politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New TNS-BMRB IndyRef poll finds big fall in don’t knows but

Very nasty, partisan stuff on here this morning about John Bercow, from lots of people who have never met him.

malcolmg said:

HurstLlama said:

Something that should please @DavidL in this morning's Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10949066/David-Cameron-to-announce-billions-for-local-growth.html

So we are going to borrow even more than the current £100B per annum. Sounds like a good policy.

The coalition parties are going to get increasing desperate as the election approaches. We can probably expect a stream of this-government-loves-you foolishness.

DavidL said:

foxinsoxuk said:

malcolmg said:

Easterross said:

I know others have said it but Scotland is now in full holiday mode. The schools in Central Scotland broke up a week ago and in many parts of rural Scotland (where we still have a fortnight "tattie" holiday in October) 3 days ago. I doubt many Scots will be remotely interested in the IndyRef now until the 3rd week in August when schools go back and life starts to return to normal. It will also signal the end of the Commonwealth Games.

The final 4 weeks of the Indy Ref campaign will be frantic and filled with bile and vitriol as both sides become increasing frantic about last minute swings.

Easterross, we are likely to have a few fraught weeks as the Orange Order parade their support for Better Together. The violence and disorder should get some welcome publicity for Better Together campaign.

Looking at the census map of Scottish religions: http://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/ods-web/datavis.jsp?theme=Religion_v2_September_2013&selectedWafers=0

It does appear that the SNP seats are mostly in the areas of lowest religious affiliation. It seems that the Pope and King Billy are allied once more...

Great maps Mr Sox. Not seen that before.

The interactivity works really well. Census data maps are a geeks paradise!

I presume "other Christian" is mostly the Wee Frees. Stated Religious affiliation is a reasonable marker for other aspects of social conservatism, and perhaps of desire to change longstanding constitutional arrangements.

There are very likely to be major disparities in the geography of Yes and No votes in September, which may become political fault-lines afterwards. I would not expect breakaway regions though whichever way it goes, though if the areas south of the Antonine wall seceeded from Independent Scotland, to remain in the rUK it could be interesting!

FrankBooth said:

DavidL said:

John Bercow is a terrible Speaker but the Office is diminished if the holder is repeatedly hounded out of it.

Martin was exceptional as he was plainly never up to the job being stupid as well as partisan and he treated members of the House with no respect. I think Cameron has decided Bercow is something that he just needs to put up with and he is probably right. Hopefully Bercow can be eased out in the next Parliament with no permanent damage done to the Office which is far more important than he will ever be.

Why is Bercow terrible? A lot of backbenchers like him, no?

Not that I am aware of. I think that he interferes too much and seems to think that he is a player rather than a referee in debates in the House.

He is boringly repetitive and ineffective. His use of mockery is inappropriate and pompous.

He is capricious about he thinks is within the rules and what is not, particularly in relation to urgent questions. He wrongly seems to believe that he adds to the entertainment of the Land.

He has made very little, if any, progress in cleaning Parliament up. That is not just down to him but a good Speaker could have used his office to do more to protect the standing of Parliament by insisting on more effective disciplinary procedures.

SO is right that I have never met the man and I am judging him on his public performances that I have seen and have been reported. I think that is legitimate.

What this about my great leader? I shall have to read the thread banter...

As a resident in the People's Republic of Bercow, I trust he is not being picked on again - only this morning we've been talking about his help in a local project in our village and how he's very good in supporting us..

We'd take him over Farage (supposedly the most populur political leader in the UK) any time as has already been shown....

bigjohnowls said:

Todays You Gov LAB 334 CON 273 LD 17 Other 26 (ukpr)

Ed is crap is PM 10 Months 1 day to go

For all these posts you've wasted if EICIPM doesn't actually happen on the one day that matters - will you demand a public inquiry?

Financier said:

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/today_uk_import/YG-Archives-Pol-Trackers-Leaders-100518.pdf

YiouGov Trackers of GB & DC 2007-2010

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/today_uk_import/YG-Archives-Pol-Trackers-VotingTrends-2005

YG VI Tracker 2005-2010 incl 2005 and 2010 GE results

The second link above, which would be most interesting, doesn't work - at least not on my computer.

Now a story up on the Sunday Post website. It does appear as if their poll is the one in the thread header: http://www.sundaypost.com/news-views/politics/two-thirds-are-sick-and-tired-of-referendum-1.458142

The link title makes the main point of the article. Two thirds of Scots are now bored of the referendum debate. Maybe not a country that is all that different from England after all?

Ishmael_X said:

SouthamObserver said:

Ishmael_X said:

SouthamObserver said:

Very nasty, partisan stuff on here this morning about John Bercow, from lots of people who have never met him.

We can't criticise anyone on here unless we've met them? That is going to make things interesting.

You can do what you like and I can comment on it. However, I am not reading much criticism of Bercow in here today, just a lot of personal abuse.

I never said nuffink.

Bercow is not appalling, but he is a lightweight and a show-off. His patter at PMQs is just that, part of the show - he has the power and has had the time to do something about misbehaviour (e.g. letting it be known that offenders will not get called in future debates).

Misbehaviour acc to Bercow is NOT doing what Bercow says to the letter.(which is usually followed by a Bercow tantrum). That can't be right.
Previous Speakers never had this problem. Bercow IS the problem not the MP's. If a Speaker cannot manage the House of Commons WITH CONSENT, he should not be there. Why did Lord Tonypandy, Bettty Boothroyd and Bernard Weatherill manage the HOC so well? They never had the problems Bercow has.

OT Betfair is back up after several hours of unexplained and completely non-sinister downtime.

FalseFlag said:

DavidL said:

FalseFlag said:

Seeing as there seems to be a media blackout on the ongoing humanitarian disaster in the Donbass region, an update by the former chief of the CIA’s Soviet Foreign Policy Branch.

http://www.unz.com/article/the-risk-of-a-ukraine-bloodbath/

Presumably our government isn't just blindly going a long with US foreign policy no matter how politically and morally wrong it is.

I was surprised to see on the news yesterday the progress being made by the Ukrainian government in reasserting its sovereignty in Donbass. It appears after a very substantial delay the government has finally got its armed forces organised to a point that they can be effective. Once that point is reached partisans are unlikely to be able to offer substantial resistance without a lot more obvious Russian support than the Russians are willing to be seen to be giving at the moment.

There are clear risks in this strategy, not least because Putin has put himself in something of a corner with his earlier bullish comments about supporting Russians abroad but a restoration of sovereignty combined with the sort of devolution previously agreed in the International talks would offer the best chance of a way forward. The risk of doing nothing is that the status quo simply becomes a fait accompli with Ukraine effectively broken up.

You can't militarily occupy a region for perpetuity though, I suspect the East has gone in hearts and minds thanks to the current and previous governments actions.

Well we did in Northern Ireland for long enough but I agree that eventually a political solution has to be found as it was there.

It just seems to me that recent developments mean that is likely to be a solution within Ukraine's existing borders (less the Crimea of course) than a multistate solution. I think that has at least the potential to be less messy and disruptive for peoples' lives than the alternative.

HurstLlama said:

SouthamObserver said:

Ishmael_X said:

SouthamObserver said:

Very nasty, partisan stuff on here this morning about John Bercow, from lots of people who have never met him.

We can't criticise anyone on here unless we've met them? That is going to make things interesting.

You can do what you like and I can comment on it. However, I am not reading much criticism of Bercow in here today, just a lot of personal abuse.

Personal abuse, Mr . Observer? Well, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder so, I suppose, is ugliness. I don't see much personal abuse up-thread but a fair amount of piss-taking in relation to some comments made by a man who holds a very senior and important post. If an Englishman can't take the piss out of the powerful and important we really have lost the plot.

What is this business of "from lots of people who have never met him"? You seem to be saying that one can only legitimately criticise a politician if one has personally met them. I am sure that can't be correct, so what you were getting at is beyond me.

Nope, I am not saying that. I am saying that if you are going to throw personal abuse at a politician (or anyone else for that matter) - as opposed to criticising their actions, outlook and/or policies - it carries more weight if you have at least met them.

I am not seeking to stop anyone doing anything. I am merely exercising my right to comment. My view is that people should have the courage of their convictions and say what they really think safe in the knowledge that it will not be edited, cut, taken down or anything like that. Clearly, we have different views about what constitutes piss-taking as opposed to mere nastiness. As long as we both accept that, what does it matter?

JohnLilburne said:

DavidL said:

John Bercow is a terrible Speaker but the Office is diminished if the holder is repeatedly hounded out of it.

Surely the problem is that it is seen as a job for life, the only way to challenge a poor speaker is to "hound them out of office".

Having a contested election at the beginning of each parliament would be an improvement, IMO. If MPs don't think Bercow is any good they should grow a pair and stand against him in May 2015.

A job for life? Martin did 9 years, Betty did 8, Weatherill did 9, Thomas did 7.

Bercow has so far done 5 and will have done 6 by the start of the new Parliament. The chances of him still being Speaker at the end of it must be quite low. If he was I would expect a challenge in 2020.

As I said earlier the Office is more important than the man and needs to be respected. We can live with his inanity for a little bit longer.

foxinsoxuk said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Witan said:

... but I am not sure there can be much else except a flood of claims about being a victim. Real evidence may be very hard to find.

Floods of claims are real evidence. It is not as if Savile and Rolf were caught through DNA samples.

It is hard to know what happened in a London flat in 1967, even the protagonists themselves must have very distant recollections.

Rolf was caught through corroborating evidence from a variety of sources. Savile was never caught at all.

At least you can make that point on here. The Times runs a story with a lurid headline and then does not allow comments which might point out that the story itself is pure speculation.
Interestingly on TV, Neil was saying to Clegg that no one would trust the civil service to investigate itself. Yet the Press themselves want to insist on the right to investigate themselves.

A 'paedo ring' in Westminster is a pretty gross thought, so lets hope this dossier is a load of rubbish. But I cannot really believe this dossier was some dark secret, this sort of thing does not exist in a world of its own - where were the press at the time?
Is there any reason this dossier should have been kept after it was looked into. Dickens and others presumably had copies. And of course the other thing is - well, Dickens was voluable about this at the time; he named the High Commssioner to Canada in parliament. We talk as if this was new but it is not. All that is being said now was said then. Where were the press - did they not report, or more pertinantly investigate, any of this? Or is it that in reality there was nothing to report?

SouthamObserver said:

HurstLlama said:

SouthamObserver said:

Ishmael_X said:

SouthamObserver said:

Very nasty, partisan stuff on here this morning about John Bercow, from lots of people who have never met him.

We can't criticise anyone on here unless we've met them? That is going to make things interesting.

You can do what you like and I can comment on it. However, I am not reading much criticism of Bercow in here today, just a lot of personal abuse.

Personal abuse, Mr . Observer? Well, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder so, I suppose, is ugliness. I don't see much personal abuse up-thread but a fair amount of piss-taking in relation to some comments made by a man who holds a very senior and important post. If an Englishman can't take the piss out of the powerful and important we really have lost the plot.

What is this business of "from lots of people who have never met him"? You seem to be saying that one can only legitimately criticise a politician if one has personally met them. I am sure that can't be correct, so what you were getting at is beyond me.

Nope, I am not saying that. I am saying that if you are going to throw personal abuse at a politician (or anyone else for that matter) - as opposed to criticising their actions, outlook and/or policies - it carries more weight if you have at least met them.

I am not seeking to stop anyone doing anything. I am merely exercising my right to comment. My view is that people should have the courage of their convictions and say what they really think safe in the knowledge that it will not be edited, cut, taken down or anything like that. Clearly, we have different views about what constitutes piss-taking as opposed to mere nastiness. As long as we both accept that, what does it matter?

My principal criticism of Speaker Bercow is that he is too short.

This makes the man totally unsuitable as a recipient of personal abuse.

DecrepitJohnL said:

JohnLilburne said:

SouthamObserver said:

Very nasty, partisan stuff on here this morning about John Bercow, from lots of people who have never met him.

People mostly seem to be saying he's not a very good speaker, doesn't sound like personal abuse to me.

Are people, or MPs, in general saying that Bercow is not a good Speaker? Most complaints seem to be coming from Conservatives.

Actually I was referring to people on here, as that what what SouthamObserver was also referring to.

DavidL said:

JohnLilburne said:

DavidL said:

John Bercow is a terrible Speaker but the Office is diminished if the holder is repeatedly hounded out of it.

Surely the problem is that it is seen as a job for life, the only way to challenge a poor speaker is to "hound them out of office".

Having a contested election at the beginning of each parliament would be an improvement, IMO. If MPs don't think Bercow is any good they should grow a pair and stand against him in May 2015.

As I said earlier the Office is more important than the man and needs to be respected. We can live with his inanity for a little bit longer.

Why does "respecting" an elective office mean that it should not be contested every time it comes up for election? It would be nice if our Parliamentarians showed some respect for the concept of democracy.

Flightpath said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Witan said:

... but I am not sure there can be much else except a flood of claims about being a victim. Real evidence may be very hard to find.

Floods of claims are real evidence. It is not as if Savile and Rolf were caught through DNA samples.

It is hard to know what happened in a London flat in 1967, even the protagonists themselves must have very distant recollections.

Rolf was caught through corroborating evidence from a variety of sources. Savile was never caught at all.

At least you can make that point on here. The Times runs a story with a lurid headline and then does not allow comments which might point out that the story itself is pure speculation.
Interestingly on TV, Neil was saying to Clegg that no one would trust the civil service to investigate itself. Yet the Press themselves want to insist on the right to investigate themselves.

A 'paedo ring' in Westminster is a pretty gross thought, so lets hope this dossier is a load of rubbish. But I cannot really believe this dossier was some dark secret, this sort of thing does not exist in a world of its own - where were the press at the time?
Is there any reason this dossier should have been kept after it was looked into. Dickens and others presumably had copies. And of course the other thing is - well, Dickens was voluable about this at the time; he named the High Commssioner to Canada in parliament. We talk as if this was new but it is not. All that is being said now was said then. Where were the press - did they not report, or more pertinantly investigate, any of this? Or is it that in reality there was nothing to report?

Tebbit said on Marr that Westminster bubble knew but ignored it as protecting the establishment was more important...

Matt Gillespie (@mattayg)
06/07/2014 09:18
"It was more important to protect the system" - Lord Tebbit on the 1980s. Good grief that's pretty damning #Marr

steve hawkes (@steve_hawkes)
06/07/2014 09:08
"It's easy to forget things looked different in those days," Lord Tebbit tells #marr "It was more important to protect the system"

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

JohnLilburne said:

DavidL said:

JohnLilburne said:

DavidL said:

John Bercow is a terrible Speaker but the Office is diminished if the holder is repeatedly hounded out of it.

Surely the problem is that it is seen as a job for life, the only way to challenge a poor speaker is to "hound them out of office".

Having a contested election at the beginning of each parliament would be an improvement, IMO. If MPs don't think Bercow is any good they should grow a pair and stand against him in May 2015.

A job for life? Martin did 9 years, Betty did 8, Weatherill did 9, Thomas did 7

A job for life, as in a job until the incumbent chooses to retire.

ISTVR JB saying he would serve for 8 years when he got elected

It shouldn't be up to him, it should be up to his electorate. There is no point whinging and then not being prepared to stand against him when the post is up for re-election.

JohnLilburne said:

DavidL said:

FalseFlag said:

DavidL said:

FalseFlag said:

Seeing as there seems to be a media blackout on the ongoing humanitarian disaster in the Donbass region, an update by the former chief of the CIA’s Soviet Foreign Policy Branch.

http://www.unz.com/article/the-risk-of-a-ukraine-bloodbath/

Presumably our government isn't just blindly going a long with US foreign policy no matter how politically and morally wrong it is.

I was surprised to see on the news yesterday the progress being made by the Ukrainian government in reasserting its sovereignty in Donbass. It appears after a very substantial delay the government has finally got its armed forces organised to a point that they can be effective. Once that point is reached partisans are unlikely to be able to offer substantial resistance without a lot more obvious Russian support than the Russians are willing to be seen to be giving at the moment.

There are clear risks in this strategy, not least because Putin has put himself in something of a corner with his earlier bullish comments about supporting Russians abroad but a restoration of sovereignty combined with the sort of devolution previously agreed in the International talks would offer the best chance of a way forward. The risk of doing nothing is that the status quo simply becomes a fait accompli with Ukraine effectively broken up.

You can't militarily occupy a region for perpetuity though, I suspect the East has gone in hearts and minds thanks to the current and previous governments actions.

Well we did in Northern Ireland for long enough but I agree that eventually a political solution has to be found as it was there.

It just seems to me that recent developments mean that is likely to be a solution within Ukraine's existing borders (less the Crimea of course) than a multistate solution. I think that has at least the potential to be less messy and disruptive for peoples' lives than the alternative.

We certainly need to challenge the assertion that Russian-speaking Ukrainians are Russians living abroad who is some way need Russian "protection"

As it is only 60 years since most of them were Russian and any of them over the age of 60 will still be Russian by birth I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that they are Russians.

Ukraine in its current borders is an entirely artificial construct which in no way reflects the ethnic origins of its population and the best and fairest way to deal with the present situation would be to break the country up.

isam said:

Also appearing on The Andrew Marr Show, Tebbit said: "At that time I think most people would have thought that the establishment, the system, was to be protected and if a few things had gone wrong here and there that it was more important to protect the system than to delve too far into it.

"That view, I think, was wrong then and it is spectacularly shown to be wrong because the abuses have grown."

Asked if he thought there had been a "big political cover-up" at the time, he said: "I think there may well have been. But it was almost unconscious. It was the thing that people did at that time."

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/06/child-abuse-coverup-1980s-lord-tebbit?CMP=twt_gu

I was a much keener watcher of all things Westminster then, and my recollection is that Dickens was regarded as somewhat eccentric, and possessed of a bee-infested bonnet. A recollection which is confirmed by the Wikipedia entry.

Richard_Tyndall said:

As it is only 60 years since most of them were Russian and any of them over the age of 60 will still be Russian by birth I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that they are Russians.

Ukraine in its current borders is an entirely artificial construct which in no way reflects the ethnic origins of its population and the best and fairest way to deal with the present situation would be to break the country up.

Thus supporting Russian aggression and irredentism. Don't forget there are substantial Russian-speaking minorities living in Nato countries, the existence of which is not down to badly-drawn boundaries but Russian imperialism during Soviet times. And in the Ukraine they are spread throughout the country, making ethnic boundary-drawing nigh on impossible.

Russia inherited the rights & obligations of the Soviet Union on its breakup, including citizenship, it can almost certainly claim that anyone living in the former Soviet Union is a Russian citizen, its claims are spurious.

We need to get away from ethnicity & nationalism as a basis for defining the state. Granted the Ukrainians haven't done their cause any good by removing facilities for Russian speakers, but there is no reason why Russian and Ukrainian speakers cannot live side by side in a democratic Western country (not saying it is there now, but it could be). And in any case, Putin's hired thugs need to be opposed as a matter of policy.

And I am not sure what you mean by this "As it is only 60 years since most of them were Russian and any of them over the age of 60 will still be Russian", the Russian Empire came to an end 97 years ago by my reckoning. What happened in 1957 that is so important?

isam said:

OldKingCole said:

isam said:

Also appearing on The Andrew Marr Show, Tebbit said: "At that time I think most people would have thought that the establishment, the system, was to be protected and if a few things had gone wrong here and there that it was more important to protect the system than to delve too far into it.

"That view, I think, was wrong then and it is spectacularly shown to be wrong because the abuses have grown."

Asked if he thought there had been a "big political cover-up" at the time, he said: "I think there may well have been. But it was almost unconscious. It was the thing that people did at that time."

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/06/child-abuse-coverup-1980s-lord-tebbit?CMP=twt_gu

I was a much keener watcher of all things Westminster then, and my recollection is that Dickens was regarded as somewhat eccentric, and possessed of a bee-infested bonnet. A recollection which is confirmed by the Wikipedia entry.

Isn't that because the powers that be ridiculed him for exposing what they wanted to keep unexposed.?

Jesus Christ, Jimmy Savile was at Chequers when he wasn't sleeping with dead people at Broadmoor, and Tebbitts admitted they turned a blind eye to it all for the greater good of the establishment

Why on earth do people persist with the euphemism "sleeping with" when they mean anything but? Personally I prefer the pithy Anglo-Saxon, but even if you don't surely "sleeping with" should be reserved for occurrences of actually staying overnight in the same bed?

SquareRoot said:

edmundintokyo said:

SquareRoot said:

edmundintokyo said:

JohnLilburne said:

DavidL said:

JohnLilburne said:

DavidL said:

John Bercow is a terrible Speaker but the Office is diminished if the holder is repeatedly hounded out of it.

Surely the problem is that it is seen as a job for life, the only way to challenge a poor speaker is to "hound them out of office".

Having a contested election at the beginning of each parliament would be an improvement, IMO. If MPs don't think Bercow is any good they should grow a pair and stand against him in May 2015.

As I said earlier the Office is more important than the man and needs to be respected. We can live with his inanity for a little bit longer.

Why does "respecting" an elective office mean that it should not be contested every time it comes up for election? It would be nice if our Parliamentarians showed some respect for the concept of democracy.

There was some talk about somebody challenging him at the beginning of this parliament. There was nothing particular to stop them doing it, apart from the obvious fact that the challenger would have lost because MPs generally quite like Bercow.

I am not up to date on HOC protocol, but there was a challenge of sorts... Dorries and a few others shouting no in the HOC at the time..

Right, apparently the difficulty for the challengers was that nearly everybody else in the room was shouting "aye".

Most amusing, as if It passed me by at the time. The point is HOW MANY have to shout NO for it to cause a contest?

You can listen to it here, the "no" vote is like five people.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7737004/John-Bercow-re-elected-as-House-of-Commons-Speaker-unopposed.html

Presumably if it was remotely close they'd have a formal vote.

Isam --- lets be clear.... has Tebbit said he turned a blind eye to paedophilia or not? I have not seen any interview. It's an important accusation to get right I would think.

Dickens made these claims years ago. It is not new. He named people in parliament, he made accusations. Why has it suddenly come up again?
Tom Watson seemed to think it was a good idea in 2013 (which ought to make us think about the motives for all this) - as a result this dossier was reported missing. Now another Labour MP (writing a book -- with which he no doubt hopes to smear the libdems) comes along a year later.

I want to see the truth come out. But I do wonder about the basis for all this.

Flightpath said:

Isam --- lets be clear.... has Tebbit said he turned a blind eye to paedophilia or not? I have not seen any interview. It's an important accusation to get right I would think.

Dickens made these claims years ago. It is not new. He named people in parliament, he made accusations. Why has it suddenly come up again?
Tom Watson seemed to think it was a good idea in 2013 (which ought to make us think about the motives for all this) - as a result this dossier was reported missing. Now another Labour MP (writing a book -- with which he no doubt hopes to smear the libdems) comes along a year later.

I want to see the truth come out. But I do wonder about the basis for all this.

The Guardian have reported Tebbitts comments... I watched the show so yes he did say it


Type "tebbit" into twitter... The public reaction to it is all there


Also appearing on The Andrew Marr Show, Tebbit said: "At that time I think most people would have thought that the establishment, the system, was to be protected and if a few things had gone wrong here and there that it was more important to protect the system than to delve too far into it.

"That view, I think, was wrong then and it is spectacularly shown to be wrong because the abuses have grown."

Asked if he thought there had been a "big political cover-up" at the time, he said: "I think there may well have been. But it was almost unconscious. It was the thing that people did at that time."

@JohnLilburne

We certainly need to challenge the assertion that Russian-speaking Ukrainians are Russians living abroad who is some way need Russian "protection"

The apparent calm in Eastern Ukraine is less a product of military intervention than a buying off of dissent by the oligarchs who own the core industries of the region and are, in many areas, sole local employers.

Bloomberg published a long article a week or so ago which reported how Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine's richest oligarch and a former ally of ex-President Yanukovych had 'switched sides' to support the Kiev government. Akhmetov owns much of Eastern Ukraine's coal and steel industries through is Metinvest group.

The measures he has taken to 'quell the revolt' are mainly 'economic':

To gain the confidence of his workers and boost morale, Akhmetov has raised all salaries by about 20 percent and started a bonus program for employees in conflict zones who agree to help patrol the streets with local police, according to the company.

The average wage at Metinvest, which produced 12.5 million tons of steel last year, or about a third of the country’s output, is 5,264 hryvnia ($450) a month, about 53 percent more than the national average, according to the company. Workers can earn another $25 a day through the patrol program.

So, for the time being, the pro-Russian separatist movement has been 'bought off'. Bloomberg is somewhat naive though in seeing Akhmetov's move as being driven by nationalism or any other ideological principle beyond the preservation of personal wealth and power.

The article does however demonstrate the economic significance of Putin seizing the Crimea. The move was not simply to protect Yalta as the preferred summer holiday destination of middle class Russians; Crimean ports were the only ones in the region capable of supporting volume exports of Eastern Ukraine's industrial and mining output.

The fact that peace in the Ukraine is being traded across the gaming tables of a handful of oligarchs should not inspire great confidence in its permanence.

Full Bloomberg article here: http://buswk.co/1obHc9W

AveryLP said:

@JohnLilburne

We certainly need to challenge the assertion that Russian-speaking Ukrainians are Russians living abroad who is some way need Russian "protection"

The apparent calm in Eastern Ukraine is less a product of military intervention than a buying off of dissent by the oligarchs who own the core industries of the region and are, in many areas, sole local employers.

Bloomberg published a long article a week or so ago which reported how Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine's richest oligarch and a former ally of ex-President Yanukovych had 'switched sides' to support the Kiev government. Akhmetov owns much of Eastern Ukraine's coal and steel industries through is Metinvest group.

The measures he has taken to 'quell the revolt' are mainly 'economic':

To gain the confidence of his workers and boost morale, Akhmetov has raised all salaries by about 20 percent and started a bonus program for employees in conflict zones who agree to help patrol the streets with local police, according to the company.

The average wage at Metinvest, which produced 12.5 million tons of steel last year, or about a third of the country’s output, is 5,264 hryvnia ($450) a month, about 53 percent more than the national average, according to the company. Workers can earn another $25 a day through the patrol program.

So, for the time being, the pro-Russian separatist movement has been 'bought off'. Bloomberg is somewhat naive though in seeing Akhmetov's move as being driven by nationalism or any other ideological principle beyond the preservation of personal wealth and power.

The article does however demonstrate the economic significance of Putin seizing the Crimea. The move was not simply to protect Yalta as the preferred summer holiday destination of middle class Russians; Crimean ports were the only ones in the region capable of supporting volume exports of Eastern Ukraine's industrial and mining output.

The fact that peace in the Ukraine is being traded across the gaming tables of a handful of oligarchs should not inspire great confidence in its permanence.

Full Bloomberg article here: http://buswk.co/1obHc9W

If peace can be restored at such a cheap price then it seems a bargain, and nationalist desires fairly weak. Good cross border trade is the underpinning of peace, as much in Eastern Europe as within the EU itself.

Has anybody else read the count of monte Cristo?

Seems to me that Leon Brittan is playing the role of Villefort

foxinsoxuk said:

AveryLP said:

@JohnLilburne

We certainly need to challenge the assertion that Russian-speaking Ukrainians are Russians living abroad who is some way need Russian "protection"

The apparent calm in Eastern Ukraine is less a product of military intervention than a buying off of dissent by the oligarchs who own the core industries of the region and are, in many areas, sole local employers.

Bloomberg published a long article a week or so ago which reported how Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine's richest oligarch and a former ally of ex-President Yanukovych had 'switched sides' to support the Kiev government. Akhmetov owns much of Eastern Ukraine's coal and steel industries through is Metinvest group.

The measures he has taken to 'quell the revolt' are mainly 'economic':

To gain the confidence of his workers and boost morale, Akhmetov has raised all salaries by about 20 percent and started a bonus program for employees in conflict zones who agree to help patrol the streets with local police, according to the company.

The average wage at Metinvest, which produced 12.5 million tons of steel last year, or about a third of the country’s output, is 5,264 hryvnia ($450) a month, about 53 percent more than the national average, according to the company. Workers can earn another $25 a day through the patrol program.

So, for the time being, the pro-Russian separatist movement has been 'bought off'. Bloomberg is somewhat naive though in seeing Akhmetov's move as being driven by nationalism or any other ideological principle beyond the preservation of personal wealth and power.

The article does however demonstrate the economic significance of Putin seizing the Crimea. The move was not simply to protect Yalta as the preferred summer holiday destination of middle class Russians; Crimean ports were the only ones in the region capable of supporting volume exports of Eastern Ukraine's industrial and mining output.

The fact that peace in the Ukraine is being traded across the gaming tables of a handful of oligarchs should not inspire great confidence in its permanence.

Full Bloomberg article here: http://buswk.co/1obHc9W

If peace can be restored at such a cheap price then it seems a bargain, and nationalist desires fairly weak. Good cross border trade is the underpinning of peace, as much in Eastern Europe as within the EU itself.

Absolutely, Dr. Sox. That is why Putin moved so quickly to gain control of the ports of trade.

The battle in the next few months will involve Putin seeking to deprive the Ukraine of export markets and distribution channels and the EU and western finance agencies attempting to plug the holes with aid.

It should put a temporary stop to balaclava clad thugs seizing loal police stations, but hardly holds out the prospects for a mutually beneficial or long lasting settlement.

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

isam said:

OldKingCole said:

isam said:

Also appearing on The Andrew Marr Show, Tebbit said: "At that time I think most people would have thought that the establishment, the system, was to be protected and if a few things had gone wrong here and there that it was more important to protect the system than to delve too far into it.

"That view, I think, was wrong then and it is spectacularly shown to be wrong because the abuses have grown."

Asked if he thought there had been a "big political cover-up" at the time, he said: "I think there may well have been. But it was almost unconscious. It was the thing that people did at that time."

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/06/child-abuse-coverup-1980s-lord-tebbit?CMP=twt_gu

I was a much keener watcher of all things Westminster then, and my recollection is that Dickens was regarded as somewhat eccentric, and possessed of a bee-infested bonnet. A recollection which is confirmed by the Wikipedia entry.

Isn't that because the powers that be ridiculed him for exposing what they wanted to keep unexposed.?

Jesus Christ, Jimmy Savile was at Chequers when he wasn't sleeping with dead people at Broadmoor, and Tebbitts admitted they turned a blind eye to it all for the greater good of the establishment

This isn't a can of worms, its a can of Boa Constrictors and the lid appears to be coming loose. Keeping it on topic, it might mean a tenner on some long odds bets is well worthwhile, as this will blow apart normal voting patterns. At this rate we the English Democrats will win!

Sam

I certainly rate the prospects of the English Democrats over the Young Necrophiliacs.

isam said:

Has anybody else read the count of monte Cristo?

Seems to me that Leon Brittan is playing the role of Villefort

Mr. Sam, yes I have read the Count of Monte Christo, it is one of my all time favourite books. Villefort was the prosecutor who was incorruptible, except when it came to his own ambitions. I struggle to see how that character can be transposed onto Leon Brittan.

Someone has painted a giant yellow wig on the road of today's stage.
Has OGH been out with his paintbrush?

Socrates said:

AveryLP said:

@JohnLilburne

We certainly need to challenge the assertion that Russian-speaking Ukrainians are Russians living abroad who is some way need Russian "protection"

The apparent calm in Eastern Ukraine is less a product of military intervention than a buying off of dissent by the oligarchs who own the core industries of the region and are, in many areas, sole local employers.

Bloomberg published a long article a week or so ago which reported how Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine's richest oligarch and a former ally of ex-President Yanukovych had 'switched sides' to support the Kiev government. Akhmetov owns much of Eastern Ukraine's coal and steel industries through is Metinvest group.

The measures he has taken to 'quell the revolt' are mainly 'economic':

To gain the confidence of his workers and boost morale, Akhmetov has raised all salaries by about 20 percent and started a bonus program for employees in conflict zones who agree to help patrol the streets with local police, according to the company.

The average wage at Metinvest, which produced 12.5 million tons of steel last year, or about a third of the country’s output, is 5,264 hryvnia ($450) a month, about 53 percent more than the national average, according to the company. Workers can earn another $25 a day through the patrol program.

So, for the time being, the pro-Russian separatist movement has been 'bought off'. Bloomberg is somewhat naive though in seeing Akhmetov's move as being driven by nationalism or any other ideological principle beyond the preservation of personal wealth and power.

The article does however demonstrate the economic significance of Putin seizing the Crimea. The move was not simply to protect Yalta as the preferred summer holiday destination of middle class Russians; Crimean ports were the only ones in the region capable of supporting volume exports of Eastern Ukraine's industrial and mining output.

The fact that peace in the Ukraine is being traded across the gaming tables of a handful of oligarchs should not inspire great confidence in its permanence.

Full Bloomberg article here: http://buswk.co/1obHc9W

The oligarchs in Ukraine are acting in their own economic self-interest. Most of the customers of their businesses are Ukrainians, who have turned strongly against Russia over the country's invasion of their homeland.

Socrates.

The principal customers for the heavy industries of Eastern Ukraine are Russian. A substantial amount of mining extracts are also sold on world markets and make up the largest part of the Ukraine's foreign currency earnings.

Ukrainian consumers have a minimal impact on where such output is sold.

Chocolates maybe. Steel and Coal, not.

OldKingCole said:

isam said:

Also appearing on The Andrew Marr Show, Tebbit said: "At that time I think most people would have thought that the establishment, the system, was to be protected and if a few things had gone wrong here and there that it was more important to protect the system than to delve too far into it.

"That view, I think, was wrong then and it is spectacularly shown to be wrong because the abuses have grown."

Asked if he thought there had been a "big political cover-up" at the time, he said: "I think there may well have been. But it was almost unconscious. It was the thing that people did at that time."

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/06/child-abuse-coverup-1980s-lord-tebbit?CMP=twt_gu

I was a much keener watcher of all things Westminster then, and my recollection is that Dickens was regarded as somewhat eccentric, and possessed of a bee-infested bonnet. A recollection which is confirmed by the Wikipedia entry.

But not possessed of a photocopier it seems....

AveryLP said:

foxinsoxuk said:

AveryLP said:

@JohnLilburne

We certainly need to challenge the assertion that Russian-speaking Ukrainians are Russians living abroad who is some way need Russian

The measures he has taken to 'quell the revolt' are mainly 'economic':

To gain the confidence of his workers and boost morale, Akhmetov has raised all salaries by about 20 percent and started a bonus program for employees in conflict zones who agree to help patrol the streets with local police, according to the company.

The average wage at Metinvest, which produced 12.5 million tons of steel last year, or about a third of the country’s output, is 5,264 hryvnia ($450) a month, about 53 percent more than the national average, according to the company. Workers can earn another $25 a day through the patrol program.

So, for the time being, the pro-Russian separatist movement has been 'bought off'. Bloomberg is somewhat naive though in seeing Akhmetov's move as being driven by nationalism or any other ideological principle beyond the preservation of personal wealth and power.

The article does however demonstrate the economic significance of Putin seizing the Crimea. The move was not simply to protect Yalta as the preferred summer holiday destination of middle class Russians; Crimean ports were the only ones in the region capable of supporting volume exports of Eastern Ukraine's industrial and mining output.

The fact that peace in the Ukraine is being traded across the gaming tables of a handful of oligarchs should not inspire great confidence in its permanence.

Full Bloomberg article here: http://buswk.co/1obHc9W

If peace can be restored at such a cheap price then it seems a bargain, and nationalist desires fairly weak. Good cross border trade is the underpinning of peace, as much in Eastern Europe as within the EU itself.

Absolutely, Dr. Sox. That is why Putin moved so quickly to gain control of the ports of trade.

The battle in the next few months will involve Putin seeking to deprive the Ukraine of export markets and distribution channels and the EU and western finance agencies attempting to plug the holes with aid.

It should put a temporary stop to balaclava clad thugs seizing loal police stations, but hardly holds out the prospects for a mutually beneficial or long lasting settlement.

I take your point. Control of the Odessa oblast is vital for Ukraine; but just as a hinterland without ports is cut off, so are ports without a hinterland.

Putin will extract a price from Ukraine, but the price will be counterbalanced by Ukraine becoming an EU affiliate. It will be only a matter of time before that becomes appealing to Russians too. The rule of Juncker wiĺl be much more pleasant than Putin!

Socrates said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Mass expulsions are part of the history of the Muslim and Christian world, on both sides. Whether expulsion of Moors from Spain, Turks from The Balkans or Tatars from Crimea. This is counterbalanced by the expulsions and destruction of the Greeks and Armenians in Anatolia and the continuing persecution of Middle Eastern Christians to this day.

The fate of the Tatars is that they were on the losing side of a line of a 1300 year old culture war.

We're not in the middle ages any more. This can't be brushed aside as "one of those things".

One could harp on about the Golden Horde and Christians kidnapped and brought south to the Crimea to be sold as slaves.

Of course the greatest victims of Lenin, Trotsky and their Bolshevik co conspirators were the Russians themselves. A state against its own people with Russians far and few between in the state apparatus till Russification in the great Patriotic War. Personally though I loathe the left's tendency to cry crocodile tears over crimes that benefit their cause whilst ignoring those that don't. Who, whom is the motivator.

MonikerDiCanio said:

malcolmg said:

SeanT said:

The guy who put £400,000 on No at 1/4 must be feeling pretty pleased.

The odds on No, as of today, are 1/7

The fake one you mean, first time I have ever heard of a bet like that and the odds not moving an inch at the time. Fools are easily fooled.

But the odds have moved, from 1/4 to 1/7. Who's the fool ?

Dullard as ever, they did not move at the time , only a considerable time later. You obviously know nothing about betting

@Socrates

Fair enough, if they have declared an apartheid regime, what should be done?
Invade? Sanctions? What did we do all the other times it has happened?

We are not in the middle ages anymore, but much of the muslim world is and with the muslim medivalists getting stronger. Mass expulsions or forced conversions are not history, they are a present reality in the Islamist world.

Socrates said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Mass expulsions are part of the history of the Muslim and Christian world, on both sides. Whether expulsion of Moors from Spain, Turks from The Balkans or Tatars from Crimea. This is counterbalanced by the expulsions and destruction of the Greeks and Armenians in Anatolia and the continuing persecution of Middle Eastern Christians to this day.

The fate of the Tatars is that they were on the losing side of a line of a 1300 year old culture war.

We're not in the middle ages any more. This can't be brushed aside as "one of those things".