Just watching Trump Tillerson and Co. It's difficult imagining what they could have been going through their heads when they voted for this man. I'd sooner have Putin any day of the week with or without Novichok.
Thats how it plays out with a lot of people. Putin comes across as a lot smarter than Trump.
Whilst I might argue Putin is smarter, as an international leader anyway, my preference would be for the incompetent person I think is bad rather than the competent one.
The line the Russian liars diplomats seem to be taking is that if it wasn't a British false-flag operation to discredit their glorious leader, then it was probably one of the other successor states* to the USSR, who got hold of some very old Soviet nerve agents that Russia certainly doesn't have, because they destroyed all of theirs long ago.
* They haven't actually said Ukraine yet as far as I know, but if I had to guess that is where Russia will point the finger.
The audacity of Moscow is incredible. They deliberately choose a method to make it obvious to anyone even vaguely in the know it was them, and then try to muddy the waters with the general public, safe in the knowledge people like Trump and Corbyn will play along.
I’m intrigued to think how they will retaliate...to our retaliation.
It’s seems very plausible that Trump has done this both to test NATO resolve and for internal consumption before the “election”.
If we don’t retaliate effectively, he knows he can keep pushing.
If we do, he can respond in turn - playing the strongman to the man on the Moscow omnibus.
Well Putin knows that he supplies the gas that Europe needs to keep warm and alive in winter so the EU isn't going to do that much.
IIRC 35% of European gas supplies come from Russia. I'm not sure whether the option exists to increase supplies from our other sources.
Just watching Trump Tillerson and Co. It's difficult imagining what they could have been going through their heads when they voted for this man. I'd sooner have Putin any day of the week with or without Novichok.
Thats how it plays out with a lot of people. Putin comes across as a lot smarter than Trump.
With Tillerson, I think I know what I'm getting, i.e. an oil co. exec. turned Foreign Sec. He may even have been slightly more competent than our clown in the F.O. - not difficult.
With Trump, I've no idea. We know in the UK that people from very privileged backgrounds can get an Oxbridge II(ii) even if they're as thick as two short planks. I presume the same's true there.
With Putin, I think I know. But an ex-KGB man will be expert at deceiving and manipulating people so I may be totally wrong.
"Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." - Winston Churchill
Nothing has changed. Still wondering what May is going to do when her ultimatum expires.
Yes same here, surely all the bellicose language means something beyond joint diplomat expulsions.
She’s going to blow up the Kerch bridge to Crimea.
Regardless of whether that would be a good idea, does Britain have the capacity to do that? Would a couple of cruise missiles from one of the subs be sufficient?
Hopefully not, because it would probably provoke a nulcear response. That way lies madness, surely.
"Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." - Winston Churchill
Nothing has changed. Still wondering what May is going to do when her ultimatum expires.
Yes same here, surely all the bellicose language means something beyond joint diplomat expulsions.
She’s going to blow up the Kerch bridge to Crimea.
Regardless of whether that would be a good idea, does Britain have the capacity to do that? Would a couple of cruise missiles from one of the subs be sufficient?
Hopefully not, because it would probably provoke a nulcear response. That way lies madness, surely.
Oi! I'm the one whose meant to come up with brilliant puns!
"Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." - Winston Churchill
Nothing has changed. Still wondering what May is going to do when her ultimatum expires.
Yes same here, surely all the bellicose language means something beyond joint diplomat expulsions.
She’s going to blow up the Kerch bridge to Crimea.
Regardless of whether that would be a good idea, does Britain have the capacity to do that? Would a couple of cruise missiles from one of the subs be sufficient?
I’m not sure. The reason I thought of it is that the video put out by the UK government detailing Russia’s offensive moves made a point of explaining how the construction of the bridge blocked access to Mariupol in Ukraine.
Just watching Trump Tillerson and Co. It's difficult imagining what they could have been going through their heads when they voted for this man. I'd sooner have Putin any day of the week with or without Novichok.
Thats how it plays out with a lot of people. Putin comes across as a lot smarter than Trump.
Whilst I might argue Putin is smarter, as an international leader anyway, my preference would be for the incompetent person I think is bad rather than the competent one.
The difference is simple: the US has (for the moment at least) a bureaucracy that can prevent Trump doing many bad things (though not all). There is a congress that can act as a brake as well, and a media that can try to hold him to account.
In the case of Putin, he is the government now. He has very few checks and balances on what he does, and a media that are either in his control, or fearful for their lives.
This is why Roger's comment below is so ridiculous. People like him would be forced to make a choice very quickly: either support the regime or be unemployed or worse.
Dissident Nikolai Glushkov was discovered by his family late on Monday night at his suburban home in New Malden.
Police say his death is being treated as 'unexplained' and have taken the unusual step of putting counter-terrorism officers in charge of the investigation.
The Russian newspaper Kommersant has reported that the 68-year-old was found by his daughter and had 'strangulation' marks on his neck.
The line the Russian liars diplomats seem to be taking is that if it wasn't a British false-flag operation to discredit their glorious leader, then it was probably one of the other successor states* to the USSR, who got hold of some very old Soviet nerve agents that Russia certainly doesn't have, because they destroyed all of theirs long ago.
* They haven't actually said Ukraine yet as far as I know, but if I had to guess that is where Russia will point the finger.
The audacity of Moscow is incredible. They deliberately choose a method to make it obvious to anyone even vaguely in the know it was them, and then try to muddy the waters with the general public, safe in the knowledge people like Trump and Corbyn will play along.
I’m intrigued to think how they will retaliate...to our retaliation.
It’s seems very plausible that Trump has done this both to test NATO resolve and for internal consumption before the “election”.
If we don’t retaliate effectively, he knows he can keep pushing.
If we do, he can respond in turn - playing the strongman to the man on the Moscow omnibus.
Well Putin knows that he supplies the gas that Europe needs to keep warm and alive in winter so the EU isn't going to do that much.
IIRC 35% of European gas supplies come from Russia. I'm not sure whether the option exists to increase supplies from our other sources.
Probably only by turning up the taps on the giant Groningen gas field which was discovered in 1959. It developed earthquakes in recent years, due to the amount of gas removed, and its output was reduced. The Dutch govt has also been keen for it to last longer.
If the UK had applied that prudent an attitude to N. Sea gas, we might have some left.
Countries like Denmark aren't in such a predicament because they built gas storage and are trying to make their own gas last until 2040-50 by which time they hope to be on 100% renewables. Only irresponsible countries have problems. Guess which I mean ...
The line the Russian liars diplomats seem to be taking is that if it wasn't a British false-flag operation to discredit their glorious leader, then it was probably one of the other successor states* to the USSR, who got hold of some very old Soviet nerve agents that Russia certainly doesn't have, because they destroyed all of theirs long ago.
* They haven't actually said Ukraine yet as far as I know, but if I had to guess that is where Russia will point the finger.
The audacity of Moscow is incredible. They deliberately choose a method to make it obvious to anyone even vaguely in the know it was them, and then try to muddy the waters with the general public, safe in the knowledge people like Trump and Corbyn will play along.
I’m intrigued to think how they will retaliate...to our retaliation.
It’s seems very plausible that Trump has done this both to test NATO resolve and for internal consumption before the “election”.
If we don’t retaliate effectively, he knows he can keep pushing.
If we do, he can respond in turn - playing the strongman to the man on the Moscow omnibus.
Well Putin knows that he supplies the gas that Europe needs to keep warm and alive in winter so the EU isn't going to do that much.
IIRC 35% of European gas supplies come from Russia. I'm not sure whether the option exists to increase supplies from our other sources.
The UK doesn't rely on Russian gas, it's one reason we're keener on sanctions than European countries. The worst that happens for us is that we lose a bit of business for the city, maybe a few hundred millions of tax income but no one will freeze to death and there won't be blackouts.
Just watching Trump Tillerson and Co. It's difficult imagining what they could have been going through their heads when they voted for this man. I'd sooner have Putin any day of the week with or without Novichok.
Not fond of democracy then Roger?
Please feel free to move to Russia and then criticise Putin.
"Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." - Winston Churchill
Nothing has changed. Still wondering what May is going to do when her ultimatum expires.
Yes same here, surely all the bellicose language means something beyond joint diplomat expulsions.
She’s going to blow up the Kerch bridge to Crimea.
Regardless of whether that would be a good idea, does Britain have the capacity to do that? Would a couple of cruise missiles from one of the subs be sufficient?
Hopefully not, because it would probably provoke a nulcear response. That way lies madness, surely.
Perhaps she should still to more minor affairs, like low level chemical attacks in Russian restaurants.
The Palestinian prime minister survived an assassination attempt during a rare visit to Hamas-controlled Gaza on Tuesday, putting a fresh strain on the already torrid relations between the two leading Palestinian factions.
Rami Hamdallah, the prime minister of the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority, had just entered Gaza when a roadside explosive detonated near his convoy. Mr Hamdallah was not injured but seven of his guards and aides suffered slight wounds, according to Palestinian media.
"Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." - Winston Churchill
Nothing has changed. Still wondering what May is going to do when her ultimatum expires.
Yes same here, surely all the bellicose language means something beyond joint diplomat expulsions.
She’s going to blow up the Kerch bridge to Crimea.
Regardless of whether that would be a good idea, does Britain have the capacity to do that? Would a couple of cruise missiles from one of the subs be sufficient?
Hopefully not, because it would probably provoke a nulcear response. That way lies madness, surely.
Perhaps she should still to more minor affairs, like low level chemical attacks in Russian restaurants.
Just watching Trump Tillerson and Co. It's difficult imagining what they could have been going through their heads when they voted for this man. I'd sooner have Putin any day of the week with or without Novichok.
Thats how it plays out with a lot of people. Putin comes across as a lot smarter than Trump.
Whilst I might argue Putin is smarter, as an international leader anyway, my preference would be for the incompetent person I think is bad rather than the competent one.
The difference is simple: the US has (for the moment at least) a bureaucracy that can prevent Trump doing many bad things (though not all). There is a congress that can act as a brake as well, and a media that can try to hold him to account.
In the case of Putin, he is the government now. He has very few checks and balances on what he does, and a media that are either in his control, or fearful for their lives.
This is why Roger's comment below is so ridiculous. People like him would be forced to make a choice very quickly: either support the regime or be unemployed or worse.
Yep. Its like my finnish friend said, noone dreams of emigrating to russia.
Just watching Trump Tillerson and Co. It's difficult imagining what they could have been going through their heads when they voted for this man. I'd sooner have Putin any day of the week with or without Novichok.
Thats how it plays out with a lot of people. Putin comes across as a lot smarter than Trump.
Whilst I might argue Putin is smarter, as an international leader anyway, my preference would be for the incompetent person I think is bad rather than the competent one.
The difference is simple: the US has (for the moment at least) a bureaucracy that can prevent Trump doing many bad things (though not all). There is a congress that can act as a brake as well, and a media that can try to hold him to account.
In the case of Putin, he is the government now. He has very few checks and balances on what he does, and a media that are either in his control, or fearful for their lives.
This is why Roger's comment below is so ridiculous. People like him would be forced to make a choice very quickly: either support the regime or be unemployed or worse.
Yep. Its like my finnish friend said, noone dreams of emigrating to russia.
Just watching Trump Tillerson and Co. It's difficult imagining what they could have been going through their heads when they voted for this man. I'd sooner have Putin any day of the week with or without Novichok.
Thats how it plays out with a lot of people. Putin comes across as a lot smarter than Trump.
Whilst I might argue Putin is smarter, as an international leader anyway, my preference would be for the incompetent person I think is bad rather than the competent one.
The difference is simple: the US has (for the moment at least) a bureaucracy that can prevent Trump doing many bad things (though not all). There is a congress that can act as a brake as well, and a media that can try to hold him to account.
In the case of Putin, he is the government now. He has very few checks and balances on what he does, and a media that are either in his control, or fearful for their lives.
This is why Roger's comment below is so ridiculous. People like him would be forced to make a choice very quickly: either support the regime or be unemployed or worse.
Yep. Its like my finnish friend said, noone dreams of emigrating to russia.
Plenty of people from the periphery of the former Soviet Union do. Moscow is full of immigrants in that sense.
"Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." - Winston Churchill
Nothing has changed. Still wondering what May is going to do when her ultimatum expires.
Yes same here, surely all the bellicose language means something beyond joint diplomat expulsions.
She’s going to blow up the Kerch bridge to Crimea.
Regardless of whether that would be a good idea, does Britain have the capacity to do that? Would a couple of cruise missiles from one of the subs be sufficient?
Hopefully not, because it would probably provoke a nulcear response. That way lies madness, surely.
Perhaps she should still to more minor affairs, like low level chemical attacks in Russian restaurants.
That's not going to happen though is it?
No. Because only monsters use chemical weapons. But for us to ward Russia off, we need something equivalent.
The reason is that productivity has stagnated for the last decade.
Increased wages have to be earned with increased productivity.
Note: Productivity is effectiveness. It is not improved with increased numbers of people in work or increased hours. It is achieved by more output per hour.
The increase in GDP from increased immigration/population/number in work has not improved productivity.
IIRC 35% of European gas supplies come from Russia. I'm not sure whether the option exists to increase supplies from our other sources.
Central and Eastern Europe has very large reserves of shale gas. However, anti-frakking groups are (strangely) very well funded in the area, and a huge amount of money has been spent on persuading local politicians to change laws to prevent gas reserves being exploited.
Poland's government seems the most culpable, where numerous roadblocks were thrown in the way of Irish gas firm San Leon's attempts to develop the resource.
Dissident Nikolai Glushkov was discovered by his family late on Monday night at his suburban home in New Malden.
Police say his death is being treated as 'unexplained' and have taken the unusual step of putting counter-terrorism officers in charge of the investigation.
The Russian newspaper Kommersant has reported that the 68-year-old was found by his daughter and had 'strangulation' marks on his neck.
Just watching Trump Tillerson and Co. It's difficult imagining what they could have been going through their heads when they voted for this man. I'd sooner have Putin any day of the week with or without Novichok.
Thats how it plays out with a lot of people. Putin comes across as a lot smarter than Trump.
With Tillerson, I think I know what I'm getting, i.e. an oil co. exec. turned Foreign Sec. He may even have been slightly more competent than our clown in the F.O. - not difficult.
With Trump, I've no idea. We know in the UK that people from very privileged backgrounds can get an Oxbridge II(ii) even if they're as thick as two short planks. I presume the same's true there.
With Putin, I think I know. But an ex-KGB man will be expert at deceiving and manipulating people so I may be totally wrong.
Putin is spared the problem of a free press.
Also the rule of law, meaningful opposition combined with the ability and resolve to murder opponents, journalists, people with doubtful hair styles and anyone else he doesn’t like for any reason he wants to dream up. Plus the ability to steal the resources of the entire nation of course. Anyone saying they would rather have a murderous bastard like Putin than an incompetent buffoon like Trump has not got close to the measure of the man.
Such has been the fever pitch of anti-Russia sabre-rattling over the past couple of days that even to ask ‘Shall we wait for all the facts?’ is to risk being shot down, being accused of ‘Putin apologism’, being branded an enemy of Britain and friend of Russia. Witness the response to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s sensible plea that we remain in a ‘robust dialogue with Russia’ rather than ‘cutting off contact and letting the tensions and divisions get worse and potentially even more dangerous’. A politician calling for calm? For diplomacy? For dialogue? Boo! That cannot be tolerated.
Just watching Trump Tillerson and Co. It's difficult imagining what they could have been going through their heads when they voted for this man. I'd sooner have Putin any day of the week with or without Novichok.
Thats how it plays out with a lot of people. Putin comes across as a lot smarter than Trump.
Whilst I might argue Putin is smarter, as an international leader anyway, my preference would be for the incompetent person I think is bad rather than the competent one.
The difference is simple: the US has (for the moment at least) a bureaucracy that can prevent Trump doing many bad things (though not all). There is a congress that can act as a brake as well, and a media that can try to hold him to account.
In the case of Putin, he is the government now. He has very few checks and balances on what he does, and a media that are either in his control, or fearful for their lives.
This is why Roger's comment below is so ridiculous. People like him would be forced to make a choice very quickly: either support the regime or be unemployed or worse.
Yep. Its like my finnish friend said, noone dreams of emigrating to russia.
Plenty of people from the periphery of the former Soviet Union do. Moscow is full of immigrants in that sense.
In general terms though, people are attracted to regimes where you don't live in constant fear of the state.
Just watching Trump Tillerson and Co. It's difficult imagining what they could have been going through their heads when they voted for this man. I'd sooner have Putin any day of the week with or without Novichok.
Thats how it plays out with a lot of people. Putin comes across as a lot smarter than Trump.
Whilst I might argue Putin is smarter, as an international leader anyway, my preference would be for the incompetent person I think is bad rather than the competent one.
The difference is simple: the US has (for the moment at least) a bureaucracy that can prevent Trump doing many bad things (though not all). There is a congress that can act as a brake as well, and a media that can try to hold him to account.
In the case of Putin, he is the government now. He has very few checks and balances on what he does, and a media that are either in his control, or fearful for their lives.
This is why Roger's comment below is so ridiculous. People like him would be forced to make a choice very quickly: either support the regime or be unemployed or worse.
Yep. Its like my finnish friend said, noone dreams of emigrating to russia.
Plenty of people from the periphery of the former Soviet Union do. Moscow is full of immigrants in that sense.
In general terms though, people are attracted to regimes where you don't live in constant fear of the state.
Surely it is that they are repelled by regimes where you do live in constant fear of the state? Which may sound like a distinction without a difference but I think does leave people who don't have that experience less deeply rooted in democracy than is realised.
The reason is that productivity has stagnated for the last decade.
Increased wages have to be earned with increased productivity.
Note: Productivity is effectiveness. It is not improved with increased numbers of people in work or increased hours. It is achieved by more output per hour.
The increase in GDP from increased immigration/population/number in work has not improved productivity.
Look at the monkey!
Do you see the drop off after Q1 2016. Something happened, and it wasn’t secular productivity stagnation.
Just watching Trump Tillerson and Co. It's difficult imagining what they could have been going through their heads when they voted for this man. I'd sooner have Putin any day of the week with or without Novichok.
Thats how it plays out with a lot of people. Putin comes across as a lot smarter than Trump.
Whilst I might argue Putin is smarter, as an international leader anyway, my preference would be for the incompetent person I think is bad rather than the competent one.
The difference is simple: the US has (for the moment at least) a bureaucracy that can prevent Trump doing many bad things (though not all). There is a congress that can act as a brake as well, and a media that can try to hold him to account.
In the case of Putin, he is the government now. He has very few checks and balances on what he does, and a media that are either in his control, or fearful for their lives.
This is why Roger's comment below is so ridiculous. People like him would be forced to make a choice very quickly: either support the regime or be unemployed or worse.
Yep. Its like my finnish friend said, noone dreams of emigrating to russia.
Plenty of people from the periphery of the former Soviet Union do. Moscow is full of immigrants in that sense.
In general terms though, people are attracted to regimes where you don't live in constant fear of the state.
Surely it is that they are repelled by regimes where you do live in constant fear of the state? Which may sound like a distinction without a difference but I think does leave people who don't have that experience less deeply rooted in democracy than is realised.
I'm honestly not sure. I get the idea that many people in China are pretty relaxed about being in constant fear of the state.
Such has been the fever pitch of anti-Russia sabre-rattling over the past couple of days that even to ask ‘Shall we wait for all the facts?’ is to risk being shot down, being accused of ‘Putin apologism’, being branded an enemy of Britain and friend of Russia. Witness the response to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s sensible plea that we remain in a ‘robust dialogue with Russia’ rather than ‘cutting off contact and letting the tensions and divisions get worse and potentially even more dangerous’. A politician calling for calm? For diplomacy? For dialogue? Boo! That cannot be tolerated.
Just watching Trump Tillerson and Co. It's difficult imagining what they could have been going through their heads when they voted for this man. I'd sooner have Putin any day of the week with or without Novichok.
Thats how it plays out with a lot of people. Putin comes across as a lot smarter than Trump.
With Tillerson, I think I know what I'm getting, i.e. an oil co. exec. turned Foreign Sec. He may even have been slightly more competent than our clown in the F.O. - not difficult.
With Trump, I've no idea. We know in the UK that people from very privileged backgrounds can get an Oxbridge II(ii) even if they're as thick as two short planks. I presume the same's true there.
With Putin, I think I know. But an ex-KGB man will be expert at deceiving and manipulating people so I may be totally wrong.
Putin is spared the problem of a free press.
Also the rule of law, meaningful opposition combined with the ability and resolve to murder opponents, journalists, people with doubtful hair styles and anyone else he doesn’t like for any reason he wants to dream up. Plus the ability to steal the resources of the entire nation of course. Anyone saying they would rather have a murderous bastard like Putin than an incompetent buffoon like Trump has not got close to the measure of the man.
Yeah but its all relative. If your everyday life is poverty, coupled with being pursued by the mafia, and extra judicial violence with no real social order, then you may not be too bothered by having a murderous b@stard in charge if he can sort some of these problems out. Freedom of speech would be quite far down your list of priorities.
Not that I am a Putin admirer, but it all has to be seen in context.
Such has been the fever pitch of anti-Russia sabre-rattling over the past couple of days that even to ask ‘Shall we wait for all the facts?’ is to risk being shot down, being accused of ‘Putin apologism’, being branded an enemy of Britain and friend of Russia. Witness the response to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s sensible plea that we remain in a ‘robust dialogue with Russia’ rather than ‘cutting off contact and letting the tensions and divisions get worse and potentially even more dangerous’. A politician calling for calm? For diplomacy? For dialogue? Boo! That cannot be tolerated.
Such has been the fever pitch of anti-Russia sabre-rattling over the past couple of days that even to ask ‘Shall we wait for all the facts?’ is to risk being shot down, being accused of ‘Putin apologism’, being branded an enemy of Britain and friend of Russia. Witness the response to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s sensible plea that we remain in a ‘robust dialogue with Russia’ rather than ‘cutting off contact and letting the tensions and divisions get worse and potentially even more dangerous’. A politician calling for calm? For diplomacy? For dialogue? Boo! That cannot be tolerated.
Its a straw man argument and O'Neill should know better.
Jezza was not attacked for saying that we should be measured in our response.
Indeed. Not least since even though the PM said Russia was highly likely behind it, she did offer an alternative possibility given the nature of the agent involved, albeit one which would still mean negligence on their part. But if we believe we have sufficient evidence they did this, how is it unreasonable to suggest some action? Depending on the action suggested it might be unreasonable, but it is surely expected of a nation that if it publicly states it thinks another nation might be behind such an event, that action not just words would need to be taken.
Waiting for enough facts to make a credible initial conclusion was what the government already did. Will there ever be so many facts that Russia were to admit things. Of course not, nor is it likely any such things can be proven 100%. Unless the Russians accept our accusation, which won't happen even proof were handed down from on high on stone tablets, or we discover more information which casts doubt on the current theories - possible, in fairness - what is there even to talk about?
Such has been the fever pitch of anti-Russia sabre-rattling over the past couple of days that even to ask ‘Shall we wait for all the facts?’ is to risk being shot down, being accused of ‘Putin apologism’, being branded an enemy of Britain and friend of Russia. Witness the response to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s sensible plea that we remain in a ‘robust dialogue with Russia’ rather than ‘cutting off contact and letting the tensions and divisions get worse and potentially even more dangerous’. A politician calling for calm? For diplomacy? For dialogue? Boo! That cannot be tolerated.
Its a straw man argument and O'Neill should know better.
Jezza was not attacked for saying that we should be measured in our response.
Indeed. Not least since even though the PM said Russia was highly likely behind it, she did offer an alternative possibility given the nature of the agent involved, albeit one which would still mean negligence on their part. But if we believe we have sufficient evidence they did this, how is it unreasonable to suggest some action? Depending on the action suggested it might be unreasonable, but it is surely expected of a nation that if it publicly states it thinks another nation might be behind such an event, that action not just words would need to be taken.
Waiting for enough facts to make a credible initial conclusion was what the government already did. Will there ever be so many facts that Russia were to admit things. Of course not, nor is it likely any such things can be proven 100%. Unless the Russians accept our accusation, which won't happen even proof were handed down from on high on stone tablets, or we discover more information which casts doubt on the current theories - possible, in fairness - what is there even to talk about?
In political and diplomatic terms what may said means they are 99.9% certain it was a state sponsored attack by Russia. They just don't make those statements if they think it is just one of a number of possibilities and everybody with half a brain knows it.
This election is a hard one to predict accurately however there seems to be a clear over emphasis on the Democrats on this.
The 6% poll in favour of Lamb has largely skewed alot of betting and thought. Bear in mind this was a poll of just 372, which is far from trustworthy. Moreover if you look at the breakdown in the people polled in this, their sample was 39% who classed themselves as Democrat and just 38% as Republican, the rest independent. Which seems very out of proportion with the local area.
I've got on the Republican victory when it was briefly at 2.66. I expect that to come in well. Republican victory by around 5%+ me thinks.
The line the Russian liars diplomats seem to be taking is that if it wasn't a British false-flag operation to discredit their glorious leader, then it was probably one of the other successor states* to the USSR, who got hold of some very old Soviet nerve agents that Russia certainly doesn't have, because they destroyed all of theirs long ago.
* They haven't actually said Ukraine yet as far as I know, but if I had to guess that is where Russia will point the finger.
The audacity of Moscow is incredible. They deliberately choose a method to make it obvious to anyone even vaguely in the know it was them, and then try to muddy the waters with the general public, safe in the knowledge people like Trump and Corbyn will play along.
I’m intrigued to think how they will retaliate...to our retaliation.
It’s seems very plausible that Trump has done this both to test NATO resolve and for internal consumption before the “election”.
If we don’t retaliate effectively, he knows he can keep pushing.
If we do, he can respond in turn - playing the strongman to the man on the Moscow omnibus.
Well Putin knows that he supplies the gas that Europe needs to keep warm and alive in winter so the EU isn't going to do that much.
IIRC 35% of European gas supplies come from Russia. I'm not sure whether the option exists to increase supplies from our other sources.
Probably only by turning up the taps on the giant Groningen gas field which was discovered in 1959. It developed earthquakes in recent years, due to the amount of gas removed, and its output was reduced. The Dutch govt has also been keen for it to last longer.
If the UK had applied that prudent an attitude to N. Sea gas, we might have some left.
Countries like Denmark aren't in such a predicament because they built gas storage and are trying to make their own gas last until 2040-50 by which time they hope to be on 100% renewables. Only irresponsible countries have problems. Guess which I mean ...
Denmark import large amounts of electricity from Norway. Our own gas will also last longer than you claim and there are new discoveries being made all the time. We also had very large gas storage capabilities but lost the majority because of problems with the Rough facility.
Oh and Denmark expects to start importing gas from 2020 or 2021 as there has been a rapid decline in their own production.
Just watching Trump Tillerson and Co. It's difficult imagining what they could have been going through their heads when they voted for this man. I'd sooner have Putin any day of the week with or without Novichok.
Thats how it plays out with a lot of people. Putin comes across as a lot smarter than Trump.
Whilst I might argue Putin is smarter, as an international leader anyway, my preference would be for the incompetent person I think is bad rather than the competent one.
The difference is simple: the US has (for the moment at least) a bureaucracy that can prevent Trump doing many bad things (though not all). There is a congress that can act as a brake as well, and a media that can try to hold him to account.
In the case of Putin, he is the government now. He has very few checks and balances on what he does, and a media that are either in his control, or fearful for their lives.
This is why Roger's comment below is so ridiculous. People like him would be forced to make a choice very quickly: either support the regime or be unemployed or worse.
Yep. Its like my finnish friend said, noone dreams of emigrating to russia.
Plenty of people from the periphery of the former Soviet Union do. Moscow is full of immigrants in that sense.
In general terms though, people are attracted to regimes where you don't live in constant fear of the state.
Surely it is that they are repelled by regimes where you do live in constant fear of the state? Which may sound like a distinction without a difference but I think does leave people who don't have that experience less deeply rooted in democracy than is realised.
Tonight's the night for Alexis Sanchez and Paul Pogba to justify their transfer fees and salaries.
Good side Sevilla. It was quite hard for Leicester to knock them out of the Champions League last year, but we did 3:2 on aggregate. Perhaps Jose could console himself by watching those highlights
Just watching Trump Tillerson and Co. It's difficult imagining what they could have been going through their heads when they voted for this man. I'd sooner have Putin any day of the week with or without Novichok.
Thats how it plays out with a lot of people. Putin comes across as a lot smarter than Trump.
Whilst I might argue Putin is smarter, as an international leader anyway, my preference would be for the incompetent person I think is bad rather than the competent one.
The difference is simple: the US has (for the moment at least) a bureaucracy that can prevent Trump doing many bad things (though not all). There is a congress that can act as a brake as well, and a media that can try to hold him to account.
In the case of Putin, he is the government now. He has very few checks and balances on what he does, and a media that are either in his control, or fearful for their lives.
This is why Roger's comment below is so ridiculous. People like him would be forced to make a choice very quickly: either support the regime or be unemployed or worse.
Yep. Its like my finnish friend said, noone dreams of emigrating to russia.
Plenty of people from the periphery of the former Soviet Union do. Moscow is full of immigrants in that sense.
In general terms though, people are attracted to regimes where you don't live in constant fear of the state.
Surely it is that they are repelled by regimes where you do live in constant fear of the state? Which may sound like a distinction without a difference but I think does leave people who don't have that experience less deeply rooted in democracy than is realised.
+1
Any chance you could change your avatar RCS? Vlad's giving me the creeps!
Such has been the fever pitch of anti-Russia sabre-rattling over the past couple of days that even to ask ‘Shall we wait for all the facts?’ is to risk being shot down, being accused of ‘Putin apologism’, being branded an enemy of Britain and friend of Russia. Witness the response to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s sensible plea that we remain in a ‘robust dialogue with Russia’ rather than ‘cutting off contact and letting the tensions and divisions get worse and potentially even more dangerous’. A politician calling for calm? For diplomacy? For dialogue? Boo! That cannot be tolerated.
Its a straw man argument and O'Neill should know better.
Jezza was not attacked for saying that we should be measured in our response.
Indeed. Not least since even though the PM said Russia was highly likely behind it, she did offer an alternative possibility given the nature of the agent involved, albeit one which would still mean negligence on their part. But if we believe we have sufficient evidence they did this, how is it unreasonable to suggest some action? Depending on the action suggested it might be unreasonable, but it is surely expected of a nation that if it publicly states it thinks another nation might be behind such an event, that action not just words would need to be taken.
Waiting for enough facts to make a credible initial conclusion was what the government already did. Will there ever be so many facts that Russia were to admit things. Of course not, nor is it likely any such things can be proven 100%. Unless the Russians accept our accusation, which won't happen even proof were handed down from on high on stone tablets, or we discover more information which casts doubt on the current theories - possible, in fairness - what is there even to talk about?
In political and diplomatic terms what may said means they are 99.9% certain it was a state sponsored attack by Russia. They just don't make those statements if they think it is just one of a number of possibilities and everybody with half a brain knows it.
I wasn't saying she didn't think it was them, merely that she left the door open for Russia to provide an alternate explanation if it wants. It doesn't want to do so, so the only other option is to reject any evidence we've raised, ergo it would not be us rejecting dialogue.
Just watching Trump Tillerson and Co. It's difficult imagining what they could have been going through their heads when they voted for this man. I'd sooner have Putin any day of the week with or without Novichok.
Thats how it plays out with a lot of people. Putin comes across as a lot smarter than Trump.
Whilst I might argue Putin is smarter, as an international leader anyway, my preference would be for the incompetent person I think is bad rather than the competent one.
The difference is simple: the US has (for the moment at least) a bureaucracy that can prevent Trump doing many bad things (though not all). There is a congress that can act as a brake as well, and a media that can try to hold him to account.
In the case of Putin, he is the government now. He has very few checks and balances on what he does, and a media that are either in his control, or fearful for their lives.
This is why Roger's comment below is so ridiculous. People like him would be forced to make a choice very quickly: either support the regime or be unemployed or worse.
Yep. Its like my finnish friend said, noone dreams of emigrating to russia.
Plenty of people from the periphery of the former Soviet Union do. Moscow is full of immigrants in that sense.
In general terms though, people are attracted to regimes where you don't live in constant fear of the state.
Surely it is that they are repelled by regimes where you do live in constant fear of the state? Which may sound like a distinction without a difference but I think does leave people who don't have that experience less deeply rooted in democracy than is realised.
+1
Any chance you could change your avatar RCS? Vlad's giving me the creeps!
I always think in that photograph he looks a bit like a Womble.
The reason is that productivity has stagnated for the last decade.
Increased wages have to be earned with increased productivity.
Note: Productivity is effectiveness. It is not improved with increased numbers of people in work or increased hours. It is achieved by more output per hour.
The increase in GDP from increased immigration/population/number in work has not improved productivity.
Look at the monkey!
Do you see the drop off after Q1 2016. Something happened, and it wasn’t secular productivity stagnation.
Denmark import large amounts of electricity from Norway. Our own gas will also last longer than you claim and there are new discoveries being made all the time. We also had very large gas storage capabilities but lost the majority because of problems with the Rough facility.
Oh and Denmark expects to start importing gas from 2020 or 2021 as there has been a rapid decline in their own production.
Have you looked at in-situ gasification?
There is the possibility to do mega amounts of it using the coal fields under the North Sea. It probably requires methane to be about $10-12mcf to be economical, but is an important reminder that we could be energy independent in the longer term.
Tonight's the night for Alexis Sanchez and Paul Pogba to justify their transfer fees and salaries.
Good side Sevilla. It was quite hard for Leicester to knock them out of the Champions League last year, but we did 3:2 on aggregate. Perhaps Jose could console himself by watching those highlights
Hoho. We're just going to have to concentrate on the league. Oh...
Just watching Trump Tillerson and Co. It's difficult imagining what they could have been going through their heads when they voted for this man. I'd sooner have Putin any day of the week with or without Novichok.
Thats how it plays out with a lot of people. Putin comes across as a lot smarter than Trump.
Whilst I might argue Putin is smarter, as an international leader anyway, my preference would be for the incompetent person I think is bad rather than the competent one.
The difference is simple: the US has (for the moment at least) a bureaucracy that can prevent Trump doing many bad things (though not all). There is a congress that can act as a brake as well, and a media that can try to hold him to account.
In the case of Putin, he is the government now. He has very few checks and balances on what he does, and a media that are either in his control, or fearful for their lives.
This is why Roger's comment below is so ridiculous. People like him would be forced to make a choice very quickly: either support the regime or be unemployed or worse.
Yep. Its like my finnish friend said, noone dreams of emigrating to russia.
Plenty of people from the periphery of the former Soviet Union do. Moscow is full of immigrants in that sense.
In general terms though, people are attracted to regimes where you don't live in constant fear of the state.
Surely it is that they are repelled by regimes where you do live in constant fear of the state? Which may sound like a distinction without a difference but I think does leave people who don't have that experience less deeply rooted in democracy than is realised.
+1
Any chance you could change your avatar RCS? Vlad's giving me the creeps!
I always think in that photograph he looks a bit like a Womble.
The reason is that productivity has stagnated for the last decade.
Increased wages have to be earned with increased productivity.
Note: Productivity is effectiveness. It is not improved with increased numbers of people in work or increased hours. It is achieved by more output per hour.
The increase in GDP from increased immigration/population/number in work has not improved productivity.
Look at the monkey!
Do you see the drop off after Q1 2016. Something happened, and it wasn’t secular productivity stagnation.
Economic growth had become dependent upon borrowed money being spent upon imported tat.
To rebalance the economy to something sustainable will need consumption to be held down for years.
Or do you think this country can continually consume more wealth than it produces ?
I think that is probably happening with the squeeze on wages. The rounds of retail and restaurant closures points in that direction. Probably a good thing in the long term as many Britons are maxed out on debt. It will be a drain on GDP growth though.
The reason is that productivity has stagnated for the last decade.
Increased wages have to be earned with increased productivity.
Note: Productivity is effectiveness. It is not improved with increased numbers of people in work or increased hours. It is achieved by more output per hour.
The increase in GDP from increased immigration/population/number in work has not improved productivity.
Look at the monkey!
Do you see the drop off after Q1 2016. Something happened, and it wasn’t secular productivity stagnation.
Such has been the fever pitch of anti-Russia sabre-rattling over the past couple of days that even to ask ‘Shall we wait for all the facts?’ is to risk being shot down, being accused of ‘Putin apologism’, being branded an enemy of Britain and friend of Russia. Witness the response to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s sensible plea that we remain in a ‘robust dialogue with Russia’ rather than ‘cutting off contact and letting the tensions and divisions get worse and potentially even more dangerous’. A politician calling for calm? For diplomacy? For dialogue? Boo! That cannot be tolerated.
' In 2015, then-chancellor George Osborne led a UK government trade mission to China, accompanied by the Mayor of Liverpool, Joe Anderson, to trumpet the “golden era” of Sino-British relations. They were there to sell the Northern Pitchbook, a £24bn catalogue of investment opportunities, one highlight of which was Liverpool’s New Chinatown. Devised by North Point Global, this flagship £200m development of 800 luxury flats was to stand in the shadow of the Anglican Cathedral, as a dramatic cluster of angular towers rising above a Chinese bazaar.
“We have an idea, because of Liverpool’s links to China, of a new Chinese-themed attraction to bring it all to life,” Osborne told the Liverpool Echo in September 2015, speaking on the phone from Chengdu. “I’ve just been talking to one of the Chinese investors at the Liverpool stand,” he continued. “And Joe and I were going at it as a tag team, to try and persuade him to put his money into Liverpool.” '
Apparently the Chinese investors believe they were guaranteed a 9% rate of return on their investment.
Certainly they were both gullible and greedy but the story gives an indication as to how dependent the UK economy has become on ever more dubious property speculation by foreigners and how much money flows out of the UK as a consequence.
In fact so much flows out that even if the UK ran both a trade surplus and a tourism surplus it would still have a balance of payments deficit.
Tonight's the night for Alexis Sanchez and Paul Pogba to justify their transfer fees and salaries.
Good side Sevilla. It was quite hard for Leicester to knock them out of the Champions League last year, but we did 3:2 on aggregate. Perhaps Jose could console himself by watching those highlights
Fully deserved win by Sevilla - Mourinho team selection and tactics poor + Sanchez and Pogba just hopeless
Tonight's the night for Alexis Sanchez and Paul Pogba to justify their transfer fees and salaries.
Sanchez is not worth his place in the team at the moment and we would be more effective playing with 10 men than having Pogba on the pitch. He just gives the ball away the whole time. Probably the worst United performance since the dark days of LVG.
The reason is that productivity has stagnated for the last decade.
Increased wages have to be earned with increased productivity.
Note: Productivity is effectiveness. It is not improved with increased numbers of people in work or increased hours. It is achieved by more output per hour.
The increase in GDP from increased immigration/population/number in work has not improved productivity.
Look at the monkey!
Do you see the drop off after Q1 2016. Something happened, and it wasn’t secular productivity stagnation.
Economic growth had become dependent upon borrowed money being spent upon imported tat.
To rebalance the economy to something sustainable will need consumption to be held down for years.
Or do you think this country can continually consume more wealth than it produces ?
Wrong.
Someone called it right downthread, it was inflation - caused by the fall in the pound - reducing our real wages.
Reducing consumption maybe necessary, but that doesn’t mean we should sign up to years more of wage stagnation. Or it didn’t, before Brexit.
The UK had the highest balance of payments deficit on record in 2016 and the highest balance of payments deficit in the western world.
And you think that sterling needed to have a higher value ?
Now lets consider what would have happened if sterling had a higher value - the trade deficit wouldn't have fallen, manufacturing output would be lower, the tourism deficit would be higher as the UK lived even further beyond its means that it has been doing.
Do you think this country can continually consume more wealth that it produces ?
Please answer that - its the issue supporters of Osbrowne economics have been ignoring for over a decade.
Denmark import large amounts of electricity from Norway. Our own gas will also last longer than you claim and there are new discoveries being made all the time. We also had very large gas storage capabilities but lost the majority because of problems with the Rough facility.
Oh and Denmark expects to start importing gas from 2020 or 2021 as there has been a rapid decline in their own production.
Have you looked at in-situ gasification?
There is the possibility to do mega amounts of it using the coal fields under the North Sea. It probably requires methane to be about $10-12mcf to be economical, but is an important reminder that we could be energy independent in the longer term.
Oh absolutely. I was simply answering rural_voters' points.
The big issue for the UK is not gas sources, it is gas storage. Rough was important not because it produced any gas but because it gave us 10 days of supply if all other sources were cut off. We really do need to replace it but at the moment there are no suitable candidate fields.
Tonight's the night for Alexis Sanchez and Paul Pogba to justify their transfer fees and salaries.
Sanchez is not worth his place in the team at the moment and we would be more effective playing with 10 men than having Pogba on the pitch. He just gives the ball away the whole time. Probably the worst United performance since the dark days of LVG.
Agreed and Fellaini played lot better than Pogba , no correct that, everyone played better than Pogba
And why keep switching Rashford - Mourinho tactics all wrong
Tonight's the night for Alexis Sanchez and Paul Pogba to justify their transfer fees and salaries.
Sanchez is not worth his place in the team at the moment and we would be more effective playing with 10 men than having Pogba on the pitch. He just gives the ball away the whole time. Probably the worst United performance since the dark days of LVG.
My Manchester United supporting colleagues have texted me the following
1) If Pogba had played on Saturday Liverpool would have won 10 nil
2) United's season went to shit when Mourinho parked the bus at Anfield
The reason is that productivity has stagnated for the last decade.
Increased wages have to be earned with increased productivity.
Note: Productivity is effectiveness. It is not improved with increased numbers of people in work or increased hours. It is achieved by more output per hour.
The increase in GDP from increased immigration/population/number in work has not improved productivity.
Look at the monkey!
Do you see the drop off after Q1 2016. Something happened, and it wasn’t secular productivity stagnation.
Economic growth had become dependent upon borrowed money being spent upon imported tat.
To rebalance the economy to something sustainable will need consumption to be held down for years.
Or do you think this country can continually consume more wealth than it produces ?
I think that is probably happening with the squeeze on wages. The rounds of retail and restaurant closures points in that direction. Probably a good thing in the long term as many Britons are maxed out on debt. It will be a drain on GDP growth though.
The UK had become a fat slob of an economy - it needs to do more work, more exercise and go on a diet.
And like many fat slobs there are some people who claim there isn't a problem and some people who say something needs to be done but at some time in the future.
Economic growth had become dependent upon borrowed money being spent upon imported tat.
To rebalance the economy to something sustainable will need consumption to be held down for years.
Or do you think this country can continually consume more wealth than it produces ?
Wrong.
Someone called it right downthread, it was inflation - caused by the fall in the pound - reducing our real wages.
Reducing consumption maybe necessary, but that doesn’t mean we should sign up to years more of wage stagnation. Or it didn’t, before Brexit.
The UK had the highest balance of payments deficit on record in 2016 and the highest balance of payments deficit in the western world.
And you think that sterling needed to have a higher value ?
Now lets consider what would have happened if sterling had a higher value - the trade deficit wouldn't have fallen, manufacturing output would be lower, the tourism deficit would be higher as the UK lived even further beyond its means that it has been doing.
Do you think this country can continually consume more wealth that it produces ?
Please answer that - its the issue supporters of Osbrowne economics have been ignoring for over a decade.
You are now changing the subject, onto your Osbrowne economics hobbyhorse.
I agree that Osbrownianism was unsustainable, if you mean an economy built on debt-fuelled consumption, inflated house prices, etc. The hard but sustainable way to address that is to deflate the bubble and incentivise increased savings.
But I’m talking about Brexit, which as we see has - via inflation - had a real effect on our spending power. We now have less (relatively) money to allocate to anything - whether spending OR saving.
PS Please expand on this “tourism deficit”. It sounds awkwardly as if we must all spend our summers in Skegness.
Tonight's the night for Alexis Sanchez and Paul Pogba to justify their transfer fees and salaries.
Sanchez is not worth his place in the team at the moment and we would be more effective playing with 10 men than having Pogba on the pitch. He just gives the ball away the whole time. Probably the worst United performance since the dark days of LVG.
My Manchester United supporting colleagues have texted me the following
1) If Pogba had played on Saturday Liverpool would have won 10 nil
2) United's season went to shit when Mourinho parked the bus at Anfield
You have Manchester United supporting colleagues - I thought you worked in Manchester ?
Tonight's the night for Alexis Sanchez and Paul Pogba to justify their transfer fees and salaries.
Sanchez is not worth his place in the team at the moment and we would be more effective playing with 10 men than having Pogba on the pitch. He just gives the ball away the whole time. Probably the worst United performance since the dark days of LVG.
My Manchester United supporting colleagues have texted me the following
1) If Pogba had played on Saturday Liverpool would have won 10 nil
2) United's season went to shit when Mourinho parked the bus at Anfield
You have Manchester United supporting colleagues - I thought you worked in Manchester ?
Do they come from somewhere else ?
I do work in Manchester, one's from Scotland, but he's been living in England since 1987.
Someone called it right downthread, it was inflation - caused by the fall in the pound - reducing our real wages.
Reducing consumption maybe necessary, but that doesn’t mean we should sign up to years more of wage stagnation. Or it didn’t, before Brexit.
The UK had the highest balance of payments deficit on record in 2016 and the highest balance of payments deficit in the western world.
And you think that sterling needed to have a higher value ?
Now lets consider what would have happened if sterling had a higher value - the trade deficit wouldn't have fallen, manufacturing output would be lower, the tourism deficit would be higher as the UK lived even further beyond its means that it has been doing.
Do you think this country can continually consume more wealth that it produces ?
Please answer that - its the issue supporters of Osbrowne economics have been ignoring for over a decade.
You are now changing the subject, onto your Osbrowne economics hobbyhorse.
I agree that Osbrownianism was unsustainable, if you mean an economy built on debt-fuelled consumption, inflated house prices, etc. The hard but sustainable way to address that is to deflate the bubble and incentivise increase in savings.
But I’m talking about Brexit, which as we see has - via inflation - had a real effect on our spending power. We now have less (relatively) money to allocate to anything - whether spending OR saving.
PS Please expand on this “tourism deficit”. It sounds awkwardly as if we must all spend our summers in Skegness.
The tourism deficit is simply the excess of spending by UK visitors abroad to the spending in the UK by foreign visitors:
You might notice that while some countries, eg USA and France, have a tourism surplus and a trade defict and other countries, eg China and Germany, have a trade surplus and a tourism deficit the UK has been running both a trade deficit and a tourism deficit for the last twenty years.
Now as to your idea about deflating property bubbles and incentivising savings its nice in theory (although it wouldn't have boosted manufacturing and other exports) but you know as well as I do that there was no chance of that happening if Remain had won.
The alternative to what we have now was continuing Osbrowne economic strategy.
Irrespective of whether the Democrats snatch the House seat today, I think people this side of the ocean underestimate the level of mobilisation against the Trump presidency amongst Democrats and, critically, independents. Motivation is very high indeed. On the other hand a slice of the GOP voter base is pretty dispirited. The GOP cannot just rely on its traditional core but a core that has some of its own less motivated to vote.
Despite the stock standard assessment that the mid terms are tough for Democrats there is every chance of a large overperformance.
' In 2015, then-chancellor George Osborne led a UK government trade mission to China, accompanied by the Mayor of Liverpool, Joe Anderson, to trumpet the “golden era” of Sino-British relations. They were there to sell the Northern Pitchbook, a £24bn catalogue of investment opportunities, one highlight of which was Liverpool’s New Chinatown. Devised by North Point Global, this flagship £200m development of 800 luxury flats was to stand in the shadow of the Anglican Cathedral, as a dramatic cluster of angular towers rising above a Chinese bazaar.
“We have an idea, because of Liverpool’s links to China, of a new Chinese-themed attraction to bring it all to life,” Osborne told the Liverpool Echo in September 2015, speaking on the phone from Chengdu. “I’ve just been talking to one of the Chinese investors at the Liverpool stand,” he continued. “And Joe and I were going at it as a tag team, to try and persuade him to put his money into Liverpool.” '
Apparently the Chinese investors believe they were guaranteed a 9% rate of return on their investment.
Certainly they were both gullible and greedy but the story gives an indication as to how dependent the UK economy has become on ever more dubious property speculation by foreigners and how much money flows out of the UK as a consequence.
In fact so much flows out that even if the UK ran both a trade surplus and a tourism surplus it would still have a balance of payments deficit.
As evidence as to how much the UK's financial position has worsened compare the trade deficit to the overall balance of payments deficit:
While the cumulative trade deficits for the periods 2003-2007, 2008-2012 and 2013-17 have varied only between £173bn to £177bn the cumulative balance of payments deficits increased from £188bn to £304bn to an estimated £500bn.
As Robert Smithson has pointed out previously, over the last twenty years there has been a huge shift from the UK being a net owner of foreign assets to foreign countries being a net owner of UK assets.
With the consequent flows of funds from interest on UK government bonds, dividends from UK companies and rental income from UK property.
Irrespective of whether the Democrats snatch the House seat today, I think people this side of the ocean underestimate the level of mobilisation against the Trump presidency amongst Democrats and, critically, independents. Motivation is very high indeed. On the other hand a slice of the GOP voter base is pretty dispirited. The GOP cannot just rely on its traditional core but a core that has some of its own less motivated to vote.
Despite the stock standard assessment that the mid terms are tough for Democrats there is every chance of a large overperformance.
Trump has a 42% approval rating with likely/registered voters according to 538. Do you think that's a good or bad rating for Trump at this stage?
Irrespective of whether the Democrats snatch the House seat today, I think people this side of the ocean underestimate the level of mobilisation against the Trump presidency amongst Democrats and, critically, independents. Motivation is very high indeed. On the other hand a slice of the GOP voter base is pretty dispirited. The GOP cannot just rely on its traditional core but a core that has some of its own less motivated to vote.
Despite the stock standard assessment that the mid terms are tough for Democrats there is every chance of a large overperformance.
The Dems are able to run against a Republican controlled House, Senate and government.
Irrespective of whether the Democrats snatch the House seat today, I think people this side of the ocean underestimate the level of mobilisation against the Trump presidency amongst Democrats and, critically, independents. Motivation is very high indeed. On the other hand a slice of the GOP voter base is pretty dispirited. The GOP cannot just rely on its traditional core but a core that has some of its own less motivated to vote.
Despite the stock standard assessment that the mid terms are tough for Democrats there is every chance of a large overperformance.
Trump has a 42% approval rating with likely/registered voters according to 538. Do you think that's a good or bad rating for Trump at this stage?
Its not fantastic in historic terms but more bad news for him and the party is coming. Just like voters here, Americans don't react well to parties and politicians who seem to just have trouble following them constantly.
Comments
In the case of Putin, he is the government now. He has very few checks and balances on what he does, and a media that are either in his control, or fearful for their lives.
This is why Roger's comment below is so ridiculous. People like him would be forced to make a choice very quickly: either support the regime or be unemployed or worse.
If the UK had applied that prudent an attitude to N. Sea gas, we might have some left.
Countries like Denmark aren't in such a predicament because they built gas storage and are trying to make their own gas last until 2040-50 by which time they hope to be on 100% renewables. Only irresponsible countries have problems. Guess which I mean ...
Please feel free to move to Russia and then criticise Putin.
Rami Hamdallah, the prime minister of the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority, had just entered Gaza when a roadside explosive detonated near his convoy. Mr Hamdallah was not injured but seven of his guards and aides suffered slight wounds, according to Palestinian media.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/13/palestinian-prime-minister-survives-assassination-attempt-gaza/
Luckily there’s no evidence that stagnating wages causes political instability. No sirree.
https://twitter.com/torstenbell/status/973601349156986881
The reason is that productivity has stagnated for the last decade.
Increased wages have to be earned with increased productivity.
Note: Productivity is effectiveness. It is not improved with increased numbers of people in work or increased hours. It is achieved by more output per hour.
The increase in GDP from increased immigration/population/number in work has not improved productivity.
Poland's government seems the most culpable, where numerous roadblocks were thrown in the way of Irish gas firm San Leon's attempts to develop the resource.
So true.
Such has been the fever pitch of anti-Russia sabre-rattling over the past couple of days that even to ask ‘Shall we wait for all the facts?’ is to risk being shot down, being accused of ‘Putin apologism’, being branded an enemy of Britain and friend of Russia. Witness the response to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s sensible plea that we remain in a ‘robust dialogue with Russia’ rather than ‘cutting off contact and letting the tensions and divisions get worse and potentially even more dangerous’. A politician calling for calm? For diplomacy? For dialogue? Boo! That cannot be tolerated.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-jingoistic-fear-of-russia-is-out-of-control/21212#.Wqg3X47FKUk
(1) The following site might be interesting:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/13/us/elections/results-pennsylvania-house-special-election.html
(2) Trump and Stormy Daniels seem to me to be the perfect match (made in ???).
I mean what can one say.
Do you see the drop off after Q1 2016.
Something happened, and it wasn’t secular productivity stagnation.
Jezza was not attacked for saying that we should be measured in our response. There were plenty in the Commons making the same point on all sides.
Rather he was attacked from all sides for seeking to take party political advantage of a serious threat to our country.
Not that I am a Putin admirer, but it all has to be seen in context.
Waiting for enough facts to make a credible initial conclusion was what the government already did. Will there ever be so many facts that Russia were to admit things. Of course not, nor is it likely any such things can be proven 100%. Unless the Russians accept our accusation, which won't happen even proof were handed down from on high on stone tablets, or we discover more information which casts doubt on the current theories - possible, in fairness - what is there even to talk about?
Mancs used up all their luck up on Saturday.
EDIT Ooops - maybe not
The 6% poll in favour of Lamb has largely skewed alot of betting and thought. Bear in mind this was a poll of just 372, which is far from trustworthy. Moreover if you look at the breakdown in the people polled in this, their sample was 39% who classed themselves as Democrat and just 38% as Republican, the rest independent. Which seems very out of proportion with the local area.
I've got on the Republican victory when it was briefly at 2.66. I expect that to come in well. Republican victory by around 5%+ me thinks.
Oh and Denmark expects to start importing gas from 2020 or 2021 as there has been a rapid decline in their own production.
Does that help at all?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/datasets/gdpperheadtablep
You might also take a look at this:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/hbop/pnbp
Economic growth had become dependent upon borrowed money being spent upon imported tat.
To rebalance the economy to something sustainable will need consumption to be held down for years.
Or do you think this country can continually consume more wealth than it produces ?
There is the possibility to do mega amounts of it using the coal fields under the North Sea. It probably requires methane to be about $10-12mcf to be economical, but is an important reminder that we could be energy independent in the longer term.
https://twitter.com/christinawilkie/status/973667887708823556
@FelicityHannah: You're all laughing at Trump but, come on, we'd all want to join the Space Force.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/13/buyer-funded-development-scandal
An interesting tale of failed property developments, greedy foreign investors, Scousers and George Osborne.
Someone called it right downthread, it was inflation - caused by the fall in the pound - reducing our real wages.
Reducing consumption maybe necessary, but that doesn’t mean we should sign up to years more of wage stagnation. Or it didn’t, before Brexit.
“We have an idea, because of Liverpool’s links to China, of a new Chinese-themed attraction to bring it all to life,” Osborne told the Liverpool Echo in September 2015, speaking on the phone from Chengdu. “I’ve just been talking to one of the Chinese investors at the Liverpool stand,” he continued. “And Joe and I were going at it as a tag team, to try and persuade him to put his money into Liverpool.” '
Apparently the Chinese investors believe they were guaranteed a 9% rate of return on their investment.
Certainly they were both gullible and greedy but the story gives an indication as to how dependent the UK economy has become on ever more dubious property speculation by foreigners and how much money flows out of the UK as a consequence.
In fact so much flows out that even if the UK ran both a trade surplus and a tourism surplus it would still have a balance of payments deficit.
No complaints at all - the best team won
And you think that sterling needed to have a higher value ?
Now lets consider what would have happened if sterling had a higher value - the trade deficit wouldn't have fallen, manufacturing output would be lower, the tourism deficit would be higher as the UK lived even further beyond its means that it has been doing.
Do you think this country can continually consume more wealth that it produces ?
Please answer that - its the issue supporters of Osbrowne economics have been ignoring for over a decade.
The big issue for the UK is not gas sources, it is gas storage. Rough was important not because it produced any gas but because it gave us 10 days of supply if all other sources were cut off. We really do need to replace it but at the moment there are no suitable candidate fields.
And why keep switching Rashford - Mourinho tactics all wrong
1) If Pogba had played on Saturday Liverpool would have won 10 nil
2) United's season went to shit when Mourinho parked the bus at Anfield
And like many fat slobs there are some people who claim there isn't a problem and some people who say something needs to be done but at some time in the future.
I agree that Osbrownianism was unsustainable, if you mean an economy built on debt-fuelled consumption, inflated house prices, etc. The hard but sustainable way to address that is to deflate the bubble and incentivise increased savings.
But I’m talking about Brexit, which as we see has - via inflation - had a real effect on our spending power. We now have less (relatively) money to allocate to anything - whether spending OR saving.
PS Please expand on this “tourism deficit”. It sounds awkwardly as if we must all spend our summers in Skegness.
Do they come from somewhere else ?
T'other one is from Bury.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tourism_rankings#International_tourism_receipts
You might notice that while some countries, eg USA and France, have a tourism surplus and a trade defict and other countries, eg China and Germany, have a trade surplus and a tourism deficit the UK has been running both a trade deficit and a tourism deficit for the last twenty years.
Now as to your idea about deflating property bubbles and incentivising savings its nice in theory (although it wouldn't have boosted manufacturing and other exports) but you know as well as I do that there was no chance of that happening if Remain had won.
The alternative to what we have now was continuing Osbrowne economic strategy.
Despite the stock standard assessment that the mid terms are tough for Democrats there is every chance of a large overperformance.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/hbop/pnbp
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/ikbj/mret
While the cumulative trade deficits for the periods 2003-2007, 2008-2012 and 2013-17 have varied only between £173bn to £177bn the cumulative balance of payments deficits increased from £188bn to £304bn to an estimated £500bn.
As Robert Smithson has pointed out previously, over the last twenty years there has been a huge shift from the UK being a net owner of foreign assets to foreign countries being a net owner of UK assets.
With the consequent flows of funds from interest on UK government bonds, dividends from UK companies and rental income from UK property.
And without the negatives Hilary gave them.