Best Of

Ben Judah
@b_judah

The growing risk of a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation system, of which the Gulf Stream is part, is nothing less than the number one long-term security threat to our way of life in Britain, Europe and the Western world in the era in which we live.

The consequences on our societies of an AMOC collapse would be simply devastating for Britain especially, beyond anything imaginable but a full blown super pandemic or nuclear war — with scientists modelling temperatures dropping around 15.c and half of our arable land being lost.

This is just one of many climate catastrophes starring at us of the modelling and the observed data and is why it is why Labour has continued to place such importance on Net Zero and international climate talks despite the Greens and progressive activists now looking elsewhere post-October 7th and the Conservatives joining Reform in now campaigning against them.

https://x.com/b_judah/status/2063540337939710222

"...temperatures dropping around 15.c" ??

Presume that means 1.5°C ?

If the AMOC collapses no. 15°C.
Look at the latitude we are on.

No sorry that's not it. Take for example Bristol latitude 51.5N, mean annual temperature = 11.4°C. Compare with Vancouver BC: latitude 49.2, mean annual temperature 11.0°C.

Ok, Vancouver is 80 miles further south, and a it is a bit cooler, but nothing like 15°C cooler.

A 15°C drop implies the mean annual temperature of Britain would be -4°C. Which is what you get in Yellowknife NT, or Fairbanks Alaska

The 15C drop is a worst case scenario for northern and interior Scotland (although climate models generally are over-optimistic, so I wouldn't be too complacent). You have to take into account the geomorphology (much of it is in the uplands) and the location in the north Atlantic. Without a substantial land mass above it, the movement south of the gulf stream would draw down Arctic air straight into Scotland. England would be protected somewhat by Scotland and from the current's southern movement but still be dropping about 5C.

Fpt:

It seems that the Hampshire plods attempted to libel a murder victim:

An initial police statement later that morning said: “It was reported two men had been assaulted by an unknown man.”

The Nowak family, raw with grief, became concerned that a false narrative was being pushed about their son. It is understood that police told the family the next update they planned to publish, which would include the Nowaks’ tribute, would again imply that he was the initial aggressor.

Officers dropped that section of the statement, which only referred to an “altercation” when published.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/henry-nowak-murder-trial-police-l8x990pkb

What’s happening with the Hillsborough Law? Feels like something Andy Burnham could capitalise on here.

In further echoes of Hillsborough, I see that the victims of the Nottingham attack were tested for drugs:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ywd4gdzk1o

The father of a university student killed trying to protect her friend has told a public inquiry of his "disgust" that the stabbing victims were tested for drugs and alcohol - but their attacker was not.

The theme which runs through the Nowak murder, the Nottingham murders, the Southport murders and the Fordingbridge rapes is DEI.

With the criminals deemed to need 'equity' even if that requires demeaning the victims.

This case has SFA to do with DEI.

Reverse the ethnicity of the murderer and murder victim and do you think the plods would have reacted in the same way ?

We all know that they wouldn't.

tell that to the Lawrence family

You have to go 32 years into the past for that response ?

Tell that to the families of Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry.

Baroness Casey Review (2023): Baroness Casey was tasked with the investigation after serving police officer Wayne Couzens murdered Sarah Everard. She told the BBC that institutional racism, sexism and homophobia were present "across the organisation". The Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley has said that he accepts Baroness Casey's "diagnosis"

The same pattern of victim blaming, coverup and a childish, passive aggressive stance of “why are you being mean to the delicate flower that is British policing?” has been seen year after year, for decades.

The problem with performative “training” and “initiatives” is that they give cover for the same behaviour to continue.

Which it has.

Well, now. I don't want to annoy the blessed @TSE but this comment about the Lucy Letby case on the previous thread begs an obvious question.

"My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit."

What did this research consist of exactly?

Did he read every day's transcript of the evidence and all the reports and written evidence put before the jury in the two trials? And not anything else. Because unless he did that he can't really say that as a juror he would have voted to acquit on all the charges in both trials.

He might think as others have done that there is other evidence which could have been put before a jury. And that if it had been she might have acquitted. He might be right.

But the key question for me is this: Letby had an expert medical witness advising her team who was willing to give evidence undermining the prosecution's evidence about how those babies died and yet the defence did not call him. Why has never been explained? Only Lucy Letby can do so and she has chosen to remain silent.

The answer to that has actually been clear for some time. There was a pre-trial meeting of experts and the defence experts either deferred to or agreed with the prosecution expert, Peter Hindmarsh, about the insulin evidence.

Recent developments regarding that insulin evidence have been quite prominently reported in the press recently.

It's always a mistake to assume that, just because you haven't done any research on a particular subject, no one else has done any either.

Burnham will make exactly the mistakes Starmer has made and for exactly the same reasons.

Streeting would not but would likely make worse ones because he’s so incredibly arrogant.

I don’t think Burnham would have done winter fuel or farmers. Even though I supported both.

Burnham will discover, if successful, as all our PMs since 2008 have, that the options actually available are a lot less exciting than they would wish them to be. To create options you need to make some tough choices to free up some space within the existing envelope. That involves upsetting some people.

But both decisions have basically destroyed Starmer so I don’t really see how he could have just “upset some people”.

Starmer was destroyed by the u-turn in my view, not the original decision

If I'm faced with Starmer v Burnham on the leadership ballot, it will be time to draw a cock and balls.

So who would you want? As I said down thread it is a lot easier to say what you don't like than to find anything you do. Who would you want our next PM to be?

I want rid of Starmer, as I think he is just rubbish at politics.

I don't want Burnham, as I can't stand his sense of entitlement.

My choice would be one of Mahmood or Phillipson. Two capable women, who could do a much better job than Starmer of setting a direction and selling it to the nation.

Thanks. As a disillusioned Tory I have been quite impressed with Mahmood in the last few months.

Reminds me of Rory Stewart running for Tory leader. As a non-Tory, I liked him. Mahmood is implementing policies Priti Patel would have found extreme. She would drive away the left and centre of the Labour vote. Starmer has already found out being Reform-lite doesn't work.

Yes, a good analogy. Attractive to people outside the party but at the cost of popularity with those actually within it.

A resounding win and Burnham succeeding Starmer by the end of summer would be my preferred outcome

Politics has to change and it starts with Starmer leaving office

Maybe but Starmer to Burnham is a shift even further left for Labour, Burnham is a better communicator than Starmer but Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson

"...Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson..."

That would be Harold Wilson, the winner of four-ish general elections? I think the Labour Party will cope.

Wilson lost 1 general election to Heath in 1970 as well, lost the popular vote in another in Feb 1974 and scraped majorities in 2 in 1964 and Oct 1974 and was beaten by the Tories in England in 2 of the elections he won in 1964 and Feb 1974, saved only by Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs. Only won one clear majority in 1966

A resounding win and Burnham succeeding Starmer by the end of summer would be my preferred outcome

Politics has to change and it starts with Starmer leaving office

Maybe but Starmer to Burnham is a shift even further left for Labour, Burnham is a better communicator than Starmer but Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson

"...Burnham would also likely be the most leftwing UK PM since Harold Wilson..."

That would be Harold Wilson, the winner of four-ish general elections? I think the Labour Party will cope.

Wilson lost 1 general election to Heath in 1970, lost the popular vote in another in Feb 1974 and scraped majorities in 2 in 1964 and Oct 1974 and was beaten by the Tories in England in 2 of the elections he won in 1964 and Feb 1974, saved only by Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs. Only won one clear majority in 1966

THat does still make him Labour's second-most successful leader in electoral terms, behind Blair and ahead of Attlee.

I happen to agree with you that I think those who see Burnham as their saviour should pay a visit to Barnard Castle, but suggesting Wilson as a comparison is a bit odd.

In ideological terms it was apt, Burnham would be the most leftwing PM since Wilson, a tax raising, nationalising, beer and sandwiches with unions type of PM. We would also do well to remember that in the Wilson era which covered most of the mid 1960s to mid 1970s there was a brain drain of high earners and skilled talent from the UK to the USA, Monaco and Swizerland and the Far East due to the punitive tax rates imposed by the Wilson government

You see, actually that describes Starmer fairly well. What do you expect about Burnham that would put him somehow magically to the left of Starmer but not Wilson?

If anything I would put Starmer to Wilson's left.

Starmer wouldn't know if he was to the left or right of Wilson, or indeed anyone else. To make that call he'd need to have some idea where he was actually going.