13-May 2022 : LAB: 39% / CON: 34% / LDEM: 11% / GRN: 6%

[steve]

c-a-r-f-r-e-w

"An extra 378,000 people have left the job market since the pandemic struck in a deterioration that is almost unique to Britain in Europe"

I wonder what could possibly have been the reason why all those people left the UK jobs market but not the jobs market in the European union?


I suppose it's just one of those mysteries like crop circles that we'll just have to put down to unknowable.

[Deleted]

Aug 7, 2022 12:24:22 GMT steve said:

Apparently the Tory party ballot paper out to the snowy white peaks of the membership today contains a handy guide from the Tory party chairman as to who is to blame for the current shambles.
It might come as a surprise to some not under the influence of recreational pharmaceuticals that it's actually Kier Starmer, Angela Raynor and Emily Thornburry who inflicted the disastrous Corbyn government that we all remember so well handy photographs are provided of the enemies of the people in case the membership had forgotten what the last government looked like.
It might come as a surprise to Starmer having ejected Corbyn from the party and not voting for him in the first place and Jeremy that he's not actually prime minister but I'm sure it makes sense to the intended audience.

I'm amazed there are actually any Tory members left. You'd have assumed that years ago they were fairly sensible, normal people. I also assume many of them have left or only stayed out of desperate loyalty.

In happy news, it doesn't sound like the Tories' attempt at Trumpian, anti-woke, anti-enemies of the people politics has resulted in hordes of like-minded people joining them.

N.B. to above: this is why I increasingly get the impression that the Tories are coming out with all these ultra-right policies for little reason - nobody has asked for them, least of all their members. Sure, there are some alt-right anti-establishment bloggers and so on, but I don't think the movement is particularly big in this country (compared to the US) and there aren't many votes to gain by going after it. Most of the traditional Tory voters I know are appalled by it all.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Aug 7, 2022 10:45:23 GMT robbiealive said:

Why is it always the anti-Labour voices, say Colin, or the pretend-Labour supporters, e.g. Chris Aberavon, right-wing Times & Sunday Telegraph columnists, & the I-am-so-disenchanted-with-Labour-I-can't-bring-myself-to-vote-for-them LOCs who are always demanding that Starmer/Labour finalises his/their agenda two years before a GE, while those who do intend voting Labour are more content with a long game?

In other words, many who aren’t unconditional fans of Starmer, regardless of what he does, are actually interested in what he might do. Quelle surprise! I think most get that he has to keep some powder dry, but when it comes to a rapidly developing crisis, that’s a situation where you might have to break cover and say more of what you might do.

Otherwise it’s a case of going “You’re handling the crisis all wrong!”
”How so? What would you do differently?”
”Not going to tell you! It’s just wrong!”

Meanwhile, Starmer has been quite keen to reveal policy he didn’t need to when it comes to shafting the left, e.g nationalisations. Which in turn limits what he can offer in terms of the energy crisis.

This sort of crisis tends to be hard for the right to deal with, they don’t have the mechanisms

Which leads us to the real problem: the growing suspicion that he doesn’t really know what to do. He says he wants to go for “growth, growth, growth.”

“Great, how are you going to do that?”

“establish a committee to tell me what to do”

Starmer maybe hasn’t been in frontline politics long enough to develop positions and it’s showing. It also means we haven’t heard as much from him in the past as we might have done other leaders*, so there’s more curiosity about his stance. 

* (hence how he was able to pull the wool over the eyes of the membership. He didn’t have as much hinterland). 

[thexterminatingdalek]

Aug 7, 2022 11:49:55 GMT steve said:

For those interested in civil disobedience as a method of changing policy worth having a look at dontpay.uk which seems to be gaining momentum in respect of customer revolt on energy bills

I saw this on Facebook last night and am by no means persuaded by the idea on its merits, let alone enough people taking part to allow it to work.

Since direct debit is the cheapest way to pay, cancelling a direct debit will automatically put customers on a more expensive tariff. Which will accumulate throughout the period they are putting off paying.

As someone involved in local planning consultations, for every thousand people who decide to do it, 995 will copy a poorly drafted standard letter which misses the point. It will take the ombudsman a lot less time to determine these cases than those who dreamed this up in the pub might expect.

Unless customers save the amount they are withholding, on their now higher tariff, they will find themselves with a mighty large bill - and more than likely on a prepayment meter if they struggle to pay.

It looks to me that Truss has walked straight into a clearly signposted heffalump trap with her idiocy about cutting taxes to save people from price rises.

I'm the last to defend Starmer's timidity on here, but in this instance saving her words to throw back at her until the inevitable u turn arrives seems sensible.

[robbiealive]

Aug 7, 2022 12:15:37 GMT @colin said:

Aug 7, 2022 10:45:23 GMT robbiealive said:

Why is it always the anti-Labour voices, ......... e.g. ........ right-wing Times  who are always demanding that Starmer/Labour finalises his/their agenda two years before a GE, ?

I quoted Steve Richards in ST today.

He isn't "right wing"  [Blob erased]

Thanks for the correction. (I have eliminated the yellow blob, as I always do in quoted posts, as I think they = cowardly & imbecilic faux-irony. So don't take the excision personally.)
Richards put me off by writing ""If Starmer wants to be PM, he could learn a lot from Truss the insurgent". Corbyn was the insurgent, Johnson was an insurgent, Brexit was insurgency!, Truss is a faux-insurgent (don't laugh). J've had a bellyfull of insurgency.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Aug 7, 2022 12:28:25 GMT steve said:

c-a-r-f-r-e-w

"An extra 378,000 people have left the job market since the pandemic struck in a deterioration that is almost unique to Britain in Europe"

I wonder what could possibly have been the reason why all those people left the UK jobs market but not the jobs market in the European union?


I suppose it's just one of those mysteries like crop circles that we'll just have to put down to unknowable.

Well it’s not all bad Steve, after all, some have recently returned to our jobs market, despite Brexit, like Cleggers!! 

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

“And here’s the point. The Bank reasonably blames Vladimir Putin’s murderous invasion of Ukraine, together with the accompanying energy price shock, for much of today’s spike in inflation. Assuming Russia doesn’t cut off gas supplies to Europe entirely, this effect should abate in time.

Yet fast coming up in the wings is the now growing likelihood of another inflationary shock which barely gets a mention in the Bank of England’s latest musings, albeit one on a much longer fuse – Western disengagement from China. It’s proving hard enough to wean ourselves off Russian oil and gas; what chance of cheap Chinese goods?”

Telegraph

[Danny]

Aug 7, 2022 10:49:21 GMT davwel said:

Meanwhile, utter irresponsibility and greed go little checked.  Sunak and Truss are plumbing new depths, and the media are mostly helping them along.  Tax cuts are talked about rather than service cuts.  Growth in the UK economy is seen as the answer.

If that is produced by improved productivity, then fine. But where is the unused labour ready to work for new businesses and fill gaps in public services.

Our papers in the NE have news about big hardships resulting from staff shortages.  In Westhill one of the only two pharmacies has closed "temporalily" leaving the single one unable to cope - there have been long queues on the pavements outside, and some folk are reported to have queued for 2 hours to get much-needed prescriptions; security guards have been called in to keep order.   And also worrying, the general hospital inn Elgin that serves Morayshire has had no consultant on night duty on 5 days last month, so nurses would have to cope with emergencies.

The NHS is almost overwhelmed here, with operations cancelled and routine activity much delayed.

But the D.Tel preaches that the only solution to the water crisis is more reservoirs and schemes to rob places with reasonable provision by piping to Southern England.  Why ever can folk there stop watering lawns.

Well first off lets stop this nonsense about lawns. All the lawns round here are brown, though its interesting how the tough coarse grass is still coming through here and there. Next, the water crisis is patchy and its very hard to tell how bad it really is, either in terms of stored volumes, rates of usage or the time before rain arrives. So far i've heard two announcements of hose pipe bans, first for the 'south of England, and then for Sussex. both are false alarms in the sense I live in hastings. The first applied to hampshire, not all of southern England, and then the next to certain parts of Sussex. Hastings happens to have quite a good local supply with its own reservoirs, which may be the result of national planning back in the day we had central planning to create enough new housing post war, and hastings was a chosen destination for thousands of Londoners leaving the city. As far as global warming goes, this is all deja vue from my youth when we had the summer of 76 and record drouts. So far its not as bad as that yet, whatever has been claimed about record temperatures. Despite huge calls back then to create a better water supply system, we seem to have done bugger all, and have pipes just as leaky as back then wasting more than we use. Privatisation of the water industry was a total and utter failure in terms of guaranteeing supplies. Pretty much, thats down to conservatives failings of policy, but its not as if labour saw it as a priority either.


As to the NHS, the current regime has spent ten years slashing the NHS by stealth. They claimed to be maintaining inflation matching rises for the NHS, but have slashed social care budgets, which is health care by a different name under a different administrative sector. It has been a very cynical ploy to pretend to be boosting health spending while in reality cutting it. Then we had lockdowns imposed on the nation which wasted a fortune and in particular suspended normal health care for a year or more. That was a policy choice, and it was disastrous. meanwhile the NHS has suffered redesign after redesign making its management more convoluted and expensive and inefficient. For example, the hospital told someone I know he needed an expedited appointment, but to get one he first had to somehow get to see a GP, fighting his way through the receptionist by threatening to go directly to casualty and stay there till it was sorted. but the point is, the hospital couldnt expedite anything, it had to come through a GP, fundamenally because of the way NHS funding has been set up. And as we all know, therre arent enough GPs left to see all the patients wanting to. Hospital doctors cannot refer you across to a colleague where they see the need, they can only send you back to your GP. Its insane.

And then we got Brexit, which obviously has cut immigration to the Uk of medical staff from Europe, as it was intended to, but no one has made any plan how to replace this loss. Unless you count cutting budgets for training medical staff within the UK.

This government has had policies which might be expected to cause the NHS to collapse. I am surprised their pensioner voters who are the ones getting most from the NHS have allowed this confidence trick to take place.

Growth might be called upon as the answer to all things, but it really hasnt been working since the days of Brown and Blair. Not through the years of this administration. none of their policies have been able to repair the damage done by the 2008 bank fraud selling worthless securities to the world. All they have managed is to impose an energy policy failure and a trade partner plan failure by leaving the EU.

In short they have sabotaged practically everything about the UK.

Just how is growth to come about? Why would any international company wish to invest in the Uk at this moment in history? Its scope for exports is now uncertain. It has labour shortages and therefore expectations of higher wages. Indeed, the need for higher wages in certain sectors. hard to see how this is going to ripple through pay relative values. Higher paid people must earn less to allow lower paid to earn more, its the only possible solution. But is that going to just happen? absolutely not. Government helping industry with subsidies, loans, or clever schemes? Not a chance- they ideologically oppose it.

The pound has fallen 20% since Brexit process began. that has yet to ripple through as a permanent loss of our wealth. We have what we can only hope is a temporary loss because of massive supply dislocation caused by lockdowns, which may resolve and to some extent reverse. Theoretically wind energy is cheap, yet we are just committing to expensive nuclear for the next 50 years. We could have been well advanced in renewables, in more home insulation. Yet what we seem to have had are schemes designed to make private installers rich at the public expense. not quite as bad as the Irish cash for ash, but pretty bad. Planning rules which have been allowed to prevent rollout of renewables.

And then there there is globalised trade, which leaves us dependent on Russia and China who are currently seen as our biggest military enemies. Thats 12 year con have been managing our foreign policy. A disaster.

[steve]

sotonsaint

I have my doubts about the effectiveness as well. But given participants aren't likely to do so if still on legacy lower tariff deals all the rest( now the large majority) will find themselves either on pre pay, where clearly it's not doable or in the majority standard variable rates where the tariff doesn't change irrespective of the payment method.

As I understand it the idea is akin to the poll tax where if a sufficient percentage refuse it galvenizes a change of approach.
If the utility companies for example saw 5% of their customers refusing to pay the normal recovery methods of veiled and not so veiled threats just wouldn't be effective and individual recovery ludicrously expensive.

[Danny]

Aug 7, 2022 8:40:49 GMT @colin said:

In other words, the choice between Truss and Sunak is not just about policy or personality. It is, in effect, a choice between doubling down on the electoral realignment that took place under Johnson and Theresa May, or returning to a Tory vote that looks more like David Cameron’s. And it is one that dictates the electoral battleground. A Tory party that scraps with Labour for working-class Leavers in the north will find it harder to keep middle-class Remainers in the south from drifting to the Lib Dems — and of course vice versa.

Long excerpt you posted, but I have said something similar several times before. The reason Con kept Johnson in position desite mistake after mistake was because the time for a change of direction has not yet arrived. Sure, the consequences of Brexit are becoming clear and the country now has a majority to rejoin. But its way too early for con to ditch its leavers and go back to being pro EU. Hence they cannot yet choose a leader who is pro EU or ditch the insanities consequent upon brexit. Not to mention lockdown was itself a national disaster, and someone needs to be blamed for that. At least that one is ended, so it will be simpler to say it all happened under Johnson. Brexit continues to unravel the UK.

[davwel]

@ Danny message just above:

I agree with much of what you say, and pay offers to the public sector including health staff have simply to rise, else the results of understaffing will be anger and deaths.

But many other public-service staff have had shockingly bad offers, and strikes are fully justified:

www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/bin-strike-looms-west-lothian-24602228

I think as I fill my wheelie bins will they be collected the Monday after tomorrow, or the stuff left to rot and stink in the heat. 2% is not enough for the binmen.

And in response to pjw1961 @ 12.13 pm on the Scotland NHS crisis, I put it mostly down to the UK Gov`s measly allocation to Scotland. So 80% Tory fault, 20% SNP. The latter for example wanted vaccination in big centres in early stages of bad CV, needing big staffs and expensive hires of facilities, halls. I would have operated on a more local scale. But overall I feel Nicola Sturgeon and her ministers plus top health staff have done very well.

[catmanjeff]

Aug 7, 2022 12:34:00 GMT thexterminatingdalek said:

Aug 7, 2022 11:49:55 GMT steve said:

For those interested in civil disobedience as a method of changing policy worth having a look at dontpay.uk which seems to be gaining momentum in respect of customer revolt on energy bills

I saw this on Facebook last night and am by no means persuaded by the idea on its merits, let alone enough people taking part to allow it to work.

Since direct debit is the cheapest way to pay, cancelling a direct debit will automatically put customers on a more expensive tariff. Which will accumulate throughout the period they are putting off paying.

As someone involved in local planning consultations, for every thousand people who decide to do it, 995 will copy a poorly drafted standard letter which misses the point. It will take the ombudsman a lot less time to determine these cases than those who dreamed this up in the pub might expect.

Unless customers save the amount they are withholding, on their now higher tariff, they will find themselves with a mighty large bill - and more than likely on a prepayment meter if they struggle to pay.

It looks to me that Truss has walked straight into a clearly signposted heffalump trap with her idiocy about cutting taxes to save people from price rises.

I'm the last to defend Starmer's timidity on here, but in this instance saving her words to throw back at her until the inevitable u turn arrives seems sensible.

To most people, the negatives that come from not paying your leccy bill would be quite unpleasant. I myself, while not happy about the increases to come, will whinge and moan, but can afford to pay by cutting back etc. I won't trash my financial outlook by not paying.

However, there are a large minority who will not have the money to pay. To some people stretched beyond breaking, they may well feel they have little to lose. Faced with paying your mortgage or your fuel bill when pushed into a corner, it's a stark but easy choice isn't it?

We are in times of chaos and upheaval. I have zero faith the a Truss or Sunak government will provide enough support for the most vulnerable.

[robbiealive]

Aug 7, 2022 12:33:47 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Aug 7, 2022 10:45:23 GMT robbiealive said:

Why is it always the anti-Labour voices, say Colin, or the pretend-Labour supporters, e.g. Chris Aberavon, right-wing Times & Sunday Telegraph columnists, & the I-am-so-disenchanted-with-Labour-I-can't-bring-myself-to-vote-for-them LOCs who are always demanding that Starmer/Labour finalises his/their agenda two years before a GE, while those who do intend voting Labour are more content with a long game?

1. Meanwhile, Starmer has been quite keen to reveal policy he didn’t need to when it comes to shafting the left, e.g nationalisations. Which in turn limits what he can offer in terms of the energy crisis.

2. This sort of crisis tends to be hard for the right to deal with, they don’t have the mechanisms

3.Starmer maybe hasn’t been in frontline politics long enough to develop positions and it’s showing. It also means we haven’t heard as much from him in the past as we might have done other leaders*, so there’s more curiosity about his stance. 

* (hence how he was able to pull the wool over the eyes of the membership. He didn’t have as much hinterland). 

I should have added to the list of non-Labour-voters who make demands on Starmer, people like you, , who don't vote at all. 
1. Is anyone suggesting the oil & energy companies should be nationalised. 
2. The right spent £400 billion on Covid. 
3. He didn't pull the wool over my eyes: I didn't -- and don't -- believe half the things he said -- or says.

Anyway on a more interesting topic the site has debated, again, whether British imperilaism was a good or bad thing. I don't like this 1066 & All That question, as it breaks the rule that History should, for a number of reasons,  avoid moral judgements; & as the Sage of Curmudgeon said, states do good & bad things.
Recently i read a fictional biogarphy of Roger Casement, by the great Peruvian novelist, Llosa, (although the writing is rather flat). Casement worked as a trader in W Africa in the late 19th century, but became disilluisoned with the Victiran idea that imperialism was civilising. He then exposed the terrible atrocities imposed on tribes peoples in the Congo & later by a massive Brit company in Amazonian Peru, which gained him worldwide fame & a knighthood. Why so very terrible? Because the peoples concerned were quite unused, unlike say the Indian population, to providing & limiting surpluses to a ruling class; hence, the excessive surplus-extraction suddenly imposed on them shattered their economic & social order & rendered them defenecless against the most gruesome atrocities. Anyone reading these accounts might have second thoughts about the benefits of European imperialism. 
An Irish Protestant, Casement then became a fervent Irish nationalist, one who sought assistance in Germany in '15-16, made a silly journey to Ireland in a U-Boat in 1916 to stop the Easter Rising, was captured, & executed for high treason. Pleas for clemency were negated by his diaries, detailing homosexual activity, which he left in his London abode! A great man with a tragic end.
This led to me to re-reading yet again certain works by Joseph Conrad, who, in novelistic fashion, was v sceptical about imperialism. Conrad was a high-born Polish emigre, who hated Russian imperialism. Perhaps as an outsider, like Casement, he had more insight than home-grown imperialists.  

[steve]

Here's a happy thought.

If Ukraine begins to achieve military victory and starts rolling back Russian forces then Russian military doctrine calls for the use of tactical nuclear weapons and chemical agents.

Whether it would happen is of course highly questionable but if war criminal Putin sticks to form it most certainly can't be dismissed as a possibility.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Aug 7, 2022 13:56:46 GMT robbiealive said:

Aug 7, 2022 12:33:47 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

1. Meanwhile, Starmer has been quite keen to reveal policy he didn’t need to when it comes to shafting the left, e.g nationalisations. Which in turn limits what he can offer in terms of the energy crisis.

2. This sort of crisis tends to be hard for the right to deal with, they don’t have the mechanisms

3.Starmer maybe hasn’t been in frontline politics long enough to develop positions and it’s showing. It also means we haven’t heard as much from him in the past as we might have done other leaders*, so there’s more curiosity about his stance. 

* (hence how he was able to pull the wool over the eyes of the membership. He didn’t have as much hinterland). 

I should have added to the list of non-Labour-voters who make demands on Starmer, people like you, , who don't vote at all. 

i didn’t so much make a demand of him, as point out a potential consequence if he chooses to keep schtum. It’s quite hard to be a credible and useful opposition in a crisis if reluctant to say what you would do. Notably, many on the right are reluctant to say much on that score. What would you do Robbie?

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Aug 7, 2022 13:56:46 GMT robbiealive said:

Aug 7, 2022 12:33:47 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

1. Meanwhile, Starmer has been quite keen to reveal policy he didn’t need to when it comes to shafting the left, e.g nationalisations. Which in turn limits what he can offer in terms of the energy crisis.

2. This sort of crisis tends to be hard for the right to deal with, they don’t have the mechanisms

1. Is anyone suggesting the oil & energy companies should be nationalised. 

Well the mainstream parties are currently right wing so they wouldn’t be keen. (Corbyn was keener of course). And if you look at the pledge Starmer just ditched, the one he made when trying to get the left to back him…

and the polling posted recently shows only 8% would oppose nationalisation of energy, and even among Tories, a majority are in favour. On this board of course it seems there might be quite a lot in that more extreme 8%.

Over in France, the state has just bought out the rest of EDF. And if you look at the Twitter graph Alec posted a few days who, France are doing rather well in keeping energy costs lower. 

Aug 7, 2022 13:56:46 GMT robbiealive said:

He didn't pull the wool over my eyes: I didn't -- and don't -- believe half the things he said -- or says.

Or indeed necessarily know what he said before! Nor do you mind if he doesn’t say anything now! Which is one way to avoid being taken in I suppose, the ostrich method.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Aug 7, 2022 10:16:08 GMT crossbat11 said:

Aug 7, 2022 10:09:08 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Absolutely classic, though we never did get to hear what she thought about the pedestrianisation of Norwich City centre…

Indeed, we never did, but I suspect she was a little distracted. The earlier excursion to the Owl Sanctuary may have effected her a little. Alan playing some Bachman Turner Overdrive CDs in the car might have scrambled her mind too.

That’s how I survived public school, avoiding BTO…

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

robbiealive

[Deleted]

Aug 7, 2022 14:25:30 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

robbiealive

France  75% nuclear

UK  15% nuclear


"Some 4.2 million German households will see their electricity bills rise by an average 63.7% this year and 3.6 million stand to pay 62.3% higher gas bills"

Reuters

[laszlo4new]

I agree with the suggestion by somerjohn about the wasted treated water. But just if anyone is interested in the background of why it is needed.

The water supply industry is regulated very differently from other sectors. After the privatisation of BT, civil service figured out that the market regulation (regulating just the price increase) did not work, because the privatised BT was switching resources between household and business lines depending on the price allowed by the regulator. The political implications were obvious, so when the water supply was privatised, the regulatory framework was bureaucratic (and to a large degree it is still the same in spite of the 30 years that have gone).

So, water companies have annual meetings with the regulator. The regulator sets the investment expectations, fulfilling "good practice" rules (so, strictly speaking not targets), and the deadlines for delivery of investment, and good practices. In exchange of these a unit price of fresh water supply and waste water price chargeable (and standing charges) are offered to the water companies. The trouble is that the regulator technically knows less than the water companies about the state of the water company concerned, so a bargaining process starts "yes, we would love to implement that good practice, but we need more resources. We would need either higher prices or transfer of a town to us"). The process ends up with a compromise (I which is a code name for lose-lose situations, not just in this case). As a matter of fact, different water companies have different deals with the regulator...

[alec]

steve - "If Ukraine begins to achieve military victory and starts rolling back Russian forces then Russian military doctrine calls for the use of tactical nuclear weapons and chemical agents."


Only, I think, if Russia is deemed to be imperiled.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Aug 7, 2022 15:01:30 GMT @colin said:

Aug 7, 2022 14:25:30 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

robbiealive

France  75% nuclear

UK  15% nuclear


"Some 4.2 million German households will see their electricity bills rise by an average 63.7% this year and 3.6 million stand to pay 62.3% higher gas bills"

Reuters

Nonethless it made it easy for the French government to subsidise and maybe limit profiteering also, to profit from EDF making money from us here in the UK. And the gas fraction of the energy costs isn’t nuclear.

[neilj]

We do need more nuclear power, we also need a lot more onshore wind power. The current hurdles in the planning process needs dismantling. There needs to be a presumption in favour if onshore wind unless there are substantial environmental reasons why they shouldn't be built in a specific area.
The current restrictions on onshore wind are barmy

[Deleted]

Aug 7, 2022 14:03:07 GMT steve said:

Here's a happy thought.

If Ukraine begins to achieve military victory and starts rolling back Russian forces then Russian military doctrine calls for the use of tactical nuclear weapons and chemical agents.

A Sunday Times reader . !

Just been reading General Sir Richard Barrons explaining the same thing. He describes the effect of a 10 kt nuclear explosion over a Ukrainian town.

He also explains why a successful counterattack by Ukraine is not same as a strategic nationwide offensive across the 1,000 miles of front line needed to eject Russia from Ukraine. This , he says , would require an army of 1m. Armed and resourced -by the West. We are already , he writes, moving on from "from providing support from the inventory of our armed forces and industry to the industrial mobilisation (including in Ukraine) needed to produce the volume of equipment and ammunition that offensive operations will require. This will be a significant bill for taxpayers." .

This could not be ready until the spring , he says. So the war will grind on through the winter.

After which, he says " Russia will have declared areas of occupied Ukraine part of the Russian state before the end of the year."   

"Russian nuclear thinking accepts the use of small nuclear weapons to impose unacceptable damage on an opponent as a means of coercion, particularly in circumstances where the existence of the state is in question."

"So should a Ukrainian offensive roll over this new self-declared border, the use of nuclear weapons to break up the attack will be on the table.This is not unthinkable — it is only unpalatable."


As has been said by some here for months-The West really needs to think through  our policy on Ukraine.-or as Barron puts it -"Wars need to be thought through to the end."


Whilst reading Barron and trying to imagine the consequences of nuclear strikes on the continent of Europe, I was trying to imagine the consequences of  post September energy costs lasting for a year-two years-three years ?

[Deleted]

"78% of britons are worried about their household energy bills."

"most Britons (62%) expect to have to make at least small cuts to other spending to maintain their current energy use when the next price rise kicks in. This includes 30% who say they will need to cut large parts of their budget to maintain their energy use under the new prices.
A further 15% of people say they will be completely unable to afford their current energy use under the coming higher prices, regardless of cuts."

yougov.co.uk/topics/economy/articles-reports/2022/08/04/six-ten-britons-say-they-will-need-cut-other-spend

[alec]

@colin - I think that is the scenario no one wants to see, but once again, it's worth pointing out that Putin has bluffed and blustered and has not followed through at all on any of his dark threats to the west - so far. He is a busted flush, but a busted flush with a nuclear arsenal, so he remains a problem.

The Ukrainians are doing their best to sabotage attempts to annex parts of Ukraine, and they are making life very difficult for the occupiers in many areas. It's also beginning to look like Ukraine won't mount a full scale assault, in Kherson or elsewhere, but are instead playing games with Russia, telling them where they are going to attack, possibly to get Putin to move reinforcements there where it is easier for Ukraine to slowly degrade them. That would definitely make for an extended conflict.

But best not to forget the catastrophic impact sanctions are having on Russia. Away from the Kremlin promoted analysis that gas revenues are up, their economy has collapsed. Putin has burned through vast financial reserves to prop up the ruble, so he can boast that the economy is fine, but it isn't. Russia is sliding into developing nation territory, getting weaker by the day. It's losing it's grip on the neighboring republics, and both militarily and politically Russian influence is sliding downhill fast.

I don't know how this ends, and it won't be pretty, but Russia is certainly going to come out of it as a major casualty. The question is how much damage he inflicts on everyone else as he falls.

[Deleted]

Aug 7, 2022 15:44:57 GMT alec said:

I don't know how this ends, and it won't be pretty, but Russia is certainly going to come out of it as a major casualty. The question is how much damage he inflicts on everyone else as he falls.

Agreed. !

ps-wish I was as confident about his "failure". He is not running a democracy, so our rules don't count. And he has big friends and allies.

[alec]

neilj - we need to be careful regarding blanket permission for onshore wind. Not all of the restrictions are barmy.

On turbine noise, we still use the ETSU-R-97 guidance for turbine noise, so named because it was adopted in 1997. It is a complicated standard, but is essentially unfit for purpose, allowing far higher noise limits in some circumstances than most residents would be happy with. There are a string of technical issues with it, which are complex and I haven't time to go through, but essentially it is too weak to protect residents, especially when looking at multiple wind farm developments in close proximity. Noise regulations actually need to be strengthened, not weakened.

As an aside, there are several published studies that show householders perceive turbine noise to be much quieter and less disturbing if they are receiving a financial inducement for having the turbines sited locally.

This is the way forward for onshore wind: community ownership/control, with profits staying local to the turbines as far as possible. Do this, and we will find that objections to onshore wind largely disappear, as if by magic.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Aug 7, 2022 15:13:41 GMT neilj said:

We do need more nuclear power, we also need a lot more onshore wind power. The current hurdles in the planning process needs dismantling. There needs to be a presumption in favour if onshore wind unless there are substantial environmental reasons why they shouldn't be built in a specific area.
The current restrictions on onshore wind are barmy

Yes, a more left wing approach isn’t just about who owns it, but ensuring greater security of supply, which nuclear and wind can assist. Interestingly read an article the other day in which Octopus were arguing we could relatively easily refit existing older turbines with more modern ones that could provide up to three times the leccy, with potentially fewer planning hurdles as they’re on existing sites

“Zoisa North-Bond, chief executive of Octopus Energy Generation, said: “It’s quite difficult to build new models at the moment given where planning sits on onshore wind.

“But with repowering, we have the ability to be able to go in and look at sites which have already been designated and developed for that purpose.

“For turbines coming to the end of their life or those that are not as efficient as they could be, we can go in and put in much more powerful models. In some instances these could power up to two to three times more homes.”

Telegraph

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Aug 7, 2022 15:22:13 GMT @colin said:

Aug 7, 2022 14:03:07 GMT steve said:

Here's a happy thought.

If Ukraine begins to achieve military victory and starts rolling back Russian forces then Russian military doctrine calls for the use of tactical nuclear weapons and chemical agents.

Whilst reading Barron and trying to imagine the consequences of nuclear strikes on the continent of Europe, I was trying to imagine the consequences of  post September energy costs lasting for a year-two years-three years ?

We don’t need to imagine too hard Colin, we went through something not too dissimilar in the Seventies. Which made abundantly clear the need to secure affordable energy with our own supplies as much as possible, with abundant stockpiles, and not just leaving it to the markets and private sector. 

as it happens, the end of the seventies coincided with our increasing North Sea riches and a collapse in world energy prices for a while, which let them ignore the problem in the longer term for a few decades. But like the banking crash, it was a problem lying in wait for us.