Energy price cap

hawkinspeter wrote:

a new party fronted by Lunch

That's all very well, but what's their policy on Second Breakfast?

mdavidford wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

a new party fronted by Lunch

That's all very well, but what's their policy on Second Breakfast?

Mandatory for all union members.

I've corrected my fat fingering now, but at least "The Lunch Party" sounds a lot more appealing than "The Lynch Party".

Although...

Once Corbyn has finished shilling for Putin on an Iranian funded, pro Hezbollah, pro Assad, pro Russia TV station he'll get right on it...

Delightful chap.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/jeremy-corbyn-urges-wes...

You'll be accusing him of jumping on the bus with Trump next!

(Yes, Trump has blown all which ways on Russia like most things but the general wind is favourable)

Corbyn and a section of the "left" (I agree, we need better terms) are in a bit of a bind on this one I think.  Clearly they have a (frequently well-founded) distate for Uncle Sam but Russia clearly isn't cuddly.  Especially now Putin wants to reinstate the repressive culture of Soviet Russia, plus external aggression, minus any bigger ideology. (I suppose it's debatable whether many living there really believed in the ideology either over the last 50 or so years).

chrisonatrike wrote:

Clearly they have a (frequently well-founded) distate for Uncle Sam but Russia clearly isn't cuddly.

If the two options are Russia, which wants to control Ukraine's vast resources by sending in Russian troops to die and kill Ukrainians, or America, which wants to control Ukraine's vast resources by sitting back and watching Ukrainians die in their thousands while enriching their weapons manufacturers can we please have a third choice?

As long as it's not the UK or the EU because we are sending weapons to the Ukrainians to fight a war we paid for by buying Russian gas, oil and coal.

It's almost as if war is better for business, politicians and the media than peace.

Rich_cb wrote:

Once Corbyn has finished shilling for Putin on an Iranian funded, pro Hezbollah, pro Assad, pro Russia TV station he'll get right on it... Delightful chap. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/jeremy-corbyn-urges-wes...

When Corbyn became Labour leader I couldn't make up my mind about him, he is a politician after all. I liked some of what he said and thought he did seem to be free from the media and business ties that control most leaders.

Every time I think I've finally decided he would have been a poor PM he goes and says something like this and I admire him all over again.

“What I find disappointing is that hardly any of the world’s leaders use the word peace; they always use the language of more war, and more bellicose war.”

He added: “This war is disastrous for the people of Ukraine, for the people of Russia, and for the safety and security of the whole world, and therefore there has to be much more effort put into peace.”

I guess he doesn't have shares in BAE, Lockheed or Raytheon.

The problem for the Ukrainians is that having decided they didn't want to let the Russians run the place, steal their resources and kill them quietly it's clear that the Russians were going to kill them noisily and steal their resources until they agreed to the former.

Unfortunately the only "third choice" to standing by or muscling in appears to be that I heard in an interview with some UK military chap right at the start (can't recall his name).  In summary he said "Ukraine can't beat Russia. Russia won't back down.  So the longer Ukraine fights the more will die.  The only way to save lives is for Ukraine's friends to pressure it into giving up".  Which he acknowledged was a political impossibility.

I'm still behind the plot on exactly why this invasion by Russia was the straw that broke the camel's back and meant the UK / Europe / the US actually did something.  It's not like this hasn't happened before.  We're also happy with other regimes invading places and butchering and torturing civilians en masse.  (The UK's even happy to sell weapons to help).  Closest to the borders / biggest one yet / people who look like us?

chrisonatrike wrote:

I'm still behind the plot on exactly why this invasion by Russia was the straw that broke the camel's back and meant the UK / Europe / the US actually did something.  It's not like this hasn't happened before.  We're also happy with other regimes invading places and butchering and torturing civilians en masse.  (The UK's even happy to sell weapons to help).  Closest to the borders / biggest one yet / people who look like us?

Hit the nail on the head - "people who look like us".

Putin's MO is similar to that of Hitler, sure you've got the totalitarian regime at home, although I don't think he's surrounded himself with the idiots Hitler did and he's no idiot himself.

The MO is to manufacture a concern or grievance nearby that somehow always justifies military action. The difference to the other conflicts you reference is the virtual certainty of rinse and repeat by Russia, if they're allowed to win in Ukraine. I don't know how we get out of this. Putin being seriously ill or assassinated are examples of wishful thinking. Meantime,you'll notice the big gas valve that's appeared on his desk where the red button used to be. 

He probably just gets a fat cheque from Moscow/Tehran instead.

If you look at recent history we've tried giving concessions to Russia multiple times to ensure peace.

Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea and The Donbas.

The 'language of peace' was chosen each time and each time it led to more Russian aggression and more bloodshed.

Unsurprisingly, Corbyn wants us to try it just one more time.

Rich_cb wrote:

He probably just gets a fat cheque from Moscow/Tehran instead.

I doubt Moscow would pay Corbyn for anything - not now anyway.  The Russians are intensely focussed on getting influence on the levers of power.  Or people have or who may get it (see e.g. reports from the US).  I doubt Corbyn fits the bill!

Rich_cb wrote:

If you look at recent history we've tried giving concessions to Russia multiple times to ensure peace. Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea and The Donbas. The 'language of peace' was chosen each time and each time it led to more Russian aggression and more bloodshed. Unsurprisingly, Corbyn wants us to try it just one more time.

You're less cynical or more knowledgeable than me.  My take was there were other things on the telly at the time and our leaders didn't give a stuff.  The annexation of Crimea may have made us briefly put down our chips.   Not even the Ukrainians were taking up arms though, so why poke the bear in its lair?

Russia threw a huge heap of money at Alex Salmond after he left power and Corbyn still has a large following in the UK Labour party so I suspect he's still of interest to them.

The mere fact that media coverage of the Georgia annexations was fairly lacklustre and even the invasion of Crimea produced no serious talk of military action should indicate to you that Western powers favoured appeasement over any other approach.

Unfortunately this merely emboldened Russia and Putin went from annexing fairly receptive regions to a full blown invasion of a sovereign nation with some war crimes thrown in for good measure.

Rich_cb wrote:

The mere fact that media coverage of the Georgia annexations was fairly lacklustre and even the invasion of Crimea produced no serious talk of military action should indicate to you that Western powers favoured appeasement over any other approach.

Not disagreeing with the thrust of this but "not being bothered" fits better than "appeasement".  "Complacency" maybe?  (I like Kipling's "Dane-Geld" but I'm not sure it quite fits the West's position.)  None of these places was "ours to give" nor were we really committed to regimes or people there.

Politicians don't see any interest in these places, the public don't really care.  Apart from us bingeing on cheap Russian energy / resources.  (Yourself possibly excepted if your solar's doing well).  Good on us all for cycling!

Not sure what would talk of military action do?  The bluff is easy to call.  What "military action" would you have suggested?

In the case of Ukraine I believe there was a bit of training and possibly some supply for some years before the latest invasion and our current massive materiel assistance.

Rich_cb wrote:

He probably just gets a fat cheque from Moscow/Tehran instead. If you look at recent history we've tried giving concessions to Russia multiple times to ensure peace. Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea and The Donbas. The 'language of peace' was chosen each time and each time it led to more Russian aggression and more bloodshed. Unsurprisingly, Corbyn wants us to try it just one more time.

Not sure I've heard the 'language of peace' used towards Russia by Western leaders much at all in recent years but I'm prepared to be corrected if I am wrong.

Ukrainians have suffered under the Soviets, then the Nazis, then the Soviets again. After the collapse of the USSR it has gone back and forth between the West and Russia depending on the leader at the time and ordinary Ukrainians continued to suffer. The West supported the coup in 2014 which changed Ukraine from a Russian puppet state into an American puppet state and created the conflict in the Donbas. Western financial institutions have lent billions to Ukraine on condition they radically restructured their economy including privatisation and social spending cuts making average Ukrainians much poorer. Their fuel price rises since privatising the energy sector make our current situation seem like peanuts. 

Then NATO which is essentially a Cold War relic 'anti Russia club' designed to create profits for Americas weapons industry continues to expand closer to Russian borders even after agreeing with the Russians that they wouldn't. The Cuban missile crisis was averted by both sides making concessions and talking peace.  This time both sides refused to back down and the only losers are the Ukrainians.

If the West wanted peace instead of profits we would have agreed to keeping Ukraine out of NATO and offered to work with the Russians to make Ukraine a prosperous independant nation free to run it's own affairs while trading and cooperating with Russia and the West. Then the World Bank, the IMF and the European Commission would have to write off the crippling debt.

Putin is killing Ukrainians quickly and openly, the West is just doing the same slowly and quietly while making billions in profit.

There has never been any agreement that NATO would not expand towards Russian borders.

A sovereign nation should be free to join any organisation it chooses. Why should Russia have a veto over which organisations Ukraine or Georgia or any other country can join?

Russia has invaded and annexed territory from both Georgia and Ukraine in recent history and each time the decision has been made to appease Russia. That is the 'language of peace' I was referring to.

It simply hasn't worked.

Russian aggression has increased.

If supplying weapons to Ukrainians is such a terrible thing for the West to be doing, what would your preferred course of action be?

Rich_cb wrote:

A sovereign nation should be free to join any organisation it chooses.

So if Eire, or even a post-independence Scotland, allied with Russia and hosted Russian air bases and nuclear missiles, that would be fine? Cuba had every right to host Russian missiles and the US had no right to intervene?

A sovereign country should be free to join any alliance it chooses.

If Ireland or Scotland wished to ally with Russia and host potentially threatening weapons they'd be within their rights to do so.

Other sovereign nations would also be within their rights to refuse to do any trade whatsoever with them.

Russia shouldn't have a veto on the actions of its neighbours.

Rich_cb wrote:

If Ireland or Scotland wished to ally with Russia and host potentially threatening weapons they'd be within their rights to do so.

And would NATO just sit back and allow that? Would the US simply allow Mexico and Canada to ally with Russia and site troops and missiles on her border?

You didn't say whether the US was out of order in the Cuban missile crisis?

I'm certainly not saying what the vile Putin is doing is in any way right or excusable, I'm just asking if we would react differently.

Russia shares a border with multiple NATO countries already.

Ukraine joining the EU/NATO doesn't really change much at all from the Russian perspective.

Given the hypersonic missiles now in existence I doubt proximity makes a blind bit of difference any more.

Cuba was a different era and the proximity of those missiles changed the security situation immensely. Using non lethal force to pressurise Cuba into changing tack was acceptable but the way the US has treated Cuba since isn't.

I doubt NATO would do much if Canada or Mexico became hostile, Article 5 would obviously apply.

Would the US sit back and allow Canada to join the Russian Federation? I honestly don't know.

I imagine they'd probably just sanction the Canadian economy into oblivion rather than roll the 101st northwards.

Rich_cb wrote:

... Would the US sit back and allow Canada to join the Russian Federation?...

I think I've seen a couple of documentaries on that subject.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109370/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0158983/

Rendel Harris wrote:

So if Eire, or even a post-independence Scotland, allied with Russia and hosted Russian air bases and nuclear missiles, that would be fine? Cuba had every right to host Russian missiles and the US had no right to intervene?

Or - possibly more accurately - if an independent Scotland ditched the nukes (as is the plan I believe) what would the US / The United Kingdom of Two Thirds of Britain and a Few Bits Elsewhere have to say about it?

TBH I would have said that in an age of information / cyber warfare and hypersonic weapons a handful of missiles a bit closer wasn't important.  Russia recently reminded everyone that these things still exist though.

It's too late now obviously but like I said, keeping Ukraine out of NATO and offering to work with the Russians to make Ukraine prosperous and independant would have been a start. They aren't joining NATO anytime soon so what did they have to lose? Then the World Bank, the IMF and the European Commission would have had to write off the crippling debt to give the country a fresh start which would have been the payback for giving up NATO membership.

And why were peace talks held only after the start of the conflict that the whole world knew was coming? All I saw was posturing and threats from the leaders who could have at least tried to do something other than pour fuel onto the fire.

Sadly I don't see any possible outcome that will leave Ukraine in a good place. If Russia wins then Ukraine will effectively cease to exist. If Ukraine wins then they will be left with little except death and poverty.

Peace talks had been ongoing intermittently since Russian backed 'separatists' waged war on Ukraine in 2014. Russia also illegally annexed Crimea at the same time.

I think we'll end up with a stalemate in Ukraine. Russia won't get much further West and is likely to be pushed out of Kherson in the coming months but getting them out of the Donbas and Crimea will be far more challenging and likely impossible.

Sacrificing the lost territory in exchange for NATO and EU membership is probably the best Ukraine can hope for now.

Agreed it's a s**tshow. 

Lets hope that at least all parties involved don't want WWIII.

Let's just ask Klaus Schwab and his mates who run the Pharma and Big Tech, they run the world now anyway. Biden and Trudeau are just lieutenants really. Besides a few days at Davos is 10x more powerful than a year at UN HQ.  

Consider the Chinese parking its Nukes off the coast of Dover to the long-warned off Nato effort. 

Amazng how the Left has jumped so quickly to war, as it did to Nazi style authoritarianism with Covid. It must be all the hypocrisy they eat for breakfast. 

How about not fuelling the war and lining the arms dealers pockets? Not giving a comedian millions for him to feed his Azov Nazi brigade or sell off arms to other arms dealers for quick profits to channel to his several BVI registered companies or for the renovation on his London properties in Regents Park etc.?

How about peace talks? Never have the Left, Biden, etc asked for them. Easier top virtue signal and wail on Twitter I guess.  

NATO already have borders with Russia, I'm not sure why one additional border should be the precursor to war. Is Finland next in that case?

The Ukrainian regime is a long way from perfect and most of the Western media seem to have conveniently forgotten about the Azov battalion including during the Mariupol siege but none of that comes close to excusing Russia's actions either at state level ot the atrocities perpetrated by its troops.

Peace talks have been tried and have been running intermittently since Russia first attacked Ukraine in 2014.

Rich_cb wrote:

The Ukrainian regime is a long way from perfect and most of the Western media seem to have conveniently forgotten about the Azov battalion...

Yes, a very long way from perfect. Hard to deal with, but not surprisingly the Mainstream Media has been running a strong fake narrative that bears no relationship to facts or decent investigative work. Just like during Covid, the MSM has been pushing the idea that the Ukranians are winning, to Putin's got cancer, to Zelensky is Jesus himself. Plenty of stories on Russian Oligarchs but none on Zelensky's mates doing the same. None on Zelensky banning Gay marriage, or banning opposition parties, or shutting down media ("consolidating") or telling Western countries to ban all Russian entering their countries. Putin is a vile meglomaniac, but he's not stupid, he needs to be dragged to the negotiating table too. Clearly Western sanctions and media narratives don't work, especially when China steps up to help them and the West simper away.  

The media is all Leftie opinions and their pro-war stuff that has the Left all clapping happily and crowd funding assault rifles and grenade launchers (probably the same hypocrits who did the opposite when the US went into Iraq or whined about Kyle Whittenhouse using his semi-automatic to defend himself).

Anyone seen the Vogue photoshoot with his hot wife posing in front of a burning tank? What about Zelensky's world PR tour including Glastonbury (?) always wearing that tight khaki army t-shirt despite the fact he's never served? Best stolen valour moment since George W wearing his Top Gun jacket toi announce 'winning' the Iraq war. 

Peace talks should be pushed on the two countries, instead China keeps buying Russian oil and the West keeps arming the Ukrainans and ignoring the rebrankding of his various Nazi battalions. 

Come on...he's the greatest PR merchant ever,  using his media skills to spin his way around the world on his crowdfunding for weapons tour. The 'army' t shirt is his brand, it's such a costume to try to show that he's a fighter, war hero, etc. His recent Vogue photo shoot was the only time he hasn't been seen in one, I guess Armani don't make tight fitting khaki t-shirts. 

He's just upped the ante on his forever war, he's now talking about taking Crimea as being a requirement. The Russian speaking population there may want to have a say in that.

He's grifted more than 17 billion Euros in cash and much more in arms out of more than 50 Governments, he's even bled Microsoft and Google direct. I'd be surprised if he wasn't sending an automated invoice to the USA, UK, etc. for this Proxy war. The arms black market is flooded now with arms the West 'donated' and have either been on-sold or missappropriated back out. Nice one. 

Why are you insisting on funding this guy, who wants to fight to the last Ukranian in a losing war. For what?

Get these sociopaths to the negotiating table.