I am energised and excited that HYUFD is supporting the campaign to remove Conservative councillors here in Scotland. I would like to invite him to come leaflet with me in Fraserburgh to unseat Aberdeenshire Council leader Andy Kille, who's leadership he describes as "nothing to save".
I think that "Nothing to Save" is a fine election slogan when you run a council.
Aberdeenshire is NOC not Conservative majority controlled
He didn't say it was. He referred to him as council leader. No idea if that is accurate, but he never said it was majority controlled.
And my original comment was the Conservatives control no council in Scotland, which is correct. Not a single council in Scotland has a Conservative majority of its councillors
“ the Conservatives control no council in Scotland”
Have you informed Douglas Ross?
Could call Andy Kille in the Council Leader's office at the council office (which interestingly is in Aberdeen city - another council's area...) and tell him that although he runs the council he really doesn't and there is nothing to save.
I thought JRM was spectacularly tone-deaf last night. But compared to HY...
Epping Forest was NOC in the early 2000s and late 1990s, we do not consider we controlled the council then only now as we have a Conservative majority.
If SCons consider NOC a Tory majority no wonder they fail to win more
They don't consider it a Tory majority. But it is not "nothing to save".
Please do keep digging the pit deeper. Its astonishing to watch.
It is very disturbing to watch
I would say I know conservative mps are very much in discussions with each other and as I said I would not rule out Boris going within days of Sue Gray's report
He won't, even if there was a VONC I think Boris wins it about 55 45 and is safe for a year.
Remember even Thatcher got 55% of Tory MPs to back her in 1990 and under current rules there would have been no second ballot so she could have stayed PM.
Even May got over 60% of Tory MPs to back her in the 2018 VONC too.
Whatever did happen to Mrs T and Mrs M?
Thatcher would have survived under the current rules, she got 55%, there would be no second ballot and she would have been safe to nearly the next election.
Boris will never resign before a general election unlike May, he is even more stubborn and unlike her already has one majority election win
An article in the Telegraph this morning about how Boris may become the shortest-serving British Prime Minister since Campbell Bannerman. 'What about Alec Douglas Home?', I thought - and looked him up to check his details. I was startled to discover that ADH played first class cricket for Middlesex. Amazing what can pass you by about people.
Private Eye used to repeat a rumour that ADH had murdered someone with a cricket bat at Eton. I suspect it was circulated by ADH himself to correct his diffident image.
Pointless anecdote: I thought I'd backed Rishi Sunak to be next Prime Minister but on checking, I'm actually on Liz Truss. Not sure how that happened but I am now persuaded we need another woman in Number 10 and another boost to my ailing bank balance.
I still think Mark Harper is underpriced. He has managed his positioning over partygate very astutely, is an anti-lockdowner with support from the right wing, but not a swivel-eyed ERGer.
If I were betting significant amounts based on value (which I'm not) I would be on Harper and Javid.
Harper if the Conservatives were in opposition but since they are in government, they are choosing a new Prime Minister who must hit the ground running. This probably restricts them to a handful of senior Cabinet ministers. Harper has never run a department, having gone from junior ministerial roles to Chief Whip.
In normal times maybe, but I think they have been drifting away from that, like our friends across the Atlantic. Boris had only been FS for a few months but that was never going to stand in the way. The trouble with those in ministerial posts now is that they are tarred by their loyalty to Johnson. None have been sufficiently disloyal. The one who gets closest is Sajid Javid because he previously walked out in a spat with Cummings and is only recently back.
There are few ex cabinet ministers available with sufficient support either, barring Hunt.
Re Harper specifically, I am not sure why he is relatively high up in the betting. As far as I can tell, he hasn't got a natural base in the party or at least one where there might be a competitive candidate for that bloc.
Punters are making the mistake (again) of thinking that Tory MPs might be looking for someone relatively sensible and sane?
Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives.
Boris useless twat as he is I expect Sue Grey's report to not make any conclusions with something like "it could be seen as...." as damning as it gets.
Masked Singer - no stand out performance yet.
Prince Andrew - haven't been following it.
Nicola Sturgeon - those calling for Boris to resign shouldn't be as casual to dismiss her transgression.
Succession - still trying to get into the latest season am struggling on
@Charles - tricky one. Slightly wants to run with the hare (it's all an anonymous chat room Chatham House rules, etc) and hunt with the hounds (this is who I am and my family did/does XYZ). But as with everyone apart from about three posters whose posts I routinely skip, he is an important part of PB so I'd rather he stayed.
"Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives."
IMV this is a bogus argument, as vaccinations for things like yellow fever have been required to get into some countries for generations. AIUI polio is another one for some countries.
Indeed.
One of the first legal interventions (that we have records of) by the state in health care was -
The practice of quarantine, as we know it, began during the 14th century in an effort to protect coastal cities from plague epidemics. Ships arriving in Venice from infected ports were required to sit at anchor for 40 days before landing. This practice, called quarantine, was derived from the Italian words quaranta giorni which mean 40 days.
Wonder if there were any tennis players on the ships at Venice.....
So 600 years ago and in a dozen-odd countries today negates my statement about "the extent to which the State has [now] intruded into our personal lives"?
Probably not, but it's interesting. There are also still countries that restrict entry for people with HIV, for example.
Indeed. I have to do an HIV test every couple of years for my visa, as do foreigners in a number of Asian countries. Even though there are now widely available treatments, many places don’t want people with infectious diseases living in their country.
I think it's also about the potential expense to treat it, I remember Nige got a whole load of shit about the idea of introducing the same restrictions in the UK. I think it was fair because we have a socialised healthcare system and HIV treatment costs are huge.
Hopefully coming down as well.
A doctor friend mentioned that nearly half of new cases in the UK are women, which makes it a sensitive topic politically as the next question is "how is that" and much of the answer lies in the influx of people from Africa.
The other issue facing HMG is the cost of living crisis and I listened to a report on BBC business yesterday about the worldwide energy price hikes
Apparently, it has many factors including last year wind generation was poor due to an exceptionally wind free summer, the loss of coal, including the recent flooding of some of China’s coal mines, and the haste to move to green energy which has provided a vacuum that gas is now filling and is the transition fuel.
The demand worldwide far outstrips the supply and above all else Russia is holding Europe and the west to ransom over its abundance of gas, which has made things very much worse
Merkel also stopped all nuclear power stations following Fukushima creating a German energy crisis
The analyst said the idea this is short term is not born out by the facts and expects high energy prices for the next two years at least
I would suggest the world is seeing the results of too much haste to move to green and insufficient planning for transitional energy which is highlighted by the controversy over Cambo oil field in Scotland
Yes. Another one of BJ's mistakes - I suspect Carrie had a bit to do with that one in pushing the Green agenda.
BJ has been a full signed up member of the Green grouping in the Conservative Party for a long. long time.
Although I think BJ has to go, the one thing I would regret is losing a PM who genuinely seems to get the importance of Green issues. Not sure any of his potential successors do - and certainly not Truss. One of the good things about Boris is his expansive hinterland. Curiously, we may miss him when he goes and the fuss over parties etc recedes.
He doesn't genuinely believe any of it, though; he takes these positions because it makes him more attractive to 'the youth'. And he's probably more motivated by personal than political considerations in that respect.
Some old Boris columns were recently unearthed in which Boris voiced his admiration for Piers Corbyn and his climate-change denial. Of course, Boris might just have been pandering to that particular readership. Who knows?
I am energised and excited that HYUFD is supporting the campaign to remove Conservative councillors here in Scotland. I would like to invite him to come leaflet with me in Fraserburgh to unseat Aberdeenshire Council leader Andy Kille, who's leadership he describes as "nothing to save".
I think that "Nothing to Save" is a fine election slogan when you run a council.
Aberdeenshire is NOC not Conservative majority controlled
He didn't say it was. He referred to him as council leader. No idea if that is accurate, but he never said it was majority controlled.
And my original comment was the Conservatives control no council in Scotland, which is correct. Not a single council in Scotland has a Conservative majority of its councillors
“ the Conservatives control no council in Scotland”
Have you informed Douglas Ross?
Could call Andy Kille in the Council Leader's office at the council office (which interestingly is in Aberdeen city - another council's area...) and tell him that although he runs the council he really doesn't and there is nothing to save.
I thought JRM was spectacularly tone-deaf last night. But compared to HY...
Epping Forest was NOC in the early 2000s and late 1990s, we do not consider we controlled the council then only now as we have a Conservative majority.
If SCons consider NOC a Tory majority no wonder they fail to win more
Uninformed comment. In Scotland we have multi-member wards with transferable votes. In practice, it makes it almost impossible for any party to win a majority on a Scottish Council. If FPTP had applied, as in England, the Scots Tories would certainly have won a very handsome majority on Aberdeenshire Council in 2017 when the council was last contested.
In FPTP terms Scottish Conservatives also won only 6 MPs in 2019 while UK Tories won 365 MPs under Boris. They are only a small wing of the party and largely irrelevant to the party and Union unless they manage to deny the SNP a majority at Holyrood, which they have still failed to do.
They do not dictate who leads the UK party
You’re going to incur the wrath of Ruth. Better put your helmet on.
Ruth was also leader of the SCons in 2015 when the Tories got 1 MP, they still now have 6 with Boris as UK PM.
So Ruth should stop whinging about Boris, he did better for the SCons than Cameron did at Westminster
They got 13 MPs in 2017 after Ruth had had time to turn the party round. Since devolution she is one of only two Scottish politicians with the dynamism and personality to make the political weather. The other was Alex Salmond.
She took over in 2011!
She lead the party to worst ever local council elections, worst ever Euro elections and then worst by vote share General Election result (only missing absolute worst ever by a few hundred votes in DCT for Mundell to cling on).
She only started making progress in 2016 when she adopted her defeated leadership opponent Murdo Fraser's idea to get rid of the Conservative branding in Scotland(combined with Labour shooting themselves in the head during the IndyRef campaign).
I am energised and excited that HYUFD is supporting the campaign to remove Conservative councillors here in Scotland. I would like to invite him to come leaflet with me in Fraserburgh to unseat Aberdeenshire Council leader Andy Kille, who's leadership he describes as "nothing to save".
I think that "Nothing to Save" is a fine election slogan when you run a council.
Aberdeenshire is NOC not Conservative majority controlled
He didn't say it was. He referred to him as council leader. No idea if that is accurate, but he never said it was majority controlled.
And my original comment was the Conservatives control no council in Scotland, which is correct. Not a single council in Scotland has a Conservative majority of its councillors
“ the Conservatives control no council in Scotland”
Have you informed Douglas Ross?
Could call Andy Kille in the Council Leader's office at the council office (which interestingly is in Aberdeen city - another council's area...) and tell him that although he runs the council he really doesn't and there is nothing to save.
I thought JRM was spectacularly tone-deaf last night. But compared to HY...
Epping Forest was NOC in the early 2000s and late 1990s, we do not consider we controlled the council then only now as we have a Conservative majority.
If SCons consider NOC a Tory majority no wonder they fail to win more
They don't consider it a Tory majority. But it is not "nothing to save".
Please do keep digging the pit deeper. Its astonishing to watch.
It is very disturbing to watch
I would say I know conservative mps are very much in discussions with each other and as I said I would not rule out Boris going within days of Sue Gray's report
He won't, even if there was a VONC I think Boris wins it about 55 45 and is safe for a year.
Remember even Thatcher got 55% of Tory MPs to back her in 1990 and under current rules there would have been no second ballot so she could have stayed PM.
Even May got over 60% of Tory MPs to back her in the 2018 VONC too.
This site needs at least one contributor from the bona fide upper class, for balance. (It could also do with more w/c contributors, mind you).
So it's a shame that Charles has departed.
Yes this site is swarming with the kind of people who buy their own furniture. Charles lent it a touch of genuine class.
Why has Charles left?
Charles is always happy to mention his family and friends (especially if they are or were CEOs of multinational pharma companies). He took exception to someone taking such PB "banter" (which he sees as subject to Chatham House rules) and bringing it into the real world.
I had an incident with him some time ago. He happily uses his own identity on here and talks about his work. I mentioned his employer and he asked me not to. Edit: I was happy to comply as it was only good manners to do so.
As I said it's a bit run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. His view is that he brings that information to PB but we must treat it confidentially on PB or outside. So he could say, for example, my family's trust is having an exhibition of Byzantine Phallic Imagery but would not want anyone from PB to say on PB well isn't that Bob's exhibition, I know him well can't wait to speak to him; or to go to the exhibition and say, oh yes Charles told me about this on PB.
It does seem to me that people who wish to be anonymous - which is fair enough - should avoid posting lots of identifiable stuff about their private lives up here. That's just common sense, as well as avoiding trying to have it both ways.
What is really taking the **** is when those who wish to be anonymous post a load of made up stuff about themselves and then get the hump when anyone calls it out. Thankfully Charles didn't sink to that.
It's a tricky one because I think we all see PB as a bit of a refuge from real life and that whatever we say on here is in "PB World" and hence would not necessarily want it to be transposed into that real life. Especially as one of the joys of PB is that we are sometimes more robust on here than IRL.
Charles was no different except his posts contained a lot of real life information so at some point it was likely that there would be a clash and so it proved.
Jacob Rees-Mogg calling someone else 'lightweight' is delicious, isn't it?
I can practically hear from my window yells of 'Hey, tha's oor lightweight'. I think in Scotland that will play and play into how little the Conservatives value the Union, when they dismiss even their own man. Maybe I'm a bit too sensitive to this but I think it's a pretty devastating attitude to take. It won't be seen as an attack on Douglas Ross (who is not personally super popular), but an attack on Scottish influence within the Union.
Time and time again, the second biggest (estimates vary) threat to the Union is the Conservative and Unionist Party. Their understanding of power is so, so narrow that they seem to believe that power insulates them from any responsibility when it should be precisely the opposite. They remind me of small town American cops, thinking because they have power, because their jobs maybe difficult, that they can act how they want. I mean even the fucking Lion King addressed this. Everyone remembers Simba singing 'I just can't wait to be King', but the entire rest of the film, from Mufasa explaining how there's more to being a king than doing what you want, to Scar fucking up the Pride Lands, to Simba finally understanding, is about how a ruler has responsibility for the people they rule.
In the official announcement of JVT stepping down, he pays tribute to Whitty, officials, scientists, public health professionals and clinicians for their “wisdom and energy” during the pandemic but interestingly this list does not include ministers https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/1481556400476200961/photo/1
Doesn't mention Patrick Vallance by name either, which seems more surprising.
Pointless anecdote: I thought I'd backed Rishi Sunak to be next Prime Minister but on checking, I'm actually on Liz Truss. Not sure how that happened but I am now persuaded we need another woman in Number 10 and another boost to my ailing bank balance.
I still think Mark Harper is underpriced. He has managed his positioning over partygate very astutely, is an anti-lockdowner with support from the right wing, but not a swivel-eyed ERGer.
If I were betting significant amounts based on value (which I'm not) I would be on Harper and Javid.
Harper if the Conservatives were in opposition but since they are in government, they are choosing a new Prime Minister who must hit the ground running. This probably restricts them to a handful of senior Cabinet ministers. Harper has never run a department, having gone from junior ministerial roles to Chief Whip.
In normal times maybe, but I think they have been drifting away from that, like our friends across the Atlantic. Boris had only been FS for a few months but that was never going to stand in the way. The trouble with those in ministerial posts now is that they are tarred by their loyalty to Johnson. None have been sufficiently disloyal. The one who gets closest is Sajid Javid because he previously walked out in a spat with Cummings and is only recently back.
There are few ex cabinet ministers available with sufficient support either, barring Hunt.
Re Harper specifically, I am not sure why he is relatively high up in the betting. As far as I can tell, he hasn't got a natural base in the party or at least one where there might be a competitive candidate for that bloc.
Punters are making the mistake (again) of thinking that Tory MPs might be looking for someone relatively sensible and sane?
I think that is the mistake they might be making.
Looking at the leadership contests over the past 30 years (arguably 50), they tend to involve a reaction again st teh previous incumbent when it comes to style - so Maggie's combativeness was replaced by council boy / no university / less forceful John Major whom was replaced by wonder-kid William Hague replaced by "non-intellectual" quiet man IDS. Cameron to May to BJ also involves somewhat of the same dynamic.
This site needs at least one contributor from the bona fide upper class, for balance. (It could also do with more w/c contributors, mind you).
So it's a shame that Charles has departed.
Yes this site is swarming with the kind of people who buy their own furniture. Charles lent it a touch of genuine class.
Why has Charles left?
Charles is always happy to mention his family and friends (especially if they are or were CEOs of multinational pharma companies). He took exception to someone taking such PB "banter" (which he sees as subject to Chatham House rules) and bringing it into the real world.
I had an incident with him some time ago. He happily uses his own identity on here and talks about his work. I mentioned his employer and he asked me not to. Edit: I was happy to comply as it was only good manners to do so.
As I said it's a bit run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. His view is that he brings that information to PB but we must treat it confidentially on PB or outside. So he could say, for example, my family's trust is having an exhibition of Byzantine Phallic Imagery but would not want anyone from PB to say on PB well isn't that Bob's exhibition, I know him well can't wait to speak to him; or to go to the exhibition and say, oh yes Charles told me about this on PB.
It does seem to me that people who wish to be anonymous - which is fair enough - should avoid posting lots of identifiable stuff about their private lives up here. That's just common sense, as well as avoiding trying to have it both ways.
What is really taking the **** is when those who wish to be anonymous post a load of made up stuff about themselves and then get the hump when anyone calls it out. Thankfully Charles didn't sink to that.
Indeed. I have always taken extra precautions to stop anyone realising that I am actually Homer.
I am energised and excited that HYUFD is supporting the campaign to remove Conservative councillors here in Scotland. I would like to invite him to come leaflet with me in Fraserburgh to unseat Aberdeenshire Council leader Andy Kille, who's leadership he describes as "nothing to save".
I think that "Nothing to Save" is a fine election slogan when you run a council.
Aberdeenshire is NOC not Conservative majority controlled
He didn't say it was. He referred to him as council leader. No idea if that is accurate, but he never said it was majority controlled.
And my original comment was the Conservatives control no council in Scotland, which is correct. Not a single council in Scotland has a Conservative majority of its councillors
“ the Conservatives control no council in Scotland”
Have you informed Douglas Ross?
Could call Andy Kille in the Council Leader's office at the council office (which interestingly is in Aberdeen city - another council's area...) and tell him that although he runs the council he really doesn't and there is nothing to save.
I thought JRM was spectacularly tone-deaf last night. But compared to HY...
Epping Forest was NOC in the early 2000s and late 1990s, we do not consider we controlled the council then only now as we have a Conservative majority.
If SCons consider NOC a Tory majority no wonder they fail to win more
Uninformed comment. In Scotland we have multi-member wards with transferable votes. In practice, it makes it almost impossible for any party to win a majority on a Scottish Council. If FPTP had applied, as in England, the Scots Tories would certainly have won a very handsome majority on Aberdeenshire Council in 2017 when the council was last contested.
In FPTP terms Scottish Conservatives also won only 6 MPs in 2019 while UK Tories won 365 MPs under Boris. They are only a small wing of the party and largely irrelevant to the party and Union unless they manage to deny the SNP a majority at Holyrood, which they have still failed to do.
They do not dictate who leads the UK party
You’re going to incur the wrath of Ruth. Better put your helmet on.
Ruth was also leader of the SCons in 2015 when the Tories got 1 MP, they still now have 6 with Boris as UK PM.
So Ruth should stop whinging about Boris, he did better for the SCons than Cameron did at Westminster
They got 13 MPs in 2017 after Ruth had had time to turn the party round. Since devolution she is one of only two Scottish politicians with the dynamism and personality to make the political weather. The other was Alex Salmond.
She took over in 2011!
She lead the party to worst ever local council elections, worst ever Euro elections and then worst by vote share General Election result (only missing absolute worst ever by a few hundred votes in DCT for Mundell to cling on).
She only started making progress in 2016 when she adopted her defeated leadership opponent Murdo Fraser's idea to get rid of the Conservative branding in Scotland(combined with Labour shooting themselves in the head during the IndyRef campaign).
Don't know if you saw my post the other day - but the local Tory list MSP has completely abandoned the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indyref branding on his bumf. Could be a LD council leaflet but for the colour and the 'Conservatives'. Which is decidedly interesting, esp. in view of your remark.
So increasingly it looks like the Democrats will lose The House fair and square...
As Dave Wasserman points out the headline numbers hide just how Partisan those seats are. In general the GOP seats are much deeper red than the Dem seats are blue - the Dems have produced some rubbishly ineffective gerrymanders this cycle.
Also there is still more maps to come, the upcoming carve up of Nashville into 3 separate seats might well rub out a Dem in Tennessee.
An article in the Telegraph this morning about how Boris may become the shortest-serving British Prime Minister since Campbell Bannerman. 'What about Alec Douglas Home?', I thought - and looked him up to check his details. I was startled to discover that ADH played first class cricket for Middlesex. Amazing what can pass you by about people.
The cricinfo profile is interesting. A much greater variety of first-class cricket at the time (the 1920s). Ten first class matches played, but none for one County against another County.
Jacob Rees-Mogg calling someone else 'lightweight' is delicious, isn't it?
I can practically hear from my window yells of 'Hey, tha's oor lightweight'. I think in Scotland that will play and play into how little the Conservatives value the Union, when they dismiss even their own man. Maybe I'm a bit too sensitive to this but I think it's a pretty devastating attitude to take. It won't be seen as an attack on Douglas Ross (who is not personally super popular), but an attack on Scottish influence within the Union.
Time and time again, the second biggest (estimates vary) threat to the Union is the Conservative and Unionist Party. Their understanding of power is so, so narrow that they seem to believe that power insulates them from any responsibility when it should be precisely the opposite. They remind me of small town American cops, thinking because they have power, because their jobs maybe difficult, that they can act how they want. I mean even the fucking Lion King addressed this. Everyone remembers Simba singing 'I just can't wait to be King', but the entire rest of the film, from Mufasa explaining how there's more to being a king than doing what you want, to Scar fucking up the Pride Lands, to Simba finally understanding, is about how a ruler has responsibility for the people they rule.
Interesting perspective. HYUFD is also taking very much that [edit] same viewpoint as Mr R-M - and he is our resident Tory official (if at a low level).
Novak Djokovic is now accused of breaking SPAIN'S Covid rules when visiting Marbella last month - with the Serb already facing questions in Australia and Serbia
Sir Jonathan is to take up a new role as the Pro-Vice Chancellor for the faculty of medicine and health sciences at University of Nottingham.
That's actually a demanding post - and he wouldn't want the political shite and anti-control hate cluttering things. So it's fairly convincing that he's simply moving on.
A Rhodes Scholar who won a coveted scholarship at Oxford after claiming she overcame childhood abuse and grew up in foster care has been accused of lying to officials and is in fact the daughter of a radiologist who went to private school.
Mackenzie Fierceton, 24, describes herself as a 'queer, first generation, low income' student at The University of Pennsylvania. In 2020, she was given a scholarship to go to Oxford after dazzling the Rhodes Trust with her story of how she overcame welfare, an abusive mother and the foster care system.
Cannot remember the man's name right now, but Tony Curtis played him in the movie. Started out wanting to be a Catholic brother, then pretends to be one, then graduates to the priesthood, gets busted, moved on to impersonating doctor in the Canadian navy (becoming a hero in the process), then a reforming prison warden in Texas. And he was good at all of these jobs, until he either lost his cool, or circumstances got the better of him.
It was a disease, a mental condition. Sounds like this young woman has something similar. Person of considerable intelligence and talent, who is unable to cope with their reality to some significant degree. And - most unlike most of us - actually does something about it, by creating a better one for themselves. As long as they can keep all the spinning plates in the air, that is.
Sound familiar?
PLUS she and #45 share the same alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania.
Ben Franklin must be proud?
Jeffrey Archer (once a Tory MP) also afflicted with this syndrome
What syndromes that then? Bit disappointed in all three of you to be honest. 🤨 none of you have a clue what’s really gone on here. The expensive school says what? Proof she came from stable and loving household? Where’s the proof of family accepting of her sexuality? School is school at the end of the day from perspective of child.
I read it as a sad story. That she’s been victimised, and that’s got to stop! I hope it works out for her.
How so? I'm skeptical. I read that as being at least an equal probability that the "victim" is actually an abuser or a fantasist, and I perhaps feel nore sympathy for her mother. As soon as anyone, such as the Rhodes Trust, starts asking reasonable questions they get blamed. The next Dolezal?
But if funding schemes set themselves up to be exploited, then they will be exploited.
Fake abuse narratives of various sorts is a growth industry imo.
“Fake abuse narratives of various sorts is a growth industry imo”
But take all cases on their own merits surely? Are we just going to swallow a slanted Daily Mail article at face value all on its own?
“Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein."
“Additionally, all those coming of age and coming out in US today, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these, the right people who may suffer the wrong part of the Divided House of America today - for a house divided cannot stand and offers only desolation ” MoonRabbit 10:30ish (MRV)
I would suggest the world is seeing the results of too much haste to move to green and insufficient planning for transitional energy which is highlighted by the controversy over Cambo oil field in Scotland
This is precisely the wrong conclusion.
Consider the alternative scenarios. Suppose we had moved to renewables more slowly and were burning more coal and gas now. Would that be better? Coal prices are also up now, we would be having even higher prices for gas and electricity.
However, if we'd moved to renewables more quickly, we'd need to be burning less gas and so our electricity prices would be lower.
The point the analyst was making is that the transition did not take into account a sensible period to complete it and as a result, for the reasons he stated, gas is the transition energy and the demand for the foreseeable future is going to cause serious costs of loving crisis for government's worldwide
It may be of interest but I am looking out on 'Gwynt y Mor' wind farm and there is not a breath of wind and the turbines are barely turning
It's the same old rubbish of wanting to delay action, and if you go straight to renewables you don't need gas as a transition fuel.
We all know the wind doesn't always blow, which is why we need a diverse range of energy sources (including tidal, Moroccan solar, Norwegian hydroelectric, Icelandic geothermal, perhaps some nuclear and an excess of wind that can be stored).
I am energised and excited that HYUFD is supporting the campaign to remove Conservative councillors here in Scotland. I would like to invite him to come leaflet with me in Fraserburgh to unseat Aberdeenshire Council leader Andy Kille, who's leadership he describes as "nothing to save".
I think that "Nothing to Save" is a fine election slogan when you run a council.
Aberdeenshire is NOC not Conservative majority controlled
He didn't say it was. He referred to him as council leader. No idea if that is accurate, but he never said it was majority controlled.
And my original comment was the Conservatives control no council in Scotland, which is correct. Not a single council in Scotland has a Conservative majority of its councillors
“ the Conservatives control no council in Scotland”
Have you informed Douglas Ross?
Could call Andy Kille in the Council Leader's office at the council office (which interestingly is in Aberdeen city - another council's area...) and tell him that although he runs the council he really doesn't and there is nothing to save.
I thought JRM was spectacularly tone-deaf last night. But compared to HY...
Epping Forest was NOC in the early 2000s and late 1990s, we do not consider we controlled the council then only now as we have a Conservative majority.
If SCons consider NOC a Tory majority no wonder they fail to win more
They don't consider it a Tory majority. But it is not "nothing to save".
Please do keep digging the pit deeper. Its astonishing to watch.
It is very disturbing to watch
I would say I know conservative mps are very much in discussions with each other and as I said I would not rule out Boris going within days of Sue Gray's report
He won't, even if there was a VONC I think Boris wins it about 55 45 and is safe for a year.
Remember even Thatcher got 55% of Tory MPs to back her in 1990 and under current rules there would have been no second ballot so she could have stayed PM.
Even May got over 60% of Tory MPs to back her in the 2018 VONC too.
He is not going to survive this
I wish I had your confidence.
My local MP has replied to my email. Usual boiler plate waffle about waiting for the details of Gray's investigation.
Sir Jonathan is to take up a new role as the Pro-Vice Chancellor for the faculty of medicine and health sciences at University of Nottingham.
That's actually a demanding post - and he wouldn't want the political shite and anti-control hate cluttering things. So it's fairly convincing that he's simply moving on.
Also not going for another 3 months. That will hopefully be the end of the Omicron wave and a transition to living with covid.
This site needs at least one contributor from the bona fide upper class, for balance. (It could also do with more w/c contributors, mind you).
So it's a shame that Charles has departed.
Yes this site is swarming with the kind of people who buy their own furniture. Charles lent it a touch of genuine class.
Why has Charles left?
Charles is always happy to mention his family and friends (especially if they are or were CEOs of multinational pharma companies). He took exception to someone taking such PB "banter" (which he sees as subject to Chatham House rules) and bringing it into the real world.
I had an incident with him some time ago. He happily uses his own identity on here and talks about his work. I mentioned his employer and he asked me not to. Edit: I was happy to comply as it was only good manners to do so.
As I said it's a bit run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. His view is that he brings that information to PB but we must treat it confidentially on PB or outside. So he could say, for example, my family's trust is having an exhibition of Byzantine Phallic Imagery but would not want anyone from PB to say on PB well isn't that Bob's exhibition, I know him well can't wait to speak to him; or to go to the exhibition and say, oh yes Charles told me about this on PB.
It does seem to me that people who wish to be anonymous - which is fair enough - should avoid posting lots of identifiable stuff about their private lives up here. That's just common sense, as well as avoiding trying to have it both ways.
What is really taking the **** is when those who wish to be anonymous post a load of made up stuff about themselves and then get the hump when anyone calls it out. Thankfully Charles didn't sink to that.
It's a tricky one because I think we all see PB as a bit of a refuge from real life and that whatever we say on here is in "PB World" and hence would not necessarily want it to be transposed into that real life. Especially as one of the joys of PB is that we are sometimes more robust on here than IRL.
Charles was no different except his posts contained a lot of real life information so at some point it was likely that there would be a clash and so it proved.
Yeah. Even the people who post bits of who they are or use(d) their real name weren't people who could be identified. Doubly so when its just a first name. Even when its a full name and we know roughly where they live its still???
Honestly I'd rather not know who most of you are. Unless I make it to drinks in a few weeks (reminder of date / location please?) when you can tell me then...
Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives.
Boris useless twat as he is I expect Sue Grey's report to not make any conclusions with something like "it could be seen as...." as damning as it gets.
Masked Singer - no stand out performance yet.
Prince Andrew - haven't been following it.
Nicola Sturgeon - those calling for Boris to resign shouldn't be as casual to dismiss her transgression.
Succession - still trying to get into the latest season am struggling on
@Charles - tricky one. Slightly wants to run with the hare (it's all an anonymous chat room Chatham House rules, etc) and hunt with the hounds (this is who I am and my family did/does XYZ). But as with everyone apart from about three posters whose posts I routinely skip, he is an important part of PB so I'd rather he stayed.
"Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives."
IMV this is a bogus argument, as vaccinations for things like yellow fever have been required to get into some countries for generations. AIUI polio is another one for some countries.
Indeed.
One of the first legal interventions (that we have records of) by the state in health care was -
The practice of quarantine, as we know it, began during the 14th century in an effort to protect coastal cities from plague epidemics. Ships arriving in Venice from infected ports were required to sit at anchor for 40 days before landing. This practice, called quarantine, was derived from the Italian words quaranta giorni which mean 40 days.
Wonder if there were any tennis players on the ships at Venice.....
There's quite a lot about the practice quarantine in Leviticus, which is about 3000 years earlier.
Jacob Rees-Mogg calling someone else 'lightweight' is delicious, isn't it?
I can practically hear from my window yells of 'Hey, tha's oor lightweight'. I think in Scotland that will play and play into how little the Conservatives value the Union, when they dismiss even their own man. Maybe I'm a bit too sensitive to this but I think it's a pretty devastating attitude to take. It won't be seen as an attack on Douglas Ross (who is not personally super popular), but an attack on Scottish influence within the Union.
Time and time again, the second biggest (estimates vary) threat to the Union is the Conservative and Unionist Party. Their understanding of power is so, so narrow that they seem to believe that power insulates them from any responsibility when it should be precisely the opposite. They remind me of small town American cops, thinking because they have power, because their jobs maybe difficult, that they can act how they want. I mean even the fucking Lion King addressed this. Everyone remembers Simba singing 'I just can't wait to be King', but the entire rest of the film, from Mufasa explaining how there's more to being a king than doing what you want, to Scar fucking up the Pride Lands, to Simba finally understanding, is about how a ruler has responsibility for the people they rule.
Interesting perspective. HYUFD is also taking very much that [edit] same viewpoint as Mr R-M - and he is our resident Tory official (if at a low level).
Thank you. I was actually quite shocked watching BBC Breakfast this morning to hear JRM saying words that reminded me precisely of HYUFD. No disrespect to HYUFD, but it did give me a sense of foreboding about the path the Conservative Party is on.
Pointless anecdote: I thought I'd backed Rishi Sunak to be next Prime Minister but on checking, I'm actually on Liz Truss. Not sure how that happened but I am now persuaded we need another woman in Number 10 and another boost to my ailing bank balance.
I still think Mark Harper is underpriced. He has managed his positioning over partygate very astutely, is an anti-lockdowner with support from the right wing, but not a swivel-eyed ERGer.
If I were betting significant amounts based on value (which I'm not) I would be on Harper and Javid.
Harper if the Conservatives were in opposition but since they are in government, they are choosing a new Prime Minister who must hit the ground running. This probably restricts them to a handful of senior Cabinet ministers. Harper has never run a department, having gone from junior ministerial roles to Chief Whip.
In normal times maybe, but I think they have been drifting away from that, like our friends across the Atlantic. Boris had only been FS for a few months but that was never going to stand in the way. The trouble with those in ministerial posts now is that they are tarred by their loyalty to Johnson. None have been sufficiently disloyal. The one who gets closest is Sajid Javid because he previously walked out in a spat with Cummings and is only recently back.
There are few ex cabinet ministers available with sufficient support either, barring Hunt.
Re Harper specifically, I am not sure why he is relatively high up in the betting. As far as I can tell, he hasn't got a natural base in the party or at least one where there might be a competitive candidate for that bloc.
Punters are making the mistake (again) of thinking that Tory MPs might be looking for someone relatively sensible and sane?
I think that is the mistake they might be making.
Looking at the leadership contests over the past 30 years (arguably 50), they tend to involve a reaction again st teh previous incumbent when it comes to style - so Maggie's combativeness was replaced by council boy / no university / less forceful John Major whom was replaced by wonder-kid William Hague replaced by "non-intellectual" quiet man IDS. Cameron to May to BJ also involves somewhat of the same dynamic.
That is generally helpful when trying to identify future leaders. But this time with Boris, all the candidates will be substantially different in style and tone to Boris regardless, just in various ways.
Novak Djokovic is now accused of breaking SPAIN'S Covid rules when visiting Marbella last month - with the Serb already facing questions in Australia and Serbia
Kind of strangely stupid. You'd have thought if he really wanted to compete in Australia he would have been making a little bit of an effort to keep his nose clean immediately prior, and also fill in the forms correctly. Zero sympathy if he gets deported.
This site needs at least one contributor from the bona fide upper class, for balance. (It could also do with more w/c contributors, mind you).
So it's a shame that Charles has departed.
Yes this site is swarming with the kind of people who buy their own furniture. Charles lent it a touch of genuine class.
Why has Charles left?
Charles is always happy to mention his family and friends (especially if they are or were CEOs of multinational pharma companies). He took exception to someone taking such PB "banter" (which he sees as subject to Chatham House rules) and bringing it into the real world.
I had an incident with him some time ago. He happily uses his own identity on here and talks about his work. I mentioned his employer and he asked me not to. Edit: I was happy to comply as it was only good manners to do so.
As I said it's a bit run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. His view is that he brings that information to PB but we must treat it confidentially on PB or outside. So he could say, for example, my family's trust is having an exhibition of Byzantine Phallic Imagery but would not want anyone from PB to say on PB well isn't that Bob's exhibition, I know him well can't wait to speak to him; or to go to the exhibition and say, oh yes Charles told me about this on PB.
It does seem to me that people who wish to be anonymous - which is fair enough - should avoid posting lots of identifiable stuff about their private lives up here. That's just common sense, as well as avoiding trying to have it both ways.
What is really taking the **** is when those who wish to be anonymous post a load of made up stuff about themselves and then get the hump when anyone calls it out. Thankfully Charles didn't sink to that.
It's a tricky one because I think we all see PB as a bit of a refuge from real life and that whatever we say on here is in "PB World" and hence would not necessarily want it to be transposed into that real life. Especially as one of the joys of PB is that we are sometimes more robust on here than IRL.
Charles was no different except his posts contained a lot of real life information so at some point it was likely that there would be a clash and so it proved.
For sure, but in reality the only people at any risk here (from being overly robust) are those in politics (or with aspirations), and there are hardly any of those and we'd expect them to know what they are doing and be suitably restrained.
For the rest of us we decide how much to reveal, and it's largely our responsibility. Revealing a lot on one occasion and then getting the hump when it's mentioned on PB on another occasion is poor show. It's not as if anyone has taken anything into RL here.
I would suggest the world is seeing the results of too much haste to move to green and insufficient planning for transitional energy which is highlighted by the controversy over Cambo oil field in Scotland
This is precisely the wrong conclusion.
Consider the alternative scenarios. Suppose we had moved to renewables more slowly and were burning more coal and gas now. Would that be better? Coal prices are also up now, we would be having even higher prices for gas and electricity.
However, if we'd moved to renewables more quickly, we'd need to be burning less gas and so our electricity prices would be lower.
The point the analyst was making is that the transition did not take into account a sensible period to complete it and as a result, for the reasons he stated, gas is the transition energy and the demand for the foreseeable future is going to cause serious costs of loving crisis for government's worldwide
It may be of interest but I am looking out on 'Gwynt y Mor' wind farm and there is not a breath of wind and the turbines are barely turning
It's the same old rubbish of wanting to delay action, and if you go straight to renewables you don't need gas as a transition fuel.
We all know the wind doesn't always blow, which is why we need a diverse range of energy sources (including tidal, Moroccan solar, Norwegian hydroelectric, Icelandic geothermal, perhaps some nuclear and an excess of wind that can be stored).
The reality is that storage is going to end up much, much higher than anyone can imagine.
By 2050 I expect we'll have many TW of storage plugged into the network.
I am energised and excited that HYUFD is supporting the campaign to remove Conservative councillors here in Scotland. I would like to invite him to come leaflet with me in Fraserburgh to unseat Aberdeenshire Council leader Andy Kille, who's leadership he describes as "nothing to save".
I think that "Nothing to Save" is a fine election slogan when you run a council.
Aberdeenshire is NOC not Conservative majority controlled
He didn't say it was. He referred to him as council leader. No idea if that is accurate, but he never said it was majority controlled.
And my original comment was the Conservatives control no council in Scotland, which is correct. Not a single council in Scotland has a Conservative majority of its councillors
“ the Conservatives control no council in Scotland”
Have you informed Douglas Ross?
Could call Andy Kille in the Council Leader's office at the council office (which interestingly is in Aberdeen city - another council's area...) and tell him that although he runs the council he really doesn't and there is nothing to save.
I thought JRM was spectacularly tone-deaf last night. But compared to HY...
Epping Forest was NOC in the early 2000s and late 1990s, we do not consider we controlled the council then only now as we have a Conservative majority.
If SCons consider NOC a Tory majority no wonder they fail to win more
They don't consider it a Tory majority. But it is not "nothing to save".
Please do keep digging the pit deeper. Its astonishing to watch.
It is very disturbing to watch
I would say I know conservative mps are very much in discussions with each other and as I said I would not rule out Boris going within days of Sue Gray's report
He won't, even if there was a VONC I think Boris wins it about 55 45 and is safe for a year.
Remember even Thatcher got 55% of Tory MPs to back her in 1990 and under current rules there would have been no second ballot so she could have stayed PM.
Even May got over 60% of Tory MPs to back her in the 2018 VONC too.
Johnson winning a VONC does not mean he is safe for a year. The 1922 Committee can change the rules anytime they want and take away that protection.
Theresa May won a vote of no confidence on 12th December 2018. She announced her resignation as leader of the Conservative Party on 24th May 2019 and was replaced by Boris Johnson as PM on July 24th 2019 - less than seven and a half months after she was "safe for a year" due to winning the confidence vote.
I am energised and excited that HYUFD is supporting the campaign to remove Conservative councillors here in Scotland. I would like to invite him to come leaflet with me in Fraserburgh to unseat Aberdeenshire Council leader Andy Kille, who's leadership he describes as "nothing to save".
I think that "Nothing to Save" is a fine election slogan when you run a council.
Aberdeenshire is NOC not Conservative majority controlled
He didn't say it was. He referred to him as council leader. No idea if that is accurate, but he never said it was majority controlled.
And my original comment was the Conservatives control no council in Scotland, which is correct. Not a single council in Scotland has a Conservative majority of its councillors
“ the Conservatives control no council in Scotland”
Have you informed Douglas Ross?
Could call Andy Kille in the Council Leader's office at the council office (which interestingly is in Aberdeen city - another council's area...) and tell him that although he runs the council he really doesn't and there is nothing to save.
I thought JRM was spectacularly tone-deaf last night. But compared to HY...
Epping Forest was NOC in the early 2000s and late 1990s, we do not consider we controlled the council then only now as we have a Conservative majority.
If SCons consider NOC a Tory majority no wonder they fail to win more
They don't consider it a Tory majority. But it is not "nothing to save".
Please do keep digging the pit deeper. Its astonishing to watch.
It is very disturbing to watch
I would say I know conservative mps are very much in discussions with each other and as I said I would not rule out Boris going within days of Sue Gray's report
He won't, even if there was a VONC I think Boris wins it about 55 45 and is safe for a year.
Remember even Thatcher got 55% of Tory MPs to back her in 1990 and under current rules there would have been no second ballot so she could have stayed PM.
Even May got over 60% of Tory MPs to back her in the 2018 VONC too.
He is not going to survive this
I’m not going to engage with HY over this I think, on humanitarian grounds, he has sort of gone crazy, 😕 we would have to reply with sense to every post being fired off. For example “ if there was a VONC I think Boris wins it about 55 45 and is safe for a year.” is based on what? Since the disastrous non apology yesterday that’s sealed his fate Boris is not getting proper public backing from MPs, even much of his government doing bare minimum, and he is getting far less than even that in secret ballot.
I for one not up for twisting a knife which is already hurting
Novak Djokovic is now accused of breaking SPAIN'S Covid rules when visiting Marbella last month - with the Serb already facing questions in Australia and Serbia
Kind of strangely stupid. You'd have thought if he really wanted to compete in Australia he would have been making a little bit of an effort to keep his nose clean immediately prior, and also fill in the forms correctly. Zero sympathy if he gets deported.
Not really. When you see the way that rules and laws are built/bent/modified for international sports people of a certain level - why should he obey the rules?
Jacob Rees-Mogg calling someone else 'lightweight' is delicious, isn't it?
I can practically hear from my window yells of 'Hey, tha's oor lightweight'. I think in Scotland that will play and play into how little the Conservatives value the Union, when they dismiss even their own man. Maybe I'm a bit too sensitive to this but I think it's a pretty devastating attitude to take. It won't be seen as an attack on Douglas Ross (who is not personally super popular), but an attack on Scottish influence within the Union.
Time and time again, the second biggest (estimates vary) threat to the Union is the Conservative and Unionist Party. Their understanding of power is so, so narrow that they seem to believe that power insulates them from any responsibility when it should be precisely the opposite. They remind me of small town American cops, thinking because they have power, because their jobs maybe difficult, that they can act how they want. I mean even the fucking Lion King addressed this. Everyone remembers Simba singing 'I just can't wait to be King', but the entire rest of the film, from Mufasa explaining how there's more to being a king than doing what you want, to Scar fucking up the Pride Lands, to Simba finally understanding, is about how a ruler has responsibility for the people they rule.
Perceptive. From childhood, Boris dreaming about being world king was always about him enjoying sitting in the big chair; not about how he wanted to make the world a better place, or represent those who are less able to represent themselves.
I am energised and excited that HYUFD is supporting the campaign to remove Conservative councillors here in Scotland. I would like to invite him to come leaflet with me in Fraserburgh to unseat Aberdeenshire Council leader Andy Kille, who's leadership he describes as "nothing to save".
I think that "Nothing to Save" is a fine election slogan when you run a council.
Aberdeenshire is NOC not Conservative majority controlled
He didn't say it was. He referred to him as council leader. No idea if that is accurate, but he never said it was majority controlled.
And my original comment was the Conservatives control no council in Scotland, which is correct. Not a single council in Scotland has a Conservative majority of its councillors
“ the Conservatives control no council in Scotland”
Have you informed Douglas Ross?
Could call Andy Kille in the Council Leader's office at the council office (which interestingly is in Aberdeen city - another council's area...) and tell him that although he runs the council he really doesn't and there is nothing to save.
I thought JRM was spectacularly tone-deaf last night. But compared to HY...
Epping Forest was NOC in the early 2000s and late 1990s, we do not consider we controlled the council then only now as we have a Conservative majority.
If SCons consider NOC a Tory majority no wonder they fail to win more
They don't consider it a Tory majority. But it is not "nothing to save".
Please do keep digging the pit deeper. Its astonishing to watch.
It is very disturbing to watch
I would say I know conservative mps are very much in discussions with each other and as I said I would not rule out Boris going within days of Sue Gray's report
He won't, even if there was a VONC I think Boris wins it about 55 45 and is safe for a year.
Remember even Thatcher got 55% of Tory MPs to back her in 1990 and under current rules there would have been no second ballot so she could have stayed PM.
Even May got over 60% of Tory MPs to back her in the 2018 VONC too.
He is not going to survive this
Only 2 Tory Leaders since WW2 have seen a majority of their MPs vote against them in a leadership ballot or VONC - Ted Heath in 1975 and IDS in 2003.
Ted Heath had just lost a general election and refused to go, Boris' last election result was a landslide win and IDS never got a majority of Tory MPs to back him anyway. The 45% of Tory MPs who voted to keep IDS in 2003 was actually bigger than the 32.5% of Tory MPs who had voted for IDS in the final MPs round of the 2001 Tory leadership election
This site needs at least one contributor from the bona fide upper class, for balance. (It could also do with more w/c contributors, mind you).
So it's a shame that Charles has departed.
Yes. Charles is far from typical of the class he purports to represent, though, which was rather my point. And I would bet my house at odds on that he is not by a long chalk the poshest person posting here (not making any claim for myself, there. I wasn't even at Eton ffs).
And there has been no breach of Chatham House rules. I have not named him on here, I have not identified him to anyone in real life as a PBer, I would not respond to a fellow PBer's request for his surname.
Is it PB nitpickery to observe that there is only one Chatham House Rule?
I am energised and excited that HYUFD is supporting the campaign to remove Conservative councillors here in Scotland. I would like to invite him to come leaflet with me in Fraserburgh to unseat Aberdeenshire Council leader Andy Kille, who's leadership he describes as "nothing to save".
I think that "Nothing to Save" is a fine election slogan when you run a council.
Aberdeenshire is NOC not Conservative majority controlled
He didn't say it was. He referred to him as council leader. No idea if that is accurate, but he never said it was majority controlled.
And my original comment was the Conservatives control no council in Scotland, which is correct. Not a single council in Scotland has a Conservative majority of its councillors
“ the Conservatives control no council in Scotland”
Have you informed Douglas Ross?
Could call Andy Kille in the Council Leader's office at the council office (which interestingly is in Aberdeen city - another council's area...) and tell him that although he runs the council he really doesn't and there is nothing to save.
I thought JRM was spectacularly tone-deaf last night. But compared to HY...
Epping Forest was NOC in the early 2000s and late 1990s, we do not consider we controlled the council then only now as we have a Conservative majority.
If SCons consider NOC a Tory majority no wonder they fail to win more
They don't consider it a Tory majority. But it is not "nothing to save".
Please do keep digging the pit deeper. Its astonishing to watch.
It is very disturbing to watch
I would say I know conservative mps are very much in discussions with each other and as I said I would not rule out Boris going within days of Sue Gray's report
He won't, even if there was a VONC I think Boris wins it about 55 45 and is safe for a year.
Remember even Thatcher got 55% of Tory MPs to back her in 1990 and under current rules there would have been no second ballot so she could have stayed PM.
Even May got over 60% of Tory MPs to back her in the 2018 VONC too.
He is not going to survive this
Only 2 Tory Leaders since WW2 have seen a majority of their MPs vote against them in a leadership ballot or VONC - Ted Heath in 1975 and IDS in 2003.
Ted Heath had just lost a general election and refused to go, Boris' last election result was a landslide win and IDS never got a majority of MPs to back him anyway. The 45% of Tory MPs who voted to keep IDS in 2003 was actually bigger than the 32.5% of Tory MPs who had voted for IDS in the final MPs round of the 2001 Tory leadership election
The thing is he got Brexit delivered and beat Corbyn - his two USPs - what more does he have to offer?
This site needs at least one contributor from the bona fide upper class, for balance. (It could also do with more w/c contributors, mind you).
So it's a shame that Charles has departed.
Yes. Charles is far from typical of the class he purports to represent, though, which was rather my point. And I would bet my house at odds on that he is not by a long chalk the poshest person posting here (not making any claim for myself, there. I wasn't even at Eton ffs).
And there has been no breach of Chatham House rules. I have not named him on here, I have not identified him to anyone in real life as a PBer, I would not respond to a fellow PBer's request for his surname.
Is it PB nitpickery to observe that there is only one Chatham House Rule?
It is not PB nitpickery it is PB at its very best.
This site needs at least one contributor from the bona fide upper class, for balance. (It could also do with more w/c contributors, mind you).
So it's a shame that Charles has departed.
Yes. Charles is far from typical of the class he purports to represent, though, which was rather my point. And I would bet my house at odds on that he is not by a long chalk the poshest person posting here (not making any claim for myself, there. I wasn't even at Eton ffs).
And there has been no breach of Chatham House rules. I have not named him on here, I have not identified him to anyone in real life as a PBer, I would not respond to a fellow PBer's request for his surname.
Is it PB nitpickery to observe that there is only one Chatham House Rule?
I may be getting it mixed up with something else but I think there's a second rule which is the same as the first rule.
The other issue facing HMG is the cost of living crisis and I listened to a report on BBC business yesterday about the worldwide energy price hikes
Apparently, it has many factors including last year wind generation was poor due to an exceptionally wind free summer, the loss of coal, including the recent flooding of some of China’s coal mines, and the haste to move to green energy which has provided a vacuum that gas is now filling and is the transition fuel.
The demand worldwide far outstrips the supply and above all else Russia is holding Europe and the west to ransom over its abundance of gas, which has made things very much worse
Merkel also stopped all nuclear power stations following Fukushima creating a German energy crisis
The analyst said the idea this is short term is not born out by the facts and expects high energy prices for the next two years at least
I would suggest the world is seeing the results of too much haste to move to green and insufficient planning for transitional energy which is highlighted by the controversy over Cambo oil field in Scotland
Yes. Another one of BJ's mistakes - I suspect Carrie had a bit to do with that one in pushing the Green agenda.
BJ has been a full signed up member of the Green grouping in the Conservative Party for a long. long time.
I see no harm in pushing a green agenda. I'd see harm in backing away from pushing it on owner occupied housing, which is a running sore, and in not sufficiently planning for contingency.
I am energised and excited that HYUFD is supporting the campaign to remove Conservative councillors here in Scotland. I would like to invite him to come leaflet with me in Fraserburgh to unseat Aberdeenshire Council leader Andy Kille, who's leadership he describes as "nothing to save".
I think that "Nothing to Save" is a fine election slogan when you run a council.
Aberdeenshire is NOC not Conservative majority controlled
He didn't say it was. He referred to him as council leader. No idea if that is accurate, but he never said it was majority controlled.
And my original comment was the Conservatives control no council in Scotland, which is correct. Not a single council in Scotland has a Conservative majority of its councillors
“ the Conservatives control no council in Scotland”
Have you informed Douglas Ross?
Could call Andy Kille in the Council Leader's office at the council office (which interestingly is in Aberdeen city - another council's area...) and tell him that although he runs the council he really doesn't and there is nothing to save.
I thought JRM was spectacularly tone-deaf last night. But compared to HY...
Epping Forest was NOC in the early 2000s and late 1990s, we do not consider we controlled the council then only now as we have a Conservative majority.
If SCons consider NOC a Tory majority no wonder they fail to win more
They don't consider it a Tory majority. But it is not "nothing to save".
Please do keep digging the pit deeper. Its astonishing to watch.
It is very disturbing to watch
I would say I know conservative mps are very much in discussions with each other and as I said I would not rule out Boris going within days of Sue Gray's report
He won't, even if there was a VONC I think Boris wins it about 55 45 and is safe for a year.
Remember even Thatcher got 55% of Tory MPs to back her in 1990 and under current rules there would have been no second ballot so she could have stayed PM.
Even May got over 60% of Tory MPs to back her in the 2018 VONC too.
Johnson winning a VONC does not mean he is safe for a year. The 1922 Committee can change the rules anytime they want and take away that protection.
Theresa May won a vote of no confidence on 12th December 2018. She announced her resignation as leader of the Conservative Party on 24th May 2019 and was replaced by Boris Johnson as PM on July 24th 2019 - less than seven and a half months after she was "safe for a year" due to winning the confidence vote.
Only because she led the Tories to 28% in that May's local elections and the loss of over 1,000 Tory councillors and just 9% in the European elections and as a Boris led party clearly led a Corbyn led Labour party in hypothetical polls unlike hers. No alternative Tory leader clearly leads a Starmer led Labour party in the hypothetical polls however.
Boris is also stubborn enough to refuse to go unless 51% of Tory MPs vote him out and there are plenty of Boris supporters on the 1922 still who will refuse to change the rules
This site needs at least one contributor from the bona fide upper class, for balance. (It could also do with more w/c contributors, mind you).
So it's a shame that Charles has departed.
Yes. Charles is far from typical of the class he purports to represent, though, which was rather my point. And I would bet my house at odds on that he is not by a long chalk the poshest person posting here (not making any claim for myself, there. I wasn't even at Eton ffs).
And there has been no breach of Chatham House rules. I have not named him on here, I have not identified him to anyone in real life as a PBer, I would not respond to a fellow PBer's request for his surname.
Is it PB nitpickery to observe that there is only one Chatham House Rule?
I may be getting it mixed up with something else but I think there's a second rule which is the same as the first rule.
What is the second rule of Fight Club for that matter?
This site needs at least one contributor from the bona fide upper class, for balance. (It could also do with more w/c contributors, mind you).
So it's a shame that Charles has departed.
Yes. Charles is far from typical of the class he purports to represent, though, which was rather my point. And I would bet my house at odds on that he is not by a long chalk the poshest person posting here (not making any claim for myself, there. I wasn't even at Eton ffs).
And there has been no breach of Chatham House rules. I have not named him on here, I have not identified him to anyone in real life as a PBer, I would not respond to a fellow PBer's request for his surname.
Is it PB nitpickery to observe that there is only one Chatham House Rule?
Maybe there are multiple Rules, but they forbid their own discussion. How would we tell?
This site needs at least one contributor from the bona fide upper class, for balance. (It could also do with more w/c contributors, mind you).
So it's a shame that Charles has departed.
Yes. Charles is far from typical of the class he purports to represent, though, which was rather my point. And I would bet my house at odds on that he is not by a long chalk the poshest person posting here (not making any claim for myself, there. I wasn't even at Eton ffs).
And there has been no breach of Chatham House rules. I have not named him on here, I have not identified him to anyone in real life as a PBer, I would not respond to a fellow PBer's request for his surname.
I followed that spat, Ishmael, and it was perfectly normal and civilised within the general knockabout nature of the Site.
I'm sorry we have lost Charles. He added variety and colour to the exchanges but you can't be holding back for fear someone is going to stomp off.
I am energised and excited that HYUFD is supporting the campaign to remove Conservative councillors here in Scotland. I would like to invite him to come leaflet with me in Fraserburgh to unseat Aberdeenshire Council leader Andy Kille, who's leadership he describes as "nothing to save".
I think that "Nothing to Save" is a fine election slogan when you run a council.
Aberdeenshire is NOC not Conservative majority controlled
He didn't say it was. He referred to him as council leader. No idea if that is accurate, but he never said it was majority controlled.
And my original comment was the Conservatives control no council in Scotland, which is correct. Not a single council in Scotland has a Conservative majority of its councillors
“ the Conservatives control no council in Scotland”
Have you informed Douglas Ross?
Could call Andy Kille in the Council Leader's office at the council office (which interestingly is in Aberdeen city - another council's area...) and tell him that although he runs the council he really doesn't and there is nothing to save.
I thought JRM was spectacularly tone-deaf last night. But compared to HY...
Epping Forest was NOC in the early 2000s and late 1990s, we do not consider we controlled the council then only now as we have a Conservative majority.
If SCons consider NOC a Tory majority no wonder they fail to win more
They don't consider it a Tory majority. But it is not "nothing to save".
Please do keep digging the pit deeper. Its astonishing to watch.
It is very disturbing to watch
I would say I know conservative mps are very much in discussions with each other and as I said I would not rule out Boris going within days of Sue Gray's report
He won't, even if there was a VONC I think Boris wins it about 55 45 and is safe for a year.
Remember even Thatcher got 55% of Tory MPs to back her in 1990 and under current rules there would have been no second ballot so she could have stayed PM.
Even May got over 60% of Tory MPs to back her in the 2018 VONC too.
He is not going to survive this
Only 2 Tory Leaders since WW2 have seen a majority of their MPs vote against them in a leadership ballot or VONC - Ted Heath in 1975 and IDS in 2003.
Ted Heath had just lost a general election and refused to go, Boris' last election result was a landslide win and IDS never got a majority of MPs to back him anyway. The 45% of Tory MPs who voted to keep IDS in 2003 was actually bigger than the 32.5% of Tory MPs who had voted for IDS in the final MPs round of the 2001 Tory leadership election
Even if it were zero it still wouldn't be relevant as xkcd applies
But the only reason it is "only 2" is because other leaders have realised that the game is up and gone before they're pushed. The maxim that all political leaders end in failure is kind of true.
Theresa May resigned because she'd just had a humiliating result in the European Elections were the Tories were reduced to just 8% of the vote.
David Cameron resigned because he'd just had a humiliating result in the Brexit referendum, losing that.
Howard, Hague and Major resigned after losing General Elections.
Thatcher resigned after losing the confidence of the party and Cabinet, even if she didn't technically lose the vote.
No Tory leader in my lifetime has simply retired or gone out on their own terms "on a high note". Every single one of them has always gone out with some sort of defeat/humiliation/division.
So your "only 2" increased to 100% of my lifetime at least when you widen the search criteria. xkcd still applies, Boris could be the first to retire on a high note, but the odds are not in his favour.
This site needs at least one contributor from the bona fide upper class, for balance. (It could also do with more w/c contributors, mind you).
So it's a shame that Charles has departed.
Yes. Charles is far from typical of the class he purports to represent, though, which was rather my point. And I would bet my house at odds on that he is not by a long chalk the poshest person posting here (not making any claim for myself, there. I wasn't even at Eton ffs).
And there has been no breach of Chatham House rules. I have not named him on here, I have not identified him to anyone in real life as a PBer, I would not respond to a fellow PBer's request for his surname.
Is it PB nitpickery to observe that there is only one Chatham House Rule?
I may be getting it mixed up with something else but I think there's a second rule which is the same as the first rule.
This site needs at least one contributor from the bona fide upper class, for balance. (It could also do with more w/c contributors, mind you).
So it's a shame that Charles has departed.
Yes. Charles is far from typical of the class he purports to represent, though, which was rather my point. And I would bet my house at odds on that he is not by a long chalk the poshest person posting here (not making any claim for myself, there. I wasn't even at Eton ffs).
And there has been no breach of Chatham House rules. I have not named him on here, I have not identified him to anyone in real life as a PBer, I would not respond to a fellow PBer's request for his surname.
Is it PB nitpickery to observe that there is only one Chatham House Rule?
I may be getting it mixed up with something else but I think there's a second rule which is the same as the first rule.
What is the second rule of Fight Club for that matter?
The second rule of Fight Club was participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed. I can't remember what the first rule was.
This site needs at least one contributor from the bona fide upper class, for balance. (It could also do with more w/c contributors, mind you).
So it's a shame that Charles has departed.
Yes. Charles is far from typical of the class he purports to represent, though, which was rather my point. And I would bet my house at odds on that he is not by a long chalk the poshest person posting here (not making any claim for myself, there. I wasn't even at Eton ffs).
And there has been no breach of Chatham House rules. I have not named him on here, I have not identified him to anyone in real life as a PBer, I would not respond to a fellow PBer's request for his surname.
Is it PB nitpickery to observe that there is only one Chatham House Rule?
I am energised and excited that HYUFD is supporting the campaign to remove Conservative councillors here in Scotland. I would like to invite him to come leaflet with me in Fraserburgh to unseat Aberdeenshire Council leader Andy Kille, who's leadership he describes as "nothing to save".
I think that "Nothing to Save" is a fine election slogan when you run a council.
Aberdeenshire is NOC not Conservative majority controlled
He didn't say it was. He referred to him as council leader. No idea if that is accurate, but he never said it was majority controlled.
And my original comment was the Conservatives control no council in Scotland, which is correct. Not a single council in Scotland has a Conservative majority of its councillors
“ the Conservatives control no council in Scotland”
Have you informed Douglas Ross?
Could call Andy Kille in the Council Leader's office at the council office (which interestingly is in Aberdeen city - another council's area...) and tell him that although he runs the council he really doesn't and there is nothing to save.
I thought JRM was spectacularly tone-deaf last night. But compared to HY...
Epping Forest was NOC in the early 2000s and late 1990s, we do not consider we controlled the council then only now as we have a Conservative majority.
If SCons consider NOC a Tory majority no wonder they fail to win more
They don't consider it a Tory majority. But it is not "nothing to save".
Please do keep digging the pit deeper. Its astonishing to watch.
It is very disturbing to watch
I would say I know conservative mps are very much in discussions with each other and as I said I would not rule out Boris going within days of Sue Gray's report
He won't, even if there was a VONC I think Boris wins it about 55 45 and is safe for a year.
Remember even Thatcher got 55% of Tory MPs to back her in 1990 and under current rules there would have been no second ballot so she could have stayed PM.
Even May got over 60% of Tory MPs to back her in the 2018 VONC too.
He is not going to survive this
Only 2 Tory Leaders since WW2 have seen a majority of their MPs vote against them in a leadership ballot or VONC - Ted Heath in 1975 and IDS in 2003.
Ted Heath had just lost a general election and refused to go, Boris' last election result was a landslide win and IDS never got a majority of MPs to back him anyway. The 45% of Tory MPs who voted to keep IDS in 2003 was actually bigger than the 32.5% of Tory MPs who had voted for IDS in the final MPs round of the 2001 Tory leadership election
Even if it were zero it still wouldn't be relevant as xkcd applies
But the only reason it is "only 2" is because other leaders have realised that the game is up and gone before they're pushed. The maxim that all political leaders end in failure is kind of true.
Theresa May resigned because she'd just had a humiliating result in the European Elections were the Tories were reduced to just 8% of the vote.
David Cameron resigned because he'd just had a humiliating result in the Brexit referendum, losing that.
Howard, Hague and Major resigned after losing General Elections.
Thatcher resigned after losing the confidence of the party and Cabinet, even if she didn't technically lose the vote.
No Tory leader in my lifetime has simply retired or gone out on their own terms "on a high note". Every single one of them has always gone out with some sort of defeat/humiliation/division.
So your "only 2" increased to 100% of my lifetime at least when you widen the search criteria. xkcd still applies, Boris could be the first to retire on a high note, but the odds are not in his favour.
If this is a high note, there must be some fun ahead....
I would suggest the world is seeing the results of too much haste to move to green and insufficient planning for transitional energy which is highlighted by the controversy over Cambo oil field in Scotland
This is precisely the wrong conclusion.
Consider the alternative scenarios. Suppose we had moved to renewables more slowly and were burning more coal and gas now. Would that be better? Coal prices are also up now, we would be having even higher prices for gas and electricity.
However, if we'd moved to renewables more quickly, we'd need to be burning less gas and so our electricity prices would be lower.
The point the analyst was making is that the transition did not take into account a sensible period to complete it and as a result, for the reasons he stated, gas is the transition energy and the demand for the foreseeable future is going to cause serious costs of loving crisis for government's worldwide
It may be of interest but I am looking out on 'Gwynt y Mor' wind farm and there is not a breath of wind and the turbines are barely turning
It's the same old rubbish of wanting to delay action, and if you go straight to renewables you don't need gas as a transition fuel.
We all know the wind doesn't always blow, which is why we need a diverse range of energy sources (including tidal, Moroccan solar, Norwegian hydroelectric, Icelandic geothermal, perhaps some nuclear and an excess of wind that can be stored).
The reality is that storage is going to end up much, much higher than anyone can imagine.
By 2050 I expect we'll have many TW of storage plugged into the network.
National Grid say we used 25 TWh of electricity in December. In the future, with electric cars and electric heating, I guess that could be more than double. So a single week of electricity would be something like 12 TWh. Dinorwig has a capacity of 9.1 GWh, so it would be something like 1300 Dinorwigs.
It's a massive task, but I think it will happen. I think people will have storage at home. I think businesses will have storage. There'll be storage at car charging points. There'll be grid-scale storage built all over the place.
People will look back at an argument like "the wind doesn't always blow" and struggle to understand the short-sighted mentality.
This site needs at least one contributor from the bona fide upper class, for balance. (It could also do with more w/c contributors, mind you).
So it's a shame that Charles has departed.
Yes. Charles is far from typical of the class he purports to represent, though, which was rather my point. And I would bet my house at odds on that he is not by a long chalk the poshest person posting here (not making any claim for myself, there. I wasn't even at Eton ffs).
And there has been no breach of Chatham House rules. I have not named him on here, I have not identified him to anyone in real life as a PBer, I would not respond to a fellow PBer's request for his surname.
Is it PB nitpickery to observe that there is only one Chatham House Rule?
I may be getting it mixed up with something else but I think there's a second rule which is the same as the first rule.
What is the second rule of Fight Club for that matter?
The second rule of Fight Club was participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed. I can't remember what the first rule was.
I thought that was the zeroth law of thermodynamics?
I am energised and excited that HYUFD is supporting the campaign to remove Conservative councillors here in Scotland. I would like to invite him to come leaflet with me in Fraserburgh to unseat Aberdeenshire Council leader Andy Kille, who's leadership he describes as "nothing to save".
I think that "Nothing to Save" is a fine election slogan when you run a council.
Aberdeenshire is NOC not Conservative majority controlled
He didn't say it was. He referred to him as council leader. No idea if that is accurate, but he never said it was majority controlled.
And my original comment was the Conservatives control no council in Scotland, which is correct. Not a single council in Scotland has a Conservative majority of its councillors
“ the Conservatives control no council in Scotland”
Have you informed Douglas Ross?
Could call Andy Kille in the Council Leader's office at the council office (which interestingly is in Aberdeen city - another council's area...) and tell him that although he runs the council he really doesn't and there is nothing to save.
I thought JRM was spectacularly tone-deaf last night. But compared to HY...
Epping Forest was NOC in the early 2000s and late 1990s, we do not consider we controlled the council then only now as we have a Conservative majority.
If SCons consider NOC a Tory majority no wonder they fail to win more
They don't consider it a Tory majority. But it is not "nothing to save".
Please do keep digging the pit deeper. Its astonishing to watch.
It is very disturbing to watch
I would say I know conservative mps are very much in discussions with each other and as I said I would not rule out Boris going within days of Sue Gray's report
He won't, even if there was a VONC I think Boris wins it about 55 45 and is safe for a year.
Remember even Thatcher got 55% of Tory MPs to back her in 1990 and under current rules there would have been no second ballot so she could have stayed PM.
Even May got over 60% of Tory MPs to back her in the 2018 VONC too.
He is not going to survive this
Only 2 Tory Leaders since WW2 have seen a majority of their MPs vote against them in a leadership ballot or VONC - Ted Heath in 1975 and IDS in 2003.
Ted Heath had just lost a general election and refused to go, Boris' last election result was a landslide win and IDS never got a majority of MPs to back him anyway. The 45% of Tory MPs who voted to keep IDS in 2003 was actually bigger than the 32.5% of Tory MPs who had voted for IDS in the final MPs round of the 2001 Tory leadership election
Even if it were zero it still wouldn't be relevant as xkcd applies
But the only reason it is "only 2" is because other leaders have realised that the game is up and gone before they're pushed. The maxim that all political leaders end in failure is kind of true.
Theresa May resigned because she'd just had a humiliating result in the European Elections were the Tories were reduced to just 8% of the vote.
David Cameron resigned because he'd just had a humiliating result in the Brexit referendum, losing that.
Howard, Hague and Major resigned after losing General Elections.
Thatcher resigned after losing the confidence of the party and Cabinet, even if she didn't technically lose the vote.
No Tory leader in my lifetime has simply retired or gone out on their own terms "on a high note". Every single one of them has always gone out with some sort of defeat/humiliation/division.
So your "only 2" increased to 100% of my lifetime at least when you widen the search criteria. xkcd still applies, Boris could be the first to retire on a high note, but the odds are not in his favour.
As I said under current rules Thatcher would have stayed in 1990. She won 54.8% of Tory MPs in the first ballot and there would have been no second ballot. She only went as she feared she would lose to Heseltine in a second ballot, if there was no second ballot she would have gone on and likely led the Tories at the 1992 general election.
Jacob Rees-Mogg calling someone else 'lightweight' is delicious, isn't it?
I can practically hear from my window yells of 'Hey, tha's oor lightweight'. I think in Scotland that will play and play into how little the Conservatives value the Union, when they dismiss even their own man. Maybe I'm a bit too sensitive to this but I think it's a pretty devastating attitude to take. It won't be seen as an attack on Douglas Ross (who is not personally super popular), but an attack on Scottish influence within the Union.
Time and time again, the second biggest (estimates vary) threat to the Union is the Conservative and Unionist Party. Their understanding of power is so, so narrow that they seem to believe that power insulates them from any responsibility when it should be precisely the opposite. They remind me of small town American cops, thinking because they have power, because their jobs maybe difficult, that they can act how they want. I mean even the fucking Lion King addressed this. Everyone remembers Simba singing 'I just can't wait to be King', but the entire rest of the film, from Mufasa explaining how there's more to being a king than doing what you want, to Scar fucking up the Pride Lands, to Simba finally understanding, is about how a ruler has responsibility for the people they rule.
Interesting perspective. HYUFD is also taking very much that [edit] same viewpoint as Mr R-M - and he is our resident Tory official (if at a low level).
Thank you. I was actually quite shocked watching BBC Breakfast this morning to hear JRM saying words that reminded me precisely of HYUFD. No disrespect to HYUFD, but it did give me a sense of foreboding about the path the Conservative Party is on.
As an ex-Constituency executive member of the Conservative Party (no longer even a member), I must correct the previous poster about HYUFD's party status. I do this hesitantly because though I believe some of his posts a little silly, I suspect he is a decent person and not always deserving of the regular kickings he gets on here. Fundamentally HYUFD carries no weight in the CP as he has stated he is a member of a Town Council (equivalent of a Parish Council) and he is a BRANCH Chairman. Almost any member can become a branch chairman. The Party is always gagging for them. It is essentially a very localised fundraiser It really holds no status in practice whatsoever. If he becomes a Constituency Party Chairman that would be a very different matter indeed.
It's been clear for a while that all Johnson offers is continuing chaos for his party, firstly because he IS chaotic and was always unfit for the role and secondly because so many people have it in for him and always will. Those that hate him are pouncing on every opportunity (big, trivial and invented) to destroy him. Tide's too big to turn.
Pointless anecdote: I thought I'd backed Rishi Sunak to be next Prime Minister but on checking, I'm actually on Liz Truss. Not sure how that happened but I am now persuaded we need another woman in Number 10 and another boost to my ailing bank balance.
I still think Mark Harper is underpriced. He has managed his positioning over partygate very astutely, is an anti-lockdowner with support from the right wing, but not a swivel-eyed ERGer.
If I were betting significant amounts based on value (which I'm not) I would be on Harper and Javid.
Harper if the Conservatives were in opposition but since they are in government, they are choosing a new Prime Minister who must hit the ground running. This probably restricts them to a handful of senior Cabinet ministers. Harper has never run a department, having gone from junior ministerial roles to Chief Whip.
In normal times maybe, but I think they have been drifting away from that, like our friends across the Atlantic. Boris had only been FS for a few months but that was never going to stand in the way. The trouble with those in ministerial posts now is that they are tarred by their loyalty to Johnson. None have been sufficiently disloyal. The one who gets closest is Sajid Javid because he previously walked out in a spat with Cummings and is only recently back.
There are few ex cabinet ministers available with sufficient support either, barring Hunt.
Re Harper specifically, I am not sure why he is relatively high up in the betting. As far as I can tell, he hasn't got a natural base in the party or at least one where there might be a competitive candidate for that bloc.
Punters are making the mistake (again) of thinking that Tory MPs might be looking for someone relatively sensible and sane?
I think that is the mistake they might be making.
Looking at the leadership contests over the past 30 years (arguably 50), they tend to involve a reaction again st teh previous incumbent when it comes to style - so Maggie's combativeness was replaced by council boy / no university / less forceful John Major whom was replaced by wonder-kid William Hague replaced by "non-intellectual" quiet man IDS. Cameron to May to BJ also involves somewhat of the same dynamic.
That is generally helpful when trying to identify future leaders. But this time with Boris, all the candidates will be substantially different in style and tone to Boris regardless, just in various ways.
I think they will go with someone who is closer to being down to Earth. As I keep boringly banging on about, the composition of the most important part of the relevant electorate i.e. Conservative MPs has probably seen the most radical shift in background / outlook in at least a generation and possibly more. It's a lot more boots on the ground, less deferential etc. The Old Etonian won them their seats and that was great but they will be looking for someone who will go down well in their constituencies. Rishi is not that man - too polished by half - and Truss wouldn't fit in either. They will know that.
I would suggest the world is seeing the results of too much haste to move to green and insufficient planning for transitional energy which is highlighted by the controversy over Cambo oil field in Scotland
This is precisely the wrong conclusion.
Consider the alternative scenarios. Suppose we had moved to renewables more slowly and were burning more coal and gas now. Would that be better? Coal prices are also up now, we would be having even higher prices for gas and electricity.
However, if we'd moved to renewables more quickly, we'd need to be burning less gas and so our electricity prices would be lower.
The point the analyst was making is that the transition did not take into account a sensible period to complete it and as a result, for the reasons he stated, gas is the transition energy and the demand for the foreseeable future is going to cause serious costs of loving crisis for government's worldwide
It may be of interest but I am looking out on 'Gwynt y Mor' wind farm and there is not a breath of wind and the turbines are barely turning
It's the same old rubbish of wanting to delay action, and if you go straight to renewables you don't need gas as a transition fuel.
We all know the wind doesn't always blow, which is why we need a diverse range of energy sources (including tidal, Moroccan solar, Norwegian hydroelectric, Icelandic geothermal, perhaps some nuclear and an excess of wind that can be stored).
The reality is that storage is going to end up much, much higher than anyone can imagine.
By 2050 I expect we'll have many TW of storage plugged into the network.
(A pedant writes) TWh
Daily demand peaks at around 40-50GW according to Gridwatch, so we'd need storage capable of delivering that (plus X for heating and transport) for whatever period of time. So, yes, TWh, would be needed, likely (present peak demand for 20 hours is towards 1TWh). Or some predictable base generation/interlinks. But we're not likely* to need TW of instantaneous power delivery from storage.
*Might be I'm wrong on this - what would be the impact of replacing all non electric UK energy sources with electricity - heat, transport, etc etc? Wiki suggests avergage power (all sources) consumption in the UK is somewhere around 200GW (1600 TWh/year in 2019 from all sources). So getting to 1TW instantaneous demand is perhaps not completely crazy, but then there would always be some live energy inputs so it would not all come from storage.
Edit: And all that is if I haven't cocked up the maths which - let's face it - I probably have. Pedant waits to be hoisted by own petard...
Jacob Rees-Mogg calling someone else 'lightweight' is delicious, isn't it?
I can practically hear from my window yells of 'Hey, tha's oor lightweight'. I think in Scotland that will play and play into how little the Conservatives value the Union, when they dismiss even their own man. Maybe I'm a bit too sensitive to this but I think it's a pretty devastating attitude to take. It won't be seen as an attack on Douglas Ross (who is not personally super popular), but an attack on Scottish influence within the Union.
Time and time again, the second biggest (estimates vary) threat to the Union is the Conservative and Unionist Party. Their understanding of power is so, so narrow that they seem to believe that power insulates them from any responsibility when it should be precisely the opposite. They remind me of small town American cops, thinking because they have power, because their jobs maybe difficult, that they can act how they want. I mean even the fucking Lion King addressed this. Everyone remembers Simba singing 'I just can't wait to be King', but the entire rest of the film, from Mufasa explaining how there's more to being a king than doing what you want, to Scar fucking up the Pride Lands, to Simba finally understanding, is about how a ruler has responsibility for the people they rule.
Interesting perspective. HYUFD is also taking very much that [edit] same viewpoint as Mr R-M - and he is our resident Tory official (if at a low level).
Thank you. I was actually quite shocked watching BBC Breakfast this morning to hear JRM saying words that reminded me precisely of HYUFD. No disrespect to HYUFD, but it did give me a sense of foreboding about the path the Conservative Party is on.
As an ex-Constituency executive member of the Conservative Party (no longer even a member), I must correct the previous poster about HYUFD's party status. I do this hesitantly because though I believe some of his posts a little silly, I suspect he is a decent person and not always deserving of the regular kickings he gets on here. Fundamentally HYUFD carries no weight in the CP as he has stated he is a member of a Town Council (equivalent of a Parish Council) and he is a BRANCH Chairman. Almost any member can become a branch chairman. The Party is always gagging for them. It is essentially a very localised fundraiser It really holds no status in practice whatsoever. If he becomes a Constituency Party Chairman that would be a very different matter indeed.
I would suggest the world is seeing the results of too much haste to move to green and insufficient planning for transitional energy which is highlighted by the controversy over Cambo oil field in Scotland
This is precisely the wrong conclusion.
Consider the alternative scenarios. Suppose we had moved to renewables more slowly and were burning more coal and gas now. Would that be better? Coal prices are also up now, we would be having even higher prices for gas and electricity.
However, if we'd moved to renewables more quickly, we'd need to be burning less gas and so our electricity prices would be lower.
The point the analyst was making is that the transition did not take into account a sensible period to complete it and as a result, for the reasons he stated, gas is the transition energy and the demand for the foreseeable future is going to cause serious costs of loving crisis for government's worldwide
It may be of interest but I am looking out on 'Gwynt y Mor' wind farm and there is not a breath of wind and the turbines are barely turning
It's the same old rubbish of wanting to delay action, and if you go straight to renewables you don't need gas as a transition fuel.
We all know the wind doesn't always blow, which is why we need a diverse range of energy sources (including tidal, Moroccan solar, Norwegian hydroelectric, Icelandic geothermal, perhaps some nuclear and an excess of wind that can be stored).
The reality is that storage is going to end up much, much higher than anyone can imagine.
By 2050 I expect we'll have many TW of storage plugged into the network.
National Grid say we used 25 TWh of electricity in December. In the future, with electric cars and electric heating, I guess that could be more than double. So a single week of electricity would be something like 12 TWh. Dinorwig has a capacity of 9.1 GWh, so it would be something like 1300 Dinorwigs.
It's a massive task, but I think it will happen. I think people will have storage at home. I think businesses will have storage. There'll be storage at car charging points. There'll be grid-scale storage built all over the place.
People will look back at an argument like "the wind doesn't always blow" and struggle to understand the short-sighted mentality.
Indeed "the wind doesn't always blow" mentality is like an offline/pre-internet mentality.
Storage won't be in Dinorwigs, its going to be distributed around the nation.
The reality is cars are not just something that requires charging, but they also have major storage in-built. They plus other storage elsewhere are going to do for storage of energy what 'the cloud' has done for storing information.
Surplus wind energy is never going to go to waste, so we need to get as much as we can, as cheaply as we can.
This site needs at least one contributor from the bona fide upper class, for balance. (It could also do with more w/c contributors, mind you).
So it's a shame that Charles has departed.
Yes this site is swarming with the kind of people who buy their own furniture. Charles lent it a touch of genuine class.
Why has Charles left?
Charles is always happy to mention his family and friends (especially if they are or were CEOs of multinational pharma companies). He took exception to someone taking such PB "banter" (which he sees as subject to Chatham House rules) and bringing it into the real world.
I had an incident with him some time ago. He happily uses his own identity on here and talks about his work. I mentioned his employer and he asked me not to. Edit: I was happy to comply as it was only good manners to do so.
As I said it's a bit run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. His view is that he brings that information to PB but we must treat it confidentially on PB or outside. So he could say, for example, my family's trust is having an exhibition of Byzantine Phallic Imagery but would not want anyone from PB to say on PB well isn't that Bob's exhibition, I know him well can't wait to speak to him; or to go to the exhibition and say, oh yes Charles told me about this on PB.
It does seem to me that people who wish to be anonymous - which is fair enough - should avoid posting lots of identifiable stuff about their private lives up here. That's just common sense, as well as avoiding trying to have it both ways.
What is really taking the **** is when those who wish to be anonymous post a load of made up stuff about themselves and then get the hump when anyone calls it out. Thankfully Charles didn't sink to that.
It's a tricky one because I think we all see PB as a bit of a refuge from real life and that whatever we say on here is in "PB World" and hence would not necessarily want it to be transposed into that real life. Especially as one of the joys of PB is that we are sometimes more robust on here than IRL.
Charles was no different except his posts contained a lot of real life information so at some point it was likely that there would be a clash and so it proved.
It's also natural for us to draw on our personal experiences when debating our opinions, and so it's inevitable that some degree of personal identifying information will be exposed.
Though you'd have to put a bit of effort in to identify me from the pictures of my knitting. (Not a challenge by the way).
Johnson's critics have until recently found it hard to attack him effectively without seeming to be regarded as intellectually elite Remainers insulting those working class voters, inc redwallers, who supported him.
The big change is that now anyone can take a pop without insulting those people because they now see it too.
I would suggest the world is seeing the results of too much haste to move to green and insufficient planning for transitional energy which is highlighted by the controversy over Cambo oil field in Scotland
This is precisely the wrong conclusion.
Consider the alternative scenarios. Suppose we had moved to renewables more slowly and were burning more coal and gas now. Would that be better? Coal prices are also up now, we would be having even higher prices for gas and electricity.
However, if we'd moved to renewables more quickly, we'd need to be burning less gas and so our electricity prices would be lower.
The point the analyst was making is that the transition did not take into account a sensible period to complete it and as a result, for the reasons he stated, gas is the transition energy and the demand for the foreseeable future is going to cause serious costs of loving crisis for government's worldwide
It may be of interest but I am looking out on 'Gwynt y Mor' wind farm and there is not a breath of wind and the turbines are barely turning
It's the same old rubbish of wanting to delay action, and if you go straight to renewables you don't need gas as a transition fuel.
We all know the wind doesn't always blow, which is why we need a diverse range of energy sources (including tidal, Moroccan solar, Norwegian hydroelectric, Icelandic geothermal, perhaps some nuclear and an excess of wind that can be stored).
The reality is that storage is going to end up much, much higher than anyone can imagine.
By 2050 I expect we'll have many TW of storage plugged into the network.
Interesting point (excuse pun). If policy makers have any sense (a big ask) they will push for localised storage or even household such as Tesla Powerwall (oh dear I will be accused of being a Tesla bore again)
This site needs at least one contributor from the bona fide upper class, for balance. (It could also do with more w/c contributors, mind you).
So it's a shame that Charles has departed.
Yes. Charles is far from typical of the class he purports to represent, though, which was rather my point. And I would bet my house at odds on that he is not by a long chalk the poshest person posting here (not making any claim for myself, there. I wasn't even at Eton ffs).
And there has been no breach of Chatham House rules. I have not named him on here, I have not identified him to anyone in real life as a PBer, I would not respond to a fellow PBer's request for his surname.
I followed that spat, Ishmael, and it was perfectly normal and civilised within the general knockabout nature of the Site.
I'm sorry we have lost Charles. He added variety and colour to the exchanges but you can't be holding back for fear someone is going to stomp off.
Perhaps he will stomp back one day. I hope so.
Thank you! An OK from either PxP is up there with a free pass from the Gray inquiry, in PB terms
What on earth is Chatham House? Is this like a swingers thing?
I guess most swingers groups might have the Chatham House rule, to be fair - you can discuss what happened with outsiders, but not with whom? I hasten to add this is not from personal experience. Although I did almost buy a house with pampas grass outside it last year
Honestly I'd rather not know who most of you are. Unless I make it to drinks in a few weeks (reminder of date / location please?) when you can tell me then...
I was a little bit taken aback to find someone I know (fairly well... he lives on the next street) posting here.
But then his postings were exactly the sort of thing he says in real life, so no great revelation. He hasn't been active for a year or so.
A Rhodes Scholar who won a coveted scholarship at Oxford after claiming she overcame childhood abuse and grew up in foster care has been accused of lying to officials and is in fact the daughter of a radiologist who went to private school.
Mackenzie Fierceton, 24, describes herself as a 'queer, first generation, low income' student at The University of Pennsylvania. In 2020, she was given a scholarship to go to Oxford after dazzling the Rhodes Trust with her story of how she overcame welfare, an abusive mother and the foster care system.
Cannot remember the man's name right now, but Tony Curtis played him in the movie. Started out wanting to be a Catholic brother, then pretends to be one, then graduates to the priesthood, gets busted, moved on to impersonating doctor in the Canadian navy (becoming a hero in the process), then a reforming prison warden in Texas. And he was good at all of these jobs, until he either lost his cool, or circumstances got the better of him.
It was a disease, a mental condition. Sounds like this young woman has something similar. Person of considerable intelligence and talent, who is unable to cope with their reality to some significant degree. And - most unlike most of us - actually does something about it, by creating a better one for themselves. As long as they can keep all the spinning plates in the air, that is.
Sound familiar?
PLUS she and #45 share the same alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania.
Ben Franklin must be proud?
Jeffrey Archer (once a Tory MP) also afflicted with this syndrome
What syndromes that then? Bit disappointed in all three of you to be honest. 🤨 none of you have a clue what’s really gone on here. The expensive school says what? Proof she came from stable and loving household? Where’s the proof of family accepting of her sexuality? School is school at the end of the day from perspective of child.
I read it as a sad story. That she’s been victimised, and that’s got to stop! I hope it works out for her.
How so? I'm skeptical. I read that as being at least an equal probability that the "victim" is actually an abuser or a fantasist, and I perhaps feel nore sympathy for her mother. As soon as anyone, such as the Rhodes Trust, starts asking reasonable questions they get blamed. The next Dolezal?
But if funding schemes set themselves up to be exploited, then they will be exploited.
Fake abuse narratives of various sorts is a growth industry imo.
“Fake abuse narratives of various sorts is a growth industry imo”
But take all cases on their own merits surely? Are we just going to swallow a slanted Daily Mail article at face value all on its own?
“Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein."
“Additionally, all those coming of age and coming out in US today, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these, the right people who may suffer the wrong part of the Divided House of America today - for a house divided cannot stand and offers only desolation ” MoonRabbit 10:30ish (MRV)
Yes, I'd agree with most of that comment - plus that a measured skepticism is appropriate, especially where claims of victimhood can provide advantage.
In this case, I'm not sure that saying "slanted Daily Mail story", overrides the factual elements.
I would suggest the world is seeing the results of too much haste to move to green and insufficient planning for transitional energy which is highlighted by the controversy over Cambo oil field in Scotland
This is precisely the wrong conclusion.
Consider the alternative scenarios. Suppose we had moved to renewables more slowly and were burning more coal and gas now. Would that be better? Coal prices are also up now, we would be having even higher prices for gas and electricity.
However, if we'd moved to renewables more quickly, we'd need to be burning less gas and so our electricity prices would be lower.
The point the analyst was making is that the transition did not take into account a sensible period to complete it and as a result, for the reasons he stated, gas is the transition energy and the demand for the foreseeable future is going to cause serious costs of loving crisis for government's worldwide
It may be of interest but I am looking out on 'Gwynt y Mor' wind farm and there is not a breath of wind and the turbines are barely turning
It's the same old rubbish of wanting to delay action, and if you go straight to renewables you don't need gas as a transition fuel.
We all know the wind doesn't always blow, which is why we need a diverse range of energy sources (including tidal, Moroccan solar, Norwegian hydroelectric, Icelandic geothermal, perhaps some nuclear and an excess of wind that can be stored).
The reality is that storage is going to end up much, much higher than anyone can imagine.
By 2050 I expect we'll have many TW of storage plugged into the network.
Interesting point (excuse pun). If policy makers have any sense (a big ask) they will push for localised storage or even household such as Tesla Powerwall (oh dear I will be accused of being a Tesla bore again)
Consumers and the free market should find a way to get there in the end anyway.
Especially for anyone charging their vehicle at home, the car already has a major battery for storage even without adding any extras like Powerwalls. But then Powerwalls etc too if they become cheap enough should become a wise investment for people to power their home with cheap energy.
If you can charge your car/Powerwall etc with cheap to almost free energy with plunge pricing, then run your home, heating and vehicle with that, then why not do so? And then who cares when the wind is blowing, only that it is enough.
This site needs at least one contributor from the bona fide upper class, for balance. (It could also do with more w/c contributors, mind you).
So it's a shame that Charles has departed.
Yes this site is swarming with the kind of people who buy their own furniture. Charles lent it a touch of genuine class.
Why has Charles left?
Charles is always happy to mention his family and friends (especially if they are or were CEOs of multinational pharma companies). He took exception to someone taking such PB "banter" (which he sees as subject to Chatham House rules) and bringing it into the real world.
I had an incident with him some time ago. He happily uses his own identity on here and talks about his work. I mentioned his employer and he asked me not to. Edit: I was happy to comply as it was only good manners to do so.
As I said it's a bit run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. His view is that he brings that information to PB but we must treat it confidentially on PB or outside. So he could say, for example, my family's trust is having an exhibition of Byzantine Phallic Imagery but would not want anyone from PB to say on PB well isn't that Bob's exhibition, I know him well can't wait to speak to him; or to go to the exhibition and say, oh yes Charles told me about this on PB.
It does seem to me that people who wish to be anonymous - which is fair enough - should avoid posting lots of identifiable stuff about their private lives up here. That's just common sense, as well as avoiding trying to have it both ways.
What is really taking the **** is when those who wish to be anonymous post a load of made up stuff about themselves and then get the hump when anyone calls it out. Thankfully Charles didn't sink to that.
It's a tricky one because I think we all see PB as a bit of a refuge from real life and that whatever we say on here is in "PB World" and hence would not necessarily want it to be transposed into that real life. Especially as one of the joys of PB is that we are sometimes more robust on here than IRL.
Charles was no different except his posts contained a lot of real life information so at some point it was likely that there would be a clash and so it proved.
Well, that all makes sense. My view is that boundaries should be respected but you have to show a bit of restraint. I have posted stuff on here that could
Holding all other assumptions constant, if the Ohio map is remade 10-5 by the state Supreme Court and the North Carolina map changed to 8-6, the map would be 217-217-1.
So increasingly it looks like the Democrats will lose The House fair and square...
As the article points out, the Democrats have been very aggressive in gerrymandering where they can (Illinois, NY to come etc) whilst the Republicans have been focused on building up majorities where they can. It's a risky strategy - in a relatively close race, you could even see the Democrats keeping control but with large numbers of seats with very thing majorities. However, if there is even an above-average swing, it could easily turn into a GOP wave.
This site needs at least one contributor from the bona fide upper class, for balance. (It could also do with more w/c contributors, mind you).
So it's a shame that Charles has departed.
Yes this site is swarming with the kind of people who buy their own furniture. Charles lent it a touch of genuine class.
Why has Charles left?
Charles is always happy to mention his family and friends (especially if they are or were CEOs of multinational pharma companies). He took exception to someone taking such PB "banter" (which he sees as subject to Chatham House rules) and bringing it into the real world.
I had an incident with him some time ago. He happily uses his own identity on here and talks about his work. I mentioned his employer and he asked me not to. Edit: I was happy to comply as it was only good manners to do so.
As I said it's a bit run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. His view is that he brings that information to PB but we must treat it confidentially on PB or outside. So he could say, for example, my family's trust is having an exhibition of Byzantine Phallic Imagery but would not want anyone from PB to say on PB well isn't that Bob's exhibition, I know him well can't wait to speak to him; or to go to the exhibition and say, oh yes Charles told me about this on PB.
It does seem to me that people who wish to be anonymous - which is fair enough - should avoid posting lots of identifiable stuff about their private lives up here. That's just common sense, as well as avoiding trying to have it both ways.
What is really taking the **** is when those who wish to be anonymous post a load of made up stuff about themselves and then get the hump when anyone calls it out. Thankfully Charles didn't sink to that.
It's a tricky one because I think we all see PB as a bit of a refuge from real life and that whatever we say on here is in "PB World" and hence would not necessarily want it to be transposed into that real life. Especially as one of the joys of PB is that we are sometimes more robust on here than IRL.
Charles was no different except his posts contained a lot of real life information so at some point it was likely that there would be a clash and so it proved.
Yeah. Even the people who post bits of who they are or use(d) their real name weren't people who could be identified. Doubly so when its just a first name. Even when its a full name and we know roughly where they live its still???
Honestly I'd rather not know who most of you are. Unless I make it to drinks in a few weeks (reminder of date / location please?) when you can tell me then...
Yes but - last word on the subject - I revealed nothing about Charles, who shows so much ankle about Who He Is day in, day out, that saying Yes, we get Who You Are is not entirely off limits.
This site needs at least one contributor from the bona fide upper class, for balance. (It could also do with more w/c contributors, mind you).
So it's a shame that Charles has departed.
Yes. Charles is far from typical of the class he purports to represent, though, which was rather my point. And I would bet my house at odds on that he is not by a long chalk the poshest person posting here (not making any claim for myself, there. I wasn't even at Eton ffs).
And there has been no breach of Chatham House rules. I have not named him on here, I have not identified him to anyone in real life as a PBer, I would not respond to a fellow PBer's request for his surname.
Is it PB nitpickery to observe that there is only one Chatham House Rule?
I may be getting it mixed up with something else but I think there's a second rule which is the same as the first rule.
What on earth is Chatham House? Is this like a swingers thing?
I guess most swingers groups might have the Chatham House rule, to be fair - you can discuss what happened with outsiders, but not with whom? I hasten to add this is not from personal experience. Although I did almost buy a house with pampas grass outside it last year
Did the house also have a box of OMO clearly placed in the front window?
What on earth is Chatham House? Is this like a swingers thing?
I guess most swingers groups might have the Chatham House rule, to be fair - you can discuss what happened with outsiders, but not with whom? I hasten to add this is not from personal experience. Although I did almost buy a house with pampas grass outside it last year
Working from sterotypes - probably reasonably well built, but very poorly insulated, not very cramped, with squarish rooms or sub-rooms, and in the same ownership for a long time in a leafy environment. May contain asbestos, and a small change of concrete cancer in the slab. Currently expensive to run if they have been too tight to invest in it.
Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives.
Boris useless twat as he is I expect Sue Grey's report to not make any conclusions with something like "it could be seen as...." as damning as it gets.
Masked Singer - no stand out performance yet.
Prince Andrew - haven't been following it.
Nicola Sturgeon - those calling for Boris to resign shouldn't be as casual to dismiss her transgression.
Succession - still trying to get into the latest season am struggling on
@Charles - tricky one. Slightly wants to run with the hare (it's all an anonymous chat room Chatham House rules, etc) and hunt with the hounds (this is who I am and my family did/does XYZ). But as with everyone apart from about three posters whose posts I routinely skip, he is an important part of PB so I'd rather he stayed.
"Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives."
IMV this is a bogus argument, as vaccinations for things like yellow fever have been required to get into some countries for generations. AIUI polio is another one for some countries.
Indeed.
One of the first legal interventions (that we have records of) by the state in health care was -
The practice of quarantine, as we know it, began during the 14th century in an effort to protect coastal cities from plague epidemics. Ships arriving in Venice from infected ports were required to sit at anchor for 40 days before landing. This practice, called quarantine, was derived from the Italian words quaranta giorni which mean 40 days.
Wonder if there were any tennis players on the ships at Venice.....
So 600 years ago and in a dozen-odd countries today negates my statement about "the extent to which the State has [now] intruded into our personal lives"?
Probably not, but it's interesting. There are also still countries that restrict entry for people with HIV, for example.
Indeed. I have to do an HIV test every couple of years for my visa, as do foreigners in a number of Asian countries. Even though there are now widely available treatments, many places don’t want people with infectious diseases living in their country.
I think it's also about the potential expense to treat it, I remember Nige got a whole load of shit about the idea of introducing the same restrictions in the UK. I think it was fair because we have a socialised healthcare system and HIV treatment costs are huge.
Ah yes, I remember that now, and thinking it was weird to have such an outrage, against something that was normal practice all over the world.
A Rhodes Scholar who won a coveted scholarship at Oxford after claiming she overcame childhood abuse and grew up in foster care has been accused of lying to officials and is in fact the daughter of a radiologist who went to private school.
Mackenzie Fierceton, 24, describes herself as a 'queer, first generation, low income' student at The University of Pennsylvania. In 2020, she was given a scholarship to go to Oxford after dazzling the Rhodes Trust with her story of how she overcame welfare, an abusive mother and the foster care system.
Cannot remember the man's name right now, but Tony Curtis played him in the movie. Started out wanting to be a Catholic brother, then pretends to be one, then graduates to the priesthood, gets busted, moved on to impersonating doctor in the Canadian navy (becoming a hero in the process), then a reforming prison warden in Texas. And he was good at all of these jobs, until he either lost his cool, or circumstances got the better of him.
It was a disease, a mental condition. Sounds like this young woman has something similar. Person of considerable intelligence and talent, who is unable to cope with their reality to some significant degree. And - most unlike most of us - actually does something about it, by creating a better one for themselves. As long as they can keep all the spinning plates in the air, that is.
Sound familiar?
PLUS she and #45 share the same alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania.
Ben Franklin must be proud?
Jeffrey Archer (once a Tory MP) also afflicted with this syndrome
What syndromes that then? Bit disappointed in all three of you to be honest. 🤨 none of you have a clue what’s really gone on here. The expensive school says what? Proof she came from stable and loving household? Where’s the proof of family accepting of her sexuality? School is school at the end of the day from perspective of child.
I read it as a sad story. That she’s been victimised, and that’s got to stop! I hope it works out for her.
How so? I'm skeptical. I read that as being at least an equal probability that the "victim" is actually an abuser or a fantasist, and I perhaps feel nore sympathy for her mother. As soon as anyone, such as the Rhodes Trust, starts asking reasonable questions they get blamed. The next Dolezal?
But if funding schemes set themselves up to be exploited, then they will be exploited.
Fake abuse narratives of various sorts is a growth industry imo.
“Fake abuse narratives of various sorts is a growth industry imo”
But take all cases on their own merits surely? Are we just going to swallow a slanted Daily Mail article at face value all on its own?
“Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein."
“Additionally, all those coming of age and coming out in US today, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these, the right people who may suffer the wrong part of the Divided House of America today - for a house divided cannot stand and offers only desolation ” MoonRabbit 10:30ish (MRV)
Perhaps I can reply to you all less pompous and full of myself than that.
I have had it so bloody easy compared to others I have spoken to that sometimes I sort of feel guilty for it. Maybe that is why my first inclination is to just hug them. Actually, for whatever reason anyone anywhere cannot live a life as who they are, and be who they are, so channelled into living a lie and all the misery and isolation of that, and all the toll that takes on mental health.
I don’t have all answers about THAT article, but that is the open mind with which I read between the lines of such things.
I understand the Daily Mail has never attempted strong balanced journalism for many a decade, and enjoys trading on its cynical and twisted slant. But you have to wonder, if we are so enlightened and progressive in 2022, whose lapping this up?
Maybe that is the whole point of those keeping the Daily Mail going - to keep us in the Dark Ages?
Totally off topic I thought I would give an update on air source heat pumps. A local County Council we deal with has a plan to replace ageing boilers in schools with ASHP and last year carried out a cost analysis/feasability study into it. They found that to install an ASHP system in a school would cost between 5-10 times as much as a new gas boiler system. They also estimate that due to the vast increase in the use of electricity to power the ASHPs there would only be limited energy savings. Therefore they are going to recommend to the Councillors to install new gas boilers not ASHPs.
ASHP's remind me of a Sinclair C5, great idea on paper and clever technology, they are just not practical.
I would suggest the world is seeing the results of too much haste to move to green and insufficient planning for transitional energy which is highlighted by the controversy over Cambo oil field in Scotland
This is precisely the wrong conclusion.
Consider the alternative scenarios. Suppose we had moved to renewables more slowly and were burning more coal and gas now. Would that be better? Coal prices are also up now, we would be having even higher prices for gas and electricity.
However, if we'd moved to renewables more quickly, we'd need to be burning less gas and so our electricity prices would be lower.
The point the analyst was making is that the transition did not take into account a sensible period to complete it and as a result, for the reasons he stated, gas is the transition energy and the demand for the foreseeable future is going to cause serious costs of loving crisis for government's worldwide
It may be of interest but I am looking out on 'Gwynt y Mor' wind farm and there is not a breath of wind and the turbines are barely turning
It's the same old rubbish of wanting to delay action, and if you go straight to renewables you don't need gas as a transition fuel.
We all know the wind doesn't always blow, which is why we need a diverse range of energy sources (including tidal, Moroccan solar, Norwegian hydroelectric, Icelandic geothermal, perhaps some nuclear and an excess of wind that can be stored).
The reality is that storage is going to end up much, much higher than anyone can imagine.
By 2050 I expect we'll have many TW of storage plugged into the network.
Interesting point (excuse pun). If policy makers have any sense (a big ask) they will push for localised storage or even household such as Tesla Powerwall (oh dear I will be accused of being a Tesla bore again)
The government quietly added a planning rule that for a few MWh of storage, you don't need a power station level planning enquiry - you can just do it. I mentioned this the other day, I think.
This means that adding storage to high capacity car chargers will be quite easy in legal/regulatory terms.
There are already conversation going on about not merely using such storage for time shifting electricity to even out grid load, but also to install excess capacity.
So that the people running the charging stations will store electricity and sell it back to the grid for demand/supply smoothing.
I rather think too many hopes are being pinned on the Sue Grey investigation report.
She may be a tough cookie but -
1. She is not independent. 2. The scope is limited. She is being asked to establish facts in the light of applicable guidelines. 3. Guidelines are not and were not then the law. Non-compliance with a guideline did not mean that an offence had been committed. 4. If there is any suggestion of a criminal offence this would be reported to the police. So she will not be saying that the PM comitted a criminal offence or anything like it. 5. She is not reporting on whether he has misled the Commons or whether his apology is acceptable or not. 6. It is likely to show that a large number of civil servants, some of them pretty senior had poor judgment and/or gave poor advice and/or misunderstood what the rules / guidelines were.
Frankly Tory MPs have all the evidence they need now about the PM. Waiting for the report is an avoidance technique.
I will repost what I posted last night.
Tory MPs need to realise that this is not about whether he broke this or that rule. This is about a PM who has, in this and many other things, given the impression that the elite at the top are not subject to the same rules as the rest of us. Quite apart from the corrosion this does to the solidarity necessary in a society, especially during a crisis such as Covid, it completely undermines the Tories Brexit USP i.e. that they were on the side of the people against the unaccountable arrogant elite - a USP which Boris seemed to embody and which seemed to motivate the "levelling up" agenda. If that is undermined what do they have left?
And what USP do any of the rivals for the crown have?
I am no Boris supporter. But I do think the levelling up agenda - if properly thought and pushed through - had great promise and was necessary. It will be a shame if it gets forgotten. Sunak has already harmed it with the cuts to the rail improvements. And, frankly, I think Labour has nothing to say on this. They still take the same complacent and arrogant view that the North somehow "belongs" to them. So if the Tories lose those seats Labour will just behave as if nothing has changed and nothing will change.
Tories should be thinking about these issues when deciding the PM's future not fretting about parties. And, by the way, they need to be asking all the potential leaders these 2 questions, if they want to avoid jumping out of a frying pan into a fire -
1. During lockdowns did they ever attend any social events or "work parties" or meetings at which alcoholic drinks were served at all at No 10 and, if so, how many and when? 2. During lockdowns did they ever have any social events or "work parties" or meetings at which alcoholic drinks were served at their own departments and, if so, how many and when?
Jacob Rees-Mogg calling someone else 'lightweight' is delicious, isn't it?
I can practically hear from my window yells of 'Hey, tha's oor lightweight'. I think in Scotland that will play and play into how little the Conservatives value the Union, when they dismiss even their own man. Maybe I'm a bit too sensitive to this but I think it's a pretty devastating attitude to take. It won't be seen as an attack on Douglas Ross (who is not personally super popular), but an attack on Scottish influence within the Union.
Time and time again, the second biggest (estimates vary) threat to the Union is the Conservative and Unionist Party. Their understanding of power is so, so narrow that they seem to believe that power insulates them from any responsibility when it should be precisely the opposite. They remind me of small town American cops, thinking because they have power, because their jobs maybe difficult, that they can act how they want. I mean even the fucking Lion King addressed this. Everyone remembers Simba singing 'I just can't wait to be King', but the entire rest of the film, from Mufasa explaining how there's more to being a king than doing what you want, to Scar fucking up the Pride Lands, to Simba finally understanding, is about how a ruler has responsibility for the people they rule.
Interesting perspective. HYUFD is also taking very much that [edit] same viewpoint as Mr R-M - and he is our resident Tory official (if at a low level).
Thank you. I was actually quite shocked watching BBC Breakfast this morning to hear JRM saying words that reminded me precisely of HYUFD. No disrespect to HYUFD, but it did give me a sense of foreboding about the path the Conservative Party is on.
As an ex-Constituency executive member of the Conservative Party (no longer even a member), I must correct the previous poster about HYUFD's party status. I do this hesitantly because though I believe some of his posts a little silly, I suspect he is a decent person and not always deserving of the regular kickings he gets on here. Fundamentally HYUFD carries no weight in the CP as he has stated he is a member of a Town Council (equivalent of a Parish Council) and he is a BRANCH Chairman. Almost any member can become a branch chairman. The Party is always gagging for them. It is essentially a very localised fundraiser It really holds no status in practice whatsoever. If he becomes a Constituency Party Chairman that would be a very different matter indeed.
Yet even more 2019 Conservative voters, let alone current Tory voters, still think Boris should stay than go.
What on earth is Chatham House? Is this like a swingers thing?
I guess most swingers groups might have the Chatham House rule, to be fair - you can discuss what happened with outsiders, but not with whom? I hasten to add this is not from personal experience. Although I did almost buy a house with pampas grass outside it last year
Did the house also have a box of OMO clearly placed in the front window?
Also notable that Omo may be the first sentient laundry detergent, from link above: "Unilever's largest detergent brand, OMO (also known as Persil, Skip, Surf Excel depending on where you live) believes taking action, alongside others, has a positive impact on young people’s wellbeing, their communities, and the planet. "
Tim Montgomerie 🇬🇧 @montie · 3h Good morning @Jacob_Rees_Mogg . I urge you to apologise ASAP for the personal+playground way you dismissed @Douglas4Moray on Newsnight. Johnson uber-loyalists risk looking like you're willing to trash colleagues and anyone who dares to think a new PM is necessary. Stop it. Now.
This site needs at least one contributor from the bona fide upper class, for balance. (It could also do with more w/c contributors, mind you).
So it's a shame that Charles has departed.
Yes this site is swarming with the kind of people who buy their own furniture. Charles lent it a touch of genuine class.
Why has Charles left?
Charles is always happy to mention his family and friends (especially if they are or were CEOs of multinational pharma companies). He took exception to someone taking such PB "banter" (which he sees as subject to Chatham House rules) and bringing it into the real world.
I had an incident with him some time ago. He happily uses his own identity on here and talks about his work. I mentioned his employer and he asked me not to. Edit: I was happy to comply as it was only good manners to do so.
As I said it's a bit run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. His view is that he brings that information to PB but we must treat it confidentially on PB or outside. So he could say, for example, my family's trust is having an exhibition of Byzantine Phallic Imagery but would not want anyone from PB to say on PB well isn't that Bob's exhibition, I know him well can't wait to speak to him; or to go to the exhibition and say, oh yes Charles told me about this on PB.
It does seem to me that people who wish to be anonymous - which is fair enough - should avoid posting lots of identifiable stuff about their private lives up here. That's just common sense, as well as avoiding trying to have it both ways.
What is really taking the **** is when those who wish to be anonymous post a load of made up stuff about themselves and then get the hump when anyone calls it out. Thankfully Charles didn't sink to that.
It's a tricky one because I think we all see PB as a bit of a refuge from real life and that whatever we say on here is in "PB World" and hence would not necessarily want it to be transposed into that real life. Especially as one of the joys of PB is that we are sometimes more robust on here than IRL.
Charles was no different except his posts contained a lot of real life information so at some point it was likely that there would be a clash and so it proved.
Just because you can work out the identity of an anonymous poster, doesn’t mean that you need to reference it on a public forum. It wouldn’t be too difficult to work out quite a few, if someone was in the mood to do so. Yes, @charles is an easy guess from what he’s said on here, but we should all respect each others’ anonymity.
Totally off topic I thought I would give an update on air source heat pumps. A local County Council we deal with has a plan to replace ageing boilers in schools with ASHP and last year carried out a cost analysis/feasability study into it. They found that to install an ASHP system in a school would cost between 5-10 times as much as a new gas boiler system. They also estimate that due to the vast increase in the use of electricity to power the ASHPs there would only be limited energy savings. Therefore they are going to recommend to the Councillors to install new gas boilers not ASHPs.
ASHP's remind me of a Sinclair C5, great idea on paper and clever technology, they are just not practical.
I guess the problem is that most schools are insulation nightmares (often low-rise with poorly insulated flat roofs, in my experience). Not a good match for heat pumps.
I've personal experience of both ground and air source heat pumps in newly built homes. Worked very well there, but designed in with underfloor heating and good insulation.
Jacob Rees-Mogg calling someone else 'lightweight' is delicious, isn't it?
I can practically hear from my window yells of 'Hey, tha's oor lightweight'. I think in Scotland that will play and play into how little the Conservatives value the Union, when they dismiss even their own man. Maybe I'm a bit too sensitive to this but I think it's a pretty devastating attitude to take. It won't be seen as an attack on Douglas Ross (who is not personally super popular), but an attack on Scottish influence within the Union.
Time and time again, the second biggest (estimates vary) threat to the Union is the Conservative and Unionist Party. Their understanding of power is so, so narrow that they seem to believe that power insulates them from any responsibility when it should be precisely the opposite. They remind me of small town American cops, thinking because they have power, because their jobs maybe difficult, that they can act how they want. I mean even the fucking Lion King addressed this. Everyone remembers Simba singing 'I just can't wait to be King', but the entire rest of the film, from Mufasa explaining how there's more to being a king than doing what you want, to Scar fucking up the Pride Lands, to Simba finally understanding, is about how a ruler has responsibility for the people they rule.
Interesting perspective. HYUFD is also taking very much that [edit] same viewpoint as Mr R-M - and he is our resident Tory official (if at a low level).
Thank you. I was actually quite shocked watching BBC Breakfast this morning to hear JRM saying words that reminded me precisely of HYUFD. No disrespect to HYUFD, but it did give me a sense of foreboding about the path the Conservative Party is on.
As an ex-Constituency executive member of the Conservative Party (no longer even a member), I must correct the previous poster about HYUFD's party status. I do this hesitantly because though I believe some of his posts a little silly, I suspect he is a decent person and not always deserving of the regular kickings he gets on here. Fundamentally HYUFD carries no weight in the CP as he has stated he is a member of a Town Council (equivalent of a Parish Council) and he is a BRANCH Chairman. Almost any member can become a branch chairman. The Party is always gagging for them. It is essentially a very localised fundraiser It really holds no status in practice whatsoever. If he becomes a Constituency Party Chairman that would be a very different matter indeed.
Thanks for that. So he would not, say, get information or instructions from CCHQ as a matter of routine?
I would suggest the world is seeing the results of too much haste to move to green and insufficient planning for transitional energy which is highlighted by the controversy over Cambo oil field in Scotland
This is precisely the wrong conclusion.
Consider the alternative scenarios. Suppose we had moved to renewables more slowly and were burning more coal and gas now. Would that be better? Coal prices are also up now, we would be having even higher prices for gas and electricity.
However, if we'd moved to renewables more quickly, we'd need to be burning less gas and so our electricity prices would be lower.
The point the analyst was making is that the transition did not take into account a sensible period to complete it and as a result, for the reasons he stated, gas is the transition energy and the demand for the foreseeable future is going to cause serious costs of loving crisis for government's worldwide
It may be of interest but I am looking out on 'Gwynt y Mor' wind farm and there is not a breath of wind and the turbines are barely turning
It's the same old rubbish of wanting to delay action, and if you go straight to renewables you don't need gas as a transition fuel.
We all know the wind doesn't always blow, which is why we need a diverse range of energy sources (including tidal, Moroccan solar, Norwegian hydroelectric, Icelandic geothermal, perhaps some nuclear and an excess of wind that can be stored).
The reality is that storage is going to end up much, much higher than anyone can imagine.
By 2050 I expect we'll have many TW of storage plugged into the network.
National Grid say we used 25 TWh of electricity in December. In the future, with electric cars and electric heating, I guess that could be more than double. So a single week of electricity would be something like 12 TWh. Dinorwig has a capacity of 9.1 GWh, so it would be something like 1300 Dinorwigs.
It's a massive task, but I think it will happen. I think people will have storage at home. I think businesses will have storage. There'll be storage at car charging points. There'll be grid-scale storage built all over the place.
People will look back at an argument like "the wind doesn't always blow" and struggle to understand the short-sighted mentality.
It will take quite a long time though. OTOH, electric cars will basically be their own storage, so that element of the demand increase can be ignored from a storage POV.
A Rhodes Scholar who won a coveted scholarship at Oxford after claiming she overcame childhood abuse and grew up in foster care has been accused of lying to officials and is in fact the daughter of a radiologist who went to private school.
Mackenzie Fierceton, 24, describes herself as a 'queer, first generation, low income' student at The University of Pennsylvania. In 2020, she was given a scholarship to go to Oxford after dazzling the Rhodes Trust with her story of how she overcame welfare, an abusive mother and the foster care system.
Cannot remember the man's name right now, but Tony Curtis played him in the movie. Started out wanting to be a Catholic brother, then pretends to be one, then graduates to the priesthood, gets busted, moved on to impersonating doctor in the Canadian navy (becoming a hero in the process), then a reforming prison warden in Texas. And he was good at all of these jobs, until he either lost his cool, or circumstances got the better of him.
It was a disease, a mental condition. Sounds like this young woman has something similar. Person of considerable intelligence and talent, who is unable to cope with their reality to some significant degree. And - most unlike most of us - actually does something about it, by creating a better one for themselves. As long as they can keep all the spinning plates in the air, that is.
Sound familiar?
PLUS she and #45 share the same alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania.
Ben Franklin must be proud?
Jeffrey Archer (once a Tory MP) also afflicted with this syndrome
What syndromes that then? Bit disappointed in all three of you to be honest. 🤨 none of you have a clue what’s really gone on here. The expensive school says what? Proof she came from stable and loving household? Where’s the proof of family accepting of her sexuality? School is school at the end of the day from perspective of child.
I read it as a sad story. That she’s been victimised, and that’s got to stop! I hope it works out for her.
How so? I'm skeptical. I read that as being at least an equal probability that the "victim" is actually an abuser or a fantasist, and I perhaps feel nore sympathy for her mother. As soon as anyone, such as the Rhodes Trust, starts asking reasonable questions they get blamed. The next Dolezal?
But if funding schemes set themselves up to be exploited, then they will be exploited.
Fake abuse narratives of various sorts is a growth industry imo.
“Fake abuse narratives of various sorts is a growth industry imo”
But take all cases on their own merits surely? Are we just going to swallow a slanted Daily Mail article at face value all on its own?
“Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein."
“Additionally, all those coming of age and coming out in US today, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these, the right people who may suffer the wrong part of the Divided House of America today - for a house divided cannot stand and offers only desolation ” MoonRabbit 10:30ish (MRV)
Perhaps I can reply to you all less pompous and full of myself than that.
I have had it so bloody easy compared to others I have spoken to that sometimes I sort of feel guilty for it. Maybe that is why my first inclination is to just hug them. Actually, for whatever reason anyone anywhere cannot live a life as who they are, and be who they are, so channelled into living a lie and all the misery and isolation of that, and all the toll that takes on mental health.
I don’t have all answers about THAT article, but that is the open mind with which I read between the lines of such things.
I understand the Daily Mail has never attempted strong balanced journalism for many a decade, and enjoys trading on its cynical and twisted slant. But you have to wonder, if we are so enlightened and progressive in 2022, whose lapping this up?
Maybe that is the whole point of those keeping the Daily Mail going - to keep us in the Dark Ages?
All sources of information are biased.
When I was growing up, my father got me to read the Times, Telegraph, Independent, Guardian, Economist and Scientific American - this was pre-WWW, of course.
They are all selling something. Which is why you need to read multiple sources (IMHO) to see the underlying stories.
EDIT: My mother-in-law (first generation immigrant) reads the Daily Mail to improve her English. There are undoubtedly some meta jokes in there - among other things a high proportion of the staff of the Daily Mail are not English.....
I rather think too many hopes are being pinned on the Sue Grey investigation report.
She may be a tough cookie but -
1. She is not independent. 2. The scope is limited. She is being asked to establish facts in the light of applicable guidelines. 3. Guidelines are not and were not then the law. Non-compliance with a guideline did not mean that an offence had been committed. 4. If there is any suggestion of a criminal offence this would be reported to the police. So she will not be saying that the PM comitted a criminal offence or anything like it. 5. She is not reporting on whether he has misled the Commons or whether his apology is acceptable or not. 6. It is likely to show that a large number of civil servants, some of them pretty senior had poor judgment and/or gave poor advice and/or misunderstood what the rules / guidelines were.
Frankly Tory MPs have all the evidence they need now about the PM. Waiting for the report is an avoidance technique.
I will repost what I posted last night.
Tory MPs need to realise that this is not about whether he broke this or that rule. This is about a PM who has, in this and many other things, given the impression that the elite at the top are not subject to the same rules as the rest of us. Quite apart from the corrosion this does to the solidarity necessary in a society, especially during a crisis such as Covid, it completely undermines the Tories Brexit USP i.e. that they were on the side of the people against the unaccountable arrogant elite - a USP which Boris seemed to embody and which seemed to motivate the "levelling up" agenda. If that is undermined what do they have left?
And what USP do any of the rivals for the crown have?
I am no Boris supporter. But I do think the levelling up agenda - if properly thought and pushed through - had great promise and was necessary. It will be a shame if it gets forgotten. Sunak has already harmed it with the cuts to the rail improvements. And, frankly, I think Labour has nothing to say on this. They still take the same complacent and arrogant view that the North somehow "belongs" to them. So if the Tories lose those seats Labour will just behave as if nothing has changed and nothing will change.
Tories should be thinking about these issues when deciding the PM's future not fretting about parties. And, by the way, they need to be asking all the potential leaders these 2 questions, if they want to avoid jumping out of a frying pan into a fire -
1. During lockdowns did they ever attend any social events or "work parties" or meetings at which alcoholic drinks were served at all at No 10 and, if so, how many and when? 2. During lockdowns did they ever have any social events or "work parties" or meetings at which alcoholic drinks were served at their own departments and, if so, how many and when?
Why do you say “not independent”? Surely as a civil servant independent from the politics of this, and can provide what is needed, a list of the facts?
Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives.
Boris useless twat as he is I expect Sue Grey's report to not make any conclusions with something like "it could be seen as...." as damning as it gets.
Masked Singer - no stand out performance yet.
Prince Andrew - haven't been following it.
Nicola Sturgeon - those calling for Boris to resign shouldn't be as casual to dismiss her transgression.
Succession - still trying to get into the latest season am struggling on
@Charles - tricky one. Slightly wants to run with the hare (it's all an anonymous chat room Chatham House rules, etc) and hunt with the hounds (this is who I am and my family did/does XYZ). But as with everyone apart from about three posters whose posts I routinely skip, he is an important part of PB so I'd rather he stayed.
Oh and it was blindingly obvious they would come for Eric Gill given the green light over Colston.
Who are the 3 miscreants Topping, name and shame.
Malc that I am replying to you now I hope reassures you that you aren't one of them.
I would suggest the world is seeing the results of too much haste to move to green and insufficient planning for transitional energy which is highlighted by the controversy over Cambo oil field in Scotland
This is precisely the wrong conclusion.
Consider the alternative scenarios. Suppose we had moved to renewables more slowly and were burning more coal and gas now. Would that be better? Coal prices are also up now, we would be having even higher prices for gas and electricity.
However, if we'd moved to renewables more quickly, we'd need to be burning less gas and so our electricity prices would be lower.
The point the analyst was making is that the transition did not take into account a sensible period to complete it and as a result, for the reasons he stated, gas is the transition energy and the demand for the foreseeable future is going to cause serious costs of loving crisis for government's worldwide
It may be of interest but I am looking out on 'Gwynt y Mor' wind farm and there is not a breath of wind and the turbines are barely turning
It's the same old rubbish of wanting to delay action, and if you go straight to renewables you don't need gas as a transition fuel.
We all know the wind doesn't always blow, which is why we need a diverse range of energy sources (including tidal, Moroccan solar, Norwegian hydroelectric, Icelandic geothermal, perhaps some nuclear and an excess of wind that can be stored).
The reality is that storage is going to end up much, much higher than anyone can imagine.
By 2050 I expect we'll have many TW of storage plugged into the network.
Interesting point (excuse pun). If policy makers have any sense (a big ask) they will push for localised storage or even household such as Tesla Powerwall (oh dear I will be accused of being a Tesla bore again)
Consumers and the free market should find a way to get there in the end anyway.
Especially for anyone charging their vehicle at home, the car already has a major battery for storage even without adding any extras like Powerwalls. But then Powerwalls etc too if they become cheap enough should become a wise investment for people to power their home with cheap energy.
If you can charge your car/Powerwall etc with cheap to almost free energy with plunge pricing, then run your home, heating and vehicle with that, then why not do so? And then who cares when the wind is blowing, only that it is enough.
The other odd thing about the "wind doesn't always blow" argument is that in most traditional sources of energy we build significant surplus capacity. The CCGT turbines don't always turn either, in fact most of the time most of our gas capacity lies idle, and is fired up during peak times.
The intermittency issue with wind and solar is because we still have much less capacity than we need. Total wind power is around 17gw on a very windy day, with total electricity demand around 30-35gw most of the time. If we build wind capacity up to closer to 100gw - no reason why not, once marginal cost goes low enough - then even without storage we could be generating at least 10-15gw on a very calm day, enough to power 100% of needs on an average day, and way more than enough, with some turbines idle, on windy days.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 14m If he's lucky, Boris might be able to withdraw the omicron restrictions before Gray reports (or perhaps even on the day Winking face).
Jacob Rees-Mogg calling someone else 'lightweight' is delicious, isn't it?
I can practically hear from my window yells of 'Hey, tha's oor lightweight'. I think in Scotland that will play and play into how little the Conservatives value the Union, when they dismiss even their own man. Maybe I'm a bit too sensitive to this but I think it's a pretty devastating attitude to take. It won't be seen as an attack on Douglas Ross (who is not personally super popular), but an attack on Scottish influence within the Union.
Time and time again, the second biggest (estimates vary) threat to the Union is the Conservative and Unionist Party. Their understanding of power is so, so narrow that they seem to believe that power insulates them from any responsibility when it should be precisely the opposite. They remind me of small town American cops, thinking because they have power, because their jobs maybe difficult, that they can act how they want. I mean even the fucking Lion King addressed this. Everyone remembers Simba singing 'I just can't wait to be King', but the entire rest of the film, from Mufasa explaining how there's more to being a king than doing what you want, to Scar fucking up the Pride Lands, to Simba finally understanding, is about how a ruler has responsibility for the people they rule.
Interesting perspective. HYUFD is also taking very much that [edit] same viewpoint as Mr R-M - and he is our resident Tory official (if at a low level).
Thank you. I was actually quite shocked watching BBC Breakfast this morning to hear JRM saying words that reminded me precisely of HYUFD. No disrespect to HYUFD, but it did give me a sense of foreboding about the path the Conservative Party is on.
As an ex-Constituency executive member of the Conservative Party (no longer even a member), I must correct the previous poster about HYUFD's party status. I do this hesitantly because though I believe some of his posts a little silly, I suspect he is a decent person and not always deserving of the regular kickings he gets on here. Fundamentally HYUFD carries no weight in the CP as he has stated he is a member of a Town Council (equivalent of a Parish Council) and he is a BRANCH Chairman. Almost any member can become a branch chairman. The Party is always gagging for them. It is essentially a very localised fundraiser It really holds no status in practice whatsoever. If he becomes a Constituency Party Chairman that would be a very different matter indeed.
Yet even more 2019 Conservative voters, let alone current Tory voters, still think Boris should stay than go.
Jacob Rees-Mogg calling someone else 'lightweight' is delicious, isn't it?
I can practically hear from my window yells of 'Hey, tha's oor lightweight'. I think in Scotland that will play and play into how little the Conservatives value the Union, when they dismiss even their own man. Maybe I'm a bit too sensitive to this but I think it's a pretty devastating attitude to take. It won't be seen as an attack on Douglas Ross (who is not personally super popular), but an attack on Scottish influence within the Union.
Time and time again, the second biggest (estimates vary) threat to the Union is the Conservative and Unionist Party. Their understanding of power is so, so narrow that they seem to believe that power insulates them from any responsibility when it should be precisely the opposite. They remind me of small town American cops, thinking because they have power, because their jobs maybe difficult, that they can act how they want. I mean even the fucking Lion King addressed this. Everyone remembers Simba singing 'I just can't wait to be King', but the entire rest of the film, from Mufasa explaining how there's more to being a king than doing what you want, to Scar fucking up the Pride Lands, to Simba finally understanding, is about how a ruler has responsibility for the people they rule.
Interesting perspective. HYUFD is also taking very much that [edit] same viewpoint as Mr R-M - and he is our resident Tory official (if at a low level).
Thank you. I was actually quite shocked watching BBC Breakfast this morning to hear JRM saying words that reminded me precisely of HYUFD. No disrespect to HYUFD, but it did give me a sense of foreboding about the path the Conservative Party is on.
As an ex-Constituency executive member of the Conservative Party (no longer even a member), I must correct the previous poster about HYUFD's party status. I do this hesitantly because though I believe some of his posts a little silly, I suspect he is a decent person and not always deserving of the regular kickings he gets on here. Fundamentally HYUFD carries no weight in the CP as he has stated he is a member of a Town Council (equivalent of a Parish Council) and he is a BRANCH Chairman. Almost any member can become a branch chairman. The Party is always gagging for them. It is essentially a very localised fundraiser It really holds no status in practice whatsoever. If he becomes a Constituency Party Chairman that would be a very different matter indeed.
Yet even more 2019 Conservative voters, let alone current Tory voters, still think Boris should stay than go.
JRM and I are more representative of the current Conservative Party than you are
That wasn't what I was saying old chap. I think you should just quit the "I am a branch chairman" stuff. For those of us in the know it makes you look truly silly. As for that absurd Cnut Rees Mogg being more representative of the Conservative Party than I am, you are absolutely right and this is why I, and many others have left.
As for you, probably the only significant difference politically between you and me is that I do not, will not and never have been able to insert my head up the backside of any political figure, particularly one as incompetent and ridiculous as Boris Johnson. If the Conservative Party can alienate someone like me, they are, in the short term at least, doomed.
Comments
Boris will never resign before a general election unlike May, he is even more stubborn and unlike her already has one majority election win
A doctor friend mentioned that nearly half of new cases in the UK are women, which makes it a sensitive topic politically as the next question is "how is that" and much of the answer lies in the influx of people from Africa.
She lead the party to worst ever local council elections, worst ever Euro elections and then worst by vote share General Election result (only missing absolute worst ever by a few hundred votes in DCT for Mundell to cling on).
She only started making progress in 2016 when she adopted her defeated leadership opponent Murdo Fraser's idea to get rid of the Conservative branding in Scotland(combined with Labour shooting themselves in the head during the IndyRef campaign).
Charles was no different except his posts contained a lot of real life information so at some point it was likely that there would be a clash and so it proved.
Time and time again, the second biggest (estimates vary) threat to the Union is the Conservative and Unionist Party. Their understanding of power is so, so narrow that they seem to believe that power insulates them from any responsibility when it should be precisely the opposite. They remind me of small town American cops, thinking because they have power, because their jobs maybe difficult, that they can act how they want. I mean even the fucking Lion King addressed this. Everyone remembers Simba singing 'I just can't wait to be King', but the entire rest of the film, from Mufasa explaining how there's more to being a king than doing what you want, to Scar fucking up the Pride Lands, to Simba finally understanding, is about how a ruler has responsibility for the people they rule.
Looking at the leadership contests over the past 30 years (arguably 50), they tend to involve a reaction again st teh previous incumbent when it comes to style - so Maggie's combativeness was replaced by council boy / no university / less forceful John Major whom was replaced by wonder-kid William Hague replaced by "non-intellectual" quiet man IDS. Cameron to May to BJ also involves somewhat of the same dynamic.
Doh.
Also there is still more maps to come, the upcoming carve up of Nashville into 3 separate seats might well rub out a Dem in Tennessee.
Thanks for mentioning.
But take all cases on their own merits surely? Are we just going to swallow a slanted Daily Mail article at face value all on its own?
“Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein."
“Additionally, all those coming of age and coming out in US today, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these, the right people who may suffer the wrong part of the Divided House of America today - for a house divided cannot stand and offers only desolation ” MoonRabbit 10:30ish (MRV)
We all know the wind doesn't always blow, which is why we need a diverse range of energy sources (including tidal, Moroccan solar, Norwegian hydroelectric, Icelandic geothermal, perhaps some nuclear and an excess of wind that can be stored).
(Rider Haggard) (John Mortimer)
My local MP has replied to my email. Usual boiler plate waffle about waiting for the details of Gray's investigation.
Honestly I'd rather not know who most of you are. Unless I make it to drinks in a few weeks (reminder of date / location please?) when you can tell me then...
I'm sure there are even earlier examples.
For the rest of us we decide how much to reveal, and it's largely our responsibility. Revealing a lot on one occasion and then getting the hump when it's mentioned on PB on another occasion is poor show. It's not as if anyone has taken anything into RL here.
By 2050 I expect we'll have many TW of storage plugged into the network.
I for one not up for twisting a knife which is already hurting
Ted Heath had just lost a general election and refused to go, Boris' last election result was a landslide win and IDS never got a majority of Tory MPs to back him anyway. The 45% of Tory MPs who voted to keep IDS in 2003 was actually bigger than the 32.5% of Tory MPs who had voted for IDS in the final MPs round of the 2001 Tory leadership election
Boris is also stubborn enough to refuse to go unless 51% of Tory MPs vote him out and there are plenty of Boris supporters on the 1922 still who will refuse to change the rules
I'm sorry we have lost Charles. He added variety and colour to the exchanges but you can't be holding back for fear someone is going to stomp off.
Perhaps he will stomp back one day. I hope so.
But the only reason it is "only 2" is because other leaders have realised that the game is up and gone before they're pushed. The maxim that all political leaders end in failure is kind of true.
Theresa May resigned because she'd just had a humiliating result in the European Elections were the Tories were reduced to just 8% of the vote.
David Cameron resigned because he'd just had a humiliating result in the Brexit referendum, losing that.
Howard, Hague and Major resigned after losing General Elections.
Thatcher resigned after losing the confidence of the party and Cabinet, even if she didn't technically lose the vote.
No Tory leader in my lifetime has simply retired or gone out on their own terms "on a high note". Every single one of them has always gone out with some sort of defeat/humiliation/division.
So your "only 2" increased to 100% of my lifetime at least when you widen the search criteria. xkcd still applies, Boris could be the first to retire on a high note, but the odds are not in his favour.
It's a massive task, but I think it will happen. I think people will have storage at home. I think businesses will have storage. There'll be storage at car charging points. There'll be grid-scale storage built all over the place.
People will look back at an argument like "the wind doesn't always blow" and struggle to understand the short-sighted mentality.
Daily demand peaks at around 40-50GW according to Gridwatch, so we'd need storage capable of delivering that (plus X for heating and transport) for whatever period of time. So, yes, TWh, would be needed, likely (present peak demand for 20 hours is towards 1TWh). Or some predictable base generation/interlinks. But we're not likely* to need TW of instantaneous power delivery from storage.
*Might be I'm wrong on this - what would be the impact of replacing all non electric UK energy sources with electricity - heat, transport, etc etc? Wiki suggests avergage power (all sources) consumption in the UK is somewhere around 200GW (1600 TWh/year in 2019 from all sources). So getting to 1TW instantaneous demand is perhaps not completely crazy, but then there would always be some live energy inputs so it would not all come from storage.
Edit: And all that is if I haven't cocked up the maths which - let's face it - I probably have. Pedant waits to be hoisted by own petard...
Storage won't be in Dinorwigs, its going to be distributed around the nation.
The reality is cars are not just something that requires charging, but they also have major storage in-built. They plus other storage elsewhere are going to do for storage of energy what 'the cloud' has done for storing information.
Surplus wind energy is never going to go to waste, so we need to get as much as we can, as cheaply as we can.
Though you'd have to put a bit of effort in to identify me from the pictures of my knitting. (Not a challenge by the way).
The big change is that now anyone can take a pop without insulting those people because they now see it too.
But then his postings were exactly the sort of thing he says in real life, so no great revelation. He hasn't been active for a year or so.
In this case, I'm not sure that saying "slanted Daily Mail story", overrides the factual elements.
Especially for anyone charging their vehicle at home, the car already has a major battery for storage even without adding any extras like Powerwalls. But then Powerwalls etc too if they become cheap enough should become a wise investment for people to power their home with cheap energy.
If you can charge your car/Powerwall etc with cheap to almost free energy with plunge pricing, then run your home, heating and vehicle with that, then why not do so? And then who cares when the wind is blowing, only that it is enough.
As the article points out, the Democrats have been very aggressive in gerrymandering where they can (Illinois, NY to come etc) whilst the Republicans have been focused on building up majorities where they can. It's a risky strategy - in a relatively close race, you could even see the Democrats keeping control but with large numbers of seats with very thing majorities. However, if there is even an above-average swing, it could easily turn into a GOP wave.
I have had it so bloody easy compared to others I have spoken to that sometimes I sort of feel guilty for it. Maybe that is why my first inclination is to just hug them. Actually, for whatever reason anyone anywhere cannot live a life as who they are, and be who they are, so channelled into living a lie and all the misery and isolation of that, and all the toll that takes on mental health.
I don’t have all answers about THAT article, but that is the open mind with which I read between the lines of such things.
I understand the Daily Mail has never attempted strong balanced journalism for many a decade, and enjoys trading on its cynical and twisted slant. But you have to wonder, if we are so enlightened and progressive in 2022, whose lapping this up?
Maybe that is the whole point of those keeping the Daily Mail going - to keep us in the Dark Ages?
ASHP's remind me of a Sinclair C5, great idea on paper and clever technology, they are just not practical.
This means that adding storage to high capacity car chargers will be quite easy in legal/regulatory terms.
There are already conversation going on about not merely using such storage for time shifting electricity to even out grid load, but also to install excess capacity.
So that the people running the charging stations will store electricity and sell it back to the grid for demand/supply smoothing.
She may be a tough cookie but -
1. She is not independent.
2. The scope is limited. She is being asked to establish facts in the light of applicable guidelines.
3. Guidelines are not and were not then the law. Non-compliance with a guideline did not mean that an offence had been committed.
4. If there is any suggestion of a criminal offence this would be reported to the police. So she will not be saying that the PM comitted a criminal offence or anything like it.
5. She is not reporting on whether he has misled the Commons or whether his apology is acceptable or not.
6. It is likely to show that a large number of civil servants, some of them pretty senior had poor judgment and/or gave poor advice and/or misunderstood what the rules / guidelines were.
Frankly Tory MPs have all the evidence they need now about the PM. Waiting for the report is an avoidance technique.
I will repost what I posted last night.
Tory MPs need to realise that this is not about whether he broke this or that rule. This is about a PM who has, in this and many other things, given the impression that the elite at the top are not subject to the same rules as the rest of us. Quite apart from the corrosion this does to the solidarity necessary in a society, especially during a crisis such as Covid, it completely undermines the Tories Brexit USP i.e. that they were on the side of the people against the unaccountable arrogant elite - a USP which Boris seemed to embody and which seemed to motivate the "levelling up" agenda. If that is undermined what do they have left?
And what USP do any of the rivals for the crown have?
I am no Boris supporter. But I do think the levelling up agenda - if properly thought and pushed through - had great promise and was necessary. It will be a shame if it gets forgotten. Sunak has already harmed it with the cuts to the rail improvements. And, frankly, I think Labour has nothing to say on this. They still take the same complacent and arrogant view that the North somehow "belongs" to them. So if the Tories lose those seats Labour will just behave as if nothing has changed and nothing will change.
Tories should be thinking about these issues when deciding the PM's future not fretting about parties. And, by the way, they need to be asking all the potential leaders these 2 questions, if they want to avoid jumping out of a frying pan into a fire -
1. During lockdowns did they ever attend any social events or "work parties" or meetings at which alcoholic drinks were served at all at No 10 and, if so, how many and when?
2. During lockdowns did they ever have any social events or "work parties" or meetings at which alcoholic drinks were served at their own departments and, if so, how many and when?
https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1480922753867911179?s=20
JRM and I are representative of the majority of the current Conservative Party
I didn't notice, but it was vacant (former rental property) so I don't think so.
Also notable that Omo may be the first sentient laundry detergent, from link above:
"Unilever's largest detergent brand, OMO (also known as Persil, Skip, Surf Excel depending on where you live) believes taking action, alongside others, has a positive impact on young people’s wellbeing, their communities, and the planet. "
@montie
·
3h
Good morning
@Jacob_Rees_Mogg
. I urge you to apologise ASAP for the personal+playground way you dismissed
@Douglas4Moray
on Newsnight. Johnson uber-loyalists risk looking like you're willing to trash colleagues and anyone who dares to think a new PM is necessary. Stop it. Now.
I've personal experience of both ground and air source heat pumps in newly built homes. Worked very well there, but designed in with underfloor heating and good insulation.
OTOH, electric cars will basically be their own storage, so that element of the demand increase can be ignored from a storage POV.
When I was growing up, my father got me to read the Times, Telegraph, Independent, Guardian, Economist and Scientific American - this was pre-WWW, of course.
They are all selling something. Which is why you need to read multiple sources (IMHO) to see the underlying stories.
EDIT: My mother-in-law (first generation immigrant) reads the Daily Mail to improve her English. There are undoubtedly some meta jokes in there - among other things a high proportion of the staff of the Daily Mail are not English.....
The intermittency issue with wind and solar is because we still have much less capacity than we need. Total wind power is around 17gw on a very windy day, with total electricity demand around 30-35gw most of the time. If we build wind capacity up to closer to 100gw - no reason why not, once marginal cost goes low enough - then even without storage we could be generating at least 10-15gw on a very calm day, enough to power 100% of needs on an average day, and way more than enough, with some turbines idle, on windy days.
@andrew_lilico
·
14m
If he's lucky, Boris might be able to withdraw the omicron restrictions before Gray reports (or perhaps even on the day Winking face).
As for you, probably the only significant difference politically between you and me is that I do not, will not and never have been able to insert my head up the backside of any political figure, particularly one as incompetent and ridiculous as Boris Johnson. If the Conservative Party can alienate someone like me, they are, in the short term at least, doomed.