So the UK today gets its fourth successive Tory Prime Minister, despite the fact the previous three all crashed in failure, even in their own terms.
After presiding over crippling austerity as a policy response to Gordon Brown’s massive handover of public money to the casino bankers, David Cameron’s attempt to control the lunatic right of his party by offering a Brexit referendum backfired spectacularly. Theresa May was brought down by that same right wing when she attempted to devise a Brexit deal which allowed for a sensible trading relationship with the European Union. Johnson realised that governing from the far right was the only way to handle the Conservative Party, but the lies and corruption of his government led to him being quite exploded, like Bunbury.
So now the Queen swears in the fourth Tory Prime Minister, and does it in Scotland, a nation where the Tories have been overwhelmingly rejected by the electorate throughout this period (and indeed, for seven decades). A Prime Minister elected by 80,000 people mostly in South East England, to govern 66,000,000 throughout the UK, receives office from an old woman, elected by nobody, dwelling in a castle.
Liz Truss won the Tory member electorate by promising yet anther shift still further right. The Tory party has now moved so far to the right as to be invisible to the naked eye. I should have thought it were impossible to have a more brutal Home Secretary than Priti Patel, for example, and then they pull the crazed Suella Braverman up to the office. Expect refugee deportations to the Antarctic.
During the Tory leadership campaign it was impossible to protect Liz Truss entirely from scrutiny and questioning, therefore it became blindingly obvious that she is actually pretty stupid. She cannot deliver a script at all, and when asked to think off script, a look of panic enters her eyes, a crazed smile freezes on her lips, and she says the very first thought that fights its way out of the dense matter that sits where her brain ought to be.
But now the carapace of deference and protection that surrounds a Prime Minister closes around her. The media are already changing the narrative. Journalists have not previously felt the need to hide their amusement at her intellectually challenged demeanour. Now, in the past 48 hours, I have heard correspondent after correspondent tell us that she is “hard working” and always “masters her brief”. That is plainly the approved narrative.
It is interesting how, when push comes to shove, the neoliberal political class stick together. I have actually heard two senior Labour figures reinforce this new line on finding Truss hard working. Look out for further instances.
We are now going to see immediate action on a freeze on gas prices, though the details remain obscure. Remember, that is a freeze at already through the roof prices. (That was entirely serendipitous, but “through the roof” was an apt phrase, as that is where most of the energy goes in the insulation-poor UK).
Truss’s conversion to action on energy prices is not motivated by a sudden concern for poverty or the needs of ordinary people. I learnt of it on Sunday night, before her U turn was briefed, from senior Foreign Office (FCDO) sources. Government polling has indicated a substantial fall in public support for NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine, due to unsustainable energy prices at home.
This is rather comforting as it shows the public are not daft and understand cause and effect, even when the media try to hide it.
Liz Truss’s motivation for an energy price freeze is therefore to maintain public support for fueling the Ukraine War, the overwhelming neoliberal priority. After losing the proxy war in Syria, defeat again by Russia in Ukraine is the gun barrel down which NATO is currently staring. Rather than a negotiated peace, yet more weapons and more brinkmanship are the preferred way forward.
Remember the huge increase in energy prices means incredible profits for the energy companies. Their costs have not increased. The price hike is caused purely by competition from Russia being restricted by the war. This is war profiteering.
As usual, there may be some pretence at difference of detail by the controlled opposition. But do not be surprised to see all the neoliberal parties – Tory, Labour, Liberal, SNP – broadly agree in the next week over a deal on energy bills. They are doing it for their joint promotion of war – whichthough will keep the super profits of both the arms and the energy companies rolling in.
Ultimately, they will expect you to pick up the tab, either through deferred bills or increased taxes; they are merely extending the timescale of your exploitation by war profiteers.
————————————————-
Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
Due to influence of Sir James Goldsmith’s Referendum Party both Labour and Conservative had promised to hold a referendum before joining the Euro-currency.
Parliament had signed up to the Euro, but John major secured a temporary opt-out to get the Maastricht (EU) Treaty through Parliament. Gordon Brown pursued epic Private Finance Initiative to fund public services as a mickey-mouse way to increase public spending, by falsely claiming it was private spending, to keep within the rules for joining the Euro when that became politically possible.
I think Cameron held the In or Out referendum to take UK into the Euro-currency using it to trump the Euro-currency referendum promise.
But the referendum was lost because millions of voters up-North emerged from nowhere to win it for Leave and ironically only the Irish Republican sympathiser and perceived enemy of the establishment Jeremy Corbyn offered a compromise British Brexit of leaving EU but staying in the ‘Common Market’.
But ironically again the allegedly ardent Remainer, Starmer, refused to compromise forcing a Boris Brexit. I say allegedly an ardent Remainer because once he used it to depose Corbyn, he then supported Brexit!
Starmer’s Brexit shenanigans mark him out as the most brazenly unprincipled fraud in British politics. His passionate commitment to the EU turned out to be as genuine as his commitment to socialism or democracy. Nevertheless he retains the ardent support of “people’s vote” liberals. Make of that what you will.
More ‘brazen and unprincipled than Johnson?
Yes, why pretend otherwise?
Don’t be ridiculous. Johnson is a corrupt, unprincipled scoundrel interested only in advancing Johnson.
Starmer is the Vicar of Dibley by comparison.
Stop parroting elite centrist received wisdom and confront reality. In order to advance his own career Starmer has consistently represented himself dishonestly. First as Mr Remain/Vote Again then as a socialist. Both principled personas discarded in plain sight of our political commentariat, who have told you either not to notice, that it doesn’t matter or is actually admirable. As for corruption, are you aware your Vicar of Dibley is bankrolled by private health interests and lobbyists for apartheid Israel?
“But the referendum was lost because millions of voters up-North emerged from nowhere to win it for Leave”
To be more accurate, to lose it for Remain. Those voters were not voting for Leave, they were voting against whatever the government wanted, which was Remain.
“Those voters were not voting for Leave, they were voting against whatever the government wanted, which was Remain.”
That’s me, that is. I spoilt my ballots in 1983 and 1987 then didn’t vote at all in a British state, fascist election. I voted in the referendum because it was democratic and the question seemed even handed. I haven’t stopped laughing.
Up-North?? You mean south of Gretna? Or do you mean Aberdeen?
The idea expressed in the article, which I fully accept, that the British public is being blackmailed into supporting a prolongation of the Ukraine conflict through energy and cost of living pay-offs is perverse in the extreme. But it is the case that the government is investing massively in what looks to be a failed enterprise and is unlikely to get much by way of return except perhaps profits for the weapons industry.
So why is it persisting? Maintenance of the “unipolar world order” would seem to be the only purpose, which is a sign of desperation, totally unrealistic, irresponsible and criminal. But that seems to be what is happening.
If this is indeed a “proxy war” then all the demands that Zelensky makes not just for more weapons but such things as suppression of protest and the removal of basic freedoms in other countries where unconditional support for Ukraine (read USA etc) is less forthcoming must also be proxy acts to maintain this world view.
Any reasonable person would accept that multipolarity based on equality of nationhood is a far superior concept to unipolarity and it is that which we should be getting our government to get behind, (which, of course also means getting a totally different one).
«multipolarity based on equality of nationhood»
Independence, sovereignty, nationhood are directly proportional to power, not to loud and proud declamations (in WW1 and WW2 the sovereignty of places like Belgium lasted a few days). Places like the Guernsey or Andorra or Denmark or Italy or Mexico or Thailand etc. enjoy what political writers call “limited sovereignty”, they had better not annoy their “protectors”, especially the one that controls the sea routes for their vital imports.
As to that this is the age of continental powers, and that means USA and China-mainland, and very secondarily a defeated (in 1991) but slowly recovering Russian Federation, and India and Brazil while continental are huge messes.
«Independence, sovereignty, nationhood are directly proportional to power»
This explains to a large extent the sovereignty of the english empire in the 19th century, from E. Wrigley, “Energy and the english industrial revolution” (2010):
“Approximately two-thirds of the European production of cotton textiles took place in the UK. The comparable percentages for iron production and coal production were 64 and 76 per cent. […] The total of installed steam engine horsepower was far larger than on the continent. In 1840, 75 per cent of the combined total capacity of stationary steam engines in Britain, France, Prussia and Belgium was in Britain alone (the other three countries accounted for the great bulk of installed capacity on the continent).”
The old queen was “elected by nobody living in a castle”?
Indeed, that ambiguous phrase could be open to (wilful and mischievous) misinterpretation, so commas have now been inserted to offset the subordinate clause: “an old woman, elected by nobody, dwelling in a castle.”
Although to be fair both interpretations are factually correct!
I guess it is facetious correctness, strong on facts and humor.
The shift in the media narrative has been amazing. The phrase that struck me was the BBC simply repeating that Truss had a bold plan, without any attempt at what the bold plan might be. However, I do have an issue with Craig and so many others continually describing Truss as being thick or stupid. She may well be but such personal attacks have no place in reasoned debate. It is wrong when such labels are placed on opposition politicians such as Diane Abbot and it is wrong when placed on Truss. Such childish argument is fine down the pub but even then it wins no arguments and simply drives supporters into even more entrenched positions.
It is her policies and piss poor public performances that need to be attacked. A very good friend who knew Truss in her Lib Dem days tells me she was an able and capable orator in those days and he wonders, looking at her face, whether she has suffered a mini stroke. Whatever the reason she is, these days, an appalling speaker and convinces no-one as she just repeats the lies she is handed, a point Craig expresses extremely well.
Putin and old Xi belly laughed when a British Foreign Secretary said “the UK is ‘offering extra support to our Baltic allies across the Black Sea”, then told Lavrov straight to his face that Russia has no right to be Voronezh or Rostov provinces! They laughed so hard, man, and will probably never apologise to her, even if they find they are told of her lib dem accomplishments.??
«then told Lavrov straight to his face that Russia has no right to be Voronezh or Rostov provinces!»
That may be not a joke, really, consider this fanatical nostalgic of the lithuanian-ruthenian-polish empire:
https://twitter.com/MatasMaldeikis/status/1537043521261211651
The consider:
https://newleftreview.org/sidecar/posts/the-russia-problem
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/asia/1997-09-01/geostrategy-eurasia
“An alternative solution was put forward by Zbigniew Brzezinski when he suggested turning Russia into an assorted bouquet of territories, even advocating for the dismemberment of Siberia: ‘A loosely confederated Russia – composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic – would find it easier to cultivate closer economic relations with its neighbours.’“
https://www.csce.gov/international-impact/events/decolonizing-russia
https://sdp.pl/conference-free-nations-of-russia-forum/
“On May 8, the Foksal Press Center will host an international conference „Free Nations of Russia Forum”. We invited not only important Russian politicians, who emigrated and believe that there will come a day, when Putin’s regime will fall and Russia will break with its imperial tradition, but also politicians and experts from the U.S., Poland, Ukraine and Belarus. The forum will also be attended by representatives of nations enslaved by Russian imperialism.”
“However, I do have an issue with Craig and so many others continually describing Truss as being thick or stupid.”
You don’t see any problems, then, in having a stupid PM? What could possibly go wrong?
Stupid people make wrong decisions. Wrong decisions of a PM may endanger the whole of the country. L – logic. I find it a reasoned debate.
Also, I think that public persons must expect personal attacks, as soon as they choose to expose themselves on public display.
You completely miss the point I am making which I really couldn’t make any plainer.
No I don’t. If Liz Truss is stupid, which it seems she is, it is not a “personal attack” to call her so, it’s just stating the truth.
Stupidity in a PM is a legitimate matter for reasoned debate, IMHO. How are you supposed to discuss the stupidity of your PM without describing them as stupid?
Absolutely.
If a person nominates themselves to a public position, then such an action is a public offer. After all, there’s a price to pay. This means that the contents of the package must match the price tag.
A consumer has the right to declare the non-compliance of the purchased product, demand an independent expertise, replacement of the defective product, or a refund of the money spent (+ compensation for damage, if applicable).
This is a normal practice, and I don’t see why it shouldn’t apply to all cases of spending the taxpayer money.
His point was that accusing adversaries of being thick is a pretty weak argument, especially if the accuser hasn’t demonstrated the smarts necessary to get to the top.
The barb catches me too: I thought Trump was thick. I’ve revised my view: Trump is not so green as he’s cabbage-looking. Similarly for Johnson.
I don’t really know what “populism” is; I think it probably means appealing to an ill-educated electorate. You don’t have to be thick to do that; you just have to pretend to be thick. Gore lost because the electorate thought he was too smart, and he made no effort to pretend to be thick.
Johnson didn’t pretend to be thick; quite the opposite – he pretended to be a classics scholar (he’s not – he got a 2:1 BA in Classics). But he also pretended to be a bumbling slapstick comic, which appealled to a broad electorate (I have socialist friends who voted for him). The comic mask slipped about 18 months ago, and he started to look more and more sinister.
Agreed, applying the sobriquet of “Thick Lizzy” to Truss is just lazy. She attainment the grades from a State school to enter Oxford, a very different achievement than from Eton. She apparently performed well at Oxford and had a pretty impressive career trajectory before entering politics.
The problem as Reza points out is that she’s spectacularly gaff prone. There’s some disconnect between her functional intelligence and her innate intelligence.
Johnson was by many accounts highly intelligent as a young boy. As an adult his ego and his bone-idle character prevented his innate intelligence from showing through as functional intelligence.
With Truss it’s harder to diagnose. She may be operating outwith her technical comfort zone and she may have progressed beyond her level of competence, but still, something isn’t right. So yes, perhaps a TIA is a possibility.
“looking at her face, whether she has suffered a mini stroke.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/gallery/2022/sep/05/the-day-liz-truss-became-tory-leader-in-pictures
Don’t think so. Symmetrical squinting and smiling. Not sure what your friend is noticing.
“So yes, perhaps a TIA is a possibility.”
A “Transient Ischaemic Attack” is by definition transient, lasting less than 24 hours.
I know I’m being a little pedantic but let’s not give her excuses for her actions. What she says and does comes from the heart!
“looking at her face, whether she has suffered a mini stroke”
I again say a million of apologies. As a person with some pedagogical education and experience, I’d say Fetal Alcoholic Syndrome. As a person with no degree or experience in medicine, I again apologize a million times for this my suggestion. Just her face looks like this.
I see what you mean Tatyana but if you look closely she doesn’t have the facial features of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. (such as small eyes, a thin upper lip, and a smooth philtrum (the groove between nose and upper lip).
Considering her gaffes, the only logical alternative to Truss being thick is that she doesn’t give a shit, even less of one than Boris. Is that an improvement?
I think this is the right description of Mary Truss. She evidently has an agenda which while good for her and her mates, will be unhelpful to the country. Simply, she doesn’t care for the electorate and she is a worse liar then Alexander Johnson.
One alternative explanation of the gaffes is that she doesn’t take advice.
Johnson took advice; he took it from the wrong people.
Trump just sacked anyone who gave him advice that he didn’t already agree with.
I believe (for now) that, apeing Johnson, she wants to be a showman. Unlike Johnson, she lacks charisma, which is a disadvantage for a showman. I don’t really understand how she beat Sunak. I suppose the light will dawn soon enough.
Talking of Sunak: she seems to have sacked everyone that didn’t support her, including all the Sunak supporters. So she now leads a divided party, with a lot of Big Beasts on the other side of the divide. I have read that the Tory Party is planning to lose the next election. I think it’s a good plan; a few years of Starmer government will make people wonder why they voted Labour.
Maths and pure maths A-levels apparently, though bizarrely, was embarrassingly stumped by 7 x 8 in the recent campaign (she guessed 54). That one also caught out Labour’s former Education minister Stephen Byers too, iirc. They’re not alone: Blair didn’t know how many months of the year had 30 days in them in a radio call in. David Lammy, the guy who wants to be UK Foreign Secretary, gave the following answers on Mastermind :
Q. What was the married name of the scientists Marie and Pierre who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1903 for their research into radiation?
Lammy: Antoinette
Answer: Curie
Q. Cockpit Country is a rugged, inaccessible area on which Caribbean island?
Lammy: Pass
Answer: Jamaica
Q. Which fortress was built in the 1370s to defend one of the Gates of Paris and was later used as a state prison by Cardinal Richelieu?
Lammy: Versailles
Answer: The Bastille
Q. James Gandolfini played a Mafia boss called Tony in which American television series?
Lammy: Godfather
Answer: The Sopranos
Q. What name is used for the highest gallery of seats in a theatre?
Lammy: Pass
Answer: The gods
Q. Which organisation was founded in 1909 as the home section of the Secret Service Bureau to counteract the threat of German spies?
Lammy: MI5 (correct)
Q. Which American military award is given to those who are wounded in action and bears the inscription for military merit on the reverse?
Lammy: Pass
Answer: Purple Heart
Q. Which variety of blue English cheese traditionally accompanies port?
Lammy: Red Leicester
Answer: Stilton
Q. In 2006, Sandi Toksvig replaced Simon Hoggart as the presenter of which topical Radio 4 quiz show?
Lammy: Pass
Answer: The News Quiz
Q. Who acceded the English throne at the age of 9 on the death of his father Henry VIII in 1547?
Lammy: Henry VII
Answer: Edward VI
Q. In chemistry, what French word is used for a tube for transferring measured amounts of liquids?
Lammy: Pass
Answer: A pipette
Q. Which country’s so-called ‘Rose Revolution’ of 2003 led to the resignation of its president Eduard Shevardnadze?
Lammy: Yugoslavia
Answer: Georgia
MI5 will no doubt be pleased he at least got that one right. Though Lammy should probably avoid game show The Chase.
Truss’ father is emeritus professor of maths at Leeds uni. He, by all accounts, appears to have been quite left-wing, and no fan of the Conservative party. She was dragged along to CND demos as a kid. Wonder if joining the Tories may have partly been an act of rebellion on her part?
She became a Lib Dem initially, that old TV news footage of her speaking at their conference; seemingly trying to impress her peers by being vehemently anti-monarchy / class system – clearly saying what she thought the gathered delegates wanted to hear, rather than necessarily what she believed in? Seems to put her in good stead for a UK political career. She’s clearly ambitious and I assume at some point she sensibly realised the Lib Dems weren’t going to be in govt.
The quality of UK politicians more generally, seems to have fallen dramatically over the last three decades. Ann Widdecombe put it bluntly last night, talking about her easily panicked parliamentary party of lightweights.’ In the past, the Tories had people like Heseltine, Hurd; Lawson, Clarke, even Thatcher herself i.e. big beasts, Labour had Benn, Jenkins, Wilson, Barbara Castle. These were clearly substantial figures, people worthy of the office they held. Even Michael Portillo has grown in my estimations over the years; clearly a cultured and knowledgeable man, comfortable speaking at least four languages (how many of today’s MPs can boast that?). He makes today’s Tory ministerial offerings look like uncultured, ignorant, low quality amateurs.
The problem western democracy faces is in that lack of talent that the public see. The simple fact is, lots of capable, potentially transformational individuals don’t want to go into politics, because the levels of personal scrutiny involved in what is a vicious social media age. The Parties are making this situation worse – sealing that fate of possible obsolescence – by insisting that prospective candidates are squeaky clean and 100% scandal free. This narrows selection down to very boring individuals and political insiders such as people taking the uni -> SpAd -> PPC route, this along with favoured people from various think tanks. It’s not a healthy, diverse mix of people who the public can respect and relate to anymore.
You’re absolutely right about the decline in quality.
The selection process has a lot to do with it. Being an MP is a very cushy, very overpaid job, so there are about 100 applicants for every seat. To get into Parliament, you have to first get on the list of approved candidates of one of the 2 major parties. To do that, you have to know somebody inside the upper echelons of the Tory or Labour party.
Ability, experience, qualifications count for nothing. It helps to have the gift of the gab, but the main thing is knowing somebody. (That’s how we got Cabinets stuffed with Old Etonians under Cameron and Johnson.) The Labour Party selects different people but the underlying principle is the same.
Truss – married two children, joins Conservative party; her mentor Mr fields also married, one child; they have a three year affair, he resigns as MP; his wife says she has left him but he then helps her take over his seat; she becomes the MP for his constituency; he then gets jailed for sexual attack on two women; she tries to get his two year sentence reduced, saying to the judge “but I need him to help me raise our son”, the judge says he should have thought about that. On release from prison he and his wife strolling down the road hand in hand.
Truss? Her husband stayed with her even though he found out about her three year affair: three years wow that’s a lot of … eh secret togetherness.
You could say she is hardworking I suppose; being a politician you have to work hard to maintain a good reputation.
> was embarrassingly stumped by 7 x 8 in the recent campaign
Well, that’s a question I was drilled in for ages, so I know the answer by heart. But it’s hard to come up with answers you know, in the heat of a public debate. Asking people maths questions as debating points isn’t convincing to me.
I’m OK with the view that she’s “thick”: I think she isn’t aware of her limitations, so she doesn’t take advice. Not knowing your limitations is more serious than just being thick and appointing smart advisers.
“Outwith”?
Look it up. lazy sod:
https://googlethatforyou.com?q=outwith
We dinna unnerstaun it’s naw kent by ither fowk:
Daily Record: Scottish Twitter users ‘shocked’ after discovering the word ‘outwith’ is only used in Scotland (21 Oct 2020)
I was being ironic at the use of such a grotesque term….
I’d rather call her Mary quiet contrary. Her first name is Mary and even if she wants to call herself Liz Lizzie or Flightless Lizzeltrush, Im not playing.
She is Mary and her contrarity will soon bring belly laughs to bankers as they shovel the billions of debts created into their pockets.
Funny all this changing your name , her mentor Mr Fields , his wife changed her name too when she found out he and Truss were having an affair but she only changed her first name ? appears odd at first but she did this simple first name change just to hamper successful internet searches checking out their infidelities , perhaps Truss did it for that reason too , it’s a way of having two identities
What is a shame is media representation that the Ukraine conflict is solely responsible for the current energy price hikes, when in fact, it is the rigged system we have of pricing in the UK courtesy of OFGEM, Energy firms and the Government.
Home grown energy, be that electricity produced by nuclear or renewables or our own gas production is all priced up to match the gas import market.
So imported gas from Norway or Holland, currently priced roughly at 5-10 times higher than our home grown electricity is the benchmark price for electricity. This is the system we have created in the UK. Half our electricity needs. are met through our own production, there is no reason for them to be priced up with Global Gas costs.
Of course, these prices started rising last autumn, long before any Russian intervention in Ukraine. Anyway, Truss’s plan is that the energy firms profits must be protected, so they will receive guaranteed government funding. That will be added to consumer bills over the coming years, hidden away in standing charges, or maybe added to other taxes.
The system of pricing will remain in place, it looks likely that no reform will take place, energy firm profits will boom and the renewable market will falter because the Tories will push for more Gas and Oil exploitation and indeed, introduce wide scale fracking all in the name of ‘Energy Security’. The friendly media will not delve deeper into the root causes and the soundbites of ‘Evil Putin’ will remain the driving force behind Public Opinion rather than ‘Disaster Capitalism’
Honestly, at times I think we deserve everything that’s clearly coming with the expected devastating effects of climate change.
Nick Jardine-
It is very depressing that the quality of journalism in the mainstream is so poor (or controlled) that they don’t examine the full story.
There is no objective reason why our energy bills have to quintuple this winter (apart from Government stupidity for a decade and a half or more.
Wind energy -apart from the steel to make the turbines, wind energy does not treble in price or more because Nordstream 1 & 2 are offline
Solar energy -apart from the dust-clouds, solar energy does not treble in price or more because Germany has no LPG terminals
Bio-mass energy -apart from the transportation costs, bio-mass energy does not treble in price or more because Joe Bribem sold the Cushley reserves to China
Nuclear energy – apart from the huge clean-up costs down the road, nuclear energy does not treble in price or more because of the security costs of the front-line power station on the Dnipro River,
Coal energy -not a subject you can have an adult conversation about with anyone
Oil energy -the same (even with oil companies)
EV -apart from the ridiculous notion that switching from petrol to the electrical grid is somehow more ecologically responsible, EV just puts more pwoer into the central authority.
Nick Jardine suggests “[…] the renewable market will falter because the Tories will push for more Gas and Oil exploitation […]”
But it’s not possible (laws of thermodynamics) to build “renewable” energy supply machines without fossil fuels. This means that in fact there is NO “renewable market ” to falter!
Thank you moderators for setting up this thread to further discuss the VITAL missing fact from far too many people’s future predictions: humanity is running out energy and its game changing implications
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/forums/topic/the-decline-of-fossil-fuels-and-limits-of-renewable-energy/
If there isn’t enough gas, there isn’t enough gas. Subsidising the price across the board means there’s limited reduction of consumption while the market price and the cost of the subsidy shoots up out of control as gas can’t be magicked out of nothing. It’s the same idiocy as Help to Buy in housing. There are more intelligent ideas around. We’ll see if Properly Crackers listens to advice and chooses one of those instead. I’m not very hopeful.
«If there isn’t enough gas, there isn’t enough gas. Subsidising the price across the board means there’s limited reduction of consumption»
Indeed… For Starmer to make “wishful thinking” demagoguery is easy from opposition, for the PM it is a lot harder. My guess is that the overriding priority is “home front morale”, and talk a lot and deliver a lot less.
«while the market price and the cost of the subsidy shoots up out of control as gas can’t be magicked out of nothing»
It can be magicked out of other european countries: if the subsidy is high enough supplies of gas will be diverted from european countries that cannot afford to pay that much. The question is whether the English and Scottish governments can outbid the German or French government, or are really willing to pay whatever it takes to do that.
I like the first half of this post but I’m not fussed on the latter parts.
I have done a lot of research on Putin. I have read biographies of him by Belton, Fiona Hill and Zygar as well as load of internet material including Chomsky. Zygar is the one who best explains Putin’s gradual disenchantment with the west because they just would not listen to him or respect him even when he went to great lengths to help them. So I actually think Putin is doing the right thing in invading Ukraine, the right thing for Russia that is. How else could he have got the attention of the west? He tried to help us now he’s given us a punch on the jaw. Now he’s got our attention.
Yes, the right thing for Russia.
But we’re not Russia. We’re the West and it is not the right thing for us. I don’t feel confident that if we stopped supporting the Ukrainian people – and how could we possibly do that – Putin would stop at that. How do we know he would not continue to build up a new iron curtain. The only way we could ever know that is by some kind of negotiation backed up by constant vigilence. The kind of negotiation fostered by Mr Erdogan which Mr Murray was very cynical about which led to the restoration of grain exports from Ukraine.
Some might feel – and listening to them many of Mr Murray’s supporters – that they would like to live in a Russian dominated society. Not me. Biden and co have helped Ukraine fight but done it with enormous care and restraint and it was because of that restraint that Putin felt secure enough to permit grain shipments. He knows Biden has got the message.
You guys are going to have to work a hell of a lot harder to come up with any sense about this war.
conjunction –
agreed.
If you want to try and make sense of everything going on just now, put yourself in Putin’s shoes.
re. grain exports
Putin says today at Eastern Economic Forum.
“We did everything to ensure that Ukrainian grain was exported /…/ almost all the grain exported from Ukraine is sent not to the developing poorest countries, but to the EU countries
/…/ only two ships out of eighty-seven were loaded under the UN World Food Programme. And 60 thousand tons of food out of 2 million tons were exported to them.
/…/ I want to say that, like many European countries in recent decades and centuries, they acted as colonialists, and continue to act today. Once again, developing countries were deceived and continue to be deceived. Obviously, with this approach, the scale of food problems in the world will only grow, unfortunately. That can lead to an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe.
Maybe we should think about how to limit the direction of the export of grain and commercial food along this route? I will definitely consult on this issue with the President of Turkey, Mr. Erdogan”
https://www.interfax.ru/russia/861023
So, I understand your desire to continue living in a Biden dominated society. He makes sure that you are the one who eats well.
«I think that ‘you’ chose to support Ukraine long before the hot war started. Supporting them on their every step, however hostile to Russia it was.»
Ironically this kind of argument is typical of Kremlin propaganda, because the “hot war” started on 9 May 2014 with the Mariupol massacre (its anniversary has been forgotten by both the USA/NATO and RF sides) when for the first time ukrainian government military units attacked and mass murdered Donbas civilians. The Kremlin wants that forgotten because it shows that for 8 long years the Russian Federation was too weak to do anything about it.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/05/10/ukra-m10.html
«With the open support of Washington and its European allies, the regime installed by Washington and Berlin in last February’s fascist-led putsch is now extending its reign of terror against all popular resistance in Ukraine. That is the significance of the events in the major eastern Ukrainian city of Mariupol yesterday. After tanks, armoured personnel carriers and heavily armed troops were unleashed on unarmed civilians in the city, the Kiev regime claimed to have killed some 20 people. The Obama administration immediately blamed the violent repression on “pro-Russian separatists.”
[…] Desperate to reach an accommodation with Washington, Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday urged pro-Russian eastern Ukrainians to abandon planned separatist or autonomy referenda set for Sunday. But these efforts have been rebuffed by Washington. Putin is unable to control the resistance that has spread across eastern Ukraine, with separatist spokesmen denouncing him as a “coward” and “traitor” for issuing his call.»
The current phase of this 8 year old “hot war” between Ukraine and the Donbas is “merely” a counter-attack by the Donbas governments, supported by a small RF auxiliary force engaged in a “special military operation”. It has been embellished by the Kremlin with claims about NATO threats against RF strategic security, but for the people of the Donbas (and Crimea) it is about survival as a state and as a people (and for many as individuals).
That’s why the people in the east aren’t rebels, they’re loyalists.
«the people in the east aren’t rebels, they’re loyalists.»
That’s a reasonable way to look at it: the Donbas people were loyal to Ukraine, but not to the Greater Galicia created by the bandera fascists in 2014.
@ conjunction
“I don’t feel confident that if we stopped supporting the Ukrainian people – and how could we possibly do that – Putin would stop at that.”
‘We’ are not supporting the Ukrainians we are contributing directly to their deaths in very large numbers. If we wanted to support the Ukrainians we would be working for an immediate end to this war and we would have worked very hard to make sure it never happened in the first place. There were plentiful legitimate peace proposals on the table that should have been enacted and that would have precluded this war taking place. Instead ‘we’ have prostrated ourselves before America who sought and engineered this war and at their behest continue to work hard to make sure the war lasts as long as possible thereby ensuring maximum death and destruction in Ukraine. Johnson is believed to have personally worked to ensure that Zelensky doesn’t seek a peace deal.
It is good that you have studied Putin but I’m afraid your grasp of what’s happening in Ukraine requires a lot more work. Putin was no threat to Europe prior to the US orchestrated coup in Kiev in 2014. On the contrary, it was his growing friendly trading relationship with Europe that was a threat to the US gas market and to US global hegemony. That is what has lead us to this situation.
I think that ‘you’ chose to support Ukraine long before the hot war started. Supporting them on their every step, however hostile to Russia it was. Their every bit of hostility ‘you’ supported.
Not only Ukraine, but every other country, who showed enmity towards Russia.
We could have avoided this war if one single time ‘you’ were supporting Russians in our security concerns, I mean Russia-Nato treaty proposal the end of the last year.
Instead, ‘you’ chose to laugh at those Russia’s security concerns, supporting Ukraine again, saying about their freedom to choose the alliance, Nato’s open doors policy, etc.
That is why what happened happened. From the very beginning there was no desire to think of Russians as of people worth listening to.
@ Tatyana
I’m not sure of the point of your comment. I pretty much agree with it all and think what you say though not stated in my comment is nonetheless implicit in it.
When I say ‘we’ are not supporting the Ukrainian people I mean that by ‘supporting’ them into a proxy war we are in fact cursing and and condemning them – not supporting them at all.
I take your points about the US/UK/EU attitude to Russia entirely.
On a related point, do you then think that the French, German and OSCE work, support and backing for Minsk 1&2 was fraudulent or insincere? Obviously, Poroshenko has since come out and said that Ukraine (under direction from the US?) just used the Minsk Agreements to gain time to build up their armaments.
I’m not sure. At the time I thought Merkel and Hollande were genuine in seeking to stop any military conflict from taking place in the face of American threats to send in $93bn of “lethal aid”. The US, whom they didn’t inform before hand, was certainly very displeased with their efforts. A part of me still thinks that if Merkel was still in place then she would not have allowed a war to take place on mainland Europe – she would have worked hard for reconciliation to stop it happening. I may be wrong on that.
Like many, back in February I didn’t think a war would happen. My reasoning was that of all the involved parties – Ukraine, Russia, US, France, Germany, OSCE – only one, the US, actually wanted a war and that the others together would be strong enough to resist. Unfortunately Europe under von der Leyen caved, Zelensky appears compromised, and what else do you expect from a British Tory government? The rest is history.
Would Merkel have withstood American pressure? Who knows?
Oh, never mind, you used ‘we’ in inverted commas, so I used ‘you’ addressing the general policy of the collective West.
You may find my opinion strange. I believe that the main role in fanning this conflict belongs not to the United States, but to London. I believe that the US is actually acting out of its own national interests, and its main adversary is not Russia but China. For “sneaking” on China, they have fallbacks such as access from the other side of the continent, pressure on trade links, and the like. Russia is just an intermediate link to China, a speck in the eye, spoiling their image as the powerful head of NATO in Europe. The US is a respected adversary, its intentions are clear, its motives and mechanisms of action are predictable. The real interests of the United States now are not the security of their country, but the preservation of the status of the dollar in the world, and the preservation of the country’s status as dominant.
As for London, the chief “US Viceroy for European Affairs”, London’s interests are much more affected. I will not even mention the base for the Royal Navy in Nikolaev, Ukraine, for which huge amounts of money have been allocated. I even suspect that this was considered as a fallback to Faslane, in case the Scottish Indiref was successful.
London is a vile enemy, they will do any nasty thing to please their overlord. London left the European Union for a reason. If the conflict turns into a pan-European war, then their status gives them a certain freedom of action and speed of decision-making, regardless of Brussels.
I’m very sorry to speak about Ukraine in a disparaging tone, but they are just a pawn, a small reason for a small fire, a reflection of those global world changes that are taking place right now on the planet. I believe that Ukrainians were led by a fairy dream to be once admitted to the beautiful fairyland of EU, as an equal partner. I don’t blame them for their dreams, it’s just that dreams don’t necessarily come true (especially if you want to ride into the fairyland on the bloodied backs of your compatriots, whom you sacrificed for the entrance ticket. Then, it’s reasonable to assume that ethnic Russians living in historically Russian land located right on the border with Russia will have strong objections to such a ‘ride’, and will undoubtedly be supported by the ‘mainland’).
I also don’t like to speak in a diminutive sense of Germany or France, but their roles in Ukrainian affairs are minor actors, they can stand for extras in the photo, make smart faces and sign meaningless papers, but they don’t have the right to make decisions.
A week later, the SCO summit will be held in Samarkand. Take a look at the participants, find out who applied for membership in this organization – you realize what kind of new block is being formed. Compared to this, the admission of Finns and Swedes to NATO looks like a pathetic attempt to put a good face on a bad game.
Hi again Tatyana,
Thanks for this very fulsome reply. There’s a lot there to take on board, which I will.
I didn’t find your previous comment strange at all, I was just unsure of how, or if, it related to my comment which it seemed you may have misunderstood.
Where you say:
“I believe that the main role in fanning this conflict belongs not to the United States, but to London.”
can you give a source or sources for that? I have seen commented elsewhere that the UK is acting as an independent and leading agent in this conflict but, so far, I have always believed it is only acting under instruction and in concert with the US.
Your comment:
“London is a vile enemy, they will do any nasty thing to please their overlord.”
seems to lean more to that view.
Elsewhere I have seen it reported that Boris Johnson told European leaders that he understood and agreed with their reluctance to fall in line with US pressure on Ukraine but that he himself was afraid to annoy the Americans.
For obvious reasons (I’m British) I would like to better understand the UK’s role in this which, simply put, I just find wrong, very, very wrong.
Thanks again for you reply.
Good morning, Peter 🙂
Where to start?
In Russophobia, London goes much further than the United States. In the confrontation with Russia, London admits for more dirty methods. For me it’s a sign of fighting for smth truly vital.
If I compare my experience with the people, then I find Americans more honest and open. It’s easy to get along with them. Have you ever noticed how people express their deep convictions about their own country? What are they proud of? Such beliefs are not always expressed directly, but are always present as meta-communication, that is, you feel from which axioms your interlocutor comes from.
Let me illustrate: if there are people from Eastern Europe here, then they could easily point out to me my ‘great imperial Russian chauvinism’, although I don’t notice it in me myself.
When communicating with an American, (even in such an unsuitable situation for lectures, if it was you who paid for his consulting services on technical issues of delivering your goods to Amazon warehouses) be sure that he will not refrain from at least a short lecture on the topic of business freedom in the United States compared to Russia and chanting the supremacy of law and the sacredness of treaties.
As for the British, they tend to lecture on absolutely any subject, they always know the best, express their thoughts in an intolerant tone and make unsolicited corrections (moderators, please do not take it personally. I am grateful for the spelling correction. No problem, my mother too combed my hair neatly before letting me go out)
I think that being located close to Russia, and having only 4 nuclear submarines, London’s vital interests are affected. While the US is much better protected and can easily find a new Ukraine for Hunter Biden and another sea for a couple of new military bases.
The newly arrived members of NATO, Sweden and Finland, are a barrier between London and Moscow – control of the Baltic Sea. Therefore, London is now increasing the number of its warheads.
But the potential alliance between Germany and Russia probably scares the hell out of them. This is not such a fantastic idea, because part of Germany was not so long ago under the control of the USSR, so the prerequisites for such an alliance could still exist. Besides, if you add together the industrial power of Germany and the immensity of Russia’s resources, it could be a great flourishing alliance. But such an alliance could, in the long term, weaken the security of London from threats from land. Therefore, London needs an anti-Russian Germany with US military bases. Therefore, Germany will not be allowed any relations with Russia, the last economic ties will be broken.
I will write a separate comment on what is happening with gas and Nord Stream.
So, the Nord Stream now consists of 2 threads running in parallel. NS-2 did not start due to sanctions, although it’s completely ready and all that remains is to press the switch to flood Germany with cheap gas.
Nord Stream 1 was stopped due to turbine repairs, as there was an oil leak. The temperature in a working turbine reaches 300 degrees Celsius, oil leaks can lead to a fire and even an explosion. The same leak was recorded on another engine No. 120. Gazprom believes that this is a systemic problem with these turbines.
Turbines are needed to create a pressure of 220 atmospheres in the pipe; without this, the pipeline will not function. A compressor station Portovaya uses Trent 60 turbines. According to the papers, they belong to Siemens, but in reality these are aircraft engines manufactured by Rolls-Royce (England), Siemens only bought the operating rights. The purchased facility was named Siemens Energy Canada and is located next to the Rolls-Royce Canada plant. I mean, so close to each other that they have the same roof and a common entrance.
Siemens doesn’t make turbine engines, it only recently developed an electric motor and made carbureted engines about 100 years ago. Rolls-Royce makes engines for Boeing and Airbus. Thus, Rolls-Royce is engaged in the technical part, and Siemens just puts its label on.
Aircraft engines that have exhausted their resources are often used to pump gas. For example, the Industrial Trent 60 turbine that leaked oil at the Portovaya station is made from a Rolls-Royce Trent 800 aircraft engine.
That is why repairs are impossible – London won’t let the broken turbine be repaired, while the Germans from Siemens will sniff these turbines and wonder why the Russians won’t resume pumping. The Germans will have to buy expensive liquefied gas and save on heating. London will receive its agency commission for the promotion of American liquefied gas to Europe. This plan had a long preparation period, urging countries to abandon long-term cheap contracts with Russia, buying gas at spot price instead. The only way to push expensive LPG, because nobody in their sane mind would buy dearly while having a cheap alternative.
—
Nord Stream 2. It’s equipped with Ladoga engines, Russian production under license from General Electric. They can not only be produced, but also serviced and repaired in Russia. With Nord Stream 2, such a situation would be excluded.
NS-2 won’t start due to sanctions. Herr Scholz must nave sold his soul.
You may enjoy beautiful music from the latest Gazzzprom video
https://youtu.be/HLPEmERD69Q
The lyrics by Yuri Vizzzbor:
“And the winter will be long … Look, across the river Autumn is slowly dying, waving her yellow hand…”
Tatyana,
Good morning and thank you again for this generous reply.
The BBC for years now has had near daily reports in its news programmes about how bad Putin and Russia are, as it has also done about China, and that has probably contributed to your experience of Russophobia. Personally, I meet people from all over the world almost everyday and refuse to deal in national stereotypes, taking each person as I find them wherever they’re from and treating them with respect until they give me a reason not to.
Your comment on the role of Rolls Royce blocking Nord Stream (NS) 1 repairs is news to me and will be to most British people because, of course, neither the BBC nor the rest of the MSM are reporting that, preferring, of course, to blame Russia and Putin for ‘weaponising’ fuel supply and being the cause of all the economic problems that we now face.
But even accepting that, which I do, I can’t see how “the main role in fanning this conflict belongs not to the United States, but to London”. I have no doubt at all that the entire project – military, economic & propaganda – has been engineered in and is being orchestrated from Washington. The UK no longer has anywhere near the international clout to direct that level of action.
I think you are right when you speak of the fears of the “potential alliance between Germany and Russia” but I think those fears are mostly felt not in London which would benefit from good relations with Russia, but in Washington which regards that as a threat to its position of global supremacy, as I said in the last sentence of my original comment replying to Conjunction.
Here’s George Friedman expressing that very fear and the strength of those fears in the US:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wijd10BZS1w
Michael Hudson, arguably the greatest living economist, has argued similarly that US operations in Ukraine are primarily about making sure NS 2 doesn’t open and that an alliance between Germany/Europe and Russia never happens.
Watch here from 5.40:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9Ds1h_WMpQ
I don’t doubt that the UK’s role in all this is disgraceful but I don’t think it has a role of leadership other than that which is directed by the US.
Peter, I read statements of John Kirby, Jen Psaki, interview of Stephen Simon and Johnatan Stevenson for The National Interest – they all said Ukraine will be supported by the US if they want to solve this conflict via diplomacy.
Boris Johnson and Borrell made statements Ukraine should only win on the battle field.
All the recent reports on military activity mention British instructors in Ukraine. I do not come across any mentions of US instructors. Looks like US guys play fair – they announce military aid and they give money and weapons. Perhaps they do something else covertly, but there’s no evidence so far.
Thanks again Tatyana but I do think that you have got this one wrong.
All those commenters you refer to are just saying those things for political public consumption – the Americans to make themselves look like the good guys/girls, the British to make themselves look like the strong guys/girls and to keep onside with the American guys/girls.
If the Americans wanted a diplomatic solution there would be one immediately and the British would sit up on their hind-legs and simper approvingly like a good little doggy.
Lloyd Austin, the US Defence Secretary, spoke more truth when he said they just want to do as much damage to Russia as possible:
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/25/politics/biden-administration-russia-strategy/index.html
conjunction
As a supporter of Mr Biden what are your thoughts on his mass starvation of the Afghan people? Not long ago he was assuring us that Afghans were as dear to him as he now claims Ukrainians are. Let’s see how hard you are prepared to work on behalf of Mr Biden.
You can’t support the Ukrainian people unless you overthrow the US-ukronazi putsch regime.
And so support that majority who voted for Zelensky (he won 70 per cent of the vote) when he promised them peace with Russia and some degree of autonomy for the Russian speakers. But it is doubtful he ever intended to do any of this, and he certainly has since broken every election promise he made back then while scrambling to bomb the Donbass, ban all opposition parties, assassinate opposition MPs and set in motion the sell-off of Ukrainian assets and land to the West. But doubtless these Ukrainians are now keeping their heads down lest they be labelled traitors, while in the West expressing support for the Russian speaking Ukrainians triggers instant cancellation and insult. What a democracy.
There hasn’t been a democratic election in Ukraine since the 2014 putsch.
“And so support that majority who voted for Zelensky (he won 70 per cent of the vote) when he promised them peace with Russia and some degree of autonomy for the Russian speakers. But it is doubtful he ever intended to do any of this,”
There has been a twitter film circulated showing Zelensky personally, at the Donbass frontline, before the Russian invasion, telling ukrainian troops to stop shelling the Donbass. The ukrainian troops tell him to piss off and since then he has been threatened with hanging if he negotiated. So, to be fair, I think he did intend to do as he promised but he is not the master in his own house.
This is a common problem with people who get a high position without having the right qualifications. However, Mr. Murray praised him as an excellent wartime leader and praised his ability to find support among the international community, to ask for more weapons to prolong the war.
I feel sorry for VVVladimir ZZZelensky. Although he is a bad pianist, he is a good actor. He is so desperate to play his most important role in the best possible way. He obviously trusts his handlers and sincerely believes that they act in good faith. I agree he will be killed as soon as he moves towards negotiations. One negotiator was already shot dead by the Ukrainian KGB in the spring.
Look to the other direction: USA and U.K. wage war way more than Russia, Ukraine wants to allow NATO to place nuclear missiles on the Ukraine-Russia border which is less than 400 miles from Moscow. Given that the missiles are likely to be USA missiles, largely controlled and maintained by USA, what would you think of France if they allowed China to install nuclear missiles in Calais facing London?
Given the history between USA and Russia it makes no sense to agree with Ukraine’s proposal to allow NATO missiles on its soil. You can dress it up as defence but moving USA missiles to the Ukraine border with Russia is an aggressive signal designed to provoke.
USA and its errand boy UK are not caring for Ukraine; they are cynically using Ukraine to aggravate Russia in response to the recent close relationships Russia has built with India and China.
All part of the dollar war affecting USA control of trade around the world.
Russia India China, huge populations, are now saying that they will not use the US dollar to price trading goods because doing so gives USA unfair advantage .
Russia India China no longer fear USA.
A line is being drawn across the world where you see other countries choosing a side.
The EU is stuck in the middle .
Watch closely.
> because they just would not listen to him or respect him
I’m aware of his demands for respect; he’s been very clear about what he expects. He says he wants to be treated as the leader of a world superpower, with the right to a hegemonic zone where only friendly governments exist. He’s written at length about his ambitions for a Russian empire reaching from Lisbon to Vladivostok. He and his Foreign Minister have also been very explicit in their threats of nuclear armageddon.
Well, I’m an awkward sod, and I’m not OK with being threatened. I’m happiest when nobody in the pub is attacking anyone else. But if someone starts kicking off because someone else isn’t showing them enough “respect”, they have some lessons to learn about how respect is earned.
If the UK political system continually promotes incompetent and corrupt people to high office then that system is broken. If the failings in that system cannot be remedied from within the system, that system is broken beyond repair. If that system is geared towards the destruction of our living world, fast or extremely fast, it is evil. If UK culture is unequal to the task of recognizing, exposing, analysing and confronting this systemic evil, that culture is not worth preserving.
The political system is not broke. It is functioning just the way that ‘the establishment’ wants it to function. To ‘fix’ the mess we’re in requires a root and branch overhaul of everything that removes, completely, the cancers of corruption, lies and incompetence within our country – tinkering around the edges wont fix this mess.
Politics, Banking, Industry, Judiciary, Medical, Education, Military, Media – all ‘broke’.
Truss is undoubtedly a right wing, moron but she represents the absolute best candidate that our country can provide under our present systems. After 12 years of Tory misrule, voted in repeatedly by the British public, she represents the pinnacle of their achievements and is on a par with the USA, Ukraine, Europe and the other western riff raff. Blame Russia, blame China, blame someone else if it makes you feel better but the rot is in plain view on our doorstep.
The required changes to fix this mess are too great and too unpalatable for the, comfortably well off, masses. So we have to accept that this is the new normal, the culmination of the efforts of Thatcher, Blair, the WEF, the Tories, Labour, Liberals, Greens over the decades. It will change and get better, but not in our lifetimes.
Get used to it and try to minimise the personal damage to your loved ones.
We certainly *don’t* have to “accept that this is the new normal”. Which establishment, though? The increasing instability, international isolation and unfitness for office of the formal British political executive hardly helps domestic business, and shreds the reputation of the British political class at home and abroad. It might suit the disaster capitalists of the USAmerican Empire, arms dealers, fossil fuel corporations, and the dictator elites of UK allies, or be welcomed as omens of the end times by apocalyptic cults, but if the substrate of politics (the living life support of the polity) becomes indeed so rotten and degraded, the superstructure will collapse.
@Stevie boy
“After 12 years of Tory misrule, voted in repeatedly by the British public,”
the British public hasn’t voted in a damn thing. British elections are FPTP = fascist = guaranteeing minority rule. Don’t blame us, it isn’t our fault.
«The political system is not broke. It is functioning just the way that ‘the establishment’ wants it to function.»
Indeed the system has delivered for 40 years rapidly rising living standards to at least a dozen million voters, entirely redistributed via property and finance from the lower classes. It is working, and very successfully.
The problem that most people don’t want to confront is that “the establishment”, that is the rentier class, is no longer just the 0.1% or the 1%, it is the top 20-40%, the propertied or professonal older upper-middle classes. As an example I have been staying recently in a very nice AirBnb in the south-east, a 5 bedroom detached property, very well maintained by a couple of older ex-lecturers, that now has a valuation of £1.6m, and was probably bought for less than £200,000 30 years ago. They could not even remotely have afforded it even just 10 years ago, but for them it is a fantastic windfall, gives them what they probably believe is absolute security and comfortable luxury for their retirement. They are LibDems (“woke tories”) of course.
«To ‘fix’ the mess we’re in requires a root and branch overhaul of everything that removes, completely, the cancers of corruption, lies and incompetence within our country – tinkering around the edges wont fix this mess. Politics, Banking, Industry, Judiciary, Medical, Education, Military, Media – all ‘broke’.»
The problem with this ambitious aim is that at least 20-40% of voters are corrupt too, and many of the people in the sectors you mention are doing very well indeed out of self-dealing.
The current system is based on an alliance between the upper classes and the upper-middle (those either professional or propertied) classes for the extraction of whatever can be extracted from the lower-middle and lower classes.
The question is how that coalition can be politically defeated. Simply chanting “The Red Flag” or “El Pueblo Unido” won’t work.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/29/how-right-to-buy-ruined-british-housing
«I spoke to Phil Salter, a 79-year-old retired carpenter in Cornwall, who bought his council house in Devon in the early 80s for £17,000. When it was valued at £80,000 in 1989, he sold up and used the equity to put towards a £135,000 fisherman’s cottage in St Mawes. Now it’s valued at £1.1m. “I was very grateful to Margaret Thatcher,” he said.»
«I spoke to Phil Salter, a 79-year-old retired carpenter in Cornwall, who bought his council house in Devon in the early 80s for £17,000. When it was valued at £80,000 in 1989, he sold up and used the equity to put towards a £135,000 fisherman’s cottage in St Mawes. Now it’s valued at £1.1m. “
So on paper, he has made over £1M, but he is probably living in a smaller house than he started with. If he sells, all of what he gets for his fisherman’s cottage he will have to pay for his next house, especially if he wants one the same size as his original home. Where’s the benefit to him? Typical Tory con.
«If he sells, all of what he gets for his fisherman’s cottage he will have to pay for his next house, especially if he wants one the same size as his original home. Where’s the benefit to him?»
I read that ridiculous argument often, and to me it usually seems made in bad faith, because no law forces someone who owns a comfortable cottage in a beautiful area, or a luxurious 5 bed detached in Oxfordshire to buy the same again, and thus be unable to cash in all the profit they have made at someone else’s expense. In effect those who own such desirable properties are deciding to sell that property and buy it again every year, choosing to spend their property profits to live in comfortable luxury.
Compare a 79yo who is living in the £1.1m comfortable cottage she owns in a beautiful part of Cornwall with another 79yo who lives in a 4th floor stairs 1 bed flat he owns in Wolverhampton, do they really have the same “benefit”?
My guess is that the first has £1m more than the latter that she chooses to spend on much better housing than the latter can afford.
If she chose to move to a more modest 2 bed terrace house in Swindon she could cash in quite a lot, an option that he does not have. That looks like a pretty huge “benefit” to me.
Then there is the easy choice of reverse mortgaging some part of the £1m profit which enables her to cash in a large amount she can spend on something other than superior accommodation while at the same time continuing to live in the comfortable luxury she is accustomed to, another option that he does not have. That again looks like a large “benefit” to me.
Sometimes I find it amazing that some people are so brazen to argue that those who own a luxurious £1.1m or £1.6m property that they bought for a fraction of that price and don’t sell because they enjoy living in superior style derive no “benefit” from that.
You have completely missed the point I was trying to make, which was that the goods in question have only increased in price. So what if the cottage is now worth £1.1M, when before it cost £135,000, it’s still the same house and to buy an equivalent house you would still have to pay the same amount. Of course you could cash in by buying a smaller house, or one in a less desirable area, but that option was always open to you, even when the house was only worth £135,000. So there is no benefit, apart from having been able to buy the original council house at undervalue.
“Compare a 79yo who is living in the £1.1m comfortable cottage she owns in a beautiful part of Cornwall with another 79yo who lives in a 4th floor stairs 1 bed flat he owns in Wolverhampton, do they really have the same “benefit”?”
No, and I never said they did. Our retired carpenter was always better off than the 79 year old fourth floor flat dweller, even when he lived in his £34,000 council house (assuming he was able to buy it for half of what it was worth). I was not talking about his benefit compared to others, but the benefit to him in house price (land price actually) inflation, which is very little, unless he is prepared to trade down, which benefit has always been an option to any homeowner that doesn’t live in the smallest possible home.
«was always better off than the 79 year old fourth floor flat dweller, even when he lived in his £34,000 council house (assuming he was able to buy it for half of what it was worth). I was not talking about his benefit compared to others, but the benefit to him in house price (land price actually) inflation, which is very little»
That seems to be the argument that the benefit is qualitative, rather than quantitative, so it is irrelevant whether the cottage had increased in price to £550,000 or £1.1m, because in both cases the owner had the same option to trade down.
But consider this as to the quantitative effect: if the owner decided to trade down to a less comfortable property with a £550k price (or similarly for a remortgage for half the £1.1m valuation), in one case the cashed-in net profit would be £490,000 (1,100k – 550k – 135k) and in the other £190,000 (550k – 225k – 135k) . I guess “Where’s the benefit to him?” should be clearer then.
Having options is qualitatively valuable in itself, but the option (even if not exercised) to cash-in £490k seems to me rather more valuable than one to cash-in £190k, and the quantitative difference does not seem “very little”, except perhaps to those for which £300k is a small sum. But for many others having an option of that magnitude drives voting.
And even an option worth “just” £100k drives many votes, which partly if not largely explains why 14m voters did vote for cheaper wages and meaner social insurance and reduced public services.
You are far removed from reality if you think it is 20 to 40% of the population who have got comfortably richer and own million pound second homes they can rent out on airbnb. The couple of retired lecturers you reference are probably easily in the top 3%. Meanwhile the greatest widening of gap is between the 1% and the 99%.
«You are far removed from reality if you think it is 20 to 40% of the population who have got comfortably richer and own million pound second homes they can rent out on airbnb.»
I did not write that and that seems a rather strained misunderstanding of what I wrote.
I must confess that I have given for granted that everybody knows that in the UK actually 60-65% (an underestimate) are recorded as property owners and therefore tory-leaning and think of themselves as middle class “Middle England”, so I guesstimated conservatively that the hardcore upper-middle class thatcherites conservatively are 20-40% instead of 60-65% because in many areas property profits have been small or even losses and also a small minority of the propertied class don’t let their elevation into the 3-bed-semi or 2-bed-terrace “gentry” influence their politics.
The two examples of people who did get million pound gains were merely illustrative of how huge the effect can be over a long time, but given that the average property price has gone from around 100k to around 300k across the UK since 2000, and much better in the south-east and London, that means that while the average gain is “just” 200k, it is quite likely that 20-40% (mostly those in the south-east among the 60-65%) have made rather more than 200k, and even if they have not made quite a million are equally grateful to Thatcher and Blair as those who made a million or more; it does not take a million pound gain to feel “I am alright Jack”. An example from a commenter on “The Guardian”:
“I will put it bluntly I don’t want to see my home lose £100,000 in value just so someone else can afford to have a home and neither will most other people if they are honest with themselves”
Some people may think that a mere average 200k property profit achieved with an original 10k cash investment (the deposit) is a small detail because they are used to much bigger sums, but for most people it is a big deal.
And that is the central political and economic factor in England and more generally the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/25/george-osborne-britons-economic-cannon-fodder
“Call it housing-market heroin: the special high the Brits get when property prices are really taking off and Sarah Beeny is on the telly explaining how we can all cash in. Thatcher was the first PM to really push housing-market heroin with her right-to-buy programme and her Lawson boom but, with their love of aspiration and Home Ownership Task Force, Blair and Brown knew its potency, too.”
In support: –
https://youtube.com/shorts/8HP-oWxhDQE?feature=share
No it shows that sovereignty has been moved from the Commons to the executive.
There are plenty of systems that are broken beyond repair but are still used extensively if they make the operators money.
British politics has not really changed – its just that we are seeing it quite easily now because we can discuss and comment amongst the masses using the internet, in the past it was easy for those controlling the political system in the U.K. to fool us with lies because it took so long for stories to be passed around that those stories became yesterdays news long before interested groups could form.
With the internet, massive interested groups form in minutes which gives strength to mass showings of discontent.
Next in line will be mass action; we don’t see that yet, but keep people cold in winter and food supplies low year round with poverty incomes and it will come.
“ After losing the proxy war in Syria, defeat again by Russia in Ukraine is the gun barrel down which NATO is currently staring. Rather than a negotiated peace, yet more weapons and more brinkmanship are the preferred way forward.”
Indeed.
Hence last throws of the dice – get Russia to make their Big Move and then clobber it with the Natzos super weapons, fired from outside of the battle zone, and hope that it is decisive! Hence the multiple jabs and feints to illicit that move from the Russians.
It is not going to happen. Russians will move when THEY are certain of the Natzos positions. They can not lose. Any attack on Russia is an attack on the SCO and they have treaties. They will not drive China and Russia apart. They have failed to keep the SubContinent on side – Imran and Modi wavered; the bait of a Asian PM of England failed to entice them.
Hence Truss to lead the charge as a maiden warrior bullshit
Do we seriously believe being able to sanction and sequester assets is a one way street from the Collective Wastes City and World Bankers?
The other shoe is released and it’s drop will be The End.
You can’t keep us Slaves down forever by making us fight the Ex Slaves working in our direction to liberate themselves from their ancient foe and so us as well. We don’t have a choice. Except to welcome their storming of our cities and villages and freeing our minds to finally release the full Human Potential and preserve Life on Earth for All not the very very very few Slave Owners in their Olympian God palaces.
The rich old biddy in her castle in Scotland has only one further use left – a state funeral as part of a general mobilisation – I for one won’t be buying a ticket to ride and will discourage strongly the drive to pack up the kitbags.
Btw the profits are useless if the currency they are held in is defunct! That’s why the Chinese and Russians were not afraid of ‘losing’ their savings. All is now to be traded in the New Financial World System. We are being distracted from that unveiling as the SCO meets this month. Watch that birdy.
9 days ago George Galloway ran a poll on youtube on the question:
“Are you prepared to pay for the Ukraine War through increased energy prices?” Yes or No.
The poll elicited 10k responses, with only 4% responding Yes.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCf_HItERkRB3vnkWt2RSOLg/community?lb=UgkxLyn8eHoFqit5b_-7lyhbYP0ocBOuNC_a
One wonders what are the implications of this for Government policy under Ms Truss (mistrust?)
Will they apologize to Russia, ditch Elensky, and sponsor opening of NS-2 whilst the NS-1 turbines are repaired?
Methinks not.
Will they bribe the voters with borrowed money, and hang the consequences for inflation?
Methinks, probably.
We don’t want to sponsor the opening of Northstream 1&2 as that would primarily benefit the Europeans.
We want to directly take LNG from the Yamal tankers.
You do know what the “spot market” (where the UK buys its gas) is, don’t you?
«9 days ago George Galloway ran a poll on youtube on the question:
“Are you prepared to pay for the Ukraine War through increased energy prices?” Yes or No. The poll elicited 10k responses, with only 4% responding Yes.»
Self selecting group if they were following the gorgeous, far more significant (and bravely ignored by the “aligned” media) that in Germany the heads of several important tradesmen organizations wrote to the government that they don’t want to sacrifice their middle class status for _elensky.
«and sponsor opening of NS-2 whilst the NS-1 turbines are repaired?»
As usual the european governments don’t have much of a choice between complying with USA sanctions or ignoring them, they have a choice between complying or being sanctioned by the USA, plus being targeted by regime change operations.
Overall I am pro-USA (for western Europe), not because I think that the USA are the leaders of freedom and goodness, but because of “realpolitik”, and I think that being sanctioned and regime changed by the USA is even more costly than losing russian fuel supplies.
“Overall I am pro-USA (for western Europe), not because I think that the USA are the leaders of freedom and goodness, but because of “realpolitik”, and I think that being sanctioned and regime changed by the USA is even more costly than losing russian fuel supplies.”
Yeah, you don’t want to upset the country that has military bases on your soil.
🙂 they prefer to upset a country, that is potentially targeting foreign military bases on their soil. Wise.
I think it is stage 2 of the drama. The inflation and price hike are artificially imposed. There are no real reasons for this. Look at Ukraine, the pipeline on their territory never stopped and is still working. Can you believe it? The pipeline going via Ukraine, Russia delivering gas through it and transition fees are still paid.
I cannot imagine another reason for current situation, other than driving the europeans into cold, hunger and anger. To condition them properly to utter despair, so that their governments may point out ‘the true cause of their suffering’. Just the same as Germany found itself before WW2 and Hitler pointed to the Jews. I see united Europe marching to Russia to conquer food, warmth and space to live in.
I say it because in the middle of August Maria Zakharova commented on Ukraine’s chief propagandist’s report. He described the meeting of defense ministers at the US Ramstein base in Germany. He stated that Sweden and France called for “finishing off the toads”, hoped that Russia would pay the price for Poltava and Borodino. He said that the Germans were silent, but gave a wink the text implies they were apparently hinting they want a revenge for Stalingrad 🙂
This economic crisis is artificially created by your governments, via sanctions and restrictions, so that hatred burns in your heart and you are ready to fight in WW3.
… they will expect you to pick up the tab, either through deferred bills or increased taxes….”
No – government has discovered the Magic Money Tree – we will pay for it by yet more inflation and as usual the poorest will suffer worst, followed by pensioners and all those who just can’t put up their prices.
It is all a paper accounting exercise and will be followed by even deeper austerity for the 99% and even bigger profits for the 1%.
No white men in any of the great offices of state. Guardian set to experience the hollowness of its representation politics the hard way.
I think they’re referred to as ‘bounty bars’?
(similar to ‘house jocks’)
“So now the Queen swears in the fourth Tory Prime Minister”
Do PMs get sworn in, like US presidents do? I thought they just got asked to form a government.
«“So now the Queen swears in the fourth Tory Prime Minister”
Do PMs get sworn in, like US presidents do? I thought they just got asked to form a government.»
Because the english “tradition” is so important, technically the government is a committee of the Privy Council, and all its members are already sworn to the sovereign as her privy councillors. There is no such office as the “Prime Minister” in the UK state (but Boris wanted to create it, I don’t think that was done yet), she or he is the First Lord of the Treasury Board, and that comes with seals of office. A resigning PM returns the seals of the Treasury to the sovereign, and when she appoints her successor she gives them to the appointee (I think that a letter patent may also be involved). This is called “kissing hands” ceremony because as part of it the First Lord of the Treasury used to kiss the hand of the sovereign (like people who have audience with the Bishop of Rome still kiss his “fisherman’s” ring).
https://britishheritage.com/queen-elizabeth-liz-truss-british-prime-minister
Most of these immemorial traditions were invented in the C19th. Still, it’s nice to know that thin Lizzie did some work for a change.
Do you reckon her theme song is “Angel of Death?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGtJ8WR5Shc
Whilst I smirked at your witticism Phil Lynott would be turning in his grave if Thin Lizzy were to be asociated with Liz Truss!
I know coincidence isn’t causality, but Thick Liz’s appointment by Queen Liz as PM and Queen Liz’s death were very close together.
Eythenkew!
Correction, 1901.
‘Trussenomics’ will mean sterling through the floor and interest rates through the roof.
“The Truss plan to cut corporate and personal tax into the teeth of an inflationary crisis is a recipe for sterling going through the floor and interest rates going through the roof.
The overwhelming and immediate task is to break the inflationary cycle and get retail inflation under control. The only tax cut that makes sense towards that objective is to cut VAT and directly impact on the Retail Price Index. That combined with an energy price freeze could bring inflation sharply down and to a reasonable level. But unless there is a clear commitment to 5 per cent inflation by year end, there is no way that wages will be held to anything like that level and the inflationary cycle will intensify.
Why on earth should working people settle for 5 per cent, if inflation is heading for 15 per cent? Controlling inflation carries the benefit of saving vast sums on the coupons on Treasury index link gilts – around £5 billion for every point off the RPI. Not controlling it is the road to perdition. The Truss plan to cut corporate tax when many companies are cash rich with windfall gains is patently absurd, while any benefit from personal national insurance cuts will be trumped many times over by high interest rates for mortgage payers.
In fact monetary policy is totally irrelevant to controlling a crisis which is totally the result of cost push inflation from scarce resources, and allowing interest rates to take the strain risks ruination for home owners and small business.
An energy price freeze is necessary and will assist in reducing inflation but the public should not be asked to pay for all of it through borrowing. Energy providers who are over-dependent on gas generation should not expect the public to bale out their poor decision making while it is the energy producers themselves who are the beneficiary of obscene windfall profits. They are the ones who should be taxed.
Thus far ‘Trussenomics’ looks more like economic mumbo jumbo and time is now very short. Instead of defenestrating her political opponents in the Tory Party, and rewarding her pals, she should be clearing out Ofgem and the Bank of England. Neither institution commands any confidence and both share great responsibility for the current scale of the economic crisis. A commitment to 5 per cent inflation by year end is essential to break inflationary expectations. It is reality hour for Truss and her Tory C-Team.”
— Alex Salmond.
The understandable obsession with the yield rate, which in turn impacts the govt’s the ability to borrow, further illustrates how we’ve lost our democratic rights to these faceless international markets.
These market forces are highly politicised and deeply ideological. Truly leftist govts don’t stand a chance of succeeding. Who doubts for instance, that a Corbyn govt, even considering these kind of mind-boggling borrowing levels would been destroyed by said markets? They would’ve seen a run on the GBP and untenable borrowing levels. The whole system, based around indebtedness, is designed to coerce govts to follow the path laid down by the markets, on both Monetary and Fiscal policy.
“Rather than a negotiated peace, yet more weapons and more brinkmanship are the preferred way forward.”
What does “a negotiated peace” here mean? You seem to be suggesting NATO changes track and this will bring “a negotiated peace” as if by magic. Putin clearly is not going to withdraw from Ukraine without some kind of victory to present to the Russian people, so which part of Ukraine do you think it’s in NATO’s power to gift to Putin? And do you think the populations being transferred to Russia or the families of the Ukrainian soldiers who have died defending their country should have any say?
I agree with the rest of your post, but you do seem to have a blind spot when it comes to Ukraine. You might occasionally admit that, yes, Putin has been a naughty boy, but your focus always returns to how badly NATO has behaved. Whole articles on the latter, occasional sentences on the former.
It was the US, through its Delian Confederacy NATO, who launched the hostility and still runs it, so yes, the US will have to make concessions. And Ukraine will have to obey. If not, Ukraine will be abandoned, and the US will turn to another battle-front to play its eternal war-games.
Yes and the Ukrainian people will linger as long in the minds of empire babies as have their previous objects of concern – “the Iraqi people”, “the Afghan people”, “the Libyan people”, “the Syrian people” etc. Soon enough they’ll be directed to a new cause célèbre, no doubt located in or around China.
Laguerre,
“It was the US who launched the hostility”
Silly me, I thought it was Russia.
You might want to contact Putin and inform him that he is a mere puppet whose strings are pulled by the US and he has no agency whatsoever in these events.
Don’t be surprised if he gives you a funny look.
“Silly me, I thought it was Russia.”
Many a true word spoken in attempted sarcasm. You’d do well to refresh your memory as to the meaning of the word “hostility”. There are other forms of hostility apart from military interventions.
Bayard, playing with words while innocents are slaughtered. Classy.
Neil.
What do you think is going to happen in Ukraine? I’ll tell you what I think, Nato and especially the US and the UK will prevent Zelensky from getting around a table to thrash out some sort of peace deal. Crimea, and the Donbas republics are gone from Ukraine’s grip, and will not return, the 2014 coup has backfired, but not for the arms industries who are making – excuse the pun – a killing.
It’s pretty obvious that Ukrainian forces are under-supplied with weapons and supplies, much of them finding their way onto the black market, so unless Zelensky can arrange some sort of peace deal Ukrainian troops will keep on dying; but in the eyes of the US the head of Nato, Ukrainians are expendable.
An aspect you forgot to add in to the equation is that of Europe: some of the thousands of sanctions applied to Russia are beginning to hurt Europeans, and there have been demos on the streets of European cities calling for an end to the conflict because it’s hurting consumers and businesses alike. Again these pleas for sanity to prevail have gone unanswered by European governments, who have preferred to abide by Nato’s standings on the matter in Ukraine.
The SMO is undoubtably hurting Ukrainians and Europeans for that matter, but it’s enriching the arms industries, and greasing the palms of those politicians who are hellbent on stopping Zelensky from saving what’s left of his country from further conflict.
Perhaps you are not aware of the Ukrainian counter-offensive now under way?
Of which there is no news, other than the capture of a few unnamed settlements (i.e. unnameable because fictional).
Laguerre, do you know what they called the mass surrender of the Azov battalion at the Azovstal plant? An “evacuation operation” 🙂
No news at all. All quiet on the (Russian) Eastern front. As it were.
Aye right.
For Laguerre
All the names of the settlements are in the Russian MoD report
https://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12437422@egNews
For John Kinsella
What they call a counter-offensive is Balakleya, tried to encircle it. Didn’t succeed.
For Pears
Ukraine have about 9 000 servicemen there, so I find the info on 50 000 russians trapped, errr… an exaggeration
It’s not reasonable to expect detailed and specific real-time information about ongoing operations.
Ukraine seems to have better operational security than Russia, and at the same time better PR. That’s quite an achivement, and I don’t know how it’s done, administratively-speaking.
John Kinsella.
Oh, not another suicide mission, how many more of these will take place before a dose of sanity breaks out in the hallowed halls of the Kiev parliament building. Like I said in the eyes of the head of Nato the US, Ukrainians are utterly expendable.
Latest news is that the Russians have fallen for the simplest stratagem; reinforced Kherson after the Ukrainians said that’s where they were going to attack and now the Ukrainian army has punched through the weakened Russian defences in the north. The bridges over the Dniper have been destroyed and 50,000 Russians are now trapped.
It’ll be interesting to see how this pans out.
“It’ll be interesting to see how this pans out.”
Pears Morgaine.
It’ll be even more interesting to see the link that you are getting this report from.
Recently the Ukrainian forces carried out an offensive near the Kherson region and they were soundly thrashed, I think it was around the 24th of August, as Boris Johnson the ex-British PM travelled to Kiev to meet with Zelensky the night before, possibly to make sure the offensive went ahead.
It turned out the offensive was carried out in a region with no cover and even though the Ukrainian forces had artillery they were routed, the Russian forces from what I can recall of the report, blew up three bridges behind the Ukrainian lines and made it even more difficult for the Ukrainian forces, what was left of them, to retreat. Unbelievably Ukrainian troops are allowed to carry mobile phones with them, which pinpoints their positions on battlefield.
See below.
I’m aware that Russian sources claimed the Ukrainian counter offensive had been destroyed before it had even begun. These are the same sources that claim that more HIMARS have been destroyed than the Americans have so far delivered..
Gosh, you found something on the internet that wasn’t true! Now I can’t believe anything I read. It must all be lies. I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you
After they met back in March/April the Austrian Chancellor made it clear that it was Putin who is not interested in negotiating, the one determined to fight this war to a conclusion regardless of the cost in lives. This is no surprise. Having taken a part of Ukraine by force he’s hardly likely to allow himself to be negotiated out of it without completing his stated aim of regime change.
Frankly the idea that Zelensky and his people are only fighting for their homeland because the Yanks are telling them to is laughable. Wouldn’t you fight for Scotland if a hostile power invaded? Maybe you wouldn’t.
“Frankly the idea that Zelensky and his people are only fighting for their homeland because the Yanks are telling them to is laughable. Wouldn’t you fight for Scotland if a hostile power invaded? Maybe you wouldn’t.”
Pears Morgaine.
I think you need to take a deeper look at who Zelensky really is and what motivates him.
https://thegrayzone.com/2022/04/28/zelensky-celebrity-populist-pinochet-neoliberal/
This describes just how corrupt the country is, and why Ukrainian forces are losing so badly.
https://thegrayzone.com/2022/08/18/ukraine-veterans-us-aid-soldiers-war/
“Frankly the idea that Zelensky and his people are only fighting for their homeland because the Yanks are telling them to is laughable. Wouldn’t you fight for Scotland if a hostile power invaded? Maybe you wouldn’t.”
Your country is invaded by a much more powerful neighbour. Do you “fight for your homeland” by
a) immediately trying to start negotiations so that the neighbour stops hostilities whilst a peace deal can be thrashed out, thus saving countless lives, or
b) fight to the last drop of blood of your fellow countrymen?
Would any sane leader do b) unless they were prevented from doing a)?
Bayard,
“Do you “fight for your homeland” by
a) immediately trying to start negotiations so that the neighbour stops hostilities whilst a peace deal can be thrashed out, thus saving countless lives…”
When I was a victim of bullying at school, if only I’d known your secret strategy. Negotiate! That’s all I needed to do!
“Negotiate! That’s all I needed to do!”
I’m sorry to disillusion you, but it wouldn’t have worked as you are not a country.
If the US is following the RAND Corporation’s recomendations in their 2019 report ‘Overextending and Unbalancing Russia’,
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html
then the strategy requres the Ukrainian war to drag on as long as possible so as to destabalise Russia and provoke regime change. The ‘help’ Ukraine recieves from its ‘friends’ will be calibrated towards that purpose.
Excellent article by John Pilger at Counterpunch:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/09/08/silencing-the-lambs-how-propaganda-works/
He asks the question: “When did the present war in Ukraine begin and who started it ?”
IMO, NATO is not an independent body, it’s a puppet organisation that is just another facet of the USA MIC with a ragtag band of powerless sycophantic followers, as such it’s opinions/statements/policies are irrelevant.
Pilger quotes Harold Pinter’s statement:
‘US foreign policy,’ he said, is ‘best defined as follows: kiss my arse or I’ll kick your head in. It is as simple and as crude as that.
Stevie boy, I agree, I am always surprised at how many people year after year see USA as the policeman of the world, the peacekeepers who we should thank when they land their military uninvited in some far off country claiming to do so for the protection of democracy and the people of that country.
When USA send the troops into another country it’s only ever for money; they take control of the political power in each country and use it to extract whatever commodity it is they went there for be it oil, mineral, foodstuff, etc. etc.. It has always been thus.
They will then charge a fee for their “protection”.
In WWII they did exactly that and have the gall to call it a “special relationship” – the only thing special about it is that all the giving is one way. Relationships like that are supported by lies, they are fake, all smiles on the outside with great dissatisfaction and resentment inside.
Handy way to plant USA military bases every few miles around the world, call it NATO if you like or special relationship or peacekeeping, but the reality is the USA wants to control the world the way the dollar controls money; but signs of weakness are apparent: the world has educated itself this last fifty years and is taking back control.
Neil, negotiations started February 28 in Gomel, Belarus. Then it was on March 3 and 7 in Belovezhie, Belarus. On March 5 the man from the first negotiation round was shot dead in Kiev, by their Ukrainian KGB. They said he was suspected of state treason.
Negotiations proceeded on March 29 in Istanbul, Turkey and by that time Ukraine passed to the Russians a draft treaty with NATO-neutral status. If only they added they also agree to implement Minsk protocols and stop shelling Donbass, the war would have ended. I assure you, most of the Russians would see that as a victory.
Instead their Kuleba man said they only should win on the battlefield.
Tatyana.
Here’s one to get you and other commentors thinking, talk about adding fuel to the fire.
Chrystia Freeland is being touted for the top job at Nato.
“At least four different sources — in Ottawa, Washington and Brussels, where NATO is headquartered — say Freeland’s name has been tossed around for several months in international defence and security circles as a potential successor to the current secretary general, former Norwegian prime minister Jens Stoltenberg, who has been in the job since 2014.”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/chrystia-freeland-nato-1.6575239
Tatyana, a man was shot dead, you say? How absolutely awful. I expect Mr Putin was horrified.
I don’t think Liz could be bothered anymore when liz effing Truss came calling with the black spot.
Rip old biddy.
Go one further. Surely Truss slipped something into her tea to distract people from the economic crisis. Nothing like a state funeral to bring people together.
Decorum dear boy. Decorum.
We can crow about her failure to finally see the The Russian Crown within the Imperium later.
The Tories could install Idi Amin as PM and be greeted with fawning press coverage, as long as the CIA was appeased and The Very Special Relationship preserved.
In fact, the UK foreign policy strategy is to stir up as much trouble as possible, to pour fuel on every fire, so it then can demonstrate its slavish loyalty its American masters.
Take away Russia and the UK would be a jumped up Iceland. For that matter, Ukraine would be a pariah state and Poland would be an annoying mid-tier satrapy in the border of the American Empire, like Colombia with delusions of grandeur, but worse weather and no cocaine.
Why would Ukraine be a pariah State if Russia were “taken away”?
«Why would Ukraine be a pariah State if Russia were “taken away”?»
A failed economy run by a fascist junta and some particularly gangstery oligarchs… Not quite as bad as some of the more medieval central asian “stans”, but about as “respectable” as Moldova or Myanmar or Panama.
You are confusing Ukraine with Russia.
The phrase
“A failed economy run by a fascist junta and some particularly gangstery oligarchs… “
applies very well to the latter.
Perhaps Russian “mil bloggers” are credible?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/08/we-have-already-lost-far-right-russian-bloggers-slam-kremlin-over-army-response
I wish our economy was failing as badly as Russia’s.
The UK together with some other countries just doesn’t see how there ongoing colonial arrogance looks like in most of the world. Especially in their former colonies.
Borrel is an example.
Hate to ask this question, but looks like London bridge is down?
There were some fake news today, that’s why I’m asking.
If you read it on RT, then you are right to be sceptical…
Tatyana, it’s not fake news – London Bridge has fallen down. Code for the Queen is dead, of course.
Truss seems like a dimwit, is this the best Tory could put up? Should be a cakewalk for Labour from now on, unless they turn away from their leftist core…. even more that is.
Truss seems to have been elected in great part because of her anti-russian stance, which, I believe we will see more of coming weeks, she need to prove herself to the world that she is a hawk.
Speaking on Russia by the way, what a mess they put themselves in, it is like no one is in charge on the russian side while Ukraine and west moving on tactically.
“Videos & photos confirm that Ukrainian forces are now in #Balaklia. Various social media sources report that #Ukrainian forces continue to advance in #Kharkiv region &
have taken back many other settlements near this town. #kharkivcounteroffensive #Kharkov #Ukraine #Russia”
https://twitter.com/I_Katchanovski/status/1567907436882706436
Looking forward to Craig’s view and analysis in a new post on this stupid war.
@Jack. I hope that you are not hinting that the Special Military Operation is not going well?
Say that it ain’t so!
It ain’t so. Always happy to oblige.
Gawd Bless you Gospodin Bayard.
For a moment there I thought that the Ukrainian counterattack was succeeding.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/blinken-visits-ukraine-pivotal-moment-kyiv-claims-gains-2022-09-08/
Jack,
” Should be a cakewalk for Labour from now on, unless they turn away from their leftist core…”
Which world are you living in?
Do you believe that Starmer will be much different in his policies and austerity than Truss?
You may have missed some sarcasm.
Unfortunately with today’s passing of the Queen, the next two weeks will be viewed by the government as a window of opportunity – ‘a good day to bury bad news’.
Increased scrutiny of the government is required now because they’ll try and slip things through and hope they go through unnoticed.
The establishment will likely misjudge things.
Most people under the age of 50 simply don’t have the attachment to the royals politicians and the media believe. There won’t be a generational war or anything like that, that isn’t the British way. But many are finding life tough, with high rents and rising energy bills. They already have difficulty relating to the hereditary class system and its weird protocols & traditions. It’d be a good time for that next generation to start making the case for real democratic/constitutional change. As Craig aptly stated:
A Prime Minister elected by 80,000 people mostly in South East England, to govern 66,000,000 throughout the UK, receives office from an old woman, elected by nobody, dwelling in a castle.
That is objectively not a representative, democratic system fit for 2022. It was stated tonight that the unelected Privy Council will meet …virtually – too big to meet in person – another reminder of how elitist and backwards this country is.
When a million people cancel their direct debit to the energy companies in one day on October 1st. It will be the official day of Revolution. The government will relent. And all will supposedly be well.
The script is written. I for one will be cancelling mine too. I’ll put the payment in escrow. Because I can afford it. 7 out of 10 I asked tonight can’t afford it. They don’t know what to do. I told them to join me and cancel their DD on 1st October.
Let’s go!
Earlier today, BBC News presenter Clive Myrie said the fuel price crisis was ‘insignificant’ compared to the Queen’s illness.
Yep, he really did say that.
My own view for what it’s worth is this:
The Queen was undoubtedly a dutiful monarch, taking the role seriously, but I don’t think she was a particularly good monarch. Her reign was as shallow as it was long.
Under our constitution the Queen has weekly meetings with the PM of the day and those meetings are meant to act as a check or brake on the executive – in lieu of a written constitution codifying things. Was Thatcher restrained in her excesses; selling off national infrastructure via privatisations, was Blair restrained in his rush to war, complicity in torture and expansion of the surveillance state? We’ll never know what that supposedly ‘wise counsel’ amounted to, if anything? But it certainly didn’t prevent govts repeatedly making terrible decisions or trampling on our rights. Or being complicit to terrible crimes abroad and closer to home, as Craig has attested to.
You’d hope with Charles III, people will reconsider whether they wish for the monarchy to continue. The BBC’s saccharin saturation coverage will seek to make such considerations impossible.
In Russian social networks, many express condolences on the death of the queen. Not that she was somehow especially loved in Russia, but there is an understanding that she was an important symbol for her country.
Some take the opportunity to show off their wits, regretting that the prince chose the coronation name Charles when he could have chosen to become King Arthur.
“Increased scrutiny of the government is required now because they’ll try and slip things through and hope they go through unnoticed.”
This is official policy. Back in the 80’s I was told on good authority that there were quite a few nasty bits of legislation waiting for the death of the Queen Mother.
Craig, on the one hand you claim:
“The Tory party has now moved so far to the right as to be invisible to the naked eye.”
But then you end by saying:
“As usual, there may be some pretence at difference of detail by the controlled opposition. But do not be surprised to see all the neoliberal parties – Tory, Labour, Liberal, SNP – broadly agree in the next week over a deal on energy bills. They are doing it for their joint promotion of war – which though will keep the super profits of both the arms and the energy companies rolling in. Ultimately, they will expect you to pick up the tab, either through deferred bills or increased taxes; they are merely extending the timescale of your exploitation by war profiteers.”
So which is it? Have the Tories actually lurched to the extreme right or is the entire political scene is consistently operating at the extreme right of politics? I’d say it’s clearly the second case – Liz or Stinking Rishi or the rest of these goons including Starmer and Sturgeon are all singing from the same neoliberal/neocon hymn sheet. They all care far more about backing the Azov gangs in Ukraine than keeping the lights on in Britain. They all work for the billionaire class and not for the people of this island.
Perhaps worth reading:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/blinken-visits-ukraine-pivotal-moment-kyiv-claims-gains-2022-09-08/
I just thought that the fact that the Russian military acknowledge that the Ukrainian Army are successfully counterattacking was worth noting.
Even if the Ukrainian flag was flying over the Kremlin there are some who would claim that the ‘Special Military Option’ (don’t mention the war; you’ll get 10 years) was still going according to plan.
“I should have thought it were impossible to have a more brutal Home Secretary than Priti Patel, for example, and then they pull the crazed Suella Braverman up to the office. Expect refugee deportations to the Antarctic.”
It’s a reaction to people like you, Mr Murray, who say: “Come on in – all who want to live in Britain – come on in! Jobs aren’t finite; resources aren’t finite; hospitals aren’t finite; schools aren’t finite; homes aren’t finite; rents aren’t going up and up and up and up; there’s room for trillions and trillions of you – come on in!”
I’m sure you secretly sympathise with Liz Truss’ portrayal of British workers – why else do you want white British people to become a minority in their own country? I just don’t care anymore because of people like you and people like Lenny Henry, who made it clear not so long ago that “his people” are actually black people and, even though he was born in Britain, he was forced to “integrate” into our society. Tired of this nonsense! And so are many other people, which is why brutally expelling immigrants and refugees has become a vote winner.
Agree with much here. But I’m not sure why we should take comfort from the British public’s seeming awareness of the existence of a link between the war and the hike in energy prices. That there is such a link has been repeatedly claimed by Johnson and the Tory government, initially as a way of saying ‘Nothing we can do about it, mate’, and more latterly – one presumes – by way of saying that the price cap gives two fingers to Putin. If, as the piece goes on to say, the hike is the product of the absence of competition in the market from Russia, and of war-time profiteering – rather than a crisis in supply – then there is nothing to suggest that the British public has understood cause and effect. It’s more likely that it has simply swallowed the government’s line on energy prices, which has, in the end, proved self-defeating in terms of support for the war.