In addition to the small potatoes nature of the claims against Reeves, there's another reason she won't go: if tax rises are coming for increased Defence spending, would you really fire the incumbent Chancellor and have her successor start their tenure by immediately increasing taxes?
Frankly, removing a Chancellor is a very difficult thing to do and should only be done slowly, carefully and after a lot of preparation.
Prime Ministers who botch removing Chancellors tend not to be Prime Ministers with remarkable speed afterwards. Liz Truss. Harold Macmillan. Margaret Thatcher. Boris Johnson (albeit he got away with the first occasion for a time at least).
Major waited on firing Lamont for a good reason, and it sort of worked even if it didn't solve the fundamental problem. Blair kept Brown in when he probably shouldn't for fear of the consequences. Ditto Brown and Darling.
A more likely scenario is Reeves is kept for three years and then carefully shunted sideways, so she can be blamed for all the tough stuff (massive tax rises and spending cuts) and then a new Chancellor can offer some goodies just before the election sold as 'a new approach because the pain has worked.'
What we should be watching for, if that is the plan, is the building up by Starmer of alternative power bases within the party to ensure Reeves does not become too powerful and ergo unsackable. Blair tried it a few times but never quite pulled it off.
Starmer is ruthless. He will keep Reeves for as long as she's useful to him. The moment she isn't, she'll go. I suspect she doesn't have much of a base in the party to support her.
The point people are missing I think, is that Reeves actually is useful to Starmer.
(And inevitably she'll be sacked tomorrow - to prove me wrong)
Starmer is the worst, most deluded and evil leader this country has had since James II. For worst Chancellor there are more horses in the field and Jim Callaghan must be up there but he never came close to Reeves.
Since R4 has already featured in an unseemly spat this am, they now have some dork on saying Lewis Hamilton is a cultural figure of similar import to Muhammad Ali. Fuxake, Lewis seems to have his heart mostly in the right place and is/was a great driver, but gimme a break.
It is a silly comparison, but LH is a cultural figure: one of the few F1 drivers who transcend the sport.
His social media presence is massive, way outside F1. 35.5 million followers on Instagram alone. The next driver, Leclerc, has a third of that.
It is still low compared to the most-followed accounts, but his appeal outside F1 is very useful to the sport.
And then he wins the title for Ferrari…
That’s only going to happen if Ferrari stop their old habit of making stupid strategy calls midrace.
And equally McLaren are the team to beat and they’ve got changes to their car which if they have improved it may make them very hard to beat. We won’t know really until Australia though
Russell might be another contender if Mercedes can maintain the improvements we saw at the back end of last year.
Will be interesting to see what happens with Red Bull now they've lost Newey, and whether he's made a big difference to Aston Martin.
While I'd love to see a Verstappen-Russell fight (because they loathe one another) Mercedes were clearly in 4th last year and if they don't seem in the hunt for the title they might well shift focus as soon as possible to 2026.
I suspect Red Bull are 3rd or worse this year - they are not a team that stops developing a car mid year so I think as a minimum Ferrari and McLaren will be better than Red Bull.
That's my guess. McLaren and Ferrari top, then Red Bull, probably.
I think we tend to over estimate the size and power of Russia and under estimate that of the EU/UK.
The three big powers are US, China and EU/UK. Russia is a tiddler and needs a good smack. Perhaps China is the adult in the room and should be in the talks?
The EU+UK figure is misleading because there are lot of capability gaps, fragmentation, duplication and less economies of scale. They aren't getting the full capability that the headline figure would suggest. An EU Army will fix all that.
"Will" is unlikely, as too many don't want it - "would" is arguable.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
Maybe. The trouble is America can deter further Russian aggression if it cares to. No European nation can.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations. Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
True but I doubt European governments will pay much attention to the shills and bots.
Private sector and public sector wages still increasing ahead of inflation. Good news right? Thanks Rachel
Anecdote: Son is helping a small company replace its accountant. Last accountant was paid £45K/year. This time round, replacements are wanting £45K/year for a 3 day week. Seems that lots of people stayed in their roles post Covid due to uncertainty but are now moving and demanding better pay. And they are getting it / companies are paying it. The issue of in-work poverty may disappear but only over a much longer term.
If companies want to survive, suppressing wages is no longer an option. They will need to trade up and innovate - or even try to export to that large market close by.
I think we tend to over estimate the size and power of Russia and under estimate that of the EU/UK.
The three big powers are US, China and EU/UK. Russia is a tiddler and needs a good smack. Perhaps China is the adult in the room and should be in the talks?
The EU+UK figure is misleading because there are lot of capability gaps, fragmentation, duplication and less economies of scale. They aren't getting the full capability that the headline figure would suggest. An EU Army will fix all that.
And what capability gaps do the Russians have? Their tank crews are now barely 16 year old boys, their Navy got sunk by a country without a navy and the rest ran away, their best air defence capabilty is friendly fire, their logisitcs involve using horses and donkeys to take ammunition to the front...beaten to a standstill by a country a fifth its size using hand-me-down NATO kit well beyond its use-by date.
I think we tend to over estimate the size and power of Russia and under estimate that of the EU/UK.
The three big powers are US, China and EU/UK. Russia is a tiddler and needs a good smack. Perhaps China is the adult in the room and should be in the talks?
Russia has more nuclear weapons still than any other nation though
Which a massive investment in conventional arms won't fix. There appears to be a consensus that we need to increase defence spending - it would be good to know what it would actually be spent on.
I'd guess the effective, but politically unfeasible, thing to do would be to send it all to Ukraine/Baltic nations to help build up their capabilities. Plus perhaps some technology to protect our underseas cables from sabotage (but that relies on us actually destroying some Russian ships inside friendly EEZs, which seems unlikely).
On the ships in the Baltics: I do wonder if there's another approach. Any ship transiting those particular international waters has to have a pilot from a Baltic country on board; as ships do when they come into port.
They're international waters, but from vague memory the situation is not unprecedented.
either that or every ship transiting the area has a 'shadow' smaller vessel to keep an eye on them.
Since R4 has already featured in an unseemly spat this am, they now have some dork on saying Lewis Hamilton is a cultural figure of similar import to Muhammad Ali. Fuxake, Lewis seems to have his heart mostly in the right place and is/was a great driver, but gimme a break.
Yes my apologies for my part in the spat - but you’ve got to have a good Radio4 spat every so often. I think Nigel and I were arguing at crossed purposes. Robinson is still an arse though, generally.
Truth is that you, Nick and I are actually in agreement on the topic being discussed. He just wasn't entirely clear in quoting the Sun article, and you misinterpreted the point he was trying to make.
In addition to the small potatoes nature of the claims against Reeves, there's another reason she won't go: if tax rises are coming for increased Defence spending, would you really fire the incumbent Chancellor and have her successor start their tenure by immediately increasing taxes?
Right now, she's a useful human shield for Starmer and I suspect she's being increasingly directed.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
Earlier in the war there was some confusion over this; IIRC it was down to the fact that the USA had sent far more military aid than Europe; but Europe had sent much more non-military support to keep Ukraine's economy going. Or somesuch.
The Yanks liked to pick the military support figures; the EU the whole figures. In truth, both are vital.
The US support figures include the new equipment, purchased at full cost, which replaced in US inventory the old, sometimes close to obsolete kit which was donated to Ukraine. And Trump, in his usual manner, has doubled even that inflated figure as his claimed contribution.
That photo also vindicates, entirely, my description of Rachel from Accounts as The Lesbian Worzel Gummidge
Childish post.
No, the childish post was that by @ydoethur and the ridiculous number of likes it got.
Shows the deep-seated British anxiety with class, despite me getting Reeves SPOT ON.
You clearly have a higher opinion of Johnson and Rees-Mogg than I do.
Edit - there's also a certain irony that a post which was about her class, the one I was responding to, is one where you seem to do exactly what you're accusing me of.
That photo also vindicates, entirely, my description of Rachel from Accounts as The Lesbian Worzel Gummidge
Childish post.
No, the childish post was that by @ydoethur and the ridiculous number of likes it got.
Shows the deep-seated British anxiety with class, despite me getting Reeves SPOT ON.
You clearly have a higher opinion of Johnson and Rees-Mogg than I do.
Edit - there's also a certain irony that a post which was about her class, the one I was responding to, is one where you seem to do exactly what you're accusing me of.
It got lots of likes because you made it about class and chips. The critique of Reeves didn't even feature.
Had I not mentioned it, it would not have done so (despite being accurate) except from the Labour fanbois.
EDIT: for the record, I don't rate JRM and have been vociferously critical of Johnson. Class or background is no obstacle to me saying it like it is.
I think we tend to over estimate the size and power of Russia and under estimate that of the EU/UK.
The three big powers are US, China and EU/UK. Russia is a tiddler and needs a good smack. Perhaps China is the adult in the room and should be in the talks?
Russia has more nuclear weapons still than any other nation though
Which a massive investment in conventional arms won't fix. There appears to be a consensus that we need to increase defence spending - it would be good to know what it would actually be spent on.
I'd guess the effective, but politically unfeasible, thing to do would be to send it all to Ukraine/Baltic nations to help build up their capabilities. Plus perhaps some technology to protect our underseas cables from sabotage (but that relies on us actually destroying some Russian ships inside friendly EEZs, which seems unlikely).
What’s needed is an increase in effective capability, rather than an increase in spending per se.
No multi-year bondoggles for 2040’s technology, but a lot more production of what’s currently available, including tonnes of ammo, and looking at 2026’s technology such as better and mass-produced drones.
That photo also vindicates, entirely, my description of Rachel from Accounts as The Lesbian Worzel Gummidge
Childish post.
No, the childish post was that by @ydoethur and the ridiculous number of likes it got.
Shows the deep-seated British anxiety with class, despite me getting Reeves SPOT ON.
You clearly have a higher opinion of Johnson and Rees-Mogg than I do.
Edit - there's also a certain irony that a post which was about her class, the one I was responding to, is one where you seem to do exactly what you're accusing me of.
It got lots of likes because you made it about class and chips. The critique of Reeves didn't even feature.
Had I not mentioned it, it would not have done so (despite being accurate) except from the Labour fanbois.
Your critique of Reeves was essentially that she's on class warfare because she's not from a wealthy background and was bullied about her class by 'ex public schoolboys.'
I was pointing out that their own track record as a class is at best no better, which makes it amusingly ironic that they would bully anyone else on those grounds.
That's why it got a huge number of likes.
I would like to think the elegance of the phrasing and the sophistication of my wit had something to do with it as well, but that's probably optimistic.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
Maybe. The trouble is America can deter further Russian aggression if it cares to. No European nation can.
Russia - as depleted as it currently is - would be greatly troubled by Poland on its own. Imagine if Ukraine had 250 Leopard 2 tanks at its disposal. The 1000 K2 Black Panther tanks (one of the most advanced battle tanks in the world) and 460 K9 Thunder howitzers (one of the world's top self-propelled howitzers) are currently being delivered from South Korea. There has been a significant upgrade to the Polish armed forces in recent years.
As long as the rest of Europe rebuilds whilst Russia does the same, its threat is reduced. What Russia will build to fill the gaps will still be greatly compromised.
Of course, the US could sell Russia F-35s. Although wh knows how many would be delivered beore the next President takes office.
I think we tend to over estimate the size and power of Russia and under estimate that of the EU/UK.
The three big powers are US, China and EU/UK. Russia is a tiddler and needs a good smack. Perhaps China is the adult in the room and should be in the talks?
The EU+UK figure is misleading because there are lot of capability gaps, fragmentation, duplication and less economies of scale. They aren't getting the full capability that the headline figure would suggest. An EU Army will fix all that.
And what capability gaps do the Russians have? Their tank crews are now barely 16 year old boys, their Navy got sunk by a country without a navy and the rest ran away, their best air defence capabilty is friendly fire, their logisitcs involve using horses and donkeys to take ammunition to the front...beaten to a standstill by a country a fifth its size using hand-me-down NATO kit well beyond its use-by date.
At the level of pop history, there’s a great belief in the Spartan Way/Fremen Mirage.
People who live under brutal dictatorships are seen as tougher, braver, more manly, than the effete degenerates who inhabit democracies.
Hence, the belief that Russians are unbeatable super-soldiers.
Whereas, the more prosaic truth is that the side with the best logistics almost always wins.
I think we tend to over estimate the size and power of Russia and under estimate that of the EU/UK.
The three big powers are US, China and EU/UK. Russia is a tiddler and needs a good smack. Perhaps China is the adult in the room and should be in the talks?
Russia has more nuclear weapons still than any other nation though
Which a massive investment in conventional arms won't fix. There appears to be a consensus that we need to increase defence spending - it would be good to know what it would actually be spent on.
I'd guess the effective, but politically unfeasible, thing to do would be to send it all to Ukraine/Baltic nations to help build up their capabilities. Plus perhaps some technology to protect our underseas cables from sabotage (but that relies on us actually destroying some Russian ships inside friendly EEZs, which seems unlikely).
What’s needed is an increase in effective capability, rather than an increase in spending per se.
No multi-year bondoggles for 2040’s technology, but a lot more production of what’s currently available, including tonnes of ammo, and looking at 2026’s technology such as better and mass-produced drones.
On this, I agree with you. It would be easy for a higher defence spend to simply be absorbed by inflation across the (small) defence supply chain we already have.
We need a 5-10 industrial strategy to develop and expand the sector (training academies, support of SMEs and factory expansion etc) as well as steady and targeted recruitment.
I'd be far more convinced and assured by a SDR that argued for the capability we need across the army, navy and air force (and other domains) and then provided defence estimates for the cost.
I think we tend to over estimate the size and power of Russia and under estimate that of the EU/UK.
The three big powers are US, China and EU/UK. Russia is a tiddler and needs a good smack. Perhaps China is the adult in the room and should be in the talks?
The EU+UK figure is misleading because there are lot of capability gaps, fragmentation, duplication and less economies of scale. They aren't getting the full capability that the headline figure would suggest. An EU Army will fix all that.
An EU army with Hungary, Slovakia, Ireland and Austria having a veto over its use is not going to be effective for anything.
Private sector and public sector wages still increasing ahead of inflation. Good news right? Thanks Rachel
Nice try at trolling but if it is true, I have my doubts, as most of my colleagues are on pay freezes atm, it's in spite of her not because of her.
She's an idiot.
Alternatively you actually might be in the wrong job / sector. Shit happens when the banks get worried about a company or a sector.
Nah. This is just the fanbois clutching at straws.
The economy is experiencing zero growth and employers have cut back on expansion plans, new hires and growth.
That's Reeves. All Reeves.
And yet private sector pay is going up faster than inflation, according to these figures. (And faster than inflation the public sector, for those who thought that the public sector rises could have been avoided.)
Now they could be wrong. Of course they could be wrong. But I'm pretty sure that there's a national statistics version of "an outlier is a poll that you don't like" as well.
Also mentioned is an unemployment rate of 4.4% though they admit it may not be as accurate as they suggest.
If wages are growing despite the NI worries then there's a tightness in the labour market that is not quite apparent. Also growth in wages means more money for HMRC since they take a whack of it.
Is it time to use the phrase 'gangbusters' yet?
Its never the time to use the phrase 'gangbusters'.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Private sector and public sector wages still increasing ahead of inflation. Good news right? Thanks Rachel
Nice try at trolling but if it is true, I have my doubts, as most of my colleagues are on pay freezes atm, it's in spite of her not because of her.
She's an idiot.
Alternatively you actually might be in the wrong job / sector. Shit happens when the banks get worried about a company or a sector.
Nah. This is just the fanbois clutching at straws.
The economy is experiencing zero growth and employers have cut back on expansion plans, new hires and growth.
That's Reeves. All Reeves.
And yet private sector pay is going up faster than inflation, according to these figures. (And faster than inflation the public sector, for those who thought that the public sector rises could have been avoided.)
Now they could be wrong. Of course they could be wrong. But I'm pretty sure that there's a national statistics version of "an outlier is a poll that you don't like" as well.
They are wrong. They're totally at odds with the wider economic data and what businesses have been saying.
Private sector and public sector wages still increasing ahead of inflation. Good news right? Thanks Rachel
Nice try at trolling but if it is true, I have my doubts, as most of my colleagues are on pay freezes atm, it's in spite of her not because of her.
She's an idiot.
Alternatively you actually might be in the wrong job / sector. Shit happens when the banks get worried about a company or a sector.
Nah. This is just the fanbois clutching at straws.
The economy is experiencing zero growth and employers have cut back on expansion plans, new hires and growth.
That's Reeves. All Reeves.
I'm not quite that pessimistic yet. Usually this time of year you get a couple of large, usually retailers, go under due to poor Xmas trading. Not seen anything as significant this time round. Then there is the background of countries being on different parts of the economic cycle (which Gordon Brown tried to ban!). So it looks like Germany went down first, so you'd expect them to start to come out first. Followed by France.
Private sector and public sector wages still increasing ahead of inflation. Good news right? Thanks Rachel
Nice try at trolling but if it is true, I have my doubts, as most of my colleagues are on pay freezes atm, it's in spite of her not because of her.
She's an idiot.
Alternatively you actually might be in the wrong job / sector. Shit happens when the banks get worried about a company or a sector.
Nah. This is just the fanbois clutching at straws.
The economy is experiencing zero growth and employers have cut back on expansion plans, new hires and growth.
That's Reeves. All Reeves.
And yet private sector pay is going up faster than inflation, according to these figures. (And faster than inflation the public sector, for those who thought that the public sector rises could have been avoided.)
Now they could be wrong. Of course they could be wrong. But I'm pretty sure that there's a national statistics version of "an outlier is a poll that you don't like" as well.
Ok, questions in the hope that somebody more knowledgeable than me about these things will know the answer:
1) Have real wages gone up in the last four years? Because that's really the benchmark. Are people feeling the pinch still from Covid and Ukraine?
2) Is it possible these wage rises are a lagging indicator where pay rises to deal with the spike of inflation of 2022 and 2023 are working into the system, and that's the metric we should be comparing them with rather than now when the first shock has passed?
I don't know, and if anyone does I would like to know. If only because I'm considering my pricing plans for next year.
(I put all prices up by 15% at the start of September, for the record, but that's not just inflation but also increased demand partly due to the greater visibility of the company.)
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
I think we tend to over estimate the size and power of Russia and under estimate that of the EU/UK.
The three big powers are US, China and EU/UK. Russia is a tiddler and needs a good smack. Perhaps China is the adult in the room and should be in the talks?
Russia has more nuclear weapons still than any other nation though
Which a massive investment in conventional arms won't fix. There appears to be a consensus that we need to increase defence spending - it would be good to know what it would actually be spent on.
I'd guess the effective, but politically unfeasible, thing to do would be to send it all to Ukraine/Baltic nations to help build up their capabilities. Plus perhaps some technology to protect our underseas cables from sabotage (but that relies on us actually destroying some Russian ships inside friendly EEZs, which seems unlikely).
What’s needed is an increase in effective capability, rather than an increase in spending per se.
No multi-year bondoggles for 2040’s technology, but a lot more production of what’s currently available, including tonnes of ammo, and looking at 2026’s technology such as better and mass-produced drones.
This is exactly it. The lesson of this war is, on the one hand, mass production of cost effective drones (air and sea), developing EW capabilities (and anti-EW capabilities), anti-missile air defence systems, and mass production of artillery shells. Alongside the perennial requirement for well-trained infantry and effective combat medicine.
Which is, broadly speaking, the lesson of every significant conflict since WW1. Where you substitute "drones" for whatever the distance-striking technology du jour might be.
Private sector and public sector wages still increasing ahead of inflation. Good news right? Thanks Rachel
Nice try at trolling but if it is true, I have my doubts, as most of my colleagues are on pay freezes atm, it's in spite of her not because of her.
She's an idiot.
Alternatively you actually might be in the wrong job / sector. Shit happens when the banks get worried about a company or a sector.
Nah. This is just the fanbois clutching at straws.
The economy is experiencing zero growth and employers have cut back on expansion plans, new hires and growth.
That's Reeves. All Reeves.
I'm not quite that pessimistic yet. Usually this time of year you get a couple of large, usually retailers, go under due to poor Xmas trading. Not seen anything as significant this time round. Then there is the background of countries being on different parts of the economic cycle (which Gordon Brown tried to ban!). So it looks like Germany went down first, so you'd expect them to start to come out first. Followed by France.
No need to reach for the panic button yet.
£40bn of tax rises on the economy is a hell of a macroeconomic squeeze. Do you really think that would suddenly lead to a large rise on real-terms wages in a stagnant economy?
These figures are hokum. To the extent they are believed that's because the fanbois want to believe them.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Private sector and public sector wages still increasing ahead of inflation. Good news right? Thanks Rachel
Nice try at trolling but if it is true, I have my doubts, as most of my colleagues are on pay freezes atm, it's in spite of her not because of her.
She's an idiot.
Alternatively you actually might be in the wrong job / sector. Shit happens when the banks get worried about a company or a sector.
Nah. This is just the fanbois clutching at straws.
The economy is experiencing zero growth and employers have cut back on expansion plans, new hires and growth.
That's Reeves. All Reeves.
And yet private sector pay is going up faster than inflation, according to these figures. (And faster than inflation the public sector, for those who thought that the public sector rises could have been avoided.)
Now they could be wrong. Of course they could be wrong. But I'm pretty sure that there's a national statistics version of "an outlier is a poll that you don't like" as well.
Ok, questions in the hope that somebody more knowledgeable than me about these things will know the answer:
1) Have real wages gone up in the last four years? Because that's really the benchmark. Are people feeling the pinch still from Covid and Ukraine?
2) Is it possible these wage rises are a lagging indicator where pay rises to deal with the spike of inflation of 2022 and 2023 are working into the system, and that's the metric we should be comparing them with rather than now when the first shock has passed?
I don't know, and if anyone does I would like to know. If only because I'm considering my pricing plans for next year.
(I put all prices up by 15% at the start of September, for the record, but that's not just inflation but also increased demand partly due to the greater visibility of the company.)
Pay rises vary between people and inflation rates even more so.
There's an economic divide in this country:
Those people who have paid off their mortgages (or almost so) are on financial easy street.
Most people with large mortgages or renters are struggling and fearful.
Private sector and public sector wages still increasing ahead of inflation. Good news right? Thanks Rachel
Nice try at trolling but if it is true, I have my doubts, as most of my colleagues are on pay freezes atm, it's in spite of her not because of her.
She's an idiot.
Alternatively you actually might be in the wrong job / sector. Shit happens when the banks get worried about a company or a sector.
Nah. This is just the fanbois clutching at straws.
The economy is experiencing zero growth and employers have cut back on expansion plans, new hires and growth.
That's Reeves. All Reeves.
I'm not quite that pessimistic yet. Usually this time of year you get a couple of large, usually retailers, go under due to poor Xmas trading. Not seen anything as significant this time round. Then there is the background of countries being on different parts of the economic cycle (which Gordon Brown tried to ban!). So it looks like Germany went down first, so you'd expect them to start to come out first. Followed by France.
No need to reach for the panic button yet.
Germany is in big trouble, its remaining industry hamstrung by high energy prices and increasing regulation. They’re looking at the same scale of recession as financial centres such as the UK suffered in ‘08-‘09.
Incidentally I would just like to thank several people, but especially @PoodleInASlipstream a month ago for his sound advice on graphics card expansion. With slight modifications I followed his advice and the extra monitors all seem to be working.
Here's the journal paper Rachel Reeves did publish. I challenge anyone to read this & dispute that the lead author can legitimately claim to be an economist.
I think we tend to over estimate the size and power of Russia and under estimate that of the EU/UK.
The three big powers are US, China and EU/UK. Russia is a tiddler and needs a good smack. Perhaps China is the adult in the room and should be in the talks?
The EU+UK figure is misleading because there are lot of capability gaps, fragmentation, duplication and less economies of scale. They aren't getting the full capability that the headline figure would suggest. An EU Army will fix all that.
An EU army with Hungary, Slovakia, Ireland and Austria having a veto over its use is not going to be effective for anything.
A look at things like ESA will show the next problem - workshare. The more partners in a multinational development program, the more the infighting about who gets to build what.
An EU army will have to live with being inefficient. Because various capabilities will have to duplicated and the equipment will have to be non standard - for politics.
Private sector and public sector wages still increasing ahead of inflation. Good news right? Thanks Rachel
Nice try at trolling but if it is true, I have my doubts, as most of my colleagues are on pay freezes atm, it's in spite of her not because of her.
She's an idiot.
Alternatively you actually might be in the wrong job / sector. Shit happens when the banks get worried about a company or a sector.
Nah. This is just the fanbois clutching at straws.
The economy is experiencing zero growth and employers have cut back on expansion plans, new hires and growth.
That's Reeves. All Reeves.
I'm not quite that pessimistic yet. Usually this time of year you get a couple of large, usually retailers, go under due to poor Xmas trading. Not seen anything as significant this time round. Then there is the background of countries being on different parts of the economic cycle (which Gordon Brown tried to ban!). So it looks like Germany went down first, so you'd expect them to start to come out first. Followed by France.
No need to reach for the panic button yet.
Germany is in big trouble, its remaining industry hamstrung by high energy prices and increasing regulation. They’re looking at the same scale of recession as financial centres such as the UK suffered in ‘08-‘09.
"usually retailers, go under due to poor Xmas trading. Not seen anything as significant this time round."
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
Private sector and public sector wages still increasing ahead of inflation. Good news right? Thanks Rachel
Nice try at trolling but if it is true, I have my doubts, as most of my colleagues are on pay freezes atm, it's in spite of her not because of her.
She's an idiot.
Alternatively you actually might be in the wrong job / sector. Shit happens when the banks get worried about a company or a sector.
Nah. This is just the fanbois clutching at straws.
The economy is experiencing zero growth and employers have cut back on expansion plans, new hires and growth.
That's Reeves. All Reeves.
And yet private sector pay is going up faster than inflation, according to these figures. (And faster than inflation the public sector, for those who thought that the public sector rises could have been avoided.)
Now they could be wrong. Of course they could be wrong. But I'm pretty sure that there's a national statistics version of "an outlier is a poll that you don't like" as well.
Ok, questions in the hope that somebody more knowledgeable than me about these things will know the answer:
1) Have real wages gone up in the last four years? Because that's really the benchmark. Are people feeling the pinch still from Covid and Ukraine?
2) Is it possible these wage rises are a lagging indicator where pay rises to deal with the spike of inflation of 2022 and 2023 are working into the system, and that's the metric we should be comparing them with rather than now when the first shock has passed?
I don't know, and if anyone does I would like to know. If only because I'm considering my pricing plans for next year.
(I put all prices up by 15% at the start of September, for the record, but that's not just inflation but also increased demand partly due to the greater visibility of the company.)
Pay rises vary between people and inflation rates even more so.
There's an economic divide in this country:
Those people who have paid off their mortgages (or almost so) are on financial easy street.
Most people with large mortgages or renters are struggling and fearful.
Talking of which, how many people still have to go through the shock of remortgaging at new non-zero rates? Rates shot up in 2022, didn't they? So all the two year fixes and most of the threes have worked through they system by now.
These projects (Tempest, T83, new SSN, etc.) are politically impossible to cancel so we're fucking stuck with them.
If I were Maria Eagle (who I think is the Minister of State for Defence Procurement) I would be arguing for creating a boondoggle department called something exciting like "Defence Advanced Systems Procurement Agency" in which I would dump the budget and management for all of those projects. Then start accounting for it separately from "real" defence spending.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations. Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Only amongst the terminally stupid, everyone else will see that Trump is selling them down the river. Our politicians would have to be….ah, I see the problem.
Private sector and public sector wages still increasing ahead of inflation. Good news right? Thanks Rachel
Nice try at trolling but if it is true, I have my doubts, as most of my colleagues are on pay freezes atm, it's in spite of her not because of her.
She's an idiot.
Alternatively you actually might be in the wrong job / sector. Shit happens when the banks get worried about a company or a sector.
Nah. This is just the fanbois clutching at straws.
The economy is experiencing zero growth and employers have cut back on expansion plans, new hires and growth.
That's Reeves. All Reeves.
I'm not quite that pessimistic yet. Usually this time of year you get a couple of large, usually retailers, go under due to poor Xmas trading. Not seen anything as significant this time round. Then there is the background of countries being on different parts of the economic cycle (which Gordon Brown tried to ban!). So it looks like Germany went down first, so you'd expect them to start to come out first. Followed by France.
No need to reach for the panic button yet.
Germany is in big trouble, its remaining industry hamstrung by high energy prices and increasing regulation. They’re looking at the same scale of recession as financial centres such as the UK suffered in ‘08-‘09.
"usually retailers, go under due to poor Xmas trading. Not seen anything as significant this time round."
Beales has gone under according to Telegraph.
Beales has been going bankrupt for five years.
I don't think there's much scope remaining for major retail chains to go bankrupt as so many have already gone bankrupt since 2008.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
Trump's victory had many fathers. You cannot just pick the ones you like.
IMO Putin's propaganda did help Trump. It was not a main causal factor, but it was one.
Remember; what the Russians like more than anything else is discord and disorder amongst its enemies. That's what a Trump win's got them. I mean, threatening Panama and Greenland ffs.
Private sector and public sector wages still increasing ahead of inflation. Good news right? Thanks Rachel
Nice try at trolling but if it is true, I have my doubts, as most of my colleagues are on pay freezes atm, it's in spite of her not because of her.
She's an idiot.
Alternatively you actually might be in the wrong job / sector. Shit happens when the banks get worried about a company or a sector.
Nah. This is just the fanbois clutching at straws.
The economy is experiencing zero growth and employers have cut back on expansion plans, new hires and growth.
That's Reeves. All Reeves.
I'm not quite that pessimistic yet. Usually this time of year you get a couple of large, usually retailers, go under due to poor Xmas trading. Not seen anything as significant this time round. Then there is the background of countries being on different parts of the economic cycle (which Gordon Brown tried to ban!). So it looks like Germany went down first, so you'd expect them to start to come out first. Followed by France.
No need to reach for the panic button yet.
Germany is in big trouble, its remaining industry hamstrung by high energy prices and increasing regulation. They’re looking at the same scale of recession as financial centres such as the UK suffered in ‘08-‘09.
"usually retailers, go under due to poor Xmas trading. Not seen anything as significant this time round."
Beales has gone under according to Telegraph.
Beales has been going bankrupt for five years.
I don't think there's much scope remaining for major retail chains to go bankrupt as so many have already gone bankrupt since 2008.
Its why high streets already look so run down.
WH Smiths is up for sale. I guess if there is no buyer then that'll be another empty shop in many, many towns.
These projects (Tempest, T83, new SSN, etc.) are politically impossible to cancel so we're fucking stuck with them.
If I were Maria Eagle (who I think is the Minister of State for Defence Procurement) I would be arguing for creating a boondoggle department called something exciting like "Defence Advanced Systems Procurement Agency" in which I would dump the budget and management for all of those projects. Then start accounting for it separately from "real" defence spending.
The sane approach with the subs is to commit to building at a rate that sustains the fleet for the foreseeable future.
The approach of slowly evolving a design with improvements served the US well with the LA class. As they found when the Seawolfs were ordered - all the new ideas at once.
Private sector and public sector wages still increasing ahead of inflation. Good news right? Thanks Rachel
Nice try at trolling but if it is true, I have my doubts, as most of my colleagues are on pay freezes atm, it's in spite of her not because of her.
She's an idiot.
Alternatively you actually might be in the wrong job / sector. Shit happens when the banks get worried about a company or a sector.
Nah. This is just the fanbois clutching at straws.
The economy is experiencing zero growth and employers have cut back on expansion plans, new hires and growth.
That's Reeves. All Reeves.
I'm not quite that pessimistic yet. Usually this time of year you get a couple of large, usually retailers, go under due to poor Xmas trading. Not seen anything as significant this time round. Then there is the background of countries being on different parts of the economic cycle (which Gordon Brown tried to ban!). So it looks like Germany went down first, so you'd expect them to start to come out first. Followed by France.
No need to reach for the panic button yet.
Germany is in big trouble, its remaining industry hamstrung by high energy prices and increasing regulation. They’re looking at the same scale of recession as financial centres such as the UK suffered in ‘08-‘09.
"usually retailers, go under due to poor Xmas trading. Not seen anything as significant this time round."
Beales has gone under according to Telegraph.
Beales has been going bankrupt for five years.
I don't think there's much scope remaining for major retail chains to go bankrupt as so many have already gone bankrupt since 2008.
Its why high streets already look so run down.
WH Smiths is up for sale. I guess if there is no buyer then that'll be another empty shop in many, many towns.
That would be a severe blow for those places (e.g. Cannock) where it is tied up with the extremely busy Post Office.
Private sector and public sector wages still increasing ahead of inflation. Good news right? Thanks Rachel
Nice try at trolling but if it is true, I have my doubts, as most of my colleagues are on pay freezes atm, it's in spite of her not because of her.
She's an idiot.
Alternatively you actually might be in the wrong job / sector. Shit happens when the banks get worried about a company or a sector.
Nah. This is just the fanbois clutching at straws.
The economy is experiencing zero growth and employers have cut back on expansion plans, new hires and growth.
That's Reeves. All Reeves.
I'm not quite that pessimistic yet. Usually this time of year you get a couple of large, usually retailers, go under due to poor Xmas trading. Not seen anything as significant this time round. Then there is the background of countries being on different parts of the economic cycle (which Gordon Brown tried to ban!). So it looks like Germany went down first, so you'd expect them to start to come out first. Followed by France.
No need to reach for the panic button yet.
Germany is in big trouble, its remaining industry hamstrung by high energy prices and increasing regulation. They’re looking at the same scale of recession as financial centres such as the UK suffered in ‘08-‘09.
"usually retailers, go under due to poor Xmas trading. Not seen anything as significant this time round."
Beales has gone under according to Telegraph.
Beales has been going bankrupt for five years.
I don't think there's much scope remaining for major retail chains to go bankrupt as so many have already gone bankrupt since 2008.
Its why high streets already look so run down.
WH Smiths is up for sale. I guess if there is no buyer then that'll be another empty shop in many, many towns.
All criticism of Rayner is just because she's a feisty northern working class woman.
All criticism of Reeves is because she's a woman who went to a state-school and did ok and was mocked at the time.
At no point whatsoever can their competence or capability be in question. It's all prejudice.
It explains their fundamental chippiness. Because prejudice and identity-based grievance is all they have.
Its hard to deny that prejudice isn't present. Tories don't like gobby northerners of any kind - especially the odd one who navigates through their own ranks. And Reeves? They wouldn't have attacked a male chancellor as "from accounts" no matter how shit they were.
I don't rate either of them that highly. But you can't deny the sneering that is done towards them for who they are, not what they do.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
Your position and mine are not incomptaible. Trump won on immigration, rising prices and wokery and the uselessness of Biden and the Democrats' leaden-footedness in moving on an obvious liability. But several of those aspects were worked hard on social media by the Rusian bot farms. They also worked hard on American perceptions of Ukraine, as being a costly waste of money for a country "over there, somewhere".
Perhaps Trump is trying to recreate a world like the 1890s, where big powers get to do what they want - eg foment the Spanish-American war or the earlier 1848 war that allowed the USA to take over half of Mexico *. He wants to be able to operate like Presidents McKinley or Teddy Roosevelt.
That requires an understanding with Russia and China, and Europe with it's annoying belief in International Law etc to be taken out of the wider game - as I put it turned into a place to be quarried like South America used to be.
The weaknesses in the position are that Russia is nothing like as powerful as he thinks, and neither relatively is the USA - bearing in mind the proportion of population and GDP compared to South America or Europe or the rest of the world.
His thought framework is stuck in the past, and he's rolling the dice to create a new age of Usonian Imperialism.
It also involves overthrowing the current Usonian polity, which is what is happening now.
Misha Glenny was saying as much today. I've been thinking the same for the last few weeks as well. Trump seems to think he will divide the world into three spheres of influence; an expanded Western sphere ruled by the US, China ruling Asia, and Russia with Eastern Europe. Nobody else gets a look in. It is dangerous and very outdated view of the world.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer hate to kindness. As a long time Americanophile I wish that wasn't so. But it is. One thing you can say about Trump - he doesn't hide who he is. Voters knew and made their choice.
I would regret if Democrats decided they also need to be nasty to win. But I sort of understand it.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
Trump's victory had many fathers. You cannot just pick the ones you like.
IMO Putin's propaganda did help Trump. It was not a main causal factor, but it was one.
Remember; what the Russians like more than anything else is discord and disorder amongst its enemies. That's what a Trump win's got them. I mean, threatening Panama and Greenland ffs.
There are always many factors.
But I'd rate the failings of Biden, Harris, Garland and Mayorkas as having a far greater effect than the meddling of Putin.
The JPE is indeed a top academic journal and a paper published there would justify Carney's comment that she's a serious economist. The "typo" (JPE for EJPE) would impress an academic appointing committee, however it would certainly have been checked up.
I have several Nature papers which will no doubt be noted in my Who's Who entry
I think we tend to over estimate the size and power of Russia and under estimate that of the EU/UK.
The three big powers are US, China and EU/UK. Russia is a tiddler and needs a good smack. Perhaps China is the adult in the room and should be in the talks?
Russia has more nuclear weapons still than any other nation though
Which a massive investment in conventional arms won't fix. There appears to be a consensus that we need to increase defence spending - it would be good to know what it would actually be spent on.
I'd guess the effective, but politically unfeasible, thing to do would be to send it all to Ukraine/Baltic nations to help build up their capabilities. Plus perhaps some technology to protect our underseas cables from sabotage (but that relies on us actually destroying some Russian ships inside friendly EEZs, which seems unlikely).
What’s needed is an increase in effective capability, rather than an increase in spending per se.
No multi-year bondoggles for 2040’s technology, but a lot more production of what’s currently available, including tonnes of ammo, and looking at 2026’s technology such as better and mass-produced drones.
This is exactly it. The lesson of this war is, on the one hand, mass production of cost effective drones (air and sea), developing EW capabilities (and anti-EW capabilities), anti-missile air defence systems, and mass production of artillery shells. Alongside the perennial requirement for well-trained infantry and effective combat medicine.
Which is, broadly speaking, the lesson of every significant conflict since WW1. Where you substitute "drones" for whatever the distance-striking technology du jour might be.
Henry V rocked up at Agincourt with somewhere north of 500,000 arrows.
Private sector and public sector wages still increasing ahead of inflation. Good news right? Thanks Rachel
Nice try at trolling but if it is true, I have my doubts, as most of my colleagues are on pay freezes atm, it's in spite of her not because of her.
She's an idiot.
Alternatively you actually might be in the wrong job / sector. Shit happens when the banks get worried about a company or a sector.
Nah. This is just the fanbois clutching at straws.
The economy is experiencing zero growth and employers have cut back on expansion plans, new hires and growth.
That's Reeves. All Reeves.
I'm not quite that pessimistic yet. Usually this time of year you get a couple of large, usually retailers, go under due to poor Xmas trading. Not seen anything as significant this time round. Then there is the background of countries being on different parts of the economic cycle (which Gordon Brown tried to ban!). So it looks like Germany went down first, so you'd expect them to start to come out first. Followed by France.
No need to reach for the panic button yet.
Germany is in big trouble, its remaining industry hamstrung by high energy prices and increasing regulation. They’re looking at the same scale of recession as financial centres such as the UK suffered in ‘08-‘09.
"usually retailers, go under due to poor Xmas trading. Not seen anything as significant this time round."
Beales has gone under according to Telegraph.
Beales has been going bankrupt for five years.
I don't think there's much scope remaining for major retail chains to go bankrupt as so many have already gone bankrupt since 2008.
Its why high streets already look so run down.
WH Smiths is up for sale. I guess if there is no buyer then that'll be another empty shop in many, many towns.
That would be a severe blow for those places (e.g. Cannock) where it is tied up with the extremely busy Post Office.
Presumably you just end up with some other retailer taking the contracts to host a Post Office counter, willy-nilly.
Whereas what should happen is that the Post Office buys WHS High Street for a quid, with the aim of having a properly dignified Post Office in every town. With flags outside and all that.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
Trump's victory had many fathers. You cannot just pick the ones you like.
IMO Putin's propaganda did help Trump. It was not a main causal factor, but it was one.
Remember; what the Russians like more than anything else is discord and disorder amongst its enemies. That's what a Trump win's got them. I mean, threatening Panama and Greenland ffs.
There are always many factors.
But I'd rate the failings of Biden, Harris, Garland and Mayorkas as having a far greater effect than the meddling of Putin.
It is hard to separate them, as much of the criticism of those people will have been accentuated and loudened by pro-Russian trolls.
Besides, calling their actions 'failings' seems funny given what we've seen in the past few weeks with Trump. What's a word that's even deeper than 'failings'?
New Zealand has its own Rachel Reeves in the form of Finance Minister Nicola Willis who once claimed to be an economist - the problem being her degree was in English Literature and she did a postgraduate diploma in journalism.
Rather like Reeves, she has gone down the cutting the public sector to grow the economy route with a mix of welfare reduction while trying to encourage rich foreigners like me (apparently) to buy up land and property in Auckland, Hawke’s Bay and Wanaka. She is the Minister for Economic Growth at a time when the Kiwi economy is shrinking.
The main news item, apart from the continuing row over Chinese involvement in the Cook Islands, is or was defence spending. If you think we are bad on defence spending, New Zealand spends just over 1% of its GDP on defence and the recognition in Wellington, as elsewhere, is the party is over. Both National and Labour are making noises, ACT leader David Seymour wants 2% but has no idea how to raise the money and what to spend it on.
Thought most of NZ's Defense spend goes towards erasing its location from maps. Can't invade if they don't know where you are.
Same reason the Danes ensure there is no data on Greenland.
They've also taken the precaution of colouring 'Greenland' blue in that map, which is sure to confuse Trump!
In satellite images, they've contrived to make it appear mostly white, too.
Private sector and public sector wages still increasing ahead of inflation. Good news right? Thanks Rachel
Nice try at trolling but if it is true, I have my doubts, as most of my colleagues are on pay freezes atm, it's in spite of her not because of her.
She's an idiot.
Alternatively you actually might be in the wrong job / sector. Shit happens when the banks get worried about a company or a sector.
Nah. This is just the fanbois clutching at straws.
The economy is experiencing zero growth and employers have cut back on expansion plans, new hires and growth.
That's Reeves. All Reeves.
And yet private sector pay is going up faster than inflation, according to these figures. (And faster than inflation the public sector, for those who thought that the public sector rises could have been avoided.)
Now they could be wrong. Of course they could be wrong. But I'm pretty sure that there's a national statistics version of "an outlier is a poll that you don't like" as well.
You're forgetting the Golden Rule of PB - the ONS is pessimistic when the Conservatives are in government, and optimistic when Labour are in.
I think we tend to over estimate the size and power of Russia and under estimate that of the EU/UK.
The three big powers are US, China and EU/UK. Russia is a tiddler and needs a good smack. Perhaps China is the adult in the room and should be in the talks?
Russia has more nuclear weapons still than any other nation though
Which a massive investment in conventional arms won't fix. There appears to be a consensus that we need to increase defence spending - it would be good to know what it would actually be spent on.
I'd guess the effective, but politically unfeasible, thing to do would be to send it all to Ukraine/Baltic nations to help build up their capabilities. Plus perhaps some technology to protect our underseas cables from sabotage (but that relies on us actually destroying some Russian ships inside friendly EEZs, which seems unlikely).
What’s needed is an increase in effective capability, rather than an increase in spending per se.
No multi-year bondoggles for 2040’s technology, but a lot more production of what’s currently available, including tonnes of ammo, and looking at 2026’s technology such as better and mass-produced drones.
This is exactly it. The lesson of this war is, on the one hand, mass production of cost effective drones (air and sea), developing EW capabilities (and anti-EW capabilities), anti-missile air defence systems, and mass production of artillery shells. Alongside the perennial requirement for well-trained infantry and effective combat medicine.
Which is, broadly speaking, the lesson of every significant conflict since WW1. Where you substitute "drones" for whatever the distance-striking technology du jour might be.
Henry V rocked up at Agincourt with somewhere north of 500,000 arrows.
I wonder how many they had left once they had finished turning the French into porcupines. I was friends with a commando who was at Port Stanley. They shelled the Argentinians for nearly 24 hours solid. Thankfully they surrendered just before the shells ran out.
The old saying of amateurs talk tactics and professionals talk logistics remains as true as ever.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer hate to kindness. As a long time Americanophile I wish that wasn't so. But it is. One thing you can say about Trump - he doesn't hide who he is. Voters knew and made their choice.
I would regret if Democrats decided they also need to be nasty to win. But I sort of understand it.
So your side votes with kindness and their side votes with hatred ?
No, most voters are ordinary people who vote based on their own experiences.
Those millions of Hispanic voters who switched to Trump didn't do so because they 'prefer hate', they did so because their experiences made them want change.
Private sector and public sector wages still increasing ahead of inflation. Good news right? Thanks Rachel
Nice try at trolling but if it is true, I have my doubts, as most of my colleagues are on pay freezes atm, it's in spite of her not because of her.
She's an idiot.
Alternatively you actually might be in the wrong job / sector. Shit happens when the banks get worried about a company or a sector.
Nah. This is just the fanbois clutching at straws.
The economy is experiencing zero growth and employers have cut back on expansion plans, new hires and growth.
That's Reeves. All Reeves.
I'm not quite that pessimistic yet. Usually this time of year you get a couple of large, usually retailers, go under due to poor Xmas trading. Not seen anything as significant this time round. Then there is the background of countries being on different parts of the economic cycle (which Gordon Brown tried to ban!). So it looks like Germany went down first, so you'd expect them to start to come out first. Followed by France.
No need to reach for the panic button yet.
Germany is in big trouble, its remaining industry hamstrung by high energy prices and increasing regulation. They’re looking at the same scale of recession as financial centres such as the UK suffered in ‘08-‘09.
"usually retailers, go under due to poor Xmas trading. Not seen anything as significant this time round."
Beales has gone under according to Telegraph.
Beales has been going bankrupt for five years.
I don't think there's much scope remaining for major retail chains to go bankrupt as so many have already gone bankrupt since 2008.
Its why high streets already look so run down.
WH Smiths is up for sale. I guess if there is no buyer then that'll be another empty shop in many, many towns.
That would be a severe blow for those places (e.g. Cannock) where it is tied up with the extremely busy Post Office.
Presumably you just end up with some other retailer taking the contracts to host a Post Office counter, willy-nilly.
Whereas what should happen is that the Post Office buys WHS High Street for a quid, with the aim of having a properly dignified Post Office in every town. With flags outside and all that.
Quite a lot of post offices are now a counter in a multi-purpose corner shop.
Ultimately Smiths is going because the bulk of stuff it does has gone online. For anything that can’t wait 24h for delivery, there’s the corner shop.
Earlier in the war there was some confusion over this; IIRC it was down to the fact that the USA had sent far more military aid than Europe; but Europe had sent much more non-military support to keep Ukraine's economy going. Or somesuch.
The Yanks liked to pick the military support figures; the EU the whole figures. In truth, both are vital.
There's still confusion about it. Recently Mr Chump and the voices in his head at a press conference were claiming that USA support was $300bn and EU support $50bn.
TBF that tweet does not measure committed vs delivered (on which Europe is still ahead).
But if you look at the thread you can see plenty of nit-picking over what is basic data (on a level of "but Europe is lots of countries"), and no end of Usonians completely vanished up their own rabbitholes.
People like JD Vance and so many others are wilfully purblind.
All criticism of Rayner is just because she's a feisty northern working class woman.
All criticism of Reeves is because she's a woman who went to a state-school and did ok and was mocked at the time.
At no point whatsoever can their competence or capability be in question. It's all prejudice.
It explains their fundamental chippiness. Because prejudice and identity-based grievance is all they have.
Its hard to deny that prejudice isn't present. Tories don't like gobby northerners of any kind - especially the odd one who navigates through their own ranks. And Reeves? They wouldn't have attacked a male chancellor as "from accounts" no matter how shit they were.
I don't rate either of them that highly. But you can't deny the sneering that is done towards them for who they are, not what they do.
No, you're right.
We never attacked Gordon Brown or Alastair Darling as Chancellor.
Private sector and public sector wages still increasing ahead of inflation. Good news right? Thanks Rachel
Nice try at trolling but if it is true, I have my doubts, as most of my colleagues are on pay freezes atm, it's in spite of her not because of her.
She's an idiot.
Alternatively you actually might be in the wrong job / sector. Shit happens when the banks get worried about a company or a sector.
Nah. This is just the fanbois clutching at straws.
The economy is experiencing zero growth and employers have cut back on expansion plans, new hires and growth.
That's Reeves. All Reeves.
I'm not quite that pessimistic yet. Usually this time of year you get a couple of large, usually retailers, go under due to poor Xmas trading. Not seen anything as significant this time round. Then there is the background of countries being on different parts of the economic cycle (which Gordon Brown tried to ban!). So it looks like Germany went down first, so you'd expect them to start to come out first. Followed by France.
No need to reach for the panic button yet.
Germany is in big trouble, its remaining industry hamstrung by high energy prices and increasing regulation. They’re looking at the same scale of recession as financial centres such as the UK suffered in ‘08-‘09.
"usually retailers, go under due to poor Xmas trading. Not seen anything as significant this time round."
Beales has gone under according to Telegraph.
Beales has been going bankrupt for five years.
I don't think there's much scope remaining for major retail chains to go bankrupt as so many have already gone bankrupt since 2008.
Its why high streets already look so run down.
WH Smiths is up for sale. I guess if there is no buyer then that'll be another empty shop in many, many towns.
That would be a severe blow for those places (e.g. Cannock) where it is tied up with the extremely busy Post Office.
Same in Ilford town centre. Though in recent weeks, noticed our WH Smith's had tied up with a rejuvenated Toys R Us to rebrand their toy section.
The world is all doom and gloom, Trump is promising “reciprocal tariffs” on VAT, and equity markets including the FTSE 100 are not merely untroubled but scaling new highs.
All the anecdata says the employment market is loosening and there’s less demand for labour, yet real wages are rising.
Inflation expectations keep rising and governments are talking about big increases in the defence budget (which the markets believe, because they are boosting A&D stocks) but most 10 and 30 year gilt yields are stable or falling.
All in all rather odd. The one unambiguously bad lot of stats is coming out of Germany. Everywhere else looks confusing.
All criticism of Rayner is just because she's a feisty northern working class woman.
All criticism of Reeves is because she's a woman who went to a state-school and did ok and was mocked at the time.
At no point whatsoever can their competence or capability be in question. It's all prejudice.
It explains their fundamental chippiness. Because prejudice and identity-based grievance is all they have.
Its hard to deny that prejudice isn't present. Tories don't like gobby northerners of any kind - especially the odd one who navigates through their own ranks. And Reeves? They wouldn't have attacked a male chancellor as "from accounts" no matter how shit they were.
I don't rate either of them that highly. But you can't deny the sneering that is done towards them for who they are, not what they do.
No, you're right.
We never attacked Gordon Brown or Alastair Darling as Chancellor.
Not once.
And George Osborne was carried through the House Commons by Labour MPs, feeding him peeled grapes.
I think we tend to over estimate the size and power of Russia and under estimate that of the EU/UK.
The three big powers are US, China and EU/UK. Russia is a tiddler and needs a good smack. Perhaps China is the adult in the room and should be in the talks?
Russia has more nuclear weapons still than any other nation though
Which a massive investment in conventional arms won't fix. There appears to be a consensus that we need to increase defence spending - it would be good to know what it would actually be spent on.
I'd guess the effective, but politically unfeasible, thing to do would be to send it all to Ukraine/Baltic nations to help build up their capabilities. Plus perhaps some technology to protect our underseas cables from sabotage (but that relies on us actually destroying some Russian ships inside friendly EEZs, which seems unlikely).
What’s needed is an increase in effective capability, rather than an increase in spending per se.
No multi-year bondoggles for 2040’s technology, but a lot more production of what’s currently available, including tonnes of ammo, and looking at 2026’s technology such as better and mass-produced drones.
This is exactly it. The lesson of this war is, on the one hand, mass production of cost effective drones (air and sea), developing EW capabilities (and anti-EW capabilities), anti-missile air defence systems, and mass production of artillery shells. Alongside the perennial requirement for well-trained infantry and effective combat medicine.
Which is, broadly speaking, the lesson of every significant conflict since WW1. Where you substitute "drones" for whatever the distance-striking technology du jour might be.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer hate to kindness. As a long time Americanophile I wish that wasn't so. But it is. One thing you can say about Trump - he doesn't hide who he is. Voters knew and made their choice.
I would regret if Democrats decided they also need to be nasty to win. But I sort of understand it.
So your side votes with kindness and their side votes with hatred ?
No, most voters are ordinary people who vote based on their own experiences.
Those millions of Hispanic voters who switched to Trump didn't do so because they 'prefer hate', they did so because their experiences made them want change.
Look, Trump chose his battlefield and won. Give him credit for that. The choice to the voters was clear. The others are "my side" only because I do prefer kindness to hate. You have a different view - that's your choice as well.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
Trump's victory had many fathers. You cannot just pick the ones you like.
IMO Putin's propaganda did help Trump. It was not a main causal factor, but it was one.
Remember; what the Russians like more than anything else is discord and disorder amongst its enemies. That's what a Trump win's got them. I mean, threatening Panama and Greenland ffs.
There are always many factors.
But I'd rate the failings of Biden, Harris, Garland and Mayorkas as having a far greater effect than the meddling of Putin.
It is hard to separate them, as much of the criticism of those people will have been accentuated and loudened by pro-Russian trolls.
Besides, calling their actions 'failings' seems funny given what we've seen in the past few weeks with Trump. What's a word that's even deeper than 'failings'?
They failed.
Just because Trump is worse doesn't alter that.
The evidence that they failed is that Trump is now president.
And no it isn't hard to separate their failings from online criticism.
Biden was senile, Harris was unelectable, Garland failed to bring Trump to justice, Mayorkas failed to control the border.
I think we tend to over estimate the size and power of Russia and under estimate that of the EU/UK.
The three big powers are US, China and EU/UK. Russia is a tiddler and needs a good smack. Perhaps China is the adult in the room and should be in the talks?
Russia has more nuclear weapons still than any other nation though
Which a massive investment in conventional arms won't fix. There appears to be a consensus that we need to increase defence spending - it would be good to know what it would actually be spent on.
I'd guess the effective, but politically unfeasible, thing to do would be to send it all to Ukraine/Baltic nations to help build up their capabilities. Plus perhaps some technology to protect our underseas cables from sabotage (but that relies on us actually destroying some Russian ships inside friendly EEZs, which seems unlikely).
What’s needed is an increase in effective capability, rather than an increase in spending per se.
No multi-year bondoggles for 2040’s technology, but a lot more production of what’s currently available, including tonnes of ammo, and looking at 2026’s technology such as better and mass-produced drones.
This is exactly it. The lesson of this war is, on the one hand, mass production of cost effective drones (air and sea), developing EW capabilities (and anti-EW capabilities), anti-missile air defence systems, and mass production of artillery shells. Alongside the perennial requirement for well-trained infantry and effective combat medicine.
Which is, broadly speaking, the lesson of every significant conflict since WW1. Where you substitute "drones" for whatever the distance-striking technology du jour might be.
Henry V rocked up at Agincourt with somewhere north of 500,000 arrows.
I wonder how many they had left once they had finished turning the French into porcupines. I was friends with a commando who was at Port Stanley. They shelled the Argentinians for nearly 24 hours solid. Thankfully they surrendered just before the shells ran out.
The old saying of amateurs talk tactics and professionals talk logistics remains as true as ever.
500,000 arrows would have been thought dangerously few!
I think we tend to over estimate the size and power of Russia and under estimate that of the EU/UK.
The three big powers are US, China and EU/UK. Russia is a tiddler and needs a good smack. Perhaps China is the adult in the room and should be in the talks?
Russia has more nuclear weapons still than any other nation though
Which a massive investment in conventional arms won't fix. There appears to be a consensus that we need to increase defence spending - it would be good to know what it would actually be spent on.
I'd guess the effective, but politically unfeasible, thing to do would be to send it all to Ukraine/Baltic nations to help build up their capabilities. Plus perhaps some technology to protect our underseas cables from sabotage (but that relies on us actually destroying some Russian ships inside friendly EEZs, which seems unlikely).
What’s needed is an increase in effective capability, rather than an increase in spending per se.
No multi-year bondoggles for 2040’s technology, but a lot more production of what’s currently available, including tonnes of ammo, and looking at 2026’s technology such as better and mass-produced drones.
This is exactly it. The lesson of this war is, on the one hand, mass production of cost effective drones (air and sea), developing EW capabilities (and anti-EW capabilities), anti-missile air defence systems, and mass production of artillery shells. Alongside the perennial requirement for well-trained infantry and effective combat medicine.
Which is, broadly speaking, the lesson of every significant conflict since WW1. Where you substitute "drones" for whatever the distance-striking technology du jour might be.
Henry V rocked up at Agincourt with somewhere north of 500,000 arrows.
I wonder how many they had left once they had finished turning the French into porcupines. I was friends with a commando who was at Port Stanley. They shelled the Argentinians for nearly 24 hours solid. Thankfully they surrendered just before the shells ran out.
The old saying of amateurs talk tactics and professionals talk logistics remains as true as ever.
I seem to be alone in suggesting a European stockpile of long lead time items. Specifically 155mm artillery shell bodies. They are lumps of steel. Not changed much in many decades. Once made, they can last forever.
All criticism of Rayner is just because she's a feisty northern working class woman.
All criticism of Reeves is because she's a woman who went to a state-school and did ok and was mocked at the time.
At no point whatsoever can their competence or capability be in question. It's all prejudice.
It explains their fundamental chippiness. Because prejudice and identity-based grievance is all they have.
Its hard to deny that prejudice isn't present. Tories don't like gobby northerners of any kind - especially the odd one who navigates through their own ranks. And Reeves? They wouldn't have attacked a male chancellor as "from accounts" no matter how shit they were.
I don't rate either of them that highly. But you can't deny the sneering that is done towards them for who they are, not what they do.
No, you're right.
We never attacked Gordon Brown or Alastair Darling as Chancellor.
Not once.
With Gordon Brown (with Gordon Brown) Never a (never a frown) frown With Gordon Brown (with Gordon Brown)
Earlier in the war there was some confusion over this; IIRC it was down to the fact that the USA had sent far more military aid than Europe; but Europe had sent much more non-military support to keep Ukraine's economy going. Or somesuch.
The Yanks liked to pick the military support figures; the EU the whole figures. In truth, both are vital.
There's still confusion about it. Recently Mr Chump and the voices in his head at a press conference were claiming that USA support was $300bn and EU support $50bn.
TBF that tweet does not measure committed vs delivered (on which Europe is still ahead).
But if you look at the thread you can see plenty of nit-picking over what is basic data (on a level of "but Europe is lots of countries"), and no end of Usonians completely vanished up their own rabbitholes.
What is this sudden obsession with the word “Usonian”? I had barely heard it a week ago and now it’s everywhere.
People like JD Vance and so many others are wilfully purblind.
I think we tend to over estimate the size and power of Russia and under estimate that of the EU/UK.
The three big powers are US, China and EU/UK. Russia is a tiddler and needs a good smack. Perhaps China is the adult in the room and should be in the talks?
Russia has more nuclear weapons still than any other nation though
Which a massive investment in conventional arms won't fix. There appears to be a consensus that we need to increase defence spending - it would be good to know what it would actually be spent on.
I'd guess the effective, but politically unfeasible, thing to do would be to send it all to Ukraine/Baltic nations to help build up their capabilities. Plus perhaps some technology to protect our underseas cables from sabotage (but that relies on us actually destroying some Russian ships inside friendly EEZs, which seems unlikely).
What’s needed is an increase in effective capability, rather than an increase in spending per se.
No multi-year bondoggles for 2040’s technology, but a lot more production of what’s currently available, including tonnes of ammo, and looking at 2026’s technology such as better and mass-produced drones.
This is exactly it. The lesson of this war is, on the one hand, mass production of cost effective drones (air and sea), developing EW capabilities (and anti-EW capabilities), anti-missile air defence systems, and mass production of artillery shells. Alongside the perennial requirement for well-trained infantry and effective combat medicine.
Which is, broadly speaking, the lesson of every significant conflict since WW1. Where you substitute "drones" for whatever the distance-striking technology du jour might be.
Henry V rocked up at Agincourt with somewhere north of 500,000 arrows.
I wonder how many they had left once they had finished turning the French into porcupines. I was friends with a commando who was at Port Stanley. They shelled the Argentinians for nearly 24 hours solid. Thankfully they surrendered just before the shells ran out.
The old saying of amateurs talk tactics and professionals talk logistics remains as true as ever.
500,000 arrows would have been thought dangerously few!
That would be about 15 minutes’ supply.
7k archers.
The estimates of the number of arrows vary. The credible numbers, actually with the army, start at 500k.
Harry order a couple of million, *after* Agincourt, IIRC
All criticism of Rayner is just because she's a feisty northern working class woman.
All criticism of Reeves is because she's a woman who went to a state-school and did ok and was mocked at the time.
At no point whatsoever can their competence or capability be in question. It's all prejudice.
It explains their fundamental chippiness. Because prejudice and identity-based grievance is all they have.
Its hard to deny that prejudice isn't present. Tories don't like gobby northerners of any kind - especially the odd one who navigates through their own ranks. And Reeves? They wouldn't have attacked a male chancellor as "from accounts" no matter how shit they were.
I don't rate either of them that highly. But you can't deny the sneering that is done towards them for who they are, not what they do.
No, you're right.
We never attacked Gordon Brown or Alastair Darling as Chancellor.
Not once.
With Gordon Brown (with Gordon Brown) Never a (never a frown) frown With Gordon Brown (with Gordon Brown)
The Gordon Brown frown was far preferable to that rictus grin somebody convinced him was a vote winner...
Earlier in the war there was some confusion over this; IIRC it was down to the fact that the USA had sent far more military aid than Europe; but Europe had sent much more non-military support to keep Ukraine's economy going. Or somesuch.
The Yanks liked to pick the military support figures; the EU the whole figures. In truth, both are vital.
There's still confusion about it. Recently Mr Chump and the voices in his head at a press conference were claiming that USA support was $300bn and EU support $50bn.
TBF that tweet does not measure committed vs delivered (on which Europe is still ahead).
But if you look at the thread you can see plenty of nit-picking over what is basic data (on a level of "but Europe is lots of countries"), and no end of Usonians completely vanished up their own rabbitholes.
What is this sudden obsession with the word “Usonian”? I had barely heard it a week ago and now it’s everywhere.
People like JD Vance and so many others are wilfully purblind.
What is this sudden obsession with wee
JFK: "Congratulations, how do you feel?" Forrest Gump: "I gotta pee!" JFK: "I believe he said he had to go pee. Heh heh."
All criticism of Rayner is just because she's a feisty northern working class woman.
All criticism of Reeves is because she's a woman who went to a state-school and did ok and was mocked at the time.
At no point whatsoever can their competence or capability be in question. It's all prejudice.
It explains their fundamental chippiness. Because prejudice and identity-based grievance is all they have.
Its hard to deny that prejudice isn't present. Tories don't like gobby northerners of any kind - especially the odd one who navigates through their own ranks. And Reeves? They wouldn't have attacked a male chancellor as "from accounts" no matter how shit they were.
I don't rate either of them that highly. But you can't deny the sneering that is done towards them for who they are, not what they do.
No, you're right.
We never attacked Gordon Brown or Alastair Darling as Chancellor.
Not once.
And George Osborne was carried through the House Commons by Labour MPs, feeding him peeled grapes.
As opposed to making comments about wallpaper.
And I definitely don't remember Labour dressing up an activist in a top hat and cane to mock Edward Timpson in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election.
The world is all doom and gloom, Trump is promising “reciprocal tariffs” on VAT, and equity markets including the FTSE 100 are not merely untroubled but scaling new highs.
All the anecdata says the employment market is loosening and there’s less demand for labour, yet real wages are rising.
Inflation expectations keep rising and governments are talking about big increases in the defence budget (which the markets believe, because they are boosting A&D stocks) but most 10 and 30 year gilt yields are stable or falling.
All in all rather odd. The one unambiguously bad lot of stats is coming out of Germany. Everywhere else looks confusing.
Perhaps the potential of AI as a productivity tool is boosting equity markets. If it's even close to the hype it should be a bonanza for profits.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer hate to kindness. As a long time Americanophile I wish that wasn't so. But it is. One thing you can say about Trump - he doesn't hide who he is. Voters knew and made their choice.
I would regret if Democrats decided they also need to be nasty to win. But I sort of understand it.
You could turn that round to say Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer reality/national interest to toxic niceness.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer hate to kindness. As a long time Americanophile I wish that wasn't so. But it is. One thing you can say about Trump - he doesn't hide who he is. Voters knew and made their choice.
I would regret if Democrats decided they also need to be nasty to win. But I sort of understand it.
So your side votes with kindness and their side votes with hatred ?
No, most voters are ordinary people who vote based on their own experiences.
Those millions of Hispanic voters who switched to Trump didn't do so because they 'prefer hate', they did so because their experiences made them want change.
Look, Trump chose his battlefield and won. Give him credit for that. The choice to the voters was clear. The others are "my side" only because I do prefer kindness to hate. You have a different view - that's your choice as well.
Opinions as to what kindness and hate are vary from person to person.
And assuming that your own view is the only correct one suggests a lack of empathy to those different to yourself.
Still nice, liberal people can assure themselves they are morally superior while sneering at those different to themselves for being filled with hate.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer hate to kindness. As a long time Americanophile I wish that wasn't so. But it is. One thing you can say about Trump - he doesn't hide who he is. Voters knew and made their choice.
I would regret if Democrats decided they also need to be nasty to win. But I sort of understand it.
You could turn that round to say Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer reality/national interest to toxic niceness.
All criticism of Rayner is just because she's a feisty northern working class woman.
All criticism of Reeves is because she's a woman who went to a state-school and did ok and was mocked at the time.
At no point whatsoever can their competence or capability be in question. It's all prejudice.
It explains their fundamental chippiness. Because prejudice and identity-based grievance is all they have.
Its hard to deny that prejudice isn't present. Tories don't like gobby northerners of any kind - especially the odd one who navigates through their own ranks. And Reeves? They wouldn't have attacked a male chancellor as "from accounts" no matter how shit they were.
I don't rate either of them that highly. But you can't deny the sneering that is done towards them for who they are, not what they do.
No, you're right.
We never attacked Gordon Brown or Alastair Darling as Chancellor.
Not once.
And George Osborne was carried through the House Commons by Labour MPs, feeding him peeled grapes.
As opposed to making comments about wallpaper.
And pasties. Oh those glorious days when VAT on pasties was the most controversial thing in the budget
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer hate to kindness. As a long time Americanophile I wish that wasn't so. But it is. One thing you can say about Trump - he doesn't hide who he is. Voters knew and made their choice.
I would regret if Democrats decided they also need to be nasty to win. But I sort of understand it.
You could turn that round to say Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer reality/national interest to toxic niceness.
But you'd then be talking shit.
It's easy to be nice when it's not your pets that may or may be getting eaten.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer hate to kindness. As a long time Americanophile I wish that wasn't so. But it is. One thing you can say about Trump - he doesn't hide who he is. Voters knew and made their choice.
I would regret if Democrats decided they also need to be nasty to win. But I sort of understand it.
You could turn that round to say Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer reality/national interest to toxic niceness.
But you'd then be talking shit.
No more so than saying 'Americans prefer hate to kindness'.
I think we tend to over estimate the size and power of Russia and under estimate that of the EU/UK.
The three big powers are US, China and EU/UK. Russia is a tiddler and needs a good smack. Perhaps China is the adult in the room and should be in the talks?
Russia has more nuclear weapons still than any other nation though
Which a massive investment in conventional arms won't fix. There appears to be a consensus that we need to increase defence spending - it would be good to know what it would actually be spent on.
I'd guess the effective, but politically unfeasible, thing to do would be to send it all to Ukraine/Baltic nations to help build up their capabilities. Plus perhaps some technology to protect our underseas cables from sabotage (but that relies on us actually destroying some Russian ships inside friendly EEZs, which seems unlikely).
What’s needed is an increase in effective capability, rather than an increase in spending per se.
No multi-year bondoggles for 2040’s technology, but a lot more production of what’s currently available, including tonnes of ammo, and looking at 2026’s technology such as better and mass-produced drones.
This is exactly it. The lesson of this war is, on the one hand, mass production of cost effective drones (air and sea), developing EW capabilities (and anti-EW capabilities), anti-missile air defence systems, and mass production of artillery shells. Alongside the perennial requirement for well-trained infantry and effective combat medicine.
Which is, broadly speaking, the lesson of every significant conflict since WW1. Where you substitute "drones" for whatever the distance-striking technology du jour might be.
Henry V rocked up at Agincourt with somewhere north of 500,000 arrows.
I wonder how many they had left once they had finished turning the French into porcupines. I was friends with a commando who was at Port Stanley. They shelled the Argentinians for nearly 24 hours solid. Thankfully they surrendered just before the shells ran out.
The old saying of amateurs talk tactics and professionals talk logistics remains as true as ever.
I seem to be alone in suggesting a European stockpile of long lead time items. Specifically 155mm artillery shell bodies. They are lumps of steel. Not changed much in many decades. Once made, they can last forever.
The UK habit has been (I think) to destroy anything "not needed now", or sell it off, rather than preserve for future use.
Reasons are afaics sometimes Treasury bean counting, and sometimes a political desire for "them" not to be able to reverse "our" decisions.
Comments
If companies want to survive, suppressing wages is no longer an option. They will need to trade up and innovate - or even try to export to that large market close by.
She's an idiot.
They're international waters, but from vague memory the situation is not unprecedented.
either that or every ship transiting the area has a 'shadow' smaller vessel to keep an eye on them.
He just wasn't entirely clear in quoting the Sun article, and you misinterpreted the point he was trying to make.
Perhaps Streeting has worked out that Health is a political graveyard?
And I believe he was shadow treasury previously?
So she's safe for now.
Shows the deep-seated British anxiety with class, despite me getting Reeves SPOT ON.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
And Trump, in his usual manner, has doubled even that inflated figure as his claimed contribution.
Edit - there's also a certain irony that a post which was about her class, the one I was responding to, is one where you seem to do exactly what you're accusing me of.
It could just be a typo by the who's who sub-editors!!
All criticism of Rayner is just because she's a feisty northern working class woman.
All criticism of Reeves is because she's a woman who went to a state-school and did ok and was mocked at the time.
At no point whatsoever can their competence or capability be in question. It's all prejudice.
It explains their fundamental chippiness. Because prejudice and identity-based grievance is all they have.
Is the criticism of them entirely because they're public school educated and not at all about their stupidity, incompetence and dishonesty?
Had I not mentioned it, it would not have done so (despite being accurate) except from the Labour fanbois.
EDIT: for the record, I don't rate JRM and have been vociferously critical of Johnson. Class or background is no obstacle to me saying it like it is.
No multi-year bondoggles for 2040’s technology, but a lot more production of what’s currently available, including tonnes of ammo, and looking at 2026’s technology such as better and mass-produced drones.
The economy is experiencing zero growth and employers have cut back on expansion plans, new hires and growth.
That's Reeves. All Reeves.
I was pointing out that their own track record as a class is at best no better, which makes it amusingly ironic that they would bully anyone else on those grounds.
That's why it got a huge number of likes.
I would like to think the elegance of the phrasing and the sophistication of my wit had something to do with it as well, but that's probably optimistic.
As long as the rest of Europe rebuilds whilst Russia does the same, its threat is reduced. What Russia will build to fill the gaps will still be greatly compromised.
Of course, the US could sell Russia F-35s. Although wh knows how many would be delivered beore the next President takes office.
People who live under brutal dictatorships are seen as tougher, braver, more manly, than the effete degenerates who inhabit democracies.
Hence, the belief that Russians are unbeatable super-soldiers.
Whereas, the more prosaic truth is that the side with the best logistics almost always wins.
We need a 5-10 industrial strategy to develop and expand the sector (training academies, support of SMEs and factory expansion etc) as well as steady and targeted recruitment.
I'd be far more convinced and assured by a SDR that argued for the capability we need across the army, navy and air force (and other domains) and then provided defence estimates for the cost.
I couldn't give a toss about background.
Now they could be wrong. Of course they could be wrong. But I'm pretty sure that there's a national statistics version of "an outlier is a poll that you don't like" as well.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
No need to reach for the panic button yet.
1) Have real wages gone up in the last four years? Because that's really the benchmark. Are people feeling the pinch still from Covid and Ukraine?
2) Is it possible these wage rises are a lagging indicator where pay rises to deal with the spike of inflation of 2022 and 2023 are working into the system, and that's the metric we should be comparing them with rather than now when the first shock has passed?
I don't know, and if anyone does I would like to know. If only because I'm considering my pricing plans for next year.
(I put all prices up by 15% at the start of September, for the record, but that's not just inflation but also increased demand partly due to the greater visibility of the company.)
Which is, broadly speaking, the lesson of every significant conflict since WW1. Where you substitute "drones" for whatever the distance-striking technology du jour might be.
These figures are hokum. To the extent they are believed that's because the fanbois want to believe them.
There's an economic divide in this country:
Those people who have paid off their mortgages (or almost so) are on financial easy street.
Most people with large mortgages or renters are struggling and fearful.
@andrew_lilico
Here's the journal paper Rachel Reeves did publish. I challenge anyone to read this & dispute that the lead author can legitimately claim to be an economist.
https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S017626800600108X
An EU army will have to live with being inefficient. Because various capabilities will have to duplicated and the equipment will have to be non standard - for politics.
Beales has gone under according to Telegraph.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
But, as Stephen Jay Gould once wrote,
The Median Is Not The Message.
I don't think there's much scope remaining for major retail chains to go bankrupt as so many have already gone bankrupt since 2008.
Its why high streets already look so run down.
IMO Putin's propaganda did help Trump. It was not a main causal factor, but it was one.
Remember; what the Russians like more than anything else is discord and disorder amongst its enemies. That's what a Trump win's got them. I mean, threatening Panama and Greenland ffs.
The approach of slowly evolving a design with improvements served the US well with the LA class. As they found when the Seawolfs were ordered - all the new ideas at once.
I don't rate either of them that highly. But you can't deny the sneering that is done towards them for who they are, not what they do.
I would regret if Democrats decided they also need to be nasty to win. But I sort of understand it.
But I'd rate the failings of Biden, Harris, Garland and Mayorkas as having a far greater effect than the meddling of Putin.
*Nature publishing's Pediatric Research journal
Whereas what should happen is that the Post Office buys WHS High Street for a quid, with the aim of having a properly dignified Post Office in every town. With flags outside and all that.
Besides, calling their actions 'failings' seems funny given what we've seen in the past few weeks with Trump. What's a word that's even deeper than 'failings'?
In satellite images, they've contrived to make it appear mostly white, too.
Have you heard her speak? She’s a cockney.
Yours truly, a proud working class Northerner.
I was friends with a commando who was at Port Stanley. They shelled the Argentinians for nearly 24 hours solid. Thankfully they surrendered just before the shells ran out.
The old saying of amateurs talk tactics and professionals talk logistics remains as true as ever.
No, most voters are ordinary people who vote based on their own experiences.
Those millions of Hispanic voters who switched to Trump didn't do so because they 'prefer hate', they did so because their experiences made them want change.
Ultimately Smiths is going because the bulk of stuff it does has gone online. For anything that can’t wait 24h for delivery, there’s the corner shop.
TBF that tweet does not measure committed vs delivered (on which Europe is still ahead).
But if you look at the thread you can see plenty of nit-picking over what is basic data (on a level of "but Europe is lots of countries"), and no end of Usonians completely vanished up their own rabbitholes.
People like JD Vance and so many others are wilfully purblind.
We never attacked Gordon Brown or Alastair Darling as Chancellor.
Not once.
The world is all doom and gloom, Trump is promising “reciprocal tariffs” on VAT, and equity markets including the FTSE 100 are not merely untroubled but scaling new highs.
All the anecdata says the employment market is loosening and there’s less demand for labour, yet real wages are rising.
Inflation expectations keep rising and governments are talking about big increases in the defence budget (which the markets believe, because they are boosting A&D stocks) but most 10 and 30 year gilt yields are stable or falling.
All in all rather odd. The one unambiguously bad lot of stats is coming out of Germany. Everywhere else looks confusing.
As opposed to making comments about wallpaper.
Just because Trump is worse doesn't alter that.
The evidence that they failed is that Trump is now president.
And no it isn't hard to separate their failings from online criticism.
Biden was senile, Harris was unelectable, Garland failed to bring Trump to justice, Mayorkas failed to control the border.
That would be about 15 minutes’ supply.
Never a (never a frown) frown
With Gordon Brown (with Gordon Brown)
The estimates of the number of arrows vary. The credible numbers, actually with the army, start at 500k.
Harry order a couple of million, *after* Agincourt, IIRC
Forrest Gump: "I gotta pee!"
JFK: "I believe he said he had to go pee. Heh heh."
And assuming that your own view is the only correct one suggests a lack of empathy to those different to yourself.
Still nice, liberal people can assure themselves they are morally superior while sneering at those different to themselves for being filled with hate.
Everyone's child seems to be called Oscar or Nancy.
Reasons are afaics sometimes Treasury bean counting, and sometimes a political desire for "them" not to be able to reverse "our" decisions.
Am I right in that?