| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
 |
|
It seems like the post-coital bliss will soon be gone.
| The Trump administration has decided to resume the provision of weapons and intelligence to Ukraine. |
So we're back to a Biden position.
| The U.S. asked the Ukrainians to accept a 30 day long ceasefire offer. This would of course only be implemented if the Russian side agrees to it. |
Knowing full well that the Russians have no need to agree to it.
| According to the latest from Riyadh, Ukraine says it is ready for a 30 day cease fire. If this is what Washington “extracted” from the Ukrainians, it is operationally meaningless. With Russia on the brink of winning in Kursk and elsewhere, the Russians won’t accept any such deal. If it is a ruse to allow the US to resume arms shipments to Ukraine, knowing Russia will reject it, the so-called peace initiative is a dead letter. |
Why are the Ukrainians so keen for a ceasefire? It's habit.
| Since 2014 the Ukrainian side has multiple times agreed to this or that ceasefire after its forces received a strong beating. It also immediately broke each of its promises. The defeat of its incursion into the Kursk region of Russia will have motivated it to accept the U.S. position. But what force could make it stick to a ceasefire if Russia would agree to one? | |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
There is some truth to this but Trump has at least smoked Putin out. If Putin fights on it means he is not, as was his stated aim, liberating Donetsk, but de facto extinguishing Ukraine. This does make a considerable difference to all the other parties to the dispute.
I don't think Biden would ever have done this whatever the state of his mental acuities. So it is not status quo ante all over again.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
The BBC says
| Vladimir Putin has said he agrees with the idea of a ceasefire in Ukraine, but that "questions" remain about the nature of a truce - as he set out a number of tough conditions for peace. |
But for some reason doesn't report what the "questions" are.
Is it the "root causes"?
| A ceasefire should lead to "an enduring peace and remove the root causes of this crisis", Putin said. "We need to negotiate with our American colleagues and partners," he said. "Maybe I'll have a call with Donald Trump." Putin added: "It will be good for the Ukrainian side to achieve a 30-day ceasefire. "We are in favour of it, but there are nuances." |
One of the nuances might be the latest from the ECHR
| The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has found Ukraine guilty of failing to prevent the 2014 Odessa tragedy, in which 48 people lost their lives and over 250 were injured. The court has ordered compensation for the victims, marking a significant legal decision regarding the violent unrest that followed Ukraine's 2014 political upheaval. |
It's a stretch to call the ECHR pro-Russia, but anyway this has yet to appear in our MSM coverage. Either way, it's the kind of thing that will get dragged up as part of "root causes" and how far back anyone cares to go with the finger-pointing.
HHH
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
More from BBC
Why Ukraine hopes Trump minerals deal will win back US support.
Senior Ukrainian and US officials are meeting today in Saudi Arabia to discuss how the war in Ukraine ends.
The US says it's to agree on a "framework" for a ceasefire and eventual peace deal. For Kyiv, it is also a chance to patch up its relationship with Washington and muscle in on a process it is yet to be involved in. It will propose an aerial and naval ceasefire in an initial truce, as well as try to revive a critical mineral deal, which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky "will sign at any time". |
Our BBC is curiously silent on how this will be reconciled with the UK's Hundred Year Partnership with Ukraine.
| British officials signed a 100-year partnership with Ukraine in January, declaring the UK as Kyiv's "preferred partner" in developing its resource sector. |
The UK Gov's "Ukraine Business Guide" mentions that | “Ukraine has vast resources” and “a rich mineral base of iron ore, manganese, coal, and titanium”. |
HHH
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
The cause of all the confusion is because there has been a paradigm crash. It used to be 'America is Big Daddy, stop worrying', now it is 'America has gone off with another woman, start worrying.'
In such a situation the last thing anyone does is say, "OK, what was daddy actually doing for us and do we have to worry now he's no longer doing it?" The answers are 'Not much for the last thirty years' and 'Not really. As long as we don't go round like blue-arsed flies wailing 'Daddy's gone, woe is us'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Everyone agrees the welfare budget is too high and has to be cut. The current fig leaf is, 'It's for their own good.' They need to be helped back to work etc etc. No-o-o-o. It's for our own good, isn't it? The welfare budget is too high, remember?
People either work or they live on benefits depending as to what suits their individual circumstance. If you are nasty to them it will suit more of them to work and the welfare budget will go down (and tax receipts and GNP will go up). That is the be-all and end-all of all welfare budget arguments. What do people think?
* The Cabinet, it was reported on Newsnight, is split 50/50 on whether to be nasty.
* The Tories, now they are safely out of government, can afford to be 100% nasty.
* The minority twatty people who will never be in government are 100% in favour of not being nasty.
* The country as a whole is in favour of being nasty, except to those people who really need our help. Woe betide any party that cuts the benefit of people who are featured on television programmes about welfare cuts.
"Did you see Newsnight last night, Marge. Those poor people."
"Ooh yes, Ada, it shouldn't ought to be allowed."
"Do you mean Newsnight?"
"That too, Ada."
"Best get on. Punters won't find themselves."
"Yes, my disability payments don't stretch to smack."
"Smack in the hand is worth two on the bottom."
"You're such a wag, Ada. Lend us a wrap till Friday."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | * The Cabinet, it was reported on Newsnight, is split 50/50 on whether to be nasty. |
While it maintains a 100% public facade that Loans To Ukraine Are Good.
It's also split all over the place on how much each Department's budget has to be cut to make up the magic Ukraine number.
Or we can do what the EU is going to do, and invent more money.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
Why don't they bring back that old Victorian idea: the deserving poor versus the undeserving poor?
Most of the people, both left and right, would be up for that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Neither the Victorians nor anyone else has ever been able to solve the 'sturdy beggar' problem. You can make, say, workhouses awful enough to ensure only the deserving poor seek admittance but only at the price of making life awful for people who deserve society's help.
It doesn't make anyone feel good and besides the underlying reason for charity is obviated: if people are desperate enough they will murder you in your bed for the mug of Horlicks your hands are clasped round. Or, in this case, they will steal the clothes off your washing line rather than go to the workhouse. It is not enough to select the right people, you have to select the right benefit. But the Victorians did have one correct idea:
| Poverty is a failing not an affliction |
There is no need to shed bounteous tears every time you watch a documentary about a woman who had to turn her thermostat down a notch and demand your (Labour) MP resign because the bastard voted not to give everyone subsidised electricity. The cow should have saved more. Or married a richer, uglier husband. Or put on a woolly.
In fact once you start looking at everyone in special categories--migrants, for example-- as ordinary Joes, you'll know exactly how to deal with them. Do unto others etc. That's what both Left and Right (and Centre) always forget.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
Re
the deserving poor versus the undeserving poor?
Would anyone notice if I conflate that with
the deserving elderly versus the undeserving elderly
?
Fortunately we have the Assisted Dying Bill being rammed at high speed through Parliament. That can take care of the undeserving elderly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Poverty is a failing not an affliction | |
It's also a relative term. And the way it's officially measured has a cunning trick up its sleeve.
For starters, what's the UK official measure of poverty?
Two commonly used measures of poverty based on disposable income are:
Relative low income: This refers to people living in households with income below 60% of the median in that year.
Absolute low income: This refers to people living in households with income below 60% of median income in a base year, usually 2010/11. This measurement is adjusted for inflation |
Either way, if the current (or any) government somehow succeeds in "growing the economy" (as though it was in their power in the first place), everyone assumes the median wage will increase.
The next assumption is the number of people in paid employment will increase. But in every industry I know of, senior management is betting the farm that using AI will increase productivity while decreasing the expensive headcount.
So: economic growth with no increase in employment?
That may mean the median wage will increase. Which automatically means the number of people below 60% will also increase. Which means "growing the economy" has the paradoxical result of "more poverty".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Grant wrote: | Why don't they bring back that old Victorian idea: the deserving poor versus the undeserving poor?
Most of the people, both left and right, would be up for that. |
This idea still persists. You can see it in concepts that are still implemented such as the "intentionally homeless" or "sanctions" where, because of previous actions (or more normally inactions), welfare applicants lose entitlements. The main problem is that in many cases this results in the "undeserving" heading off to a social care department, eg if the applicant has children, as social care departments do not have deserving and undeserving criteria, they are solely based on measurements of need, so if a mum comes in and says my children are hungry and homeless, even if it's her fault, then Social Care will act and house and feed her and the children, they won't take the children into care.
Why?
Cathy Come Home.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Borry wrote: | Poverty is a failing not an affliction
It's also a relative term. And the way it's officially measured has a cunning trick up its sleeve. For starters, what's the UK official measure of poverty? |
This is always the nugget in the woodpile. For instance, we insist on temporary third world migrants being paid the British living wage. Thus destroying the entire purpose of the transaction.
| Two commonly used measures of poverty based on disposable income are: Relative low income: This refers to people living in households with income below 60% of the median in that year. |
Patently absurd given income spread in any society.
| Absolute low income: This refers to people living in households with income below 60% of median income in a base year, usually 2010/11. This measurement is adjusted for inflation |
This is the one that applies to me and to my very great benefit. (No pun intended.)
| Either way, if the current (or any) government somehow succeeds in "growing the economy" (as though it was in their power in the first place), everyone assumes the median wage will increase. |
Or, as it is usually put, 'the poor will always be with us'. If you use a statistical definition.
| The next assumption is the number of people in paid employment will increase. But in every industry I know of, senior management is betting the farm that using AI will increase productivity while decreasing the expensive headcount. |
I prefer the lesson of history to either you or senior management.
| So: economic growth with no increase in employment? That may mean the median wage will increase. Which automatically means the number of people below 60% will also increase. Which means "growing the economy" has the paradoxical result of "more poverty". |
They'll just adjust the parameters.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
The thing we ignore is that we are uniquely generous in subsidising help with housing costs (housing benefit), it is an astonishing 1.4 of GDP. Public spending on housing allowances is close to 0.5% of GDP in the Netherlands and New Zealand, and between 0.1 and 0.3% of GDP in Sweden, Australia, Greece, Iceland, Israel, the Czech Republic, the United States, Ireland and Norway.
We choose to pay lots of people to stay in accommodation they simply cannot afford for ever, and this even in areas that are fantastically expensive . So for example we happily pay help with housing costs for folks to live in London who are earning minimum wage as they can't afford their rent as long as it's an average type of property.
EG. UK will pay weekly up to £92.05 in Durham.... for a two-bed place, and up to £412.96 for someone to live in Westminster. Not surprisingly you have a booming population in London.
The budget for Help with Housing this year is £35.1 Billion this year. Total defence spending is expected to total £56.9 Billion.
We consider this to be a good policy choice.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley wrote: | Grant wrote: Why don't they bring back that old Victorian idea: the deserving poor versus the undeserving poor? Most of the people, both left and right, would be up for that.
This idea still persists. |
It persists with me and Grant, that's for sure.
| You can see it in concepts that are still implemented such as the "intentionally homeless" or "sanctions" where, because of previous actions (or more normally inactions), welfare applicants lose entitlements. |
Yes, that's two examples.
| The main problem is that in many cases this results in the "undeserving" heading off to a social care department, eg if the applicant has children, as social care departments do not have deserving and undeserving criteria, they are solely based on measurements of need, so if a mum comes in and says my children are hungry and homeless, even if it's her fault, then Social Care will act and house and feed her and the children, they won't take the children into care. |
Me and Grant would agree the children are 'deserving'. But this is an excellent example of the way a bureaucracy operating on a check-box basis creates new and permanent classes of claimants. I have written previously on the mischief caused from the well-intentioned change from paying housing benefit direct to landlords to paying housing benefits to tenants to pay landlords. Honestly, one despairs.
I agree that is what kicked off the modern mania. Ken Loach, a peerlessly brilliant and unreconstructed hard-lefty, created a whole world from the top of a Clapham omnibus peering down into the Battersea underclass. There is no need for us to draw the same conclusions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
