KentVillan

The general perception in Russia seems to be that the only bit the general public ever really cared about was Crimea. The problem is Crimea can't be sustained without holding Kherson, where the Ukrainians are currently looking dangerous, and Zelensky understandably wants it back. Putin has really tied himself in knots here. I don't think any "off ramp" exists besides Putin being ousted / assassinated, unless he can somehow find a way of surviving total defeat in Ukraine.

I think it's a really unique situation. She has no real electoral mandate, because her party were voted in on a very different manifesto. She only has minority support from her own MPs. Public opinion is against her as evidenced by polls throughout the leadership campaign and since she took office. If you look at other PMs in recent memory who took over mid-term (Major, Brown, May, Johnson) they were either a continuation of the previous govt (Major, Brown, arguably May) or had initial public support for their big policy shift (May via the Brexit referendum, Johnson because he had very high approval ratings). And both May and Johnson called elections within a year of taking over. If Truss thinks she can stick this out until late 2024, she's surely delusional. The public have already turned on her big time, and her MPs will know they won't be rewarded for loyalty. Surely they will move against her in short order?

The problem is the level of taxation required to properly fund the NHS will also cost them elections to the Tories in perpetuity. If we want a quality health system the only options are more tax (like Sweden) or a social insurance model (like Germany). If we can push towards something more like the Swedish model, then great, but to me that seems even less likely than introducing social insurance. It would require a totally different fiscal consensus. Tbf, maybe Truss is going to **** the Tories and the low-tax model so hard, that the public will be more amenable to higher taxes. I just don't see it. Too many British people don't like paying tax even when it's used to fund things that make their life better.

Sam Freedman worked in Education under Gove, but is Labour-leaning himself. Generally has pretty good instincts on politics IMO and is well-informed. I do think it would have to be a Labour Govt that introduced this kind of reform, though. The Tories (rightly) just don't have the trust among public or medical workers to implement something like this.

I mean they're kind of doing that already, if you look at how much expenditure on private healthcare has increased over the last 12 years. It's really bad. The key thing about the German model is that below a certain level of earnings (about €60k), it's a compulsory state-provided, non-profit insurance system. Then above that level you have the option to go private. It's not a panacea, but it would take some of the sting out of the debate I think. You'd still have free-at-the-point-of-use healthcare in an emergency, and affordable healthcare for people who need it. Problem with our current NHS model is that it keeps getting caught up in fiscal debates between Labour and Tories. So we alternate between well-funded NHS under Labour, and destroyed NHS under Tories. That won't end unless we change the model or keep the Tories out of power indefinitely.

Was wrapping that into point 3 - lack of available staff / students via immigration. But yes, agree.

Recruitment crises happen for 3 reasons: The pay isn't high enough. The job is perceived as dangerous / unhealthy / too difficult. Shortage of people going through the right training routes. What the Tories have done is: Reduce real-terms pay Let the Covid situation escalate to the point that many NHS workers were dead, long-term sick, or psychologically traumatised Made it more expensive to train to be a nurse or a doctor, and limited immigration (both student migration, and foreign workers with relevant skillsets) Points 1 and 3 also feed into point 2. The recruitment crisis makes it progressively harder and more dangerous to work in the NHS. FWIW, I don't believe an entirely tax-funded NHS works in the context of a country where voters are opposed to high taxes, and the population continues to get older. The solution is surely some kind of French/German style means-tested insurance model, where the poorest get healthcare entirely free, and then middle classes pay capped insurance fees that can't escalate like they do under the US model.

I think it's (3) he isn't completely embarrassing the club, and hasn't attacked the fans. It takes a lot for the match day fans to turn on the manager. I don't think it's that they actually think Gerrard is a great manager or the answer to our problems. He just hasn't pushed people far enough yet for the cabbage launchers to come out of the attic.

I agree, it was only a couple of games ago that he was brilliant against City. He was also very good in 2020/21. I don't think he's the player to carry us to Europe, and I get very frustrated watching him at times... but some of the criticism on here is beyond harsh.

Yep, I don't think he's an *awful* manager, I just don't think there's been any noticeable improvement despite the big investment in the squad, and it's hard to see any long-term vision. When Gerrard goes "pragmatic" we get ok-ish results, but nothing special. When he tries to implement his "vision" it fails spectacularly every time. He has been unlucky with the injuries to Diego Carlos and Kamara, but we should still be putting away the bottom half teams regardless. I just don't see an Arteta style turnaround on the cards, and I don't enjoy watching Villa anymore. I haven't really since Grealish left. I'm not out to get Gerrard at all, and have backed him at various points, but I'm tired of watching this dross, and I don't think there are mitigating circumstances anymore.

I have seen mention of this elsewhere a few times. The consensus seems to be that Ukraine would rather spend more time training troops than just throwing them into battle. From what I've read, troop numbers have never been Ukraine's problem. It's weapons / equipment that they struggle for.

One form of heroism I think. RIP

Bit of a damp squib that decider. We absolutely battered them. Brilliant start from Salt and Hales, and only real blip was Malan running Salt out, but made up for it with a superb innings.

It’s the lack of weight through the challenge that makes it a yellow imo. Nasty one, but you see these given as yellows most of the time. Also when the ref has reviewed on VAR it’s the contact he’s been looking at, surely. The intent would have been obvious in real time?

That first Liverpool goal, how have VAR decided Salah is onside there!? Swear they froze it a frame or two early, and he still looked off

I used to love naps but I can't seem to do them anymore unless I'm really shattered

Happy if I get to bed by around 1am. Often still awake at 3 or 4 on a bad night, although usually end up catching that up with an early night. Never been much of an morning person. Only get up before 8.30ish if I have a meeting or something important.

Sorry, I meant the single market - 1986/87 - which was a big improvement on before. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_European_Act She also negotiated (I think to her credit, in fairness) the U.K. rebate which pre-dated that. My point was it’s quite plausible that the major explanations for Thatcher’s success were her European policy and the North Sea windfall, plus more favourable global tailwinds. And a lot of the stuff her modern fanboys get excited about was an irrelevance at best, or actively harmful at worst. But hard to say, as obviously trade unions at the time, and big sections of the Bennite left were very protectionist and anti free trade. I just think this modern interpretation of her as being a low tax, low spend, monetarist kind of ignores the context, and credits the wrong parts of her policy for success - indeed, often gives her credit for things she did wrong. Right to Buy was a travesty, for example, but is celebrated by cargo cult Thatcherites like Truss.

3% of GDP is a lot for a sudden windfall. Bear in mind solid growth is about 3-6% per annum. Was it enough for us to have a Norway-style sovereign wealth fund and decades of ultra wealth? Probably not, we have a much bigger population per £ generated. But was it enough to be a large part of the explanation for Thatcher’s economic “success story”? Quite possibly - especially if you combine with Common Market entry happening under her watch. Maybe all the tax cutting and privatising and union bashing was just a sideshow.

Sorry what I meant was - my understanding is that Lyman has some strategic value due to a railway line and its strategic position for launching other attacks. So was just wondering if controlling Lyman allowed Ukraine to exploit that immediately or if they needed to press further first?

100% agree with this, and if you have the cash/insurance it might even be worth getting a specialist to do scans etc. (see what physio thinks). Sounds like a massive rip off, but not treating one injury properly usually leads to other injuries, and if sport is an important part of your life, you won’t regret it.

Few questions for people who‘ve been following more closely… How many elite/professional Russian troops were in Lyman vs local separatists, conscripts, etc? When can Ukraine start to take strategic advantage of controlling Lyman? How long before the weather slows everything down? Are Ukraine looking likely to make breakthroughs anywhere else before winter? Can Ukraine take any major cities in the recently annexed territories before winter?

Jesus is doing the drop deep thing a lot better than Kane