If Russia invades Ukraine there is nothing the UK can do about it - I am surprised some people on here think we can . Why would we want to anyway ? It is a old historical dispute in the far east of Europe that has nothing to do with us on its western extreme.
I sort of get the posturing by the US ,EU and even the UK government to some extent - sometimes bluffing can be effective although I doubt it in this case. I just fail to get why people on here who know Russia will definitely not be bluffed by them still want us to do anything should they invade.
Instead of nuclear disarmament, a bellicose Ukraine starts a massive military build up, complete with nasty dictator threatening all the neighbours.
Why interesting? Because the implication on the position that Ukraine is too weak to resist Russia, so should be carved up is.. that nuclear armed and bellicose is the way to go.
Lots of people out there listening and thinking.
That sound you can hear is spent nuclear reactor fuel rods dissolving in nitric acid....
ODO: So is keelhauling, but right now we should focus on accommodations
Why are real spacecraft part of the Air Force, but fictional spaceships part of the Navy?
Because real spacecraft are too small and crappy (literally so when it comes to No. 2s). No room for an admiral's private heads, never mind sitting room, on a Crew Dragon.
Edit: went to see the Cosmonauts exhibition at the Science Museum a few years back. It was startling to see how small even a Soyuz was.
If Russia invades Ukraine there is nothing the UK can do about it - I am surprised some people on here think we can . Why would we want to anyway ? It is a old historical dispute in the far east of Europe that has nothing to do with us on its western extreme.
I sort of get the posturing by the US ,EU and even the UK government to some extent - sometimes bluffing can be effective although I doubt it in this case. I just fail to get why people on here who know Russia will definitely not be bluffed by them still want us to do anything should they invade.
The US will not let Ukraine fall and that will involve NATO including ourselves
They let Afghanistan fall, Biden is an isolationist and won't do anything.
Biden will defend a NATO country from Putin, he will not defend Ukraine.
Trump would not necessarily even have defended a NATO country from Putin, he got on well with Putin. Hence as I said we cannot just rely on the US to defend Europe, we must take the lead on that with France and Turkey and Poland in containing Putin
If Russia invades Ukraine there is nothing the UK can do about it - I am surprised some people on here think we can . Why would we want to anyway ? It is a old historical dispute in the far east of Europe that has nothing to do with us on its western extreme.
I sort of get the posturing by the US ,EU and even the UK government to some extent - sometimes bluffing can be effective although I doubt it in this case. I just fail to get why people on here who know Russia will definitely not be bluffed by them still want us to do anything should they invade.
The US will not let Ukraine fall and that will involve NATO including ourselves
They let Afghanistan fall, Biden is an isolationist and won't do anything.
Biden will defend a NATO country from Putin, he will not defend Ukraine.
Trump would not necessarily even have defended a NATO country from Putin, he got on well with Putin. Hence as I said we cannot just rely on the US to defend Europe, we must take the lead on that with France and Turkey and Poland in containing Putin
If Russia invades Ukraine there is nothing the UK can do about it - I am surprised some people on here think we can . Why would we want to anyway ? It is a old historical dispute in the far east of Europe that has nothing to do with us on its western extreme.
I sort of get the posturing by the US ,EU and even the UK government to some extent - sometimes bluffing can be effective although I doubt it in this case. I just fail to get why people on here who know Russia will definitely not be bluffed by them still want us to do anything should they invade.
If Russia invades Ukraine there is nothing the UK can do about it - I am surprised some people on here think we can . Why would we want to anyway ? It is a old historical dispute in the far east of Europe that has nothing to do with us on its western extreme.
I sort of get the posturing by the US ,EU and even the UK government to some extent - sometimes bluffing can be effective although I doubt it in this case. I just fail to get why people on here who know Russia will definitely not be bluffed by them still want us to do anything should they invade.
The US will not let Ukraine fall and that will involve NATO including ourselves
I'm sorry that's just ridiculous, the US will definitely let Ukraine fall tomorrow if it happened that way. What's being discussed is the consequences for Putin doing that, the US is trying to gather a coalition of nations that will put up sanctions on Russia to try and prevent the incursion, though Putin seems to have the measure of it and has correctly calculated that there's not going to be serious enough consequences to worry about.
Sunday Times EXCLUSIVE: A Conservative MP has accused a party whip of telling her she was fired from her ministerial job because her Muslim faith was “making colleagues uncomfortable”
That is why I said make Rishi PM
Rishi became the first Hindu Chancellor because Cummings manipulated the sacking of Javid, the first Chancelllor of Muslim heritage.
If you want to appeal to Muslims, Javid would be better than Sunak (plus it is not as if there is much love lost between Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan).
I want to appeal to everyone and reject your musings on this subject
Try getting a Hindu in Birmingham to vote for a Muslim or a Muslim in Birmingham to vote for a Hindu, it is a tough job as it is often just an extension of the Kashmir dispute
We popped out for something to eat this afternoon. Arrived just after 2 and it was fairly busy. Other groups arrived after we did.
I witnessed the Covid theatre spectacle of a couple who had been sitting bare faced for an hour donning their masks for the thirty second walk to the door.
BTW - I had a vegan chilli followed by a slice of vegan chocolate cake. Day 22 and still meat-free.
I know people who still do the Covid theatre crap in restaurants. Bonkers.
Anyhow, whilst various amongst us recount our eating out experiences, this from the Graun: Jack Monroe on the extreme end of the cost of living crisis, as it pertains to the struggles of the least well off.
Our ruling class may have been brazenly wheeling suitcases of cheap plonk past the averted gaze of Metropolitan police officers during the last year of lockdowns, but their voters are increasingly finding themselves destitute, hungry, demoralised and priced out of the cheapest bag of apples at the supermarket.
...
The Smart Price, Basics and Value range products offered as lower-cost alternatives are stealthily being extinguished from the shelves, leaving shoppers with no choice but to “level up” to the supermarkets’ own branded goods – usually in smaller quantities at larger prices.
I have been monitoring this for the last decade, through writing recipes on my online blog and documenting the prices of ingredients in forensic detail. In 2012, 10 stock cubes from Sainsbury’s Basics range were 10p. In 2022, those same stock cubes are 39p, but only available in chicken or beef. The cheapest vegetable stock cubes are, inexplicably, £1 for 10. Last year the Smart Price pasta in my local Asda was 29p for 500g. Today, it is unavailable, so the cheapest bag is 70p; a 141% price rise for the same product in more colourful packaging. A few years ago, there were more than 400 products in the Smart Price range; today there are 87, and counting down.
And this is before home energy bills suddenly go up by an eyewatering sum (perhaps 50% or more for some customers) in the Spring. For a lot of us, I suspect that the effect of inflation will be one less night out a week, or a slightly smaller sum being put away in savings. For others - well, it looks like the food banks are going to be in need of a lot more donations and volunteers before the year is out.
This is genuinely big and bad news. It's also an example of "nobody wants the country to fail, but if it is, we ought to know".
Governments rightly struggle to survive this sort of thing, because everyone notices if they are a little short at the end of the month. And changing the PM, by itself, doesn't change the climate.
yes in the end forget parties in Downing Street (however distasteful when the same people are nannying and ordering others not to have them) in 30 months time it will be inflation and a likely economic mess that will bring down the tories - They have spent far too much during this pandemic , the scale of fraud over furlough is epic for example . The effect of Brexit on labour supply for essential but boring jobs has been drastic as well. Whilst I think Boris has done well to some extent over the handling of the non financial aspects of the pandemic , Sunak has been terrible - got all the praise for the easy part of dolling out free money at the start , has no appetite to do the hard stuff now- the rise in NI was crass given the greater need to tax wealth and the elderly and not the young.
If Russia invades Ukraine there is nothing the UK can do about it - I am surprised some people on here think we can . Why would we want to anyway ? It is a old historical dispute in the far east of Europe that has nothing to do with us on its western extreme.
I sort of get the posturing by the US ,EU and even the UK government to some extent - sometimes bluffing can be effective although I doubt it in this case. I just fail to get why people on here who know Russia will definitely not be bluffed by them still want us to do anything should they invade.
The US will not let Ukraine fall and that will involve NATO including ourselves
I'm sorry that's just ridiculous, the US will definitely let Ukraine fall tomorrow if it happened that way. What's being discussed is the consequences for Putin doing that, the US is trying to gather a coalition of nations that will put up sanctions on Russia to try and prevent the incursion, though Putin seems to have the measure of it and has correctly calculated that there's not going to be serious enough consequences to worry about.
I disagree about US military involvement but do agree about sanctions
Big G - what has Sunak ever done that makes him a plausible leader?
He is professional and honest, he was the architect of furlough, and is the complete opposite to Boris
Furthermore he seems to worry the opposition and is well liked by the public
I am not sure he is as problematic to Labour than some of the minor candidates mentioned to replace Johnson.
My Conservative wife doesn't rate him particularly highly, but considers him head and shoulders better than "Dizzy Lizzie".
I spoke to someone in the Foreign Office on Friday. They rate Truss as significantly better than Raab.
Their comment on Raab was that he was extremely opinionated and argumentative based on his personal reading of morality and law. It took them a long time to work to where he was coming from because it was so “unusual”
Sunday Times EXCLUSIVE: A Conservative MP has accused a party whip of telling her she was fired from her ministerial job because her Muslim faith was “making colleagues uncomfortable”
That is why I said make Rishi PM
Rishi became the first Hindu Chancellor because Cummings manipulated the sacking of Javid, the first Chancelllor of Muslim heritage.
If you want to appeal to Muslims, Javid would be better than Sunak (plus it is not as if there is much love lost between Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan).
I want to appeal to everyone and reject your musings on this subject
Try getting a Hindu in Birmingham to vote for a Muslim or a Muslim in Birmingham to vote for a Hindu, it is a tough job as it is often just an extension of the Kashmir dispute
We popped out for something to eat this afternoon. Arrived just after 2 and it was fairly busy. Other groups arrived after we did.
I witnessed the Covid theatre spectacle of a couple who had been sitting bare faced for an hour donning their masks for the thirty second walk to the door.
BTW - I had a vegan chilli followed by a slice of vegan chocolate cake. Day 22 and still meat-free.
I know people who still do the Covid theatre crap in restaurants. Bonkers.
Anyhow, whilst various amongst us recount our eating out experiences, this from the Graun: Jack Monroe on the extreme end of the cost of living crisis, as it pertains to the struggles of the least well off.
Our ruling class may have been brazenly wheeling suitcases of cheap plonk past the averted gaze of Metropolitan police officers during the last year of lockdowns, but their voters are increasingly finding themselves destitute, hungry, demoralised and priced out of the cheapest bag of apples at the supermarket.
...
The Smart Price, Basics and Value range products offered as lower-cost alternatives are stealthily being extinguished from the shelves, leaving shoppers with no choice but to “level up” to the supermarkets’ own branded goods – usually in smaller quantities at larger prices.
I have been monitoring this for the last decade, through writing recipes on my online blog and documenting the prices of ingredients in forensic detail. In 2012, 10 stock cubes from Sainsbury’s Basics range were 10p. In 2022, those same stock cubes are 39p, but only available in chicken or beef. The cheapest vegetable stock cubes are, inexplicably, £1 for 10. Last year the Smart Price pasta in my local Asda was 29p for 500g. Today, it is unavailable, so the cheapest bag is 70p; a 141% price rise for the same product in more colourful packaging. A few years ago, there were more than 400 products in the Smart Price range; today there are 87, and counting down.
And this is before home energy bills suddenly go up by an eyewatering sum (perhaps 50% or more for some customers) in the Spring. For a lot of us, I suspect that the effect of inflation will be one less night out a week, or a slightly smaller sum being put away in savings. For others - well, it looks like the food banks are going to be in need of a lot more donations and volunteers before the year is out.
This is genuinely big and bad news. It's also an example of "nobody wants the country to fail, but if it is, we ought to know".
Governments rightly struggle to survive this sort of thing, because everyone notices if they are a little short at the end of the month. And changing the PM, by itself, doesn't change the climate.
yes in the end forget parties in Downing Street (however distasteful when the same people are nannying and ordering others not to have them) in 30 months time it will be inflation and a likely economic mess that will bring down the tories - They have spent far too much during this pandemic , the scale of fraud over furlough is epic for example . The effect of Brexit on labour supply for essential but boring jobs has been drastic as well. Whilst I think Boris has done well to some extent over the handling of the non financial aspects of the pandemic , Sunak has been terrible - got all the praise for the easy part of dolling out free money at the start , has no appetite to do the hard stuff now- the rise in NI was crass given the greater need to tax wealth and the elderly and not the young.
Not to mention the increased deaths attributed to EOTHO.
Sunday Times EXCLUSIVE: A Conservative MP has accused a party whip of telling her she was fired from her ministerial job because her Muslim faith was “making colleagues uncomfortable”
That is why I said make Rishi PM
Rishi became the first Hindu Chancellor because Cummings manipulated the sacking of Javid, the first Chancelllor of Muslim heritage.
If you want to appeal to Muslims, Javid would be better than Sunak (plus it is not as if there is much love lost between Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan).
I want to appeal to everyone and reject your musings on this subject
Try getting a Hindu in Birmingham to vote for a Muslim or a Muslim in Birmingham to vote for a Hindu, it is a tough job as it is often just an extension of the Kashmir dispute
We popped out for something to eat this afternoon. Arrived just after 2 and it was fairly busy. Other groups arrived after we did.
I witnessed the Covid theatre spectacle of a couple who had been sitting bare faced for an hour donning their masks for the thirty second walk to the door.
BTW - I had a vegan chilli followed by a slice of vegan chocolate cake. Day 22 and still meat-free.
I know people who still do the Covid theatre crap in restaurants. Bonkers.
Anyhow, whilst various amongst us recount our eating out experiences, this from the Graun: Jack Monroe on the extreme end of the cost of living crisis, as it pertains to the struggles of the least well off.
Our ruling class may have been brazenly wheeling suitcases of cheap plonk past the averted gaze of Metropolitan police officers during the last year of lockdowns, but their voters are increasingly finding themselves destitute, hungry, demoralised and priced out of the cheapest bag of apples at the supermarket.
...
The Smart Price, Basics and Value range products offered as lower-cost alternatives are stealthily being extinguished from the shelves, leaving shoppers with no choice but to “level up” to the supermarkets’ own branded goods – usually in smaller quantities at larger prices.
I have been monitoring this for the last decade, through writing recipes on my online blog and documenting the prices of ingredients in forensic detail. In 2012, 10 stock cubes from Sainsbury’s Basics range were 10p. In 2022, those same stock cubes are 39p, but only available in chicken or beef. The cheapest vegetable stock cubes are, inexplicably, £1 for 10. Last year the Smart Price pasta in my local Asda was 29p for 500g. Today, it is unavailable, so the cheapest bag is 70p; a 141% price rise for the same product in more colourful packaging. A few years ago, there were more than 400 products in the Smart Price range; today there are 87, and counting down.
And this is before home energy bills suddenly go up by an eyewatering sum (perhaps 50% or more for some customers) in the Spring. For a lot of us, I suspect that the effect of inflation will be one less night out a week, or a slightly smaller sum being put away in savings. For others - well, it looks like the food banks are going to be in need of a lot more donations and volunteers before the year is out.
I thought this was the form of cricket England were allegedly quite good at.
It is, to be fair, only three, maybe four of this team are guaranteed to make it in the starting XI for England in the T20 world cup later on this year.
If Russia invades Ukraine there is nothing the UK can do about it - I am surprised some people on here think we can . Why would we want to anyway ? It is a old historical dispute in the far east of Europe that has nothing to do with us on its western extreme.
I sort of get the posturing by the US ,EU and even the UK government to some extent - sometimes bluffing can be effective although I doubt it in this case. I just fail to get why people on here who know Russia will definitely not be bluffed by them still want us to do anything should they invade.
I agree there's very little we can do but the trouble is history tells us when dictators start getting in the mood to invade other countries and grab territory they tend not to know where to draw the line...
Indeed. In 1870 El Presidente Generalissimo Lopez *knew* that Humaitá was invulnerable, and so kicked off a war that ended up with Paraguay vs Everyone.
It only killed 90% of the male adult population of a Paraguay.....
People have commented that Paraguay is still somewhat lightly populated a century and a half later.....
If Russia invades Ukraine there is nothing the UK can do about it - I am surprised some people on here think we can . Why would we want to anyway ? It is a old historical dispute in the far east of Europe that has nothing to do with us on its western extreme.
I sort of get the posturing by the US ,EU and even the UK government to some extent - sometimes bluffing can be effective although I doubt it in this case. I just fail to get why people on here who know Russia will definitely not be bluffed by them still want us to do anything should they invade.
Instead of nuclear disarmament, a bellicose Ukraine starts a massive military build up, complete with nasty dictator threatening all the neighbours.
Why interesting? Because the implication on the position that Ukraine is too weak to resist Russia, so should be carved up is.. that nuclear armed and bellicose is the way to go.
Lots of people out there listening and thinking.
That sound you can hear is spent nuclear reactor fuel rods dissolving in nitric acid....
Sunday Times EXCLUSIVE: A Conservative MP has accused a party whip of telling her she was fired from her ministerial job because her Muslim faith was “making colleagues uncomfortable”
That is why I said make Rishi PM
Rishi became the first Hindu Chancellor because Cummings manipulated the sacking of Javid, the first Chancelllor of Muslim heritage.
If you want to appeal to Muslims, Javid would be better than Sunak (plus it is not as if there is much love lost between Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan).
I want to appeal to everyone and reject your musings on this subject
Try getting a Hindu in Birmingham to vote for a Muslim or a Muslim in Birmingham to vote for a Hindu, it is a tough job as it is often just an extension of the Kashmir dispute
Yes, but if there is one thing that is worse than a Hindu to those of that mindset, it is an apostate Muslim.
I wonder if Putin will use those top secret 15,000mph tic tac shaped fighter jets Russia has been developing for decades to reconquer Eastern Europe. Or just use tanks and SUVs instead.
Sunday Times EXCLUSIVE: A Conservative MP has accused a party whip of telling her she was fired from her ministerial job because her Muslim faith was “making colleagues uncomfortable”
That is why I said make Rishi PM
Rishi became the first Hindu Chancellor because Cummings manipulated the sacking of Javid, the first Chancelllor of Muslim heritage.
If you want to appeal to Muslims, Javid would be better than Sunak (plus it is not as if there is much love lost between Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan).
I want to appeal to everyone and reject your musings on this subject
Try getting a Hindu in Birmingham to vote for a Muslim or a Muslim in Birmingham to vote for a Hindu, it is a tough job as it is often just an extension of the Kashmir dispute
Please stop bringing race into this
In the 2019 general election the Indian Hindu nationalist BJP party campaigned for 48 Conservative candidates via its 'Overseas Friends of BJP' group due to Labour's perceived criticism of India over the Kashmir conflict.'
I quote Kuldeep Singh Shekhawat, the president of the group 'One of the politicians which OFBJP is particularly aiming to unseat is Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, the Labour candidate for Slough.
Mr Shekhawat said: "Not a single Hindu will vote for Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi this time. Hindu voters think he is working closely with the Pakistani community.
"He is always seen with Pakistanis and goes to the Pakistan high commission. He is vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Britain-Pakistan Trade and Tourism, and was vice-chair of the APPG Kashmir Group.
It's a threat to democracies everywhere. To turn on ourselves at the moment of threat is stupidly irresponsible. We all know that mistakes have been made, both by Germany and the UK, but the real problem is Russian aggression. We don't need to feel good about ourselves by sneering at each other, we need to feel good about ourselves by doing the right thing, which is protecting each other. Fucking focus, people.
What do you suggest?
Are you advocating putting British troops on the ground in Ukraine?
Seriously?
The art of diplomacy is to always have a "get out" clause - there's no point boxing Putin into a corner so his only option is military. Sometimes, public concessions on one side have to be balanced by private concessions on the other. Putin knows he won't get NATO to roll back to pre-1989 borders so what does he really want? What does he need to "save political face" and de-escalate on the Ukrainian border?
Surely the goal is that Putin doesn't have a military option?
For all this talk of 'boxing in', the goal is to discourage Putin from using tanks, planes and troops to invade another country.
Now, it's perfectly reasonable to say that we have no obligation to put troops on the ground, given the lack of any alliance. But I do think we do need to make it very clear that there would be serious consequences if Russia was to annex part of a neighbour
While Germany is heavily reliant on Russian gas to power it's industries this is not a serious option. It's extremely lamentable that a NATO ally has allowed itself to become a client state of Russian gas. We are, however, where we are and there's no route to the situation you describe - that we can make it clear to Russia that there will be severe consequences to annexing another nation or part of one.
Energy independence from Russia in the short term strikes me as not viable so what we really need to do is drag this out for a few years and get building renewable energy to replace Russian gas imports. I think that is achievable.
Edit - anyone talking about a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO needs their head examining.
Germany isn't quite as reliant on Russian gas as this board seems to think.
They have lots of gas in storage, they're building (dirty polluting) new lignite power plants, they have a tonne of wind energy, they have three gas pipelines to Norway (which are running well below capacity) and they have invested in some really interesting energy storage projects (CAES).
The total amount of energy Germany imports from Russia has roughly halved in last twenty-odd years. Then it about 12,000 petajoules of energy out of 15,000 - now it's 6,000 out of 12,000. Making up 6,000 petajoules of missing energy would be difficult - but it's far from impossible, especially as additional LNG facilities come on stream in the next three years.
But it does need political will on behalf of the Germans. And we in the UK should be aware that we will also pay a big price. Because of the lamentable failure of UK generators to enter into long term LNG supply contracts, we're almost entirely dependent on spot LNG cargoes. If both us and the Germans are bidding for them, then household electricity and gas prices will not be heading down any time soon.
If Russia invades Ukraine there is nothing the UK can do about it - I am surprised some people on here think we can . Why would we want to anyway ? It is a old historical dispute in the far east of Europe that has nothing to do with us on its western extreme.
I sort of get the posturing by the US ,EU and even the UK government to some extent - sometimes bluffing can be effective although I doubt it in this case. I just fail to get why people on here who know Russia will definitely not be bluffed by them still want us to do anything should they invade.
The US will not let Ukraine fall and that will involve NATO including ourselves
They let Afghanistan fall, Biden is an isolationist and won't do anything.
Biden will defend a NATO country from Putin, he will not defend Ukraine.
Trump would not necessarily even have defended a NATO country from Putin, he got on well with Putin. Hence as I said we cannot just rely on the US to defend Europe, we must take the lead on that with France and Turkey and Poland in containing Putin
We don't know because it has never been tried. Which might just possibly mean, what with no war on western/NATO territory since 1945, that no-one intends for now to find out. The absence of war on NATO territory is, rather obviously, the intention of NATO. It has been 100% successful. It would be good to carry on this way of not knowing whether it works. It involves millions of young men not being dead on the lands of the west including the UK.
We popped out for something to eat this afternoon. Arrived just after 2 and it was fairly busy. Other groups arrived after we did.
I witnessed the Covid theatre spectacle of a couple who had been sitting bare faced for an hour donning their masks for the thirty second walk to the door.
BTW - I had a vegan chilli followed by a slice of vegan chocolate cake. Day 22 and still meat-free.
I know people who still do the Covid theatre crap in restaurants. Bonkers.
Anyhow, whilst various amongst us recount our eating out experiences, this from the Graun: Jack Monroe on the extreme end of the cost of living crisis, as it pertains to the struggles of the least well off.
Our ruling class may have been brazenly wheeling suitcases of cheap plonk past the averted gaze of Metropolitan police officers during the last year of lockdowns, but their voters are increasingly finding themselves destitute, hungry, demoralised and priced out of the cheapest bag of apples at the supermarket.
...
The Smart Price, Basics and Value range products offered as lower-cost alternatives are stealthily being extinguished from the shelves, leaving shoppers with no choice but to “level up” to the supermarkets’ own branded goods – usually in smaller quantities at larger prices.
I have been monitoring this for the last decade, through writing recipes on my online blog and documenting the prices of ingredients in forensic detail. In 2012, 10 stock cubes from Sainsbury’s Basics range were 10p. In 2022, those same stock cubes are 39p, but only available in chicken or beef. The cheapest vegetable stock cubes are, inexplicably, £1 for 10. Last year the Smart Price pasta in my local Asda was 29p for 500g. Today, it is unavailable, so the cheapest bag is 70p; a 141% price rise for the same product in more colourful packaging. A few years ago, there were more than 400 products in the Smart Price range; today there are 87, and counting down.
And this is before home energy bills suddenly go up by an eyewatering sum (perhaps 50% or more for some customers) in the Spring. For a lot of us, I suspect that the effect of inflation will be one less night out a week, or a slightly smaller sum being put away in savings. For others - well, it looks like the food banks are going to be in need of a lot more donations and volunteers before the year is out.
Jack Monroe is brilliant, and not just because she successfully sued Katie Hopkins for libel. She's one of the few people who actually understands food poverty and what it means. She's right to point out that inflation hits the food bought by the poor the most. The Labour Party would do well to recruit her.
For those interested, her Twitter account is full of good stuff. A recent thread, related to The Observer article, has gone viral:
It's a threat to democracies everywhere. To turn on ourselves at the moment of threat is stupidly irresponsible. We all know that mistakes have been made, both by Germany and the UK, but the real problem is Russian aggression. We don't need to feel good about ourselves by sneering at each other, we need to feel good about ourselves by doing the right thing, which is protecting each other. Fucking focus, people.
What do you suggest?
Are you advocating putting British troops on the ground in Ukraine?
Seriously?
The art of diplomacy is to always have a "get out" clause - there's no point boxing Putin into a corner so his only option is military. Sometimes, public concessions on one side have to be balanced by private concessions on the other. Putin knows he won't get NATO to roll back to pre-1989 borders so what does he really want? What does he need to "save political face" and de-escalate on the Ukrainian border?
Surely the goal is that Putin doesn't have a military option?
For all this talk of 'boxing in', the goal is to discourage Putin from using tanks, planes and troops to invade another country.
Now, it's perfectly reasonable to say that we have no obligation to put troops on the ground, given the lack of any alliance. But I do think we do need to make it very clear that there would be serious consequences if Russia was to annex part of a neighbour
While Germany is heavily reliant on Russian gas to power it's industries this is not a serious option. It's extremely lamentable that a NATO ally has allowed itself to become a client state of Russian gas. We are, however, where we are and there's no route to the situation you describe - that we can make it clear to Russia that there will be severe consequences to annexing another nation or part of one.
Energy independence from Russia in the short term strikes me as not viable so what we really need to do is drag this out for a few years and get building renewable energy to replace Russian gas imports. I think that is achievable.
Edit - anyone talking about a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO needs their head examining.
Germany isn't quite as reliant on Russian gas as this board seems to think.
They have lots of gas in storage, they're building (dirty polluting) new lignite power plants, they have a tonne of wind energy, they have three gas pipelines to Norway (which are running well below capacity) and they have invested in some really interesting energy storage projects (CAES).
The total amount of energy Germany imports from Russia has roughly halved in last twenty-odd years. Then it about 12,000 petajoules of energy out of 15,000 - now it's 6,000 out of 12,000. Making up 6,000 petajoules of missing energy would be difficult - but it's far from impossible, especially as additional LNG facilities come on stream in the next three years.
But it does need political will on behalf of the Germans. And we in the UK should be aware that we will also pay a big price. Because of the lamentable failure of UK generators to enter into long term LNG supply contracts, we're almost entirely dependent on spot LNG cargoes. If both us and the Germans are bidding for them, then household electricity and gas prices will not be heading down any time soon.
50% of energy supply = a stranglehold. Even if it is in the short term.
It is interesting to look at the German politicians who opposed *other countries* having LNG import terminals.
Sunday Times EXCLUSIVE: A Conservative MP has accused a party whip of telling her she was fired from her ministerial job because her Muslim faith was “making colleagues uncomfortable”
That is why I said make Rishi PM
Rishi became the first Hindu Chancellor because Cummings manipulated the sacking of Javid, the first Chancelllor of Muslim heritage.
If you want to appeal to Muslims, Javid would be better than Sunak (plus it is not as if there is much love lost between Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan).
I want to appeal to everyone and reject your musings on this subject
Try getting a Hindu in Birmingham to vote for a Muslim or a Muslim in Birmingham to vote for a Hindu, it is a tough job as it is often just an extension of the Kashmir dispute
Please stop bringing race into this
In the 2019 general election the Indian Hindu nationalist BJP party campaigned for 48 Conservative candidates via its 'Overseas Friends of BJP' group due to Labour's perceived criticism of India over the Kashmir conflict.'
I quote Kuldeep Singh Shekhawat, the president of the group 'One of the politicians which OFBJP is particularly aiming to unseat is Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, the Labour candidate for Slough.
Mr Shekhawat said: "Not a single Hindu will vote for Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi this time. Hindu voters think he is working closely with the Pakistani community.
"He is always seen with Pakistanis and goes to the Pakistan high commission. He is vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Britain-Pakistan Trade and Tourism, and was vice-chair of the APPG Kashmir Group.
It's a threat to democracies everywhere. To turn on ourselves at the moment of threat is stupidly irresponsible. We all know that mistakes have been made, both by Germany and the UK, but the real problem is Russian aggression. We don't need to feel good about ourselves by sneering at each other, we need to feel good about ourselves by doing the right thing, which is protecting each other. Fucking focus, people.
What do you suggest?
Are you advocating putting British troops on the ground in Ukraine?
Seriously?
The art of diplomacy is to always have a "get out" clause - there's no point boxing Putin into a corner so his only option is military. Sometimes, public concessions on one side have to be balanced by private concessions on the other. Putin knows he won't get NATO to roll back to pre-1989 borders so what does he really want? What does he need to "save political face" and de-escalate on the Ukrainian border?
Surely the goal is that Putin doesn't have a military option?
For all this talk of 'boxing in', the goal is to discourage Putin from using tanks, planes and troops to invade another country.
Now, it's perfectly reasonable to say that we have no obligation to put troops on the ground, given the lack of any alliance. But I do think we do need to make it very clear that there would be serious consequences if Russia was to annex part of a neighbour
While Germany is heavily reliant on Russian gas to power it's industries this is not a serious option. It's extremely lamentable that a NATO ally has allowed itself to become a client state of Russian gas. We are, however, where we are and there's no route to the situation you describe - that we can make it clear to Russia that there will be severe consequences to annexing another nation or part of one.
Energy independence from Russia in the short term strikes me as not viable so what we really need to do is drag this out for a few years and get building renewable energy to replace Russian gas imports. I think that is achievable.
Edit - anyone talking about a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO needs their head examining.
Germany isn't quite as reliant on Russian gas as this board seems to think.
They have lots of gas in storage, they're building (dirty polluting) new lignite power plants, they have a tonne of wind energy, they have three gas pipelines to Norway (which are running well below capacity) and they have invested in some really interesting energy storage projects (CAES).
The total amount of energy Germany imports from Russia has roughly halved in last twenty-odd years. Then it about 12,000 petajoules of energy out of 15,000 - now it's 6,000 out of 12,000. Making up 6,000 petajoules of missing energy would be difficult - but it's far from impossible, especially as additional LNG facilities come on stream in the next three years.
But it does need political will on behalf of the Germans. And we in the UK should be aware that we will also pay a big price. Because of the lamentable failure of UK generators to enter into long term LNG supply contracts, we're almost entirely dependent on spot LNG cargoes. If both us and the Germans are bidding for them, then household electricity and gas prices will not be heading down any time soon.
50% of energy supply = a stranglehold. Even if it is in the short term.
It is interesting to look at the German politicians who opposed *other countries* having LNG import terminals.
Yeah, but a chunk of that is oil, rather than gas, which is completely fungible.
Gene Roddenberry was a huge fan of C.S. Forrester books, that's why.
Which might explain Star Trek, but Star Wars is also naval
Stargate the spaceships were Airforce.
There were quite a few in-show jokes about that. Especially when they started building real starships....
It cannot be many shows that get cameos from the actual head of the Airforce and the Chief of the Defence Staff - presenting the Airforce as the competent and noble defenders of multiple galaxies, who still had to fight for their tiny budget by meddling politicos, may have helped.
It's a threat to democracies everywhere. To turn on ourselves at the moment of threat is stupidly irresponsible. We all know that mistakes have been made, both by Germany and the UK, but the real problem is Russian aggression. We don't need to feel good about ourselves by sneering at each other, we need to feel good about ourselves by doing the right thing, which is protecting each other. Fucking focus, people.
What do you suggest?
Are you advocating putting British troops on the ground in Ukraine?
Seriously?
The art of diplomacy is to always have a "get out" clause - there's no point boxing Putin into a corner so his only option is military. Sometimes, public concessions on one side have to be balanced by private concessions on the other. Putin knows he won't get NATO to roll back to pre-1989 borders so what does he really want? What does he need to "save political face" and de-escalate on the Ukrainian border?
Surely the goal is that Putin doesn't have a military option?
For all this talk of 'boxing in', the goal is to discourage Putin from using tanks, planes and troops to invade another country.
Now, it's perfectly reasonable to say that we have no obligation to put troops on the ground, given the lack of any alliance. But I do think we do need to make it very clear that there would be serious consequences if Russia was to annex part of a neighbour
While Germany is heavily reliant on Russian gas to power it's industries this is not a serious option. It's extremely lamentable that a NATO ally has allowed itself to become a client state of Russian gas. We are, however, where we are and there's no route to the situation you describe - that we can make it clear to Russia that there will be severe consequences to annexing another nation or part of one.
Energy independence from Russia in the short term strikes me as not viable so what we really need to do is drag this out for a few years and get building renewable energy to replace Russian gas imports. I think that is achievable.
Edit - anyone talking about a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO needs their head examining.
Germany isn't quite as reliant on Russian gas as this board seems to think.
They have lots of gas in storage, they're building (dirty polluting) new lignite power plants, they have a tonne of wind energy, they have three gas pipelines to Norway (which are running well below capacity) and they have invested in some really interesting energy storage projects (CAES).
The total amount of energy Germany imports from Russia has roughly halved in last twenty-odd years. Then it about 12,000 petajoules of energy out of 15,000 - now it's 6,000 out of 12,000. Making up 6,000 petajoules of missing energy would be difficult - but it's far from impossible, especially as additional LNG facilities come on stream in the next three years.
But it does need political will on behalf of the Germans. And we in the UK should be aware that we will also pay a big price. Because of the lamentable failure of UK generators to enter into long term LNG supply contracts, we're almost entirely dependent on spot LNG cargoes. If both us and the Germans are bidding for them, then household electricity and gas prices will not be heading down any time soon.
If Russia invades Ukraine there is nothing the UK can do about it - I am surprised some people on here think we can . Why would we want to anyway ? It is a old historical dispute in the far east of Europe that has nothing to do with us on its western extreme.
I sort of get the posturing by the US ,EU and even the UK government to some extent - sometimes bluffing can be effective although I doubt it in this case. I just fail to get why people on here who know Russia will definitely not be bluffed by them still want us to do anything should they invade.
Instead of nuclear disarmament, a bellicose Ukraine starts a massive military build up, complete with nasty dictator threatening all the neighbours.
Why interesting? Because the implication on the position that Ukraine is too weak to resist Russia, so should be carved up is.. that nuclear armed and bellicose is the way to go.
Lots of people out there listening and thinking.
That sound you can hear is spent nuclear reactor fuel rods dissolving in nitric acid....
Lewis Page made this point 20 years ago.
If you were in charge of Taiwan, would you be thinking - "Gee, relying on other countries for defence is sooooo nice. It makes us such nice, happy people. We should never have nuclear weapons. Never" ?
Ditto Japan.
Ditto South Korea.
And every day that passes, more Plutonium 240 becomes Uranium 236...... The future beckons and it is so very, very bright......
If Russia invades Ukraine there is nothing the UK can do about it - I am surprised some people on here think we can . Why would we want to anyway ? It is a old historical dispute in the far east of Europe that has nothing to do with us on its western extreme.
I sort of get the posturing by the US ,EU and even the UK government to some extent - sometimes bluffing can be effective although I doubt it in this case. I just fail to get why people on here who know Russia will definitely not be bluffed by them still want us to do anything should they invade.
Instead of nuclear disarmament, a bellicose Ukraine starts a massive military build up, complete with nasty dictator threatening all the neighbours.
Why interesting? Because the implication on the position that Ukraine is too weak to resist Russia, so should be carved up is.. that nuclear armed and bellicose is the way to go.
Lots of people out there listening and thinking.
That sound you can hear is spent nuclear reactor fuel rods dissolving in nitric acid....
Lewis Page made this point 20 years ago.
If you were in charge of Taiwan, would you be thinking - "Gee, relying on other countries for defence is sooooo nice. It makes us such nice, happy people. We should never have nuclear weapons. Never" ?
Ditto Japan.
Ditto South Korea.
And every day that passes, more Plutonium 240 becomes Uranium 236...... The future beckons and it is so very, very bright......
Russia may be a bit dodgy in terms of it being run as a big men cartel but it is not unique in being a bit dodgy even amongst "western " countries and client states. I dont know much about ukraine politics but I doubt it is an angelic paradise. The UK should butt out and stop thinking we still police the world. It is nothing to do with us and despite what governments pump out , the world is not black and white in terms of goodies and baddies , it is a mere grey world .Wars dont free people they enslave them to governments
I also note today that PB's elite team of armchair warriors, having given up for now on China invading Taiwan or the UK invading France, are, in the immortal words of Kenny Everett, in "let's bomb Russia" mode. And they want Germany to join in, regardless of the perilous history that has given rise to Germany's caution in respect of military adventurism. Hm.
If Russia invades Ukraine there is nothing the UK can do about it - I am surprised some people on here think we can . Why would we want to anyway ? It is a old historical dispute in the far east of Europe that has nothing to do with us on its western extreme.
I sort of get the posturing by the US ,EU and even the UK government to some extent - sometimes bluffing can be effective although I doubt it in this case. I just fail to get why people on here who know Russia will definitely not be bluffed by them still want us to do anything should they invade.
Instead of nuclear disarmament, a bellicose Ukraine starts a massive military build up, complete with nasty dictator threatening all the neighbours.
Why interesting? Because the implication on the position that Ukraine is too weak to resist Russia, so should be carved up is.. that nuclear armed and bellicose is the way to go.
Lots of people out there listening and thinking.
That sound you can hear is spent nuclear reactor fuel rods dissolving in nitric acid....
Lewis Page made this point 20 years ago.
If you were in charge of Taiwan, would you be thinking - "Gee, relying on other countries for defence is sooooo nice. It makes us such nice, happy people. We should never have nuclear weapons. Never" ?
Ditto Japan.
Ditto South Korea.
And every day that passes, more Plutonium 240 becomes Uranium 236...... The future beckons and it is so very, very bright......
Positively incandescent.
For a brief moment, the heart of a large fusion bomb exceeds the temperature and pressures of even a supernova - for an instant it is the most intense thing in the universe since the Big Bang.
On planets circling other stars, the unique light from some of the big tests will be visible. Will alien eyes on unknown worlds see that light through their telescopes and realise the message?
It's a threat to democracies everywhere. To turn on ourselves at the moment of threat is stupidly irresponsible. We all know that mistakes have been made, both by Germany and the UK, but the real problem is Russian aggression. We don't need to feel good about ourselves by sneering at each other, we need to feel good about ourselves by doing the right thing, which is protecting each other. Fucking focus, people.
What do you suggest?
Are you advocating putting British troops on the ground in Ukraine?
Seriously?
The art of diplomacy is to always have a "get out" clause - there's no point boxing Putin into a corner so his only option is military. Sometimes, public concessions on one side have to be balanced by private concessions on the other. Putin knows he won't get NATO to roll back to pre-1989 borders so what does he really want? What does he need to "save political face" and de-escalate on the Ukrainian border?
Surely the goal is that Putin doesn't have a military option?
For all this talk of 'boxing in', the goal is to discourage Putin from using tanks, planes and troops to invade another country.
Now, it's perfectly reasonable to say that we have no obligation to put troops on the ground, given the lack of any alliance. But I do think we do need to make it very clear that there would be serious consequences if Russia was to annex part of a neighbour
While Germany is heavily reliant on Russian gas to power it's industries this is not a serious option. It's extremely lamentable that a NATO ally has allowed itself to become a client state of Russian gas. We are, however, where we are and there's no route to the situation you describe - that we can make it clear to Russia that there will be severe consequences to annexing another nation or part of one.
Energy independence from Russia in the short term strikes me as not viable so what we really need to do is drag this out for a few years and get building renewable energy to replace Russian gas imports. I think that is achievable.
Edit - anyone talking about a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO needs their head examining.
Germany isn't quite as reliant on Russian gas as this board seems to think.
They have lots of gas in storage, they're building (dirty polluting) new lignite power plants, they have a tonne of wind energy, they have three gas pipelines to Norway (which are running well below capacity) and they have invested in some really interesting energy storage projects (CAES).
The total amount of energy Germany imports from Russia has roughly halved in last twenty-odd years. Then it about 12,000 petajoules of energy out of 15,000 - now it's 6,000 out of 12,000. Making up 6,000 petajoules of missing energy would be difficult - but it's far from impossible, especially as additional LNG facilities come on stream in the next three years.
But it does need political will on behalf of the Germans. And we in the UK should be aware that we will also pay a big price. Because of the lamentable failure of UK generators to enter into long term LNG supply contracts, we're almost entirely dependent on spot LNG cargoes. If both us and the Germans are bidding for them, then household electricity and gas prices will not be heading down any time soon.
50% of energy supply = a stranglehold. Even if it is in the short term.
It is interesting to look at the German politicians who opposed *other countries* having LNG import terminals.
Yeah, but a chunk of that is oil, rather than gas, which is completely fungible.
If I remember rightly gas still flowed from the USSR to Western Europe at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Switching it off is in my opinion a single use only weapon, as it would run the risk of forcing Russia’s key export market into rapidly and permanently diversifying it’s supply sources away from such an unreliable supplier. Energy MAD if you will. It’s not clear the Germans realise this, or perhaps they do but are short termist in their goals.
I also note today that PB's elite team of armchair warriors, having given up for now on China invading Taiwan or the UK invading France, are, in the immortal words of Kenny Everett, in "let's bomb Russia" mode. And they want Germany to join in, regardless of the perilous history that has given rise to Germany's caution in respect of military adventurism. Hm.
Yes, I'd forgotten that he also said "let's kick Michael Foot's stick away". Thatcher thought that was hilarious.
That was of course the election where the SDP under Roy Jenkins almost overtook Foot's Labour, getting 25% to Labour's 27% and Thatcher's Tories got 42% and won 397 seats and a landslide majority of 144.
If it was ever going to be safe for a celebrity to mock a Labour leader it was with Foot in 1983, even more so than Corbyn in 2019
I also note today that PB's elite team of armchair warriors, having given up for now on China invading Taiwan or the UK invading France, are, in the immortal words of Kenny Everett, in "let's bomb Russia" mode. And they want Germany to join in, regardless of the perilous history that has given rise to Germany's caution in respect of military adventurism. Hm.
It's a threat to democracies everywhere. To turn on ourselves at the moment of threat is stupidly irresponsible. We all know that mistakes have been made, both by Germany and the UK, but the real problem is Russian aggression. We don't need to feel good about ourselves by sneering at each other, we need to feel good about ourselves by doing the right thing, which is protecting each other. Fucking focus, people.
What do you suggest?
Are you advocating putting British troops on the ground in Ukraine?
Seriously?
The art of diplomacy is to always have a "get out" clause - there's no point boxing Putin into a corner so his only option is military. Sometimes, public concessions on one side have to be balanced by private concessions on the other. Putin knows he won't get NATO to roll back to pre-1989 borders so what does he really want? What does he need to "save political face" and de-escalate on the Ukrainian border?
Surely the goal is that Putin doesn't have a military option?
For all this talk of 'boxing in', the goal is to discourage Putin from using tanks, planes and troops to invade another country.
Now, it's perfectly reasonable to say that we have no obligation to put troops on the ground, given the lack of any alliance. But I do think we do need to make it very clear that there would be serious consequences if Russia was to annex part of a neighbour
While Germany is heavily reliant on Russian gas to power it's industries this is not a serious option. It's extremely lamentable that a NATO ally has allowed itself to become a client state of Russian gas. We are, however, where we are and there's no route to the situation you describe - that we can make it clear to Russia that there will be severe consequences to annexing another nation or part of one.
Energy independence from Russia in the short term strikes me as not viable so what we really need to do is drag this out for a few years and get building renewable energy to replace Russian gas imports. I think that is achievable.
Edit - anyone talking about a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO needs their head examining.
Germany isn't quite as reliant on Russian gas as this board seems to think.
They have lots of gas in storage, they're building (dirty polluting) new lignite power plants, they have a tonne of wind energy, they have three gas pipelines to Norway (which are running well below capacity) and they have invested in some really interesting energy storage projects (CAES).
The total amount of energy Germany imports from Russia has roughly halved in last twenty-odd years. Then it about 12,000 petajoules of energy out of 15,000 - now it's 6,000 out of 12,000. Making up 6,000 petajoules of missing energy would be difficult - but it's far from impossible, especially as additional LNG facilities come on stream in the next three years.
But it does need political will on behalf of the Germans. And we in the UK should be aware that we will also pay a big price. Because of the lamentable failure of UK generators to enter into long term LNG supply contracts, we're almost entirely dependent on spot LNG cargoes. If both us and the Germans are bidding for them, then household electricity and gas prices will not be heading down any time soon.
Agree and add:
In the longer term gas prices should be high to drive the switch to renewables, which consequently should be getting cheaper. It would be better if it weren't delivered as a shock however. I am not massively keen on nuclear because it's too expensive and weighs on the carbon neutral part of that switch.
I think there's an ongoing role for coal for energy security, as long as you almost never use it. Coal is presumably cheap and easy to store and the power stations are also cheap to build if you stick to basic pollution minimisation methods.
Russia may be a bit dodgy in terms of it being run as a big men cartel but it is not unique in being a bit dodgy even amongst "western " countries and client states. I dont know much about ukraine politics but I doubt it is an angelic paradise. The UK should butt out and stop thinking we still police the world. It is nothing to do with us and despite what governments pump out , the world is not black and white in terms of goodies and baddies , it is a mere grey world .Wars dont free people they enslave them to governments
Ah yes. "She was asking for it, i tell you. Dressing like that. Answering back. Only natural to..."
It's a threat to democracies everywhere. To turn on ourselves at the moment of threat is stupidly irresponsible. We all know that mistakes have been made, both by Germany and the UK, but the real problem is Russian aggression. We don't need to feel good about ourselves by sneering at each other, we need to feel good about ourselves by doing the right thing, which is protecting each other. Fucking focus, people.
What do you suggest?
Are you advocating putting British troops on the ground in Ukraine?
Seriously?
The art of diplomacy is to always have a "get out" clause - there's no point boxing Putin into a corner so his only option is military. Sometimes, public concessions on one side have to be balanced by private concessions on the other. Putin knows he won't get NATO to roll back to pre-1989 borders so what does he really want? What does he need to "save political face" and de-escalate on the Ukrainian border?
Surely the goal is that Putin doesn't have a military option?
For all this talk of 'boxing in', the goal is to discourage Putin from using tanks, planes and troops to invade another country.
Now, it's perfectly reasonable to say that we have no obligation to put troops on the ground, given the lack of any alliance. But I do think we do need to make it very clear that there would be serious consequences if Russia was to annex part of a neighbour
While Germany is heavily reliant on Russian gas to power it's industries this is not a serious option. It's extremely lamentable that a NATO ally has allowed itself to become a client state of Russian gas. We are, however, where we are and there's no route to the situation you describe - that we can make it clear to Russia that there will be severe consequences to annexing another nation or part of one.
Energy independence from Russia in the short term strikes me as not viable so what we really need to do is drag this out for a few years and get building renewable energy to replace Russian gas imports. I think that is achievable.
Edit - anyone talking about a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO needs their head examining.
Germany isn't quite as reliant on Russian gas as this board seems to think.
They have lots of gas in storage, they're building (dirty polluting) new lignite power plants, they have a tonne of wind energy, they have three gas pipelines to Norway (which are running well below capacity) and they have invested in some really interesting energy storage projects (CAES).
The total amount of energy Germany imports from Russia has roughly halved in last twenty-odd years. Then it about 12,000 petajoules of energy out of 15,000 - now it's 6,000 out of 12,000. Making up 6,000 petajoules of missing energy would be difficult - but it's far from impossible, especially as additional LNG facilities come on stream in the next three years.
But it does need political will on behalf of the Germans. And we in the UK should be aware that we will also pay a big price. Because of the lamentable failure of UK generators to enter into long term LNG supply contracts, we're almost entirely dependent on spot LNG cargoes. If both us and the Germans are bidding for them, then household electricity and gas prices will not be heading down any time soon.
50% of energy supply = a stranglehold. Even if it is in the short term.
It is interesting to look at the German politicians who opposed *other countries* having LNG import terminals.
Yeah, but a chunk of that is oil, rather than gas, which is completely fungible.
If I remember rightly gas still flowed from the USSR to Western Europe at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Switching it off is in my opinion a single use only weapon, as it would run the risk of forcing Russia’s key export market into rapidly and permanently diversifying it’s supply sources away from such an unreliable supplier. Energy MAD if you will. It’s not clear the Germans realise this, or perhaps they do but are short termist in their goals.
Again i am thinking people are getting a bit confused about who has the upper hand here in terms of gas - germans cut off supply and Russians dont get paid - Not sure what the Russian translation of "meh" is but they may not have as much money but they would have gas ,meanwhile everyone else shivers and grinds to a halt. Perhaps we should not have been so afraid of fracking the stuff when we had the chance
Russia may be a bit dodgy in terms of it being run as a big men cartel but it is not unique in being a bit dodgy even amongst "western " countries and client states. I dont know much about ukraine politics but I doubt it is an angelic paradise. The UK should butt out and stop thinking we still police the world. It is nothing to do with us and despite what governments pump out , the world is not black and white in terms of goodies and baddies , it is a mere grey world .Wars dont free people they enslave them to governments
We are a mid ranked power with interests around the globe.
It is absolutely critical that regional superpowers don’t believe they can through their weight around in a defined sphere of influence
We popped out for something to eat this afternoon. Arrived just after 2 and it was fairly busy. Other groups arrived after we did.
I witnessed the Covid theatre spectacle of a couple who had been sitting bare faced for an hour donning their masks for the thirty second walk to the door.
BTW - I had a vegan chilli followed by a slice of vegan chocolate cake. Day 22 and still meat-free.
I know people who still do the Covid theatre crap in restaurants. Bonkers.
Anyhow, whilst various amongst us recount our eating out experiences, this from the Graun: Jack Monroe on the extreme end of the cost of living crisis, as it pertains to the struggles of the least well off.
Our ruling class may have been brazenly wheeling suitcases of cheap plonk past the averted gaze of Metropolitan police officers during the last year of lockdowns, but their voters are increasingly finding themselves destitute, hungry, demoralised and priced out of the cheapest bag of apples at the supermarket.
...
The Smart Price, Basics and Value range products offered as lower-cost alternatives are stealthily being extinguished from the shelves, leaving shoppers with no choice but to “level up” to the supermarkets’ own branded goods – usually in smaller quantities at larger prices.
I have been monitoring this for the last decade, through writing recipes on my online blog and documenting the prices of ingredients in forensic detail. In 2012, 10 stock cubes from Sainsbury’s Basics range were 10p. In 2022, those same stock cubes are 39p, but only available in chicken or beef. The cheapest vegetable stock cubes are, inexplicably, £1 for 10. Last year the Smart Price pasta in my local Asda was 29p for 500g. Today, it is unavailable, so the cheapest bag is 70p; a 141% price rise for the same product in more colourful packaging. A few years ago, there were more than 400 products in the Smart Price range; today there are 87, and counting down.
And this is before home energy bills suddenly go up by an eyewatering sum (perhaps 50% or more for some customers) in the Spring. For a lot of us, I suspect that the effect of inflation will be one less night out a week, or a slightly smaller sum being put away in savings. For others - well, it looks like the food banks are going to be in need of a lot more donations and volunteers before the year is out.
Jack Monroe is brilliant, and not just because she successfully sued Katie Hopkins for libel. She's one of the few people who actually understands food poverty and what it means. She's right to point out that inflation hits the food bought by the poor the most. The Labour Party would do well to recruit her.
For those interested, her Twitter account is full of good stuff. A recent thread, related to The Observer article, has gone viral:
Indeed, I shall follow her. These are exactly the sorts of problems that it's very easy, when you're not exactly rich but don't really want for anything, not to even think about.
I also note today that PB's elite team of armchair warriors, having given up for now on China invading Taiwan or the UK invading France, are, in the immortal words of Kenny Everett, in "let's bomb Russia" mode. And they want Germany to join in, regardless of the perilous history that has given rise to Germany's caution in respect of military adventurism. Hm.
I also note today that PB's elite team of armchair warriors, having given up for now on China invading Taiwan or the UK invading France, are, in the immortal words of Kenny Everett, in "let's bomb Russia" mode. And they want Germany to join in, regardless of the perilous history that has given rise to Germany's caution in respect of military adventurism. Hm.
Yes, I'd forgotten that he also said "let's kick Michael Foot's stick away". Thatcher thought that was hilarious.
That was of course the election where the SDP under Roy Jenkins almost overtook Foot's Labour, getting 25% to Labour's 27% and Thatcher's Tories got 42% and won 397 seats and a landslide majority of 144.
If it was ever going to be safe for a celebrity to mock a Labour leader it was with Foot in 1983, even more so than Corbyn in 2019
Progressive Alliance got 52% of the vote back then, 10 points more than the Tories.
Russia may be a bit dodgy in terms of it being run as a big men cartel but it is not unique in being a bit dodgy even amongst "western " countries and client states. I dont know much about ukraine politics but I doubt it is an angelic paradise. The UK should butt out and stop thinking we still police the world. It is nothing to do with us and despite what governments pump out , the world is not black and white in terms of goodies and baddies , it is a mere grey world .Wars dont free people they enslave them to governments
We. Signed. A. Treaty.
That treaty said that the Ukraine would give up nuclear weapons and we would guarantee its independence and security. If we fail to do so it sends a clear message to every other country that sees themselves threatened that the only way they can secure their own safety in the face of aggression from a larger neighbour is to have nuclear weapons.
Do you really think we will be a safer country as a result of that?
Russia may be a bit dodgy in terms of it being run as a big men cartel but it is not unique in being a bit dodgy even amongst "western " countries and client states. I dont know much about ukraine politics but I doubt it is an angelic paradise. The UK should butt out and stop thinking we still police the world. It is nothing to do with us and despite what governments pump out , the world is not black and white in terms of goodies and baddies , it is a mere grey world .Wars dont free people they enslave them to governments
We are a mid ranked power with interests around the globe.
It is absolutely critical that regional superpowers don’t believe they can through their weight around in a defined sphere of influence
There's sometimes a strange philosophy, which to me appears somewhat opposed but is held simultaneously, that we are in a new global, interconnected world where all should work together, but also that nothing that happens anyway is another's business.
If Russia invades Ukraine there is nothing the UK can do about it - I am surprised some people on here think we can . Why would we want to anyway ? It is a old historical dispute in the far east of Europe that has nothing to do with us on its western extreme.
I sort of get the posturing by the US ,EU and even the UK government to some extent - sometimes bluffing can be effective although I doubt it in this case. I just fail to get why people on here who know Russia will definitely not be bluffed by them still want us to do anything should they invade.
Instead of nuclear disarmament, a bellicose Ukraine starts a massive military build up, complete with nasty dictator threatening all the neighbours.
Why interesting? Because the implication on the position that Ukraine is too weak to resist Russia, so should be carved up is.. that nuclear armed and bellicose is the way to go.
Lots of people out there listening and thinking.
That sound you can hear is spent nuclear reactor fuel rods dissolving in nitric acid....
Lewis Page made this point 20 years ago.
If you were in charge of Taiwan, would you be thinking - "Gee, relying on other countries for defence is sooooo nice. It makes us such nice, happy people. We should never have nuclear weapons. Never" ?
Ditto Japan.
Ditto South Korea.
And every day that passes, more Plutonium 240 becomes Uranium 236...... The future beckons and it is so very, very bright......
It's a threat to democracies everywhere. To turn on ourselves at the moment of threat is stupidly irresponsible. We all know that mistakes have been made, both by Germany and the UK, but the real problem is Russian aggression. We don't need to feel good about ourselves by sneering at each other, we need to feel good about ourselves by doing the right thing, which is protecting each other. Fucking focus, people.
What do you suggest?
Are you advocating putting British troops on the ground in Ukraine?
Seriously?
The art of diplomacy is to always have a "get out" clause - there's no point boxing Putin into a corner so his only option is military. Sometimes, public concessions on one side have to be balanced by private concessions on the other. Putin knows he won't get NATO to roll back to pre-1989 borders so what does he really want? What does he need to "save political face" and de-escalate on the Ukrainian border?
Surely the goal is that Putin doesn't have a military option?
For all this talk of 'boxing in', the goal is to discourage Putin from using tanks, planes and troops to invade another country.
Now, it's perfectly reasonable to say that we have no obligation to put troops on the ground, given the lack of any alliance. But I do think we do need to make it very clear that there would be serious consequences if Russia was to annex part of a neighbour
While Germany is heavily reliant on Russian gas to power it's industries this is not a serious option. It's extremely lamentable that a NATO ally has allowed itself to become a client state of Russian gas. We are, however, where we are and there's no route to the situation you describe - that we can make it clear to Russia that there will be severe consequences to annexing another nation or part of one.
Energy independence from Russia in the short term strikes me as not viable so what we really need to do is drag this out for a few years and get building renewable energy to replace Russian gas imports. I think that is achievable.
Edit - anyone talking about a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO needs their head examining.
Germany isn't quite as reliant on Russian gas as this board seems to think.
They have lots of gas in storage, they're building (dirty polluting) new lignite power plants, they have a tonne of wind energy, they have three gas pipelines to Norway (which are running well below capacity) and they have invested in some really interesting energy storage projects (CAES).
The total amount of energy Germany imports from Russia has roughly halved in last twenty-odd years. Then it about 12,000 petajoules of energy out of 15,000 - now it's 6,000 out of 12,000. Making up 6,000 petajoules of missing energy would be difficult - but it's far from impossible, especially as additional LNG facilities come on stream in the next three years.
But it does need political will on behalf of the Germans. And we in the UK should be aware that we will also pay a big price. Because of the lamentable failure of UK generators to enter into long term LNG supply contracts, we're almost entirely dependent on spot LNG cargoes. If both us and the Germans are bidding for them, then household electricity and gas prices will not be heading down any time soon.
50% of energy supply = a stranglehold. Even if it is in the short term.
It is interesting to look at the German politicians who opposed *other countries* having LNG import terminals.
Yeah, but a chunk of that is oil, rather than gas, which is completely fungible.
If I remember rightly gas still flowed from the USSR to Western Europe at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Switching it off is in my opinion a single use only weapon, as it would run the risk of forcing Russia’s key export market into rapidly and permanently diversifying it’s supply sources away from such an unreliable supplier. Energy MAD if you will. It’s not clear the Germans realise this, or perhaps they do but are short termist in their goals.
Again i am thinking people are getting a bit confused about who has the upper hand here in terms of gas - germans cut off supply and Russians dont get paid - Not sure what the Russian translation of "meh" is but they may not have as much money but they would have gas ,meanwhile everyone else shivers and grinds to a halt
What the Russians have done in the past is reduce supply and raise the price. Tighten supply just enough to cause problems, and then demand things...
If Russia invades Ukraine there is nothing the UK can do about it - I am surprised some people on here think we can . Why would we want to anyway ? It is a old historical dispute in the far east of Europe that has nothing to do with us on its western extreme.
I sort of get the posturing by the US ,EU and even the UK government to some extent - sometimes bluffing can be effective although I doubt it in this case. I just fail to get why people on here who know Russia will definitely not be bluffed by them still want us to do anything should they invade.
Instead of nuclear disarmament, a bellicose Ukraine starts a massive military build up, complete with nasty dictator threatening all the neighbours.
Why interesting? Because the implication on the position that Ukraine is too weak to resist Russia, so should be carved up is.. that nuclear armed and bellicose is the way to go.
Lots of people out there listening and thinking.
That sound you can hear is spent nuclear reactor fuel rods dissolving in nitric acid....
Lewis Page made this point 20 years ago.
If you were in charge of Taiwan, would you be thinking - "Gee, relying on other countries for defence is sooooo nice. It makes us such nice, happy people. We should never have nuclear weapons. Never" ?
Ditto Japan.
Ditto South Korea.
And every day that passes, more Plutonium 240 becomes Uranium 236...... The future beckons and it is so very, very bright......
You have the nucleus of a good argument there.
The fission of European defence will lead to the compression of Ukraine by Russia. Which will ignite the spark plug which will start the fusion of parts of Russia and Ukraine. With will, in turn cause the fission of treaties against non-proliferation world wide.
Russia may be a bit dodgy in terms of it being run as a big men cartel but it is not unique in being a bit dodgy even amongst "western " countries and client states. I dont know much about ukraine politics but I doubt it is an angelic paradise. The UK should butt out and stop thinking we still police the world. It is nothing to do with us and despite what governments pump out , the world is not black and white in terms of goodies and baddies , it is a mere grey world .Wars dont free people they enslave them to governments
We. Signed. A. Treaty.
That treaty said that the Ukraine would give up nuclear weapons and we would guarantee its independence and security. If we fail to do so it sends a clear message to every other country that sees themselves threatened that the only way they can secure their own safety in the face of aggression from a larger neighbour is to have nuclear weapons.
Do you really think we will be a safer country as a result of that?
yes because nearly all counties are the same deep down and no country is fundamentally more virtuous than any other. I cannot think of any country that actually wants to take over the world in any case just merely solve historical disputes usually on their own borders.Stupid to sign the treaty in the first place and may need to be pragmatic to break it. Do you really think the average person in this country wants to risk war with a country that has the second biggest nuclear arsenal in the world ? No of course not and if in the eyes of some some honour is lost then so be it
I also note today that PB's elite team of armchair warriors, having given up for now on China invading Taiwan or the UK invading France, are, in the immortal words of Kenny Everett, in "let's bomb Russia" mode. And they want Germany to join in, regardless of the perilous history that has given rise to Germany's caution in respect of military adventurism. Hm.
Yes, I'd forgotten that he also said "let's kick Michael Foot's stick away". Thatcher thought that was hilarious.
That was of course the election where the SDP under Roy Jenkins almost overtook Foot's Labour, getting 25% to Labour's 27% and Thatcher's Tories got 42% and won 397 seats and a landslide majority of 144.
If it was ever going to be safe for a celebrity to mock a Labour leader it was with Foot in 1983, even more so than Corbyn in 2019
Progressive Alliance got 52% of the vote back then, 10 points more than the Tories.
What are the general assessments of Ukraine's ability to defend itself against Russia? Are we expecting proper dig in and make them pay for every foot of territory, plucky but ultimately outmatched, Afghan-army-melts-away style, what? I've no idea.
Russia may be a bit dodgy in terms of it being run as a big men cartel but it is not unique in being a bit dodgy even amongst "western " countries and client states. I dont know much about ukraine politics but I doubt it is an angelic paradise. The UK should butt out and stop thinking we still police the world. It is nothing to do with us and despite what governments pump out , the world is not black and white in terms of goodies and baddies , it is a mere grey world .Wars dont free people they enslave them to governments
We. Signed. A. Treaty.
That treaty said that the Ukraine would give up nuclear weapons and we would guarantee its independence and security. If we fail to do so it sends a clear message to every other country that sees themselves threatened that the only way they can secure their own safety in the face of aggression from a larger neighbour is to have nuclear weapons.
Do you really think we will be a safer country as a result of that?
That is probably the only way Taiwan will be safe too.
That is realpolitik, we will go to war to defend a NATO country from Russia, we will go to war to defend Japan or South Korea or Australia from China.
We will not go to war to defend Ukraine from Russia nor to defend Taiwan from China. At most we will just send supplies as now
Russia may be a bit dodgy in terms of it being run as a big men cartel but it is not unique in being a bit dodgy even amongst "western " countries and client states. I dont know much about ukraine politics but I doubt it is an angelic paradise. The UK should butt out and stop thinking we still police the world. It is nothing to do with us and despite what governments pump out , the world is not black and white in terms of goodies and baddies , it is a mere grey world .Wars dont free people they enslave them to governments
Ah yes. "She was asking for it, i tell you. Dressing like that. Answering back. Only natural to..."
It's a threat to democracies everywhere. To turn on ourselves at the moment of threat is stupidly irresponsible. We all know that mistakes have been made, both by Germany and the UK, but the real problem is Russian aggression. We don't need to feel good about ourselves by sneering at each other, we need to feel good about ourselves by doing the right thing, which is protecting each other. Fucking focus, people.
What do you suggest?
Are you advocating putting British troops on the ground in Ukraine?
Seriously?
The art of diplomacy is to always have a "get out" clause - there's no point boxing Putin into a corner so his only option is military. Sometimes, public concessions on one side have to be balanced by private concessions on the other. Putin knows he won't get NATO to roll back to pre-1989 borders so what does he really want? What does he need to "save political face" and de-escalate on the Ukrainian border?
Surely the goal is that Putin doesn't have a military option?
For all this talk of 'boxing in', the goal is to discourage Putin from using tanks, planes and troops to invade another country.
Now, it's perfectly reasonable to say that we have no obligation to put troops on the ground, given the lack of any alliance. But I do think we do need to make it very clear that there would be serious consequences if Russia was to annex part of a neighbour
While Germany is heavily reliant on Russian gas to power it's industries this is not a serious option. It's extremely lamentable that a NATO ally has allowed itself to become a client state of Russian gas. We are, however, where we are and there's no route to the situation you describe - that we can make it clear to Russia that there will be severe consequences to annexing another nation or part of one.
Energy independence from Russia in the short term strikes me as not viable so what we really need to do is drag this out for a few years and get building renewable energy to replace Russian gas imports. I think that is achievable.
Edit - anyone talking about a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO needs their head examining.
Germany isn't quite as reliant on Russian gas as this board seems to think.
They have lots of gas in storage, they're building (dirty polluting) new lignite power plants, they have a tonne of wind energy, they have three gas pipelines to Norway (which are running well below capacity) and they have invested in some really interesting energy storage projects (CAES).
The total amount of energy Germany imports from Russia has roughly halved in last twenty-odd years. Then it about 12,000 petajoules of energy out of 15,000 - now it's 6,000 out of 12,000. Making up 6,000 petajoules of missing energy would be difficult - but it's far from impossible, especially as additional LNG facilities come on stream in the next three years.
But it does need political will on behalf of the Germans. And we in the UK should be aware that we will also pay a big price. Because of the lamentable failure of UK generators to enter into long term LNG supply contracts, we're almost entirely dependent on spot LNG cargoes. If both us and the Germans are bidding for them, then household electricity and gas prices will not be heading down any time soon.
Agree and add:
In the longer term gas prices should be high to drive the switch to renewables, which consequently should be getting cheaper. It would be better if it weren't delivered as a shock however. I am not massively keen on nuclear because it's too expensive and weighs on the carbon neutral part of that switch.
I think there's an ongoing role for coal for energy security, as long as you almost never use it. Coal is presumably cheap and easy to store and the power stations are also cheap to build if you stick to basic pollution minimisation methods.
Mention the word coal and the green lobby will explode
Russia may be a bit dodgy in terms of it being run as a big men cartel but it is not unique in being a bit dodgy even amongst "western " countries and client states. I dont know much about ukraine politics but I doubt it is an angelic paradise. The UK should butt out and stop thinking we still police the world. It is nothing to do with us and despite what governments pump out , the world is not black and white in terms of goodies and baddies , it is a mere grey world .Wars dont free people they enslave them to governments
Ah yes. "She was asking for it, i tell you. Dressing like that. Answering back. Only natural to..."
Russia may be a bit dodgy in terms of it being run as a big men cartel but it is not unique in being a bit dodgy even amongst "western " countries and client states. I dont know much about ukraine politics but I doubt it is an angelic paradise. The UK should butt out and stop thinking we still police the world. It is nothing to do with us and despite what governments pump out , the world is not black and white in terms of goodies and baddies , it is a mere grey world .Wars dont free people they enslave them to governments
Ah yes. "She was asking for it, i tell you. Dressing like that. Answering back. Only natural to..."
what?
"I dont know much about ukraine politics but I doubt it is an angelic paradise."
The classic bit of victim blaming. You should have put it better. There is a crib, after all...
"....because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing."
Russia may be a bit dodgy in terms of it being run as a big men cartel but it is not unique in being a bit dodgy even amongst "western " countries and client states. I dont know much about ukraine politics but I doubt it is an angelic paradise. The UK should butt out and stop thinking we still police the world. It is nothing to do with us and despite what governments pump out , the world is not black and white in terms of goodies and baddies , it is a mere grey world .Wars dont free people they enslave them to governments
We. Signed. A. Treaty.
That treaty said that the Ukraine would give up nuclear weapons and we would guarantee its independence and security. If we fail to do so it sends a clear message to every other country that sees themselves threatened that the only way they can secure their own safety in the face of aggression from a larger neighbour is to have nuclear weapons.
Do you really think we will be a safer country as a result of that?
yes because nearly all counties are the same deep down and no country is fundamentally more virtuous than any other. I cannot think of any country that actually wants to take over the world in any case just merely solve historical disputes usually on their own borders.Stupid to sign the treaty in the first place and may need to be pragmatic to break it. Do you really think the average person in this country wants to risk war with a country that has the second biggest nuclear arsenal in the world ? No of course not and if in the eyes of some some honour is lost then so be it
Can you explain how allowing Russia to annex Ukraine and in so doing send millions of refugees into the EU is remotely a good idea
Is it shocking? We know about Boris Johnson's comments on Muslims, and he has Zac Goldsmith, who ran an Islamophobic mayoral campaign, in his cabinet. You knew this about Boris before the election. We all did.
Gene Roddenberry was a huge fan of C.S. Forrester books, that's why.
Which might explain Star Trek, but Star Wars is also naval
Star Wars tried to rip off Star Trek.
Not the dogfights between X-Wings and TIE Fighters, they were inspired by WW2 aerial combat.
And the final bombing run on the death star was inspired by the attack along the fjord in 633 Squadron.
Yebbut space. They do things differently there, so that the small nimble cutter/fighter vs large ponderous ship of the line/bomber analogy doesn't really hold.
It's a threat to democracies everywhere. To turn on ourselves at the moment of threat is stupidly irresponsible. We all know that mistakes have been made, both by Germany and the UK, but the real problem is Russian aggression. We don't need to feel good about ourselves by sneering at each other, we need to feel good about ourselves by doing the right thing, which is protecting each other. Fucking focus, people.
What do you suggest?
Are you advocating putting British troops on the ground in Ukraine?
Seriously?
The art of diplomacy is to always have a "get out" clause - there's no point boxing Putin into a corner so his only option is military. Sometimes, public concessions on one side have to be balanced by private concessions on the other. Putin knows he won't get NATO to roll back to pre-1989 borders so what does he really want? What does he need to "save political face" and de-escalate on the Ukrainian border?
Surely the goal is that Putin doesn't have a military option?
For all this talk of 'boxing in', the goal is to discourage Putin from using tanks, planes and troops to invade another country.
Now, it's perfectly reasonable to say that we have no obligation to put troops on the ground, given the lack of any alliance. But I do think we do need to make it very clear that there would be serious consequences if Russia was to annex part of a neighbour
While Germany is heavily reliant on Russian gas to power it's industries this is not a serious option. It's extremely lamentable that a NATO ally has allowed itself to become a client state of Russian gas. We are, however, where we are and there's no route to the situation you describe - that we can make it clear to Russia that there will be severe consequences to annexing another nation or part of one.
Energy independence from Russia in the short term strikes me as not viable so what we really need to do is drag this out for a few years and get building renewable energy to replace Russian gas imports. I think that is achievable.
Edit - anyone talking about a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO needs their head examining.
Germany isn't quite as reliant on Russian gas as this board seems to think.
They have lots of gas in storage, they're building (dirty polluting) new lignite power plants, they have a tonne of wind energy, they have three gas pipelines to Norway (which are running well below capacity) and they have invested in some really interesting energy storage projects (CAES).
The total amount of energy Germany imports from Russia has roughly halved in last twenty-odd years. Then it about 12,000 petajoules of energy out of 15,000 - now it's 6,000 out of 12,000. Making up 6,000 petajoules of missing energy would be difficult - but it's far from impossible, especially as additional LNG facilities come on stream in the next three years.
But it does need political will on behalf of the Germans. And we in the UK should be aware that we will also pay a big price. Because of the lamentable failure of UK generators to enter into long term LNG supply contracts, we're almost entirely dependent on spot LNG cargoes. If both us and the Germans are bidding for them, then household electricity and gas prices will not be heading down any time soon.
Agree and add:
In the longer term gas prices should be high to drive the switch to renewables, which consequently should be getting cheaper. It would be better if it weren't delivered as a shock however. I am not massively keen on nuclear because it's too expensive and weighs on the carbon neutral part of that switch.
I think there's an ongoing role for coal for energy security, as long as you almost never use it. Coal is presumably cheap and easy to store and the power stations are also cheap to build if you stick to basic pollution minimisation methods.
Mention the word coal and the green lobby will explode
There are a few Biomass burning power stations still on the grid. Surely they can be adjusted to accept coal as well when needed very rarely?
The allegations being made by Nus Ghani are appalling. I really hope they are properly looked into. Bad enough having anti-Semitism in Labour. We certainly don't need anti-Muslim prejudice in the Tories.
What is slightly heartening is the support she is getting from fellow Tory MPs such as William Wragg, Steve Baker and Nadim Zahawi.
Russia may be a bit dodgy in terms of it being run as a big men cartel but it is not unique in being a bit dodgy even amongst "western " countries and client states. I dont know much about ukraine politics but I doubt it is an angelic paradise. The UK should butt out and stop thinking we still police the world. It is nothing to do with us and despite what governments pump out , the world is not black and white in terms of goodies and baddies , it is a mere grey world .Wars dont free people they enslave them to governments
We. Signed. A. Treaty.
That treaty said that the Ukraine would give up nuclear weapons and we would guarantee its independence and security. If we fail to do so it sends a clear message to every other country that sees themselves threatened that the only way they can secure their own safety in the face of aggression from a larger neighbour is to have nuclear weapons.
Do you really think we will be a safer country as a result of that?
yes because nearly all counties are the same deep down and no country is fundamentally more virtuous than any other. I cannot think of any country that actually wants to take over the world in any case just merely solve historical disputes usually on their own borders.Stupid to sign the treaty in the first place and may need to be pragmatic to break it. Do you really think the average person in this country wants to risk war with a country that has the second biggest nuclear arsenal in the world ? No of course not and if in the eyes of some some honour is lost then so be it
Can you explain how allowing Russia to annex Ukraine and in so doing send millions of refugees into the EU is remotely a good idea
It is not a good thing. My argument is that the west and especially the UK can do F all about it and should stop pretending we can and butt out because any increased risk of nuclear war is a bad bad thing , far worse that Russia invading ukraine (a country nobody on the street gives a toss about - less than 5% can locate it on a map I bet). Sorry but I dont give a monkeys about honour and not breaking treaties .
Russia made a few noises when the west invaded Iraq and Afghanistan but were not crazy or felt the need to virtue signal enough to get serious about it and risk MAD. We should do the same
What are the general assessments of Ukraine's ability to defend itself against Russia? Are we expecting proper dig in and make them pay for every foot of territory, plucky but ultimately outmatched, Afghan-army-melts-away style, what? I've no idea.
I think they will fight, and fight hard, but outmatched, at least in the short term.
I don't think that the Russians have the capability to occupy more than few Oblasts though. Even East Ukraine is less Russian than it used to be, and West Ukraine has never been pro Russian, biting off a few oblasts is what they have form for.
It would be crazy to have British forces fighting Russians there. The risks of escalation would be huge, and we managed to avoid that even at the height of the Cold War. Sanctions and arms to Ukraine perhaps, but not troops. Apart from anything else Ukraine has troops.
What are the general assessments of Ukraine's ability to defend itself against Russia? Are we expecting proper dig in and make them pay for every foot of territory, plucky but ultimately outmatched, Afghan-army-melts-away style, what? I've no idea.
Even just in terms of active personnel the Ukraine has 209,000 troops. making it the second largest army in Europe after Russia already and just ahead of France which has 203,000. The only Nato nation in Europe or Asia with more troops than Ukraine is Turkey with 355,200.
I asked if it was "categorically untrue" that Nus Ghani was sacked because she was a Muslim or "categorically untrue" that these comments were made to her and was told...
Cf Thatcher in Spitting Image: The Conservative Party has no room for Racists. We are full up already.
Mind you Ghani is a stern warning against preferring darkies to positions of power, she had the effrontery back in July to complain that Afghan women of her acquaintance were being placed behind Pen's doggies in the queue to the airport.
What are the general assessments of Ukraine's ability to defend itself against Russia? Are we expecting proper dig in and make them pay for every foot of territory, plucky but ultimately outmatched, Afghan-army-melts-away style, what? I've no idea.
Even just in terms of active personnel the Ukraine has 209,000 troops. making it the second largest army in Europe after Russia already and just ahead of France which has 203,000. The only Nato nation in Europe or Asia with more troops than Ukraine is Turkey with 355,200.
Comments
Instead of nuclear disarmament, a bellicose Ukraine starts a massive military build up, complete with nasty dictator threatening all the neighbours.
Why interesting? Because the implication on the position that Ukraine is too weak to resist Russia, so should be carved up is.. that nuclear armed and bellicose is the way to go.
Lots of people out there listening and thinking.
That sound you can hear is spent nuclear reactor fuel rods dissolving in nitric acid....
Edit: went to see the Cosmonauts exhibition at the Science Museum a few years back. It was startling to see how small even a Soyuz was.
Trump would not necessarily even have defended a NATO country from Putin, he got on well with Putin. Hence as I said we cannot just rely on the US to defend Europe, we must take the lead on that with France and Turkey and Poland in containing Putin
Their comment on Raab was that he was extremely opinionated and argumentative based on his personal reading of morality and law. It took them a long time to work to where he was coming from because it was so “unusual”
https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/status/1484990588470579201
https://twitter.com/ronzheimer/status/1484976131124219907
https://groceries.aldi.co.uk/en-GB/food-cupboard/rice-pasta-noodles/pasta-noodles
"Yebbut Tsar Alexander reached Paris!" - Stalin.
It only killed 90% of the male adult population of a Paraguay.....
People have commented that Paraguay is still somewhat lightly populated a century and a half later.....
The most extreme example is Honor Harrington.....
I quote Kuldeep Singh Shekhawat, the president of the group 'One of the politicians which OFBJP is particularly aiming to unseat is Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, the Labour candidate for Slough.
Mr Shekhawat said: "Not a single Hindu will vote for Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi this time. Hindu voters think he is working closely with the Pakistani community.
"He is always seen with Pakistanis and goes to the Pakistan high commission. He is vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Britain-Pakistan Trade and Tourism, and was vice-chair of the APPG Kashmir Group.
"Why is that? The Indian community in Slough are annoyed and have decided to vote for the Tory candidate."
https://news.sky.com/story/general-election-indian-nationalist-party-bjp-supporters-to-campaign-in-uk-against-labour-11854965
They have lots of gas in storage, they're building (dirty polluting) new lignite power plants, they have a tonne of wind energy, they have three gas pipelines to Norway (which are running well below capacity) and they have invested in some really interesting energy storage projects (CAES).
The total amount of energy Germany imports from Russia has roughly halved in last twenty-odd years. Then it about 12,000 petajoules of energy out of 15,000 - now it's 6,000 out of 12,000. Making up 6,000 petajoules of missing energy would be difficult - but it's far from impossible, especially as additional LNG facilities come on stream in the next three years.
But it does need political will on behalf of the Germans. And we in the UK should be aware that we will also pay a big price. Because of the lamentable failure of UK generators to enter into long term LNG supply contracts, we're almost entirely dependent on spot LNG cargoes. If both us and the Germans are bidding for them, then household electricity and gas prices will not be heading down any time soon.
For those interested, her Twitter account is full of good stuff. A recent thread, related to The Observer article, has gone viral:
https://twitter.com/BootstrapCook/status/1483778776697909252?cxt=HHwWiMC95fO7uJcpAAAA
It is interesting to look at the German politicians who opposed *other countries* having LNG import terminals.
Oh!
Ditto Japan.
Ditto South Korea.
And every day that passes, more Plutonium 240 becomes Uranium 236...... The future beckons and it is so very, very bright......
On planets circling other stars, the unique light from some of the big tests will be visible. Will alien eyes on unknown worlds see that light through their telescopes and realise the message?
If it was ever going to be safe for a celebrity to mock a Labour leader it was with Foot in 1983, even more so than Corbyn in 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7Rs0ScgC44
In the longer term gas prices should be high to drive the switch to renewables, which consequently should be getting cheaper. It would be better if it weren't delivered as a shock however. I am not massively keen on nuclear because it's too expensive and weighs on the carbon neutral part of that switch.
I think there's an ongoing role for coal for energy security, as long as you almost never use it. Coal is presumably cheap and easy to store and the power stations are also cheap to build if you stick to basic pollution minimisation methods.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/01/15/hindu-bigots-are-openly-urging-indians-to-murder-muslims
It is absolutely critical that regional superpowers don’t believe they can through their weight around in a defined sphere of influence
That treaty said that the Ukraine would give up nuclear weapons and we would guarantee its independence and security. If we fail to do so it sends a clear message to every other country that sees themselves threatened that the only way they can secure their own safety in the face of aggression from a larger neighbour is to have nuclear weapons.
Do you really think we will be a safer country as a result of that?
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/most-capable-prime-minister-trends
At least half of SDP voters would also have voted for the Tories over Foot's Labour on a forced choice
That is realpolitik, we will go to war to defend a NATO country from Russia, we will go to war to defend Japan or South Korea or Australia from China.
We will not go to war to defend Ukraine from Russia nor to defend Taiwan from China. At most we will just send supplies as now
“These claims are categorically untrue.
“Ministerial roles are appointed on merit and rewards for hard work.
“The Conservative Party does not tolerate any form of racism or discrimination.”
https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1485001450719784972
But does the government source deny that those comments were made to Nus Ghani? They matter as much as the reason for her sacking. Why would she make them up?
https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/1485001161895727106
https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1484983419415191559
The classic bit of victim blaming. You should have put it better. There is a crib, after all...
"....because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing."
There are a few Biomass burning power stations still on the grid. Surely they can be adjusted to accept coal as well when needed very rarely?
Irresistible force/Immovable object scenarios play out unpredictability, but rarely well.
What is slightly heartening is the support she is getting from fellow Tory MPs such as William Wragg, Steve Baker and Nadim Zahawi.
Russia made a few noises when the west invaded Iraq and Afghanistan but were not crazy or felt the need to virtue signal enough to get serious about it and risk MAD. We should do the same
I don't think that the Russians have the capability to occupy more than few Oblasts though. Even East Ukraine is less Russian than it used to be, and West Ukraine has never been pro Russian, biting off a few oblasts is what they have form for.
It would be crazy to have British forces fighting Russians there. The risks of escalation would be huge, and we managed to avoid that even at the height of the Cold War. Sanctions and arms to Ukraine perhaps, but not troops. Apart from anything else Ukraine has troops.
Including reserves the Ukraine has 1,211,000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel
https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1484900291610820612
I asked if it was "categorically untrue" that Nus Ghani was sacked because she was a Muslim or "categorically untrue" that these comments were made to her and was told...
"Categorically untrue she was sacked because she’s a Muslim".
https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1485003162671013889
Cf Thatcher in Spitting Image: The Conservative Party has no room for Racists. We are full up already.
Mind you Ghani is a stern warning against preferring darkies to positions of power, she had the effrontery back in July to complain that Afghan women of her acquaintance were being placed behind Pen's doggies in the queue to the airport.