary of $100k or making an investment of $500k.
So we get to a point where Government policy is predicated on not "frightening" a tiny group of people who just happen to be very wealthy.
In any case, they could decide to up and move to Singapore or Dubai or wherever at any time anyway.
We know wealth buys speech and presumably those with money are seeking to influence Government policy via articles in CIty AM, the Mail and elsewhere.
From memory 1% pay 60% of the income tax. (A large number of them play football, who have unsuccessfully tried lots of ways to avoid basically being on PAYE).
While I agree with the idea that one shouldn’t make government policy based on not annoying a small handful of very wealthy people, but when the government policy comes across as specifically to screw them to the floor, then it shouldn’t be a surprise that they plan to change their own arrangements to suit that perception.
IFS say 29% not 60%. in March this year That's higher than I expected, though - I had a number of ~27% in my head.
Someone just about in the top 1 per cent of income tax payers, on £200,000, say, will be paying a good £10,000 a year more than in 2009. Our reliance on top earners has continued to grow. That top 1 per cent pay 29 per cent of all income tax now, up from 25 per cent in 2010 and 21 per cent at the turn of the century. Whisper it quietly, but this Tory government has taken a serious chunk out of the incomes of the 1 per cent. https://ifs.org.uk/articles/how-tax-burden-high-when-most-us-are-taxed-so-low
I think the top 1% of earners are about 10% of total income to put that 29% in perspective.
Agree - it's still a big number.
Do we have international comparators?
I think it's broadly similar, slightly lower in France, Germany (more like 25%), and I think that's more because their middle earners pay more not that top earners pay less.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
Owen Jones is distraught and says Israel has been very, very naughty.
He also says using booby traps is illegal under UN charter which Israel signed. Not surprising seeing the number of innocents left with body parts missing.
The legality of targeted killings is contested. As is the concept of "International Law" of course. Here's a good article about what it is or isn't (tl;dr - no one knows).
I'm sure its not the intention, but it 'targeted killings' is not legal, then that surely only leaves random ones left, which can't be right...
It's an old debate.
During WWII, there was consideration given to a plan to attack German airforce pilots and support personnel on the ground in France. They generally travelled in convoy between barracks and airfield - destroy the lead and rear vehicles, then massacre everyone in between. The Army and SOE were all for it, the RAF said it wasn't right....
EDIT: "Generals of armies have better things to do than shoot each other”
Marcelo Goulart, of the Zurich-based wealth advisor First Alliance, has been so busy helping clients leave the UK that he’s had no summer holiday. He tells @CityAM that 80 per cent of his “UK exposed” clients have either left the country or are in the final stages of doing so.
This is definitely happening, especially among ‘non-doms’ such as people in Mrs Sunak’s position, who are moving their primary residence to places like the sandpit in anticipation of a tightening of the rules.
Didn't the Tories already tighten the Non Dom rules significantly? Presumably people leaving has nothing to do with that?
Nuanced article by Dan Neidle on likely effects of the Non Dom proposals. Those likely to move aren't much paying much tax anyway while those that are paying significant amounts aren't likely to move. There are other effects but these are driven by your priorities.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
"People on your team tried to kill Donald Trump twice"
"On your team" - that's a pretty vile lie. Vance is a thoroughgoing arsehole.
In the Elegy book, towards the end, he writes about what might be called anger management type issues if I recall correctly. His upbring was in an environment where screaming at people rather than a quiet chiding and defending your own family with force, sometimes violence was ingrained. One relative attacks a man with a chainsaw for example iirc. This is the hillbilly way.
His wife has to calm him down sometimes and remind him he is behaving inappropriately as he is no longer in the mountains of Kentucky. I think there is an example where he is about to get out of the car and paste someone who cut him up driving but she talks him out of it.
Perhaps she is not around during this campaign?
I wonder if the daughter of Indian immigrants wants to be around a campaign that declares immigrants to be "animals" and that says the White House will smell of curry if Harris is elected.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
Owen Jones is distraught and says Israel has been very, very naughty.
He also says using booby traps is illegal under UN charter which Israel signed. Not surprising seeing the number of innocents left with body parts missing.
These aren't booby traps - which would be something the user unwittingly triggered themselves. But then Owen never lets a fact get in the way of his obsessive hatred of Israel.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
Owen Jones is distraught and says Israel has been very, very naughty.
The problem with the Middle East is that there are always people on one side ready to antagonise the other, and always people ready to be antagonised by the other.
If reports are right that Israel (or rather, someone in Israel) went ahead now not for any clear operational reason but "use it or lose it" then what was the point other than to raise the temperature? Huzzah! We've killed their commanders! Boo! You've killed small children! And so the cycle of hate and violence continues.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
Why do you think eastern Ukraine should go to Russia? And how do you define the 'east' ? And why do you trust Putin?
𝑻𝑯𝑬 𝑲𝑹𝑨𝑲𝑬𝑵 𝑨𝑾𝑨𝑲𝑬𝑺
I think we should trade land for peace.
Russia should get North Wales. Ukraine should get Palestine. The Palestinians should get the Sakhalin. The Japanese should get Lichtenstein. The Northern Irish should get Swaziland.
Scotland should get independence, but only if they take Northern Ireland with them.
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
Why do you think eastern Ukraine should go to Russia? And how do you define the 'east' ? And why do you trust Putin?
𝑻𝑯𝑬 𝑲𝑹𝑨𝑲𝑬𝑵 𝑨𝑾𝑨𝑲𝑬𝑺
I think we should trade land for peace.
Russia should get North Wales. Ukraine should get Palestine. The Palestinians should get the Sakhalin. The Japanese should get Lichtenstein. The Northern Irish should get Swaziland.
Scotland should get independence, but only if they take Northern Ireland with them.
Harsh. I would like to offer Westbury (Wilts). To anyone. Its ghastly.
Marcelo Goulart, of the Zurich-based wealth advisor First Alliance, has been so busy helping clients leave the UK that he’s had no summer holiday. He tells @CityAM that 80 per cent of his “UK exposed” clients have either left the country or are in the final stages of doing so.
I had a meeting yesterday with someone in that business who confirmed to me that enquiries pre election to the local gov arm who handle SHNW relocatirs were about 3 per month. They are currently 12 new per week.
I was also told of a number of Financial companies relocating key parts from London to here and it’s all down to the fear and feeling that Labour are going to screw them.
I’ve said it before - I’m not happy about this, doesn’t improve my life but diminishes the UK which I love.
This is corporate tax, spending with the VAT and jobs associated, stamp duties, staff etc etc going.
It's all good according to the Guardian. Let them go.
Marcelo Goulart, of the Zurich-based wealth advisor First Alliance, has been so busy helping clients leave the UK that he’s had no summer holiday. He tells @CityAM that 80 per cent of his “UK exposed” clients have either left the country or are in the final stages of doing so.
This is definitely happening, especially among ‘non-doms’ such as people in Mrs Sunak’s position, who are moving their primary residence to places like the sandpit in anticipation of a tightening of the rules.
UAE is offering 10-year ‘golden visa’ opportunities to anyone with a salary of $100k or making an investment of $500k.
So we get to a point where Government policy is predicated on not "frightening" a tiny group of people who just happen to be very wealthy.
In any case, they could decide to up and move to Singapore or Dubai or wherever at any time anyway.
We know wealth buys speech and presumably those with money are seeking to influence Government policy via articles in CIty AM, the Mail and elsewhere.
From memory 1% pay 60% of the income tax. (A large number of them play football, who have unsuccessfully tried lots of ways to avoid basically being on PAYE).
While I agree with the idea that one shouldn’t make government policy based on not annoying a small handful of very wealthy people, but when the government policy comes across as specifically to screw them to the floor, then it shouldn’t be a surprise that they plan to change their own arrangements to suit that perception.
IFS say 29% not 60%. in March this year That's higher than I expected, though - I had a number of ~27% in my head.
Someone just about in the top 1 per cent of income tax payers, on £200,000, say, will be paying a good £10,000 a year more than in 2009. Our reliance on top earners has continued to grow. That top 1 per cent pay 29 per cent of all income tax now, up from 25 per cent in 2010 and 21 per cent at the turn of the century. Whisper it quietly, but this Tory government has taken a serious chunk out of the incomes of the 1 per cent. https://ifs.org.uk/articles/how-tax-burden-high-when-most-us-are-taxed-so-low
I think the top 1% of earners are about 10% of total income to put that 29% in perspective.
Agree - it's still a big number.
Do we have international comparators?
I think it's broadly similar, slightly lower in France, Germany (more like 25%), and I think that's more because their middle earners pay more not that top earners pay less.
I posted a link with 2022 data - your Germany number is very out of line on the data on the map there. But it shows a fall in Germany from 13% to 10% over just a year or so in 2022. Similar big recent fall in the UK from 15% to 10%. Norway 14% to 7%. Denmark the other way 1~13% to 18%.
What an interesting set of numbers.
Flight of Oligarchs, impact of COVID? The swings are a bit old for impact of the Ukraine War.
Not at all. Look at Nick's hesitancy to put forward his view on Russia/Ukraine. It is because of the reaction to anything dissenting posted about Russia/Ukraine on PB.
It's not PB, it's only four or five Ukrainian Ultras; whose collective knowledge of Russia could be recorded on the anterior surface of Sunak's glans with a whiteboard marker.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
The security camera footage from convenience store showed one of the explosions. People standing right next to the victim were unharmed. Seemed far more discriminating than automatic weapon fire. Or a 2000lb bomb.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
I suspect it happened before it left the factory in Taiwan. But they don’t want to say that hence “intercepted”
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
Owen Jones is distraught and says Israel has been very, very naughty.
The problem with the Middle East is that there are always people on one side ready to antagonise the other, and always people ready to be antagonised by the other.
If reports are right that Israel (or rather, someone in Israel) went ahead now not for any clear operational reason but "use it or lose it" then what was the point other than to raise the temperature? Huzzah! We've killed their commanders! Boo! You've killed small children! And so the cycle of hate and violence continues.
Hezbollah are bombarding Israel on a daily basis. They keep banging on about being at war with Israel and never making peace.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
There will never be a means of waging war that completely avoids civilian casualties.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
Owen Jones is distraught and says Israel has been very, very naughty.
He also says using booby traps is illegal under UN charter which Israel signed. Not surprising seeing the number of innocents left with body parts missing.
These aren't booby traps - which would be something the user unwittingly triggered themselves. But then Owen never lets a fact get in the way of his obsessive hatred of Israel.
I don't know. You may well be right. The protocol says the following:
""Booby-trap" means any device or material which is designed, constructed or adapted to kill or injure and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an apparently harmless object or performs an apparently safe act."
Performs an act. Did the pagers just blow or was a message sent and they looked to read it etc.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
Owen Jones is distraught and says Israel has been very, very naughty.
He also says using booby traps is illegal under UN charter which Israel signed. Not surprising seeing the number of innocents left with body parts missing.
The legality of targeted killings is contested. As is the concept of "International Law" of course. Here's a good article about what it is or isn't (tl;dr - no one knows).
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
I suspect it happened before it left the factory in Taiwan. But they don’t want to say that hence “intercepted”
My theory, so far, is that Hezbollah order a shipment or shipments of these, en masse. Hence the apparent identical make/model.
Where the shipment was switched, in the supply chain, is anyones guess.
One thing to consider is that making/modifying several thousand of these devices was an industrial operation, of its own.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
The security camera footage from convenience store showed one of the explosions. People standing right next to the victim were unharmed. Seemed far more discriminating than automatic weapon fire. Or a 2000lb bomb.
They had no definite way of ensuring a pager wasn't in the hands of an innocent person when it exploded, or if a Hezbollah fighter had his baby in his arms, or what sort of collateral damage the explosion might trigger. I just can't condone that.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
It’s a reasonable assumption that a terrorist is going to take care to prevent unauthorised access to their network communications device
Not at all. Look at Nick's hesitancy to put forward his view on Russia/Ukraine. It is because of the reaction to anything dissenting posted about Russia/Ukraine on PB.
It's not PB, it's only four or five Ukrainian Ultras; whose collective knowledge of Russia could be recorded on the anterior surface of Sunak's glans with a whiteboard marker.
You have the remarkable knack of coming up with the most colourful of phrases
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
The security camera footage from convenience store showed one of the explosions. People standing right next to the victim were unharmed. Seemed far more discriminating than automatic weapon fire. Or a 2000lb bomb.
They had no definite way of ensuring a pager wasn't in the hands of an innocent person when it exploded, or if a Hezbollah fighter had his baby in his arms, or what sort of collateral damage the explosion might trigger. I just can't condone that.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
The security camera footage from convenience store showed one of the explosions. People standing right next to the victim were unharmed. Seemed far more discriminating than automatic weapon fire. Or a 2000lb bomb.
They had no definite way of ensuring a pager wasn't in the hands of an innocent person when it exploded, or if a Hezbollah fighter had his baby in his arms, or what sort of collateral damage the explosion might trigger. I just can't condone that.
I guess their view is you cannot make an omelette without breaking an egg.
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
It has been a foundation stone of international relations for centuries to oppose wars of conquest that lead to border changes, because otherwise you encourage more war.
We absolutely have to oppose formal recognition of Russian acquisition of any Ukrainian territory by conquest, or we give them green light to any other country that fancies a chunk of its neighbours.
Even if we end up acquiescing to a de facto conquest of parts of Ukraine by Russia, legitimising that conquest formally by recognising the new borders would be an epoch-defining mistake.
The problem with Russia/Ukraine is that, AIUI, a significant number of people who considered themselves Russian, and spoke Russian moved into, particularly, Eastern Ukraine during the Soviet era. These people, or at least a substantial percentage, may well prefer to stay with Russia. In that case the settlement described would simply be a case of legitimatisng the de facto situation.
There was a poll in 1991 ie at independence, where all areas of Ukraine voted to stay in Ukraine.
For me, that is definitive.
The de facto situation is post much ethnic-cleansing.
Thanks. Agree, if that's the way they voted, that's what should happen. Do you have a reference, please; what were the figures in the east?
@MattW is obviously not a second EU referendum guy. Nor second Scottish independence vote guy either, for that matter.
It's a long time ago - some might even say 'a generation' - so could definitely be revisited. But actually organising a fair vote would, from now, take some time. So it's the best we have for now.
I mean, if there was going to be a referendum in the future, you'd need a period of stability, possibly under neither Russian nor Ukrainian control (as either would likely tend to discourage residents identifying with the other from staying/returning and raise questions about any vote). It's definitely suboptimal, but it's a consequence of the fighting and subsequent more formalised invasion. The route to a free referendum was not - and could not - be paved with Russian tanks.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
It has been a foundation stone of international relations for centuries to oppose wars of conquest that lead to border changes, because otherwise you encourage more war.
We absolutely have to oppose formal recognition of Russian acquisition of any Ukrainian territory by conquest, or we give them green light to any other country that fancies a chunk of its neighbours.
Even if we end up acquiescing to a de facto conquest of parts of Ukraine by Russia, legitimising that conquest formally by recognising the new borders would be an epoch-defining mistake.
The problem with Russia/Ukraine is that, AIUI, a significant number of people who considered themselves Russian, and spoke Russian moved into, particularly, Eastern Ukraine during the Soviet era. These people, or at least a substantial percentage, may well prefer to stay with Russia. In that case the settlement described would simply be a case of legitimatisng the de facto situation.
There was a poll in 1991 ie at independence, where all areas of Ukraine voted to stay in Ukraine.
For me, that is definitive.
The de facto situation is post much ethnic-cleansing.
Thanks. Agree, if that's the way they voted, that's what should happen. Do you have a reference, please; what were the figures in the east?
@MattW is obviously not a second EU referendum guy. Nor second Scottish independence vote guy either, for that matter.
What is a possible proposal, when perhaps a number around 15-25% * of the population have been turned into refugees, kidnapped, or killed by an armed invasion?
* I have no idea what the actual numbers are.
Numbers are hard to come by. Let's start with Crimea. Wikipedia says: "As of 15 August 2019, 40,733 displaced people from the occupied peninsula were officially registered on the mainland of Ukraine.[110] In parallel with this, as the activists of the Crimean Tatar movement drew attention in 2018, several hundreds of thousands of Russians moved to Crimea with the assistance of the Russian authorities during the 4 years of occupation.[82][111]"
The population of Crimea is 2.4 million (as of 2021), so that's ~2% displaced to Ukraine, but maybe 25% of the current population having been recently moved in.
As for eastern Ukraine, Wikipedia again: "By November 2017, the UN had identified 1.8 million internally displaced and conflict-affected persons in Ukraine, while another 427,240 who had sought asylum or refugee status in the Russian Federation, plus 11,230 in Italy, 10,495 in Germany, 8,380 in Spain, and 4,595 in Poland.[641]" That's against a population in the Donbas before the war of maybe 6.6 million, so over a third of the pre-war population had left as far back as 2017.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
Owen Jones is distraught and says Israel has been very, very naughty.
The problem with the Middle East is that there are always people on one side ready to antagonise the other, and always people ready to be antagonised by the other.
If reports are right that Israel (or rather, someone in Israel) went ahead now not for any clear operational reason but "use it or lose it" then what was the point other than to raise the temperature? Huzzah! We've killed their commanders! Boo! You've killed small children! And so the cycle of hate and violence continues.
Clear operational reasons - disabling Hezbollah’s communication network and destabilising their ability to plan operations while the seek for a secure alternative
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
It's rare this site sees insightful and thought-provoking posts these days so thank you for this.
On the Ukraine, you may be surprised to hear I don't wholly disagree but being the good liberal internationalist I am, the decision should sit with the people not the leaders.
I'll start with an obvious - most of the world (apart from the Russians and the Ukrainians doing the fighting and dying) has adapted pretty well to the conflict. Life goes on and indeed there's plenty of money to be made by arms manufacturers and others and it has given a boost to the arguments of the defence establishment it should get more Government money rather than less. The "rules" seem to have been set and as along as everyone stays within them we can all get along (apart from the aforementioned Russians and Ukrainians).
If I could stop the fighting in 24 hours (pace Trump), I would propose a withdrawal of all forces to pre-2022 borders and original inhabitants allowed to return. A UN peacekeeping force (a nice little earner for Brazil, Nigeria and India) to patrol the Donetsk and Lukhansk areas and in six months (180 days from any ceasefire) a referendum to be held which has two options either a) part of Ukraine or b) part of Russia and all parties to abide by said outcome.
For Crimea, a similar referendum but with three options a) Ukraine b) Russia c) an Independent state whose independence would be guaranteed by Russia, Ukraine and NATO.
Referenda will never work after what has been ethnic cleansing by the Russians. Allowing one would just send a message to imperialist leaders: invade, deport, hold a referenda, and it's yours. Especially as countries with imperialist ambitions tend to treat democracy such as referenda with a certain amount of contempt. Witness Russia itself.
Sadly, there is no 'fair' answer. The only reasonable answer is to return the borders to pre-2014 status - with all the mess that entails. At least that might give other leaders considering such actions pause for thought: is it really worth the risk of so much treasure to gain nothing?
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
There will never be a means of waging war that completely avoids civilian casualties.
Until the universal adoption of robot wars as the way to settle disputes...
Not at all. Look at Nick's hesitancy to put forward his view on Russia/Ukraine. It is because of the reaction to anything dissenting posted about Russia/Ukraine on PB.
It's not PB, it's only four or five Ukrainian Ultras; whose collective knowledge of Russia could be recorded on the anterior surface of Sunak's glans with a whiteboard marker.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
There will never be a means of waging war that completely avoids civilian casualties.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
The security camera footage from convenience store showed one of the explosions. People standing right next to the victim were unharmed. Seemed far more discriminating than automatic weapon fire. Or a 2000lb bomb.
They had no definite way of ensuring a pager wasn't in the hands of an innocent person when it exploded, or if a Hezbollah fighter had his baby in his arms, or what sort of collateral damage the explosion might trigger. I just can't condone that.
I guess their view is you cannot make an omelette without breaking an egg.
Makes one wonder how and why the Israelis made such a bog of defending their southern border last October.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
Owen Jones is distraught and says Israel has been very, very naughty.
He also says using booby traps is illegal under UN charter which Israel signed. Not surprising seeing the number of innocents left with body parts missing.
These aren't booby traps - which would be something the user unwittingly triggered themselves. But then Owen never lets a fact get in the way of his obsessive hatred of Israel.
I don't know. You may well be right. The protocol says the following:
""Booby-trap" means any device or material which is designed, constructed or adapted to kill or injure and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an apparently harmless object or performs an apparently safe act."
Performs an act. Did the pagers just blow or was a message sent and they looked to read it etc.
The reports from Lebanon say that a message was received. And that a short period of time after that, they exploded.
This would explain why they exploded with such simultaneity. There are services out there to send a message or messages to a list of pagers. I wrote one such for AT&T, many years ago.
In technology terms, it would not be especially hard to set it up so that a specific message had to be received to trigger the explosion.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
I don’t particularly have an issue with a clothing allowance for the PMs partner. Most people have to pay for suits etc out of their salary (and it’s not even tax deductible).
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
I do agree with you on this. He made his pitch to the UK on the basis of not being a corrupt, venal, grasping Tory, yet is appearing to behave in exactly the same way, pace Orwell and the pigs.
Quite. China could have a go but the nutters who deconstruct iPhones (physically and the software) for likes on YouTube would rumble the dodgy batch immediately. And how would you target the batch?
Other things being equal, pagers are more secure than iPhones. Hizbollah should have given more thought to "other things."
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
That's an interesting and surprising post.
What I would say is that it is very unfortunate that people don't feel able to express their views. There is a very obvious path that can be observed, on one day people are making really lucid and impressive comments, then they 'take a side' and the quality of their comments and discourse goes rapidly downhill, to the point where it just reiterates propoganda. I am saying this now because it is something that can often be clearly observed in comments on Russia/Ukraine.
There are certain topics wherefrom people on PB are "not allowed" to dissent.
And if they do then there is a pile on. Most notable as you say on Ukraine/Russia where any deviation from the Ukraine will be in Moscow by next Christmas/Easter/Start of the Grouse Shooting Season line was, and to an extent still is met by the classic PB "pile on" (analogous to being beaten around the head with dandelions, that said).
People on PB get it into their heads that there is a "right" way to look at the world. Trump is of course another and hence Nick's acuity in understanding the dynamics of him posting what he did.
It's disappointing that PB should be like this but there you go.
People are allowed to say what they like and I'm allowed to disagree with them.
You seem to be arguing I shouldn't reply to people when I disagree with them.
Nothing so dramatic. But there are certain topics which bring out PB en masse against the poster. Ukraine/Russia then and now is a case in point.
Any analysis of the situation that didn't foresee a complete and utter Ukrainian victory was dismissed as being Putin's stooge and whatnot. It was a rare blind spot for PB because, as we are seeing with Trump now, all too often people were substituting what they thought should or wanted to happen, with what might happen. And why.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
There will never be a means of waging war that completely avoids civilian casualties.
Until the universal adoption of robot wars as the way to settle disputes...
As the Tassos reached for him, a last ironic thought drifted through Hendricks’ mind. He felt a little better, thinking about it. The bomb. Made by the Second Variety to destroy the other varieties. Made for that end alone. They were already beginning to design weapons to use against each other.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
You can’t claim against tax unless necessary and exclusively for work purposes. A suit can, apparently, be worn outside work
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
I do agree with you on this. He made his pitch to the UK on the basis of not being a corrupt, venal, grasping Tory, yet is appearing to behave in exactly the same way, pace Orwell and the pigs.
Were there hints of this with his special pension scheme?
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
The security camera footage from convenience store showed one of the explosions. People standing right next to the victim were unharmed. Seemed far more discriminating than automatic weapon fire. Or a 2000lb bomb.
They had no definite way of ensuring a pager wasn't in the hands of an innocent person when it exploded, or if a Hezbollah fighter had his baby in his arms, or what sort of collateral damage the explosion might trigger. I just can't condone that.
I guess their view is you cannot make an omelette without breaking an egg.
Makes one wonder how and why the Israelis made such a bog of defending their southern border last October.
Their intelligence skills come and go, it seems - see 1973
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
The security camera footage from convenience store showed one of the explosions. People standing right next to the victim were unharmed. Seemed far more discriminating than automatic weapon fire. Or a 2000lb bomb.
They had no definite way of ensuring a pager wasn't in the hands of an innocent person when it exploded, or if a Hezbollah fighter had his baby in his arms, or what sort of collateral damage the explosion might trigger. I just can't condone that.
It's a bit Sopranos here. Yes of course it's sad because they are family people here with everyday worries about the price of eggs and their children's grades at school.
But they are gangsters, or in this case Hezbollah operatives, and hence risk comes with the lifestyle.
If they are worried about their babies and wives and whatnot then the answer is don't be a Hezbollah operative.
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
It has been a foundation stone of international relations for centuries to oppose wars of conquest that lead to border changes, because otherwise you encourage more war.
We absolutely have to oppose formal recognition of Russian acquisition of any Ukrainian territory by conquest, or we give them green light to any other country that fancies a chunk of its neighbours.
Even if we end up acquiescing to a de facto conquest of parts of Ukraine by Russia, legitimising that conquest formally by recognising the new borders would be an epoch-defining mistake.
The problem with Russia/Ukraine is that, AIUI, a significant number of people who considered themselves Russian, and spoke Russian moved into, particularly, Eastern Ukraine during the Soviet era. These people, or at least a substantial percentage, may well prefer to stay with Russia. In that case the settlement described would simply be a case of legitimatisng the de facto situation.
There was a poll in 1991 ie at independence, where all areas of Ukraine voted to stay in Ukraine.
For me, that is definitive.
The de facto situation is post much ethnic-cleansing.
Thanks. Agree, if that's the way they voted, that's what should happen. Do you have a reference, please; what were the figures in the east?
@MattW is obviously not a second EU referendum guy. Nor second Scottish independence vote guy either, for that matter.
It's a long time ago - some might even say 'a generation' - so could definitely be revisited. But actually organising a fair vote would, from now, take some time. So it's the best we have for now.
I mean, if there was going to be a referendum in the future, you'd need a period of stability, possibly under neither Russian nor Ukrainian control (as either would likely tend to discourage residents identifying with the other from staying/returning and raise questions about any vote). It's definitely suboptimal, but it's a consequence of the fighting and subsequent more formalised invasion. The route to a free referendum was not - and could not - be paved with Russian tanks.
Totally tangential, a video from the other day about a road "paved with German helmets".
A Mark Felton obscure piece of history. The Purley Way, Croydon. I think that's now where Ikea is located.
Quite. China could have a go but the nutters who deconstruct iPhones (physically and the software) for likes on YouTube would rumble the dodgy batch immediately. And how would you target the batch?
Other things being equal, pagers are more secure than iPhones. Hizbollah should have given more thought to "other things."
Also exactly what part of an iPhone could you remove to add some explosives in a way that isn't obvious. It's not like there is any spare space in there except possibly the battery and if the battery was reduced the seriously reduced battery life would be obvious.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
I suspect it happened before it left the factory in Taiwan. But they don’t want to say that hence “intercepted”
My theory, so far, is that Hezbollah order a shipment or shipments of these, en masse. Hence the apparent identical make/model.
Where the shipment was switched, in the supply chain, is anyones guess.
One thing to consider is that making/modifying several thousand of these devices was an industrial operation, of its own.
The issue is the time and space to do it (o think someone said 500 hours). Easiest to do that before it leaves the factory
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
I don’t particularly have an issue with a clothing allowance for the PMs partner. Most people have to pay for suits etc out of their salary (and it’s not even tax deductible).
But it should be state funded
I don't see anything wrong with suppliers providing the clothes for free provided there is a clear set of rules
1) Must be a UK designer 2) where used No 10 press office will provide a list of the clothes provided
Remember there are significant benefits to a designer for just getting a dress on TV / media - the quid pro quo is simple, free clothes in return for some publicity ..
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
Owen Jones is distraught and says Israel has been very, very naughty.
He also says using booby traps is illegal under UN charter which Israel signed. Not surprising seeing the number of innocents left with body parts missing.
The legality of targeted killings is contested. As is the concept of "International Law" of course. Here's a good article about what it is or isn't (tl;dr - no one knows).
I'm sure its not the intention, but it 'targeted killings' is not legal, then that surely only leaves random ones left, which can't be right...
I think the intent is that to legally kill someone using the justification of war then you can only do so if they fulfill certain criteria - wearing a soldier uniform, doing soldiery things in a conflict zone (Carefully demarcated from a civilian area with warning flags, natch).
Other people are defined as non-combatants, and therefore protected (munitions factory workers, logistics bureaucrats, etc).
I think where the use of "targeted" as a negative comes in is that the intent on killing soldiers is not to kill a specific soldier as an identified individual as such, but to kill soldiers as a class of people. So a "targeted" killing is killing someone for reasons other than being a soldier, i.e. being an active combatant, and therefore would be considered as "not on".
Ukraine have purposely targeted a few individuals not in uniform. Important people in the occupation authorities. It perhaps doesn't fit the paradigm of a perfectly moral war, but it's not carpet bombing Dresden.
A hundred grand in freebies. Starmer doesn't appear to have broken any rules and it looks like he is meticulous in recording it all, but it looks fecking awful. He wants to go and watch the footie, get comped because he's Swifty, dress nicely and have designer specs, so he'll take a hundred grand in freebies from whoever wants to curry his favour. It stinks, and he needs to have a word with himself.
But…but…but… it’s too much to ask him to pay for his own tickets to football…
Now he's a minister, he doesn't have to declare such gifts, so long as they're in his official capacity.
That would cover the DCMS ministers.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
At least he is a genuine Arsenal fan, not a fan of Arsenal Hotspurs or something (Aston Ham Utd).
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
There are lots of jobs where you need to look smart or are required to dress to a code. Do they get an allowance from their employer? Starmer is in the wrong here.
Quite a few do get clothing allowances, but not all. And you can claim against tax too.
Of course, but Lauren who works in an office isn't getting her entire wardrobe paid for. Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
Yeah seems an unnecessary misstep tbh, along with all the free football tickets.
Hasn't every prior Prime Minister going back decades accepted free tickets to sporting events? (Possibly excepting Truss on the grounds she wasn't around long enough.)
I have been thinking carefully about 'why would someone sane vote for Trump'. I think the argument is as follows. The democrats are trading on familiarity, ie they represent the continuation of an existing, stable order. But the order they are presiding over is failing. It trades on a kind of 'familiarity bias'. But they have very weak answers to existential problems: AI, the rise of china, foreign wars. All this may be just about tolerable, if you think that business as usual can be maintained and that the alternative is worse. But actually, there are many signs that the institutional order that prevails within the 'liberal establishment' and perpetuates the current system is itself deeply unstable. The most obvious structural problem is the gradual replacement of competent and experienced people who are retiring and replaced by those leaving university who are on the left and are becoming more and more radical in outlook, reflecting the last 10 years of change in higher education. Under this influence, the next democrat administration and the state institutions are likely to struggle severely and existentially with questions like Israel/ Palestine, border control, controlling illegal immigration, the arms race with China, and so on - whilst also dealing with massive internal domestic opposition - and to such a degree that there is a risk of rapid collapse, in a similar way to that which occurred in the soviet union 40 years ago.
Most people posting on this website will respond to the above by saying it is rubbish, there is no problem in the universities, it is based on generational anxieties and fears about change etc. In the end that just represents a different analysis and there are some persuasive arguments in favour of this perspective. But I would just say that it doesn't help your cause by resorting to insults towards people who have a different view.
People like Elon Musk have clearly thought very carefully about their position, and I think it is based on something like the analysis above. The system is collapsing, the collapse has to be disrupted, and Trump - for all the many dangers and flaws - is the only option going.
It's a persuasive analysis. But in addition, some people mainly care about one issue, on which Trump may be closer to their viewpoint, whether it's abortion, Ukraine, the Supreme Court, or whatever.
Personally I feel our pro-Ukraine position rejecting an inch of boundary change is exagerrated and dangerous, and we should be encouraging peace talks involving the east being merged into Russia and the West merged into the west, including NATO. I have no influence over the outcome, so it doesn't matter what I think, but if I actually had a vote I'd be tempted to vote for Trump - except that he's clearly bonkers on almost every other issue, so I suppose I'd vote Democrat.
This position is in at least some parts shared by roughly nobody, so I'm tempted not even to express it in the relatively friendly confines of PB. My point, though, is that everyone has their own priorities which opinion polls struggle to represent. My betting position is strongly pro-Democrat as it seems to me that Harris should be clear favourite at this point. But I'm uneasily aware that there are cross-currents under the surface which few of us fully understand.
It has been a foundation stone of international relations for centuries to oppose wars of conquest that lead to border changes, because otherwise you encourage more war.
We absolutely have to oppose formal recognition of Russian acquisition of any Ukrainian territory by conquest, or we give them green light to any other country that fancies a chunk of its neighbours.
Even if we end up acquiescing to a de facto conquest of parts of Ukraine by Russia, legitimising that conquest formally by recognising the new borders would be an epoch-defining mistake.
The problem with Russia/Ukraine is that, AIUI, a significant number of people who considered themselves Russian, and spoke Russian moved into, particularly, Eastern Ukraine during the Soviet era. These people, or at least a substantial percentage, may well prefer to stay with Russia. In that case the settlement described would simply be a case of legitimatisng the de facto situation.
There was a poll in 1991 ie at independence, where all areas of Ukraine voted to stay in Ukraine.
For me, that is definitive.
The de facto situation is post much ethnic-cleansing.
Thanks. Agree, if that's the way they voted, that's what should happen. Do you have a reference, please; what were the figures in the east?
@MattW is obviously not a second EU referendum guy. Nor second Scottish independence vote guy either, for that matter.
It's a long time ago - some might even say 'a generation' - so could definitely be revisited. But actually organising a fair vote would, from now, take some time. So it's the best we have for now.
I mean, if there was going to be a referendum in the future, you'd need a period of stability, possibly under neither Russian nor Ukrainian control (as either would likely tend to discourage residents identifying with the other from staying/returning and raise questions about any vote). It's definitely suboptimal, but it's a consequence of the fighting and subsequent more formalised invasion. The route to a free referendum was not - and could not - be paved with Russian tanks.
Totally tangential, a video from the other day about a road "paved with German helmets".
A Mark Felton obscure piece of history. The Purley Way, Croydon. I think that's now where Ikea is located.
Sounds very implausible - steels helmets rust and would collapse over time. Steel junk isn't a common component in roads.
The scrap vault would have been higher. The video of steamrollering helmets makes more sense as increasing the density for shipping to a steel works for recycling.
Israel reportedly fast-tracked its explosion of thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah fighters because the mass sabotage operation was about to be exposed.
It was a “use it or lose it moment,” a US official told Axios describing the reason Israel gave for the timing of the attack, which killed at least 11 and injured almost 3,000.
Two ounces of explosives were believed to have been hidden in 5,000 pagers next to a battery along with a switch to remotely trigger the device, US sources told The New York Times.
Torygraph
It was a brilliant operation. Quite precisely targeted.
Brilliant because it's real James Bond shit, but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed. You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
The other point is that while tactically brilliant, what analysis I've seen says that it won't do much to affect Hezbollah's capability other than temporarily. And it's likely to presage a much more serious conflict (which is quite likely Netanyahu's intention).
Whether that ends up being to Israel's benefit is questionable.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum
The only areas below 80%, at 50-60%, pro-independence, were Crimea.
Bulgakov's judiciously balanced appraisal of the facility when it opened:
https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1836310723263070600/video/1
He also says using booby traps is illegal under UN charter which Israel signed. Not surprising seeing the number of innocents left with body parts missing.
Firstly you must always implicitly obey orders, without attempting to form any opinion of your own regarding their propriety. Secondly, you must consider every man your enemy who speaks ill of your king; and thirdly you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil.
Dare I say that it would be a perfect Storm Shadow target, though it seems to be twice as far from the Ukrainian border as the maximum Storm Shadow range.
The difference is important, since the driving force behind the bans on booby traps and landmines is the risk of the devices lingering and causing casualties, long after a conflict is over.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-13861595/MARK-ALMOND-ingenious-strike-long-Putin-starts-blowing-foes-iPhones.html
* I have no idea what the actual numbers are.
Do we have international comparators?
Here are some facts on the ground. Well, under it.
In any case, it obviously makes sense to wait until Labour have announced what they will do before making a decision to move country- rather than relying on rumours.
https://academic.oup.com/book/7421/chapter-abstract/152384845?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Crimea is a somewhat different case.
Crimea.
What is the “official capacity” for the PM attending matches?
e.g. "which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated."
I'm not a war or human rights lawyer but I would say it looks like it is certainly not a definite 'no' based on this protocol.
The flip side to having a large chunk of the workforce who have no essential ties to the country is that... they have no essential ties to the country.
UK seems to be relatively less skewed in income distribution. UK, Germany, NL ~10%, France. Italy, Sweden, ~13% for the top 1%. Denmark 18%. Ireland 15%. Norway 7%. Switzerland 10.9%.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/income-share-top-1-before-tax-wid
During WWII, there was consideration given to a plan to attack German airforce pilots and support personnel on the ground in France. They generally travelled in convoy between barracks and airfield - destroy the lead and rear vehicles, then massacre everyone in between. The Army and SOE were all for it, the RAF said it wasn't right....
EDIT: "Generals of armies have better things to do than shoot each other”
https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/09/08/will-labours-non-dom-reforms-cost-the-uk-1bn/
but not that precisely targeted because they had no way of knowing, and didn't care, how many innocent people were going to be maimed or killed.
You should appreciate the ingenuity of the operation, whilst finding abhorrent the lack of any shred of humanity in the people who thought it up.
If reports are right that Israel (or rather, someone in Israel) went ahead now not for any clear operational reason but "use it or lose it" then what was the point other than to raise the temperature? Huzzah! We've killed their commanders! Boo! You've killed small children! And so the cycle of hate and violence continues.
David Lammy (I know, I know) raised an interesting point re clothing. PM's don't have a clothing budget yet do need to dress well to do the job. Perhaps there should be a clothing allowance? I'd also argue that the PM's salary is way too low - fix that and the issue of needing a friend to buy clothes and glasses goes away.
But if the PM needs a clothing budget what about the Foreign Minister? So where do you draw the line?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/21/britain-millionaires-leave-tax-havens-uk
What an interesting set of numbers.
Flight of Oligarchs, impact of COVID? The swings are a bit old for impact of the Ukraine War.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/income-share-top-1-before-tax-wid
Starmer is in the wrong here.
What would *not* doing it bring?
""Booby-trap" means any device or material which is designed, constructed or adapted to kill or injure and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an apparently harmless object or performs an apparently safe act."
Performs an act. Did the pagers just blow or was a message sent and they looked to read it etc.
Where the shipment was switched, in the supply chain, is anyones guess.
One thing to consider is that making/modifying several thousand of these devices was an industrial operation, of its own.
I just can't condone that.
I mean, if there was going to be a referendum in the future, you'd need a period of stability, possibly under neither Russian nor Ukrainian control (as either would likely tend to discourage residents identifying with the other from staying/returning and raise questions about any vote). It's definitely suboptimal, but it's a consequence of the fighting and subsequent more formalised invasion. The route to a free referendum was not - and could not - be paved with Russian tanks.
Starmer needs to grow the fuck up, and realise a hundred grand in freebies just isn't the look a Labour PM should strive for.
The population of Crimea is 2.4 million (as of 2021), so that's ~2% displaced to Ukraine, but maybe 25% of the current population having been recently moved in.
As for eastern Ukraine, Wikipedia again: "By November 2017, the UN had identified 1.8 million internally displaced and conflict-affected persons in Ukraine, while another 427,240 who had sought asylum or refugee status in the Russian Federation, plus 11,230 in Italy, 10,495 in Germany, 8,380 in Spain, and 4,595 in Poland.[641]" That's against a population in the Donbas before the war of maybe 6.6 million, so over a third of the pre-war population had left as far back as 2017.
Sadly, there is no 'fair' answer. The only reasonable answer is to return the borders to pre-2014 status - with all the mess that entails. At least that might give other leaders considering such actions pause for thought: is it really worth the risk of so much treasure to gain nothing?
This would explain why they exploded with such simultaneity. There are services out there to send a message or messages to a list of pagers. I wrote one such for AT&T, many years ago.
In technology terms, it would not be especially hard to set it up so that a specific message had to be received to trigger the explosion.
But it should be state funded
Other things being equal, pagers are more secure than iPhones. Hizbollah should have given more thought to "other things."
As the Tassos reached for him, a last ironic thought drifted through Hendricks’ mind. He felt a little better, thinking about it. The bomb. Made by the Second Variety to destroy the other varieties. Made for that end alone.
They were already beginning to design weapons to use against each other.
(Nothing for generic smart clothing.)
But they are gangsters, or in this case Hezbollah operatives, and hence risk comes with the lifestyle.
If they are worried about their babies and wives and whatnot then the answer is don't be a Hezbollah operative.
A Mark Felton obscure piece of history. The Purley Way, Croydon. I think that's now where Ikea is located.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Htw6HWxBs1U
BBC News - Sexual assault arrest at Lib Dem conference
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd98n073lgdo
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65037136
How will this look if they abolish/alter private sector pension plans entitlement to 25% of the fund tax free?
1) Must be a UK designer
2) where used No 10 press office will provide a list of the clothes provided
Remember there are significant benefits to a designer for just getting a dress on TV / media - the quid pro quo is simple, free clothes in return for some publicity ..
Other people are defined as non-combatants, and therefore protected (munitions factory workers, logistics bureaucrats, etc).
I think where the use of "targeted" as a negative comes in is that the intent on killing soldiers is not to kill a specific soldier as an identified individual as such, but to kill soldiers as a class of people. So a "targeted" killing is killing someone for reasons other than being a soldier, i.e. being an active combatant, and therefore would be considered as "not on".
Ukraine have purposely targeted a few individuals not in uniform. Important people in the occupation authorities. It perhaps doesn't fit the paradigm of a perfectly moral war, but it's not carpet bombing Dresden.
EDIT: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/18/keir-starmer-100000-in-tickets-and-gifts-more-than-any-other-recent-party-leader has some figures. Yes, past party leader accepted similar freebies, but Starmer has accepted more. Crucially, PMs don't have to declare events that they are invited to as PM.
The scrap vault would have been higher. The video of steamrollering helmets makes more sense as increasing the density for shipping to a steel works for recycling.
Whether that ends up being to Israel's benefit is questionable.