Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
We are in an energy war. Putin is about to test how far his strategy of controlling the lights across Europe has worked.
Meanwhile, we have a Government that has had ample opportunity to tap that 50% of Europe's tidal power that comes through the UK. In this energy war, we could have our own squadrons of Spitfires, in the shape of tidal lagoon power stations. We have a PM that was all in favour of them when doing his tour of the country to get elected as Conservative leader and thus PM. But now it is his Government, he has done nothing to back them.
As good a reason as any for him to go.
If he had started digging in Jan20, say, would they really be on stream already?
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
ha! It sounds like you deliberately set-up a rumble though ! Shall I bite? ermm - I will go this far- I have done the odd triathlon in the past and have of course worn a helmet (in the bike bit) as its the rules - fair enough. When i trained for it , I sometimes wore one and sometimes did not depending on my own risk assessment (did not actually fill in a form!) of where i was cycling. So (like facemasks ) I think it should be up to the individual to decide and I woudl have thought if Chris Boardman read your post he woudl find the name calling a bit tedious and disrespectful as would any human on the end of a judging insult like that. As you quote Meat Loaf - Isn't the line " will you hose me down with holy water if I get to hot" just about the best line in any rock song?
Yes, I'll bite too. I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about. Also, it doesn't help as much as you think it does. Cyclists with helmets take more risks, and drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists. It's a zero sum game: the safer you make people, the more risks they will take. Also, Chris Boardman's mum was killed while cycling (by a lorry, I think). He is tragically aware of the risks.
For years I commuted to work by bike, though no longer due to a change in duties. The key to safe cycling is safe routes in cities more than anything and few British cities have safe cycle routes. In Leicester there were a number that just disappeared at the point that they were needed, such as complex junctions and roundabouts.
Certainly there are lots of anti-social cyclists breaking the rules of the road, and also unlit in dark clothes, but we cannot base policy on them.
Why can't we have a registration scheme and insurance for cyclists over the age of 16? Mandatory uniquely numbered hi-viz tops and mandatory third party insurance for when the undertaking cyclist accidentally tears off a £500 to replace door mirror before they anonymously disappear into the ether, like a jet black lycra ghost.
I'm not a fan of cycling and have the usual experiences with aggressive cyclists but of course it's valuable both for health and pollution reduction, and the reasons why cyclists have to worry about careless drivers are obvious. I'm dstruck by the total contrast in attitudes here compared with Denmark (where cycling is something nearly everyone does sometimes - I used to know a Supreme Court judge who cycled to work), and as Foxy suggests the obvious difference is ubiquitous cycle lanes, so the main reason for motorist-cyclist and cyclist-pedestrian aggro evaporates.
Cycling without a helmet is like driving without a seatbelt - both are both mildly liberating and utterly stupid. I don't think it's proven that drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists, and that sounds really unlikely - does anyone think, even subconsciously, "I'll risk driving over this fellow because he's wearing a helmet?" A dangerously-driving prat will be the same prat regardless.
I'm a car driver, cyclist, and pedestrian in a big city, so therefore am completely objective. What I see on a daily basis out of the three groups, drivers by far do the most aggressive and dangerous acts. Pedestrians are the next biggest group of people doing stupid things (usually not aggressive, but just looking at their phones while walking into traffic), then cyclists.
I am absolutely certain that the minority of drivers who drive dangerously with cyclists change their behaviour depending on the type of cyclist - since I cycle with a bakfiets type bicycle with a hefty wooden box in front I almost never experience drivers deliberately cutting me up - something that happened at least once every day before even when I had a small child in a child seat on the bicycle. I just assume they are more careful with the cargo bike because they don't want a big dent in their Audi.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
I get how the optics are terrible in making it look like Germany is taking Russia's side on this, but should we have requested flight paths over rather heavily populated northern Germany for planes stuffed with explosives?
Surely such flights should take the least populated route, just in case? If the Germans were sending similarly loaded planes to Dublin for some reason, I'd prefer them not to fly right over London.
There were plenty of ways the Germans could have assisted, but they chose not to.
Yes, it does look like they’re taking Putin’s side, being at best ambivalent to Russia advancing right to the border of the EU and NATO, if it means the gas for German heavy industry keeps flowing.
I just realised that the story linked to isn't about our flight paths; it's about Germany blocking weapons they sold to Estonia being supplied to Ukraine.
German naval chief says "need to do more" re offering alternatives & not just ltd resources or convincing govts re human rights.
"because China is giving money whether to dictators, to killers, to criminals. It doesn’t matter -- as long as they give their resources to China" "Russia threaten its neighbors with military force to prevent them leaving the Russian sphere of influence"
In Q&A says "Putin is probably putting pressure on [Ukraine] because he can do it," to split Europe & for respect What [Putin] really wants is respect...and, my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost. So if I was asked...it is easy to even give him the respect he really demands and probably also deserves"
@tanvi_madan German naval chief: "we need Russia because we need Russia against China...From my perspective, I’m a very radical Roman Catholic. I’m believing in God & I believe in Christianity. & there we have a Christian country; even Putin, he’s an atheist but it doesn't matter" https://twitter.com/tanvi_madan/status/1484642943499649026
Johnson is thought to have sounded out Sir Lynton Crosby, who masterminded his two successful London mayoral campaigns. The pair fell out in 2019 in part, it was claimed, over Crosby’s concern at the “strong influence” of Johnson’s then girlfriend Carrie Symonds. Johnson is understood to have assured Crosby that if he came into government he would have a free hand to oversee the government’s political operations and would subject himself to “general election-style discipline”.
Crosby is understood to have reservations about leaving his business and is concerned that Johnson cannot be taken at his word. “Nobody thinks he would be disciplined in the long term so they’re worried about any commitment he makes,” said one source. “Changing how he operates is the number one thing he has to do. ‘It’s time to shit or get off the pot’ is how Lynton has put it to friends.” Crosby is also understood to have concerns that Johnson “may not survive” his current travails.
Is Crosby not really an expert in running electoral campaigns rather than government? A bit like Cummings in that respect. Not sure that is the answer. Boris needs a Peter Mandelson in the same way as Brown did. I am struggling to think who that could be, however. The best option would probably be Osborne but there is no chance he would do it.
"How to relaunch?" will be a nice problem for him to have since it'll mean he's survived this. To that end - surviving - I gather he's reformed the team who did such a great job for him when he won the leadership.
Which they did, didn't they? They forecast not only his numbers spot on but also those for his rivals. It allowed him to 'lend' votes in each round and basically choreograph the contest. The idea is to bring that capability to bear here on the matter of 'letters' and the VONC.
Sadly, there is a significant difference in scale in managing the Conservative party and the country. Skill at the former, and I agree that Boris's election was a masterclass, does not imply competence at the latter.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
ha! It sounds like you deliberately set-up a rumble though ! Shall I bite? ermm - I will go this far- I have done the odd triathlon in the past and have of course worn a helmet (in the bike bit) as its the rules - fair enough. When i trained for it , I sometimes wore one and sometimes did not depending on my own risk assessment (did not actually fill in a form!) of where i was cycling. So (like facemasks ) I think it should be up to the individual to decide and I woudl have thought if Chris Boardman read your post he woudl find the name calling a bit tedious and disrespectful as would any human on the end of a judging insult like that. As you quote Meat Loaf - Isn't the line " will you hose me down with holy water if I get to hot" just about the best line in any rock song?
Yes, I'll bite too. I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about. Also, it doesn't help as much as you think it does. Cyclists with helmets take more risks, and drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists. It's a zero sum game: the safer you make people, the more risks they will take. Also, Chris Boardman's mum was killed while cycling (by a lorry, I think). He is tragically aware of the risks.
For years I commuted to work by bike, though no longer due to a change in duties. The key to safe cycling is safe routes in cities more than anything and few British cities have safe cycle routes. In Leicester there were a number that just disappeared at the point that they were needed, such as complex junctions and roundabouts.
Certainly there are lots of anti-social cyclists breaking the rules of the road, and also unlit in dark clothes, but we cannot base policy on them.
Why can't we have a registration scheme and insurance for cyclists over the age of 16? Mandatory uniquely numbered hi-viz tops and mandatory third party insurance for when the undertaking cyclist accidentally tears off a £500 to replace door mirror before they anonymously disappear into the ether, like a jet black lycra ghost.
I'm not a fan of cycling and have the usual experiences with aggressive cyclists but of course it's valuable both for health and pollution reduction, and the reasons why cyclists have to worry about careless drivers are obvious. I'm dstruck by the total contrast in attitudes here compared with Denmark (where cycling is something nearly everyone does sometimes - I used to know a Supreme Court judge who cycled to work), and as Foxy suggests the obvious difference is ubiquitous cycle lanes, so the main reason for motorist-cyclist and cyclist-pedestrian aggro evaporates.
Cycling without a helmet is like driving without a seatbelt - both are both mildly liberating and utterly stupid. I don't think it's proven that drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists, and that sounds really unlikely - does anyone think, even subconsciously, "I'll risk driving over this fellow because he's wearing a helmet?" A dangerously-driving prat will be the same prat regardless.
Cycling lanes don't remove the the aggro - just as annoying to see vast amounts of money spent on poorly used facilities for road users not paying tax, resulting in less space for pedestrians and cars.
Full disclosure - I'm from a cycling family, and have several relatives who rode to a very high level. Still can't stand the selfish psycho's you run in to far too often being a menace to all other road users.
They certainly increase the aggro when the cycle lanes are so rubbish everyone cycles on the road anyway.
Round my way, when they turned an entire lane of various main roads into cycle lanes, they didn't put a dividing line down the middle. So the Fat Men On Fixies types ride in a mass, covering the whole cycle lane, both directions.
Apparently there have already been collisions with people have the temerity to be cycling in the other direction....
It is remarkable how much of the time, a tiny minority fucks it up for everyone else.
Mind you, before the cycle lanes were put in, there was a design for having two cycles lanes, one for each direction. But apparently the planners didn't think that looked nice or something.
Johnson is thought to have sounded out Sir Lynton Crosby, who masterminded his two successful London mayoral campaigns. The pair fell out in 2019 in part, it was claimed, over Crosby’s concern at the “strong influence” of Johnson’s then girlfriend Carrie Symonds. Johnson is understood to have assured Crosby that if he came into government he would have a free hand to oversee the government’s political operations and would subject himself to “general election-style discipline”.
Crosby is understood to have reservations about leaving his business and is concerned that Johnson cannot be taken at his word. “Nobody thinks he would be disciplined in the long term so they’re worried about any commitment he makes,” said one source. “Changing how he operates is the number one thing he has to do. ‘It’s time to shit or get off the pot’ is how Lynton has put it to friends.” Crosby is also understood to have concerns that Johnson “may not survive” his current travails.
Is Crosby not really an expert in running electoral campaigns rather than government? A bit like Cummings in that respect. Not sure that is the answer. Boris needs a Peter Mandelson in the same way as Brown did. I am struggling to think who that could be, however. The best option would probably be Osborne but there is no chance he would do it.
Osborne ???
I know you're a fan but given his trail of fuckups and troughing ...
What you need is someone with common sense and a willingness to say NO.
You could start with seeing which Conservative MPs were opposed to the Paterson disaster.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
Pedal cycling is not motorcycling. Although I do choose to wear a helmet, this is mostly out of respect and deference to the feelings of my wife.
I've tripped over and fallen a couple of times when walking or running and I don't feel the need to wear a helmet as a pedestrian. The times when I have come off my bicycle, the helmet has made no difference at all.
We can argue all day about whether the marginal improvement in safety afforded by a bicycle helmet is worth the reduction in the number of cyclists that obsessing over helmets (and thereby the implication that cycling is more dangerous than it is). It's a handy way for motorists to distract from their role as the main cause of harm to cyclists.
Drivers pass closer to you if you're wearing a helmet, too.
- no helmet - weave erratically as if drunk - Attach child seat with child dummy - 3000 lumen rear light so the driver is blinded and unable to drive at all - at junctions sit in the middle of the road and pull away slowly so if you miss a gear you won't have a fast car right on arse
From memory, the evidence for the 'with helmets, cars pass closer' evidence is patchy.
But there's a more important point: many bike accidents happen without cars. The year before last, I came off my bike on a local road in the rain, when my adhesion was somewhat less than my ambition. And I know two people who had bad crashes on their bikes on roads with no cars directly involved, who were glad of their helmets.
Helmets work.
Agree with that - I wear mine because I seem to have rather inconsistent braking distances, huge potholes and the tram tracks.
I think the one thing I will concede to the anti-bike lobby is compulsory helmets (and lights, though that is already a rule). You can survive most other injuries.
A bell as well (AIUI all bikes have to be sold with one, but they can be removed). I rarely use my bell, but when I do it's very useful - particularly when approaching people from behind on roads or shared-use paths.
But some people are deaf, so it is not a panacea (not that you are implying that).
I regularly walk on Sustrans cycle paths(ex-railway lines). I prefer to walk on the right, because my eyesight is better than my hearing.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
I think we too easily attribute it mostly to worries about gas. The closer one is to the issue the more the historical complexities become apparent. Nationalist Ukranians see history as a long struggle for independence, finally achieved and now threatened once again. Nationalist Russians see Ukraine as separatists, and are baffled by talk of Crimea or East Ukraine themselves being separatists. Russians with family memories of WWII remember early Ukranian collaboration with the Nazis, and point to the toleration of armed neo-Nazi militia in Ukraine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion). Ukranians with family memories of the 30s think of Stalin's Holodomor and near-national starvation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor).
Germans are conscious of the their history of genocidal aggression against both, and are really reluctant to get involved. It's hard to blame them.
I agree. Part of the penance for their great crime is to limit their power in the world to the economic sphere. It's hardcoded.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
Definitely because modern defence capabilities are staggeringly expensive and require highly trained technical experts not meatbags with rifles. This means single countries can't provide the full spectrum of defence capabilities on their own and have to collaborate with those other countries that have shared needs.
It won't be as integrated as NATO for a long time. The PESCO structure has different functional areas led by individual member states (Lithuania do Cyber, Germany does medical, Netherlands does transport, etc.) and other members can participate or not as they wish in those areas.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
ha! It sounds like you deliberately set-up a rumble though ! Shall I bite? ermm - I will go this far- I have done the odd triathlon in the past and have of course worn a helmet (in the bike bit) as its the rules - fair enough. When i trained for it , I sometimes wore one and sometimes did not depending on my own risk assessment (did not actually fill in a form!) of where i was cycling. So (like facemasks ) I think it should be up to the individual to decide and I woudl have thought if Chris Boardman read your post he woudl find the name calling a bit tedious and disrespectful as would any human on the end of a judging insult like that. As you quote Meat Loaf - Isn't the line " will you hose me down with holy water if I get to hot" just about the best line in any rock song?
Yes, I'll bite too. I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about. Also, it doesn't help as much as you think it does. Cyclists with helmets take more risks, and drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists. It's a zero sum game: the safer you make people, the more risks they will take. Also, Chris Boardman's mum was killed while cycling (by a lorry, I think). He is tragically aware of the risks.
For years I commuted to work by bike, though no longer due to a change in duties. The key to safe cycling is safe routes in cities more than anything and few British cities have safe cycle routes. In Leicester there were a number that just disappeared at the point that they were needed, such as complex junctions and roundabouts.
Certainly there are lots of anti-social cyclists breaking the rules of the road, and also unlit in dark clothes, but we cannot base policy on them.
Why can't we have a registration scheme and insurance for cyclists over the age of 16? Mandatory uniquely numbered hi-viz tops and mandatory third party insurance for when the undertaking cyclist accidentally tears off a £500 to replace door mirror before they anonymously disappear into the ether, like a jet black lycra ghost.
Because poor people cycle, and this is yet another way for rich car drivers to shit on people just getting by.
You'll see no bikes on the road, more air pollution and more fat people.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
ha! It sounds like you deliberately set-up a rumble though ! Shall I bite? ermm - I will go this far- I have done the odd triathlon in the past and have of course worn a helmet (in the bike bit) as its the rules - fair enough. When i trained for it , I sometimes wore one and sometimes did not depending on my own risk assessment (did not actually fill in a form!) of where i was cycling. So (like facemasks ) I think it should be up to the individual to decide and I woudl have thought if Chris Boardman read your post he woudl find the name calling a bit tedious and disrespectful as would any human on the end of a judging insult like that. As you quote Meat Loaf - Isn't the line " will you hose me down with holy water if I get to hot" just about the best line in any rock song?
Yes, I'll bite too. I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about. Also, it doesn't help as much as you think it does. Cyclists with helmets take more risks, and drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists. It's a zero sum game: the safer you make people, the more risks they will take. Also, Chris Boardman's mum was killed while cycling (by a lorry, I think). He is tragically aware of the risks.
For years I commuted to work by bike, though no longer due to a change in duties. The key to safe cycling is safe routes in cities more than anything and few British cities have safe cycle routes. In Leicester there were a number that just disappeared at the point that they were needed, such as complex junctions and roundabouts.
Certainly there are lots of anti-social cyclists breaking the rules of the road, and also unlit in dark clothes, but we cannot base policy on them.
Why can't we have a registration scheme and insurance for cyclists over the age of 16? Mandatory uniquely numbered hi-viz tops and mandatory third party insurance for when the undertaking cyclist accidentally tears off a £500 to replace door mirror before they anonymously disappear into the ether, like a jet black lycra ghost.
Because poor people cycle, and this is yet another way for rich car drivers to shit on people just getting by.
You'll see no bikes on the road, more air pollution and more fat people.
That is not my experience, and why should the undertaking at the red traffic lights lycra clad eco-warrior leave me with a £500 bill because I didn't leave enough room between the kerb and my car? And of course he can't be caught as he negotiates the gaps in the traffic to run the red light and be on his way while we all survey the damage waiting an eternity for the light to turn green.
I didn't manage to catch the car (with registration and mandatory insurance) that knocked my wing mirror off either.
Not going to solve your issue.
(That lycra clad eco-warrior is helping to repair the damage older generations have done to the environment, and reduce strain on the NHS by keeping fit and healthy. Indeed, he's probably saved the country well over £500- model citizen )
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
The demise of NATO is about as prophesied as the demise of the EU.
In the case of NATO, there is already a number of examples where members.... er... drop out? for various crises when they feel like it.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
Pedal cycling is not motorcycling. Although I do choose to wear a helmet, this is mostly out of respect and deference to the feelings of my wife.
I've tripped over and fallen a couple of times when walking or running and I don't feel the need to wear a helmet as a pedestrian. The times when I have come off my bicycle, the helmet has made no difference at all.
We can argue all day about whether the marginal improvement in safety afforded by a bicycle helmet is worth the reduction in the number of cyclists that obsessing over helmets (and thereby the implication that cycling is more dangerous than it is). It's a handy way for motorists to distract from their role as the main cause of harm to cyclists.
Drivers pass closer to you if you're wearing a helmet, too.
- no helmet - weave erratically as if drunk - Attach child seat with child dummy - 3000 lumen rear light so the driver is blinded and unable to drive at all - at junctions sit in the middle of the road and pull away slowly so if you miss a gear you won't have a fast car right on arse
From memory, the evidence for the 'with helmets, cars pass closer' evidence is patchy.
But there's a more important point: many bike accidents happen without cars. The year before last, I came off my bike on a local road in the rain, when my adhesion was somewhat less than my ambition. And I know two people who had bad crashes on their bikes on roads with no cars directly involved, who were glad of their helmets.
Helmets work.
Agree with that - I wear mine because I seem to have rather inconsistent braking distances, huge potholes and the tram tracks.
I think the one thing I will concede to the anti-bike lobby is compulsory helmets (and lights, though that is already a rule). You can survive most other injuries.
A bell as well (AIUI all bikes have to be sold with one, but they can be removed). I rarely use my bell, but when I do it's very useful - particularly when approaching people from behind on roads or shared-use paths.
But some people are deaf, so it is not a panacea (not that you are implying that).
Or more commonly, wearing headphones. Especially noise-cancelling ones.
(I wear headphones whilst out running. But I listen to speech, not music, on low volume, and do not use noise-cancelling phones.)
Noise-cancelling headphones are for planes, trains and offices. Not for use on any mode of personal transport, because the modern ones are so damn brilliant!
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
I think we too easily attribute it mostly to worries about gas. The closer one is to the issue the more the historical complexities become apparent. Nationalist Ukranians see history as a long struggle for independence, finally achieved and now threatened once again. Nationalist Russians see Ukraine as separatists, and are baffled by talk of Crimea or East Ukraine themselves being separatists. Russians with family memories of WWII remember early Ukranian collaboration with the Nazis, and point to the toleration of armed neo-Nazi militia in Ukraine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion). Ukranians with family memories of the 30s think of Stalin's Holodomor and near-national starvation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor).
Germans are conscious of the their history of genocidal aggression against both, and are really reluctant to get involved. It's hard to blame them.
I don't disagree with the historical complexities Nick but the fact is that a pusillaminous Germany is very likely to cause a hot war to break out in central Europe. If Germany was clear that the EU would back the Ukraine whatever it takes, SWIFT, munitions etc, it would be much less likely to happen. Of course Biden wittering about minor incursions being ok doesn't exactly help either.
There does seem to be a spirit of Molotov-Ribbentrop running deep in Germany which views any countries between it and Russia as inconveniences.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
Definitely because modern defence capabilities are staggeringly expensive and require highly trained technical experts not meatbags with rifles. This means single countries can't provide the full spectrum of defence capabilities on their own and have to collaborate with those other countries that have shared needs.
It won't be as integrated as NATO for a long time. The PESCO structure has different functional areas led by individual member states (Lithuania do Cyber, Germany does medical, Netherlands does transport, etc.) and other members can participate or not as they wish in those areas.
The slight problem with that, is if some of the members of the EU think their safety is a transactional issue for Germany.
One thing that unites Poles of my acquaintance, is that when dealing with the Russian issue, they don't trust Germany.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
Pedal cycling is not motorcycling. Although I do choose to wear a helmet, this is mostly out of respect and deference to the feelings of my wife.
I've tripped over and fallen a couple of times when walking or running and I don't feel the need to wear a helmet as a pedestrian. The times when I have come off my bicycle, the helmet has made no difference at all.
We can argue all day about whether the marginal improvement in safety afforded by a bicycle helmet is worth the reduction in the number of cyclists that obsessing over helmets (and thereby the implication that cycling is more dangerous than it is). It's a handy way for motorists to distract from their role as the main cause of harm to cyclists.
Drivers pass closer to you if you're wearing a helmet, too.
- no helmet - weave erratically as if drunk - Attach child seat with child dummy - 3000 lumen rear light so the driver is blinded and unable to drive at all - at junctions sit in the middle of the road and pull away slowly so if you miss a gear you won't have a fast car right on arse
From memory, the evidence for the 'with helmets, cars pass closer' evidence is patchy.
But there's a more important point: many bike accidents happen without cars. The year before last, I came off my bike on a local road in the rain, when my adhesion was somewhat less than my ambition. And I know two people who had bad crashes on their bikes on roads with no cars directly involved, who were glad of their helmets.
Helmets work.
Agree with that - I wear mine because I seem to have rather inconsistent braking distances, huge potholes and the tram tracks.
I think the one thing I will concede to the anti-bike lobby is compulsory helmets (and lights, though that is already a rule). You can survive most other injuries.
A bell as well (AIUI all bikes have to be sold with one, but they can be removed). I rarely use my bell, but when I do it's very useful - particularly when approaching people from behind on roads or shared-use paths.
But some people are deaf, so it is not a panacea (not that you are implying that).
Or more commonly, wearing headphones. Especially noise-cancelling ones.
(I wear headphones whilst out running. But I listen to speech, not music, on low volume, and do not use noise-cancelling phones.)
That had never occurred to me as a problem! But yes, so it must be. When I was young you could tell the deaf children because they were the ones with earpieces and wires. Now it's the other way round!
I really fancy some of those bone headphones (Aftershokz) when my current pair die. Does anyone know if they are any good?
Yea. I used to have a pair and I found them great. However, I’m half deaf (my eardrums and the little bones are fucked, but cochlears reasonably functional) so anything bone conduction is perfect for me. I got a bone anchored hearing aid fitted in the end (it streams audio direct from iPhone) which obviated the need for the aftershokz.
For normal people without hearing loss, AIUI, bone conduction through the skin tends to lose the high frequencies. The sound quality is unlikely to be as good as decent over-ear headphones.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
I think we too easily attribute it mostly to worries about gas. The closer one is to the issue the more the historical complexities become apparent. Nationalist Ukranians see history as a long struggle for independence, finally achieved and now threatened once again. Nationalist Russians see Ukraine as separatists, and are baffled by talk of Crimea or East Ukraine themselves being separatists. Russians with family memories of WWII remember early Ukranian collaboration with the Nazis, and point to the toleration of armed neo-Nazi militia in Ukraine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion). Ukranians with family memories of the 30s think of Stalin's Holodomor and near-national starvation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor).
Germans are conscious of the their history of genocidal aggression against both, and are really reluctant to get involved. It's hard to blame them.
I agree. Part of the penance for their great crime is to limit their power in the world to the economic sphere. It's hardcoded.
Sure. But having power and not exercising it, or using one type of power to influence or direct others in the use of their own power, is still power of a kind, is it not?
Germany's actions and non actions both matter. I won't pretend to be sure of what they should do in their or others' interests, but sitting out, and influencing others to do so, impacts things beyond the economic sphere too.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
I get how the optics are terrible in making it look like Germany is taking Russia's side on this, but should we have requested flight paths over rather heavily populated northern Germany for planes stuffed with explosives?
Surely such flights should take the least populated route, just in case? If the Germans were sending similarly loaded planes to Dublin for some reason, I'd prefer them not to fly right over London.
There were plenty of ways the Germans could have assisted, but they chose not to.
Yes, it does look like they’re taking Putin’s side, being at best ambivalent to Russia advancing right to the border of the EU and NATO, if it means the gas for German heavy industry keeps flowing.
I just realised that the story linked to isn't about our flight paths; it's about Germany blocking weapons they sold to Estonia being supplied to Ukraine.
German naval chief says "need to do more" re offering alternatives & not just ltd resources or convincing govts re human rights.
"because China is giving money whether to dictators, to killers, to criminals. It doesn’t matter -- as long as they give their resources to China" "Russia threaten its neighbors with military force to prevent them leaving the Russian sphere of influence"
In Q&A says "Putin is probably putting pressure on [Ukraine] because he can do it," to split Europe & for respect What [Putin] really wants is respect...and, my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost. So if I was asked...it is easy to even give him the respect he really demands and probably also deserves"
@tanvi_madan German naval chief: "we need Russia because we need Russia against China...From my perspective, I’m a very radical Roman Catholic. I’m believing in God & I believe in Christianity. & there we have a Christian country; even Putin, he’s an atheist but it doesn't matter" https://twitter.com/tanvi_madan/status/1484642943499649026
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
I get how the optics are terrible in making it look like Germany is taking Russia's side on this, but should we have requested flight paths over rather heavily populated northern Germany for planes stuffed with explosives?
Surely such flights should take the least populated route, just in case? If the Germans were sending similarly loaded planes to Dublin for some reason, I'd prefer them not to fly right over London.
There were plenty of ways the Germans could have assisted, but they chose not to.
Yes, it does look like they’re taking Putin’s side, being at best ambivalent to Russia advancing right to the border of the EU and NATO, if it means the gas for German heavy industry keeps flowing.
I just realised that the story linked to isn't about our flight paths; it's about Germany blocking weapons they sold to Estonia being supplied to Ukraine.
German naval chief says "need to do more" re offering alternatives & not just ltd resources or convincing govts re human rights.
"because China is giving money whether to dictators, to killers, to criminals. It doesn’t matter -- as long as they give their resources to China" "Russia threaten its neighbors with military force to prevent them leaving the Russian sphere of influence"
In Q&A says "Putin is probably putting pressure on [Ukraine] because he can do it," to split Europe & for respect What [Putin] really wants is respect...and, my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost. So if I was asked...it is easy to even give him the respect he really demands and probably also deserves"
@tanvi_madan German naval chief: "we need Russia because we need Russia against China...From my perspective, I’m a very radical Roman Catholic. I’m believing in God & I believe in Christianity. & there we have a Christian country; even Putin, he’s an atheist but it doesn't matter" https://twitter.com/tanvi_madan/status/1484642943499649026
Trump said the same.
It trips over an interesting point in that Ukraine's best hope might be for China to move a few troops about or sail some warships past Siberia. Russia is very, very big so it cannot concentrate its forces against Europe and China at the same time.
Oh, I'm sure we can find something else to be deranged about
Reset in government is a differentl challenge to reset in opposition, and the policy challenge of 'where after Johnsonism' will be harder to get electorally right than the personality reset. Especially as the practical political foundation of the various flavours of this 12 years of Conservative government has perhaps been even shallower than that of New Labour and continuity centrism.
Thank you, good to be here after being a long-time lurker!
Good point about resetting while in government being tougher. These have been shallow governments, ideologically speaking. Cameron was continuity centrism, and both May and Johnson have been more economically interventionist, the latter probably more out of necessity than desire, though I don't suppose he gave it much thought. The current Conservative electorate seems to be to the left of Blair/Cameron on economics but to the right on social issues (immigration, law and order etc). That's not a party I'd personally vote for but this is probably where they need to end up in order to hold on to the seats they have gained.
The trick they need, is how to deliver “Levelling Up” to the new marginals, without massive amounts of public money being involved.
We saw a preview of this yesterday, with the announcement of the Blyth battery factory with £1.7bn of private money and £100m of public money, creating 3,000 direct jobs and (possibly) 5,000 indirect jobs, but there need to be many more similar projects in the next couple of years if the Conservatives are to retain these seats.
I know he’s a marmite politician, but the appointment of Gove to the ministry is an acknowledgement of the scale of the problem. He has a reputation for understanding what needs to be done, and will fight with the Treasury to make sure it happens.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
I get how the optics are terrible in making it look like Germany is taking Russia's side on this, but should we have requested flight paths over rather heavily populated northern Germany for planes stuffed with explosives?
Surely such flights should take the least populated route, just in case? If the Germans were sending similarly loaded planes to Dublin for some reason, I'd prefer them not to fly right over London.
There were plenty of ways the Germans could have assisted, but they chose not to.
Yes, it does look like they’re taking Putin’s side, being at best ambivalent to Russia advancing right to the border of the EU and NATO, if it means the gas for German heavy industry keeps flowing.
I just realised that the story linked to isn't about our flight paths; it's about Germany blocking weapons they sold to Estonia being supplied to Ukraine.
German naval chief says "need to do more" re offering alternatives & not just ltd resources or convincing govts re human rights.
"because China is giving money whether to dictators, to killers, to criminals. It doesn’t matter -- as long as they give their resources to China" "Russia threaten its neighbors with military force to prevent them leaving the Russian sphere of influence"
In Q&A says "Putin is probably putting pressure on [Ukraine] because he can do it," to split Europe & for respect What [Putin] really wants is respect...and, my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost. So if I was asked...it is easy to even give him the respect he really demands and probably also deserves"
@tanvi_madan German naval chief: "we need Russia because we need Russia against China...From my perspective, I’m a very radical Roman Catholic. I’m believing in God & I believe in Christianity. & there we have a Christian country; even Putin, he’s an atheist but it doesn't matter" https://twitter.com/tanvi_madan/status/1484642943499649026
Completely barking.
If a GOP Senator said that we'd think it's insane even for them, let alone what's supposed to be a rational country.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
Pedal cycling is not motorcycling. Although I do choose to wear a helmet, this is mostly out of respect and deference to the feelings of my wife.
I've tripped over and fallen a couple of times when walking or running and I don't feel the need to wear a helmet as a pedestrian. The times when I have come off my bicycle, the helmet has made no difference at all.
We can argue all day about whether the marginal improvement in safety afforded by a bicycle helmet is worth the reduction in the number of cyclists that obsessing over helmets (and thereby the implication that cycling is more dangerous than it is). It's a handy way for motorists to distract from their role as the main cause of harm to cyclists.
Drivers pass closer to you if you're wearing a helmet, too.
- no helmet - weave erratically as if drunk - Attach child seat with child dummy - 3000 lumen rear light so the driver is blinded and unable to drive at all - at junctions sit in the middle of the road and pull away slowly so if you miss a gear you won't have a fast car right on arse
From memory, the evidence for the 'with helmets, cars pass closer' evidence is patchy.
But there's a more important point: many bike accidents happen without cars. The year before last, I came off my bike on a local road in the rain, when my adhesion was somewhat less than my ambition. And I know two people who had bad crashes on their bikes on roads with no cars directly involved, who were glad of their helmets.
Helmets work.
Agree with that - I wear mine because I seem to have rather inconsistent braking distances, huge potholes and the tram tracks.
I think the one thing I will concede to the anti-bike lobby is compulsory helmets (and lights, though that is already a rule). You can survive most other injuries.
A bell as well (AIUI all bikes have to be sold with one, but they can be removed). I rarely use my bell, but when I do it's very useful - particularly when approaching people from behind on roads or shared-use paths.
But some people are deaf, so it is not a panacea (not that you are implying that).
I regularly walk on Sustrans cycle paths(ex-railway lines). I prefer to walk on the right, because my eyesight is better than my hearing.
An acquaintance of mine brags about having managed 30 MPH sustained over a long distance on a shared use trail, an ex-railway line. IMO totally irresponsible on a shared-use path where there might be other cyclists, walkers, runners, horse riders or kids.
He's also broken many bones in several BMX crashes. As an adult...
He's a nice bloke, but when he dies 'EXTREEEEMMMMEEE' will be written on his gravestone.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
Definitely because modern defence capabilities are staggeringly expensive and require highly trained technical experts not meatbags with rifles. This means single countries can't provide the full spectrum of defence capabilities on their own and have to collaborate with those other countries that have shared needs.
It won't be as integrated as NATO for a long time. The PESCO structure has different functional areas led by individual member states (Lithuania do Cyber, Germany does medical, Netherlands does transport, etc.) and other members can participate or not as they wish in those areas.
The slight problem with that, is if some of the members of the EU think their safety is a transactional issue for Germany.
One thing that unites Poles of my acquaintance, is that when dealing with the Russian issue, they don't trust Germany.
Again, the territorial integrity of members states is not (yet) an EU responsibility because that's how the US told them it was going to be.
If German Russophilia is a security and strategic problem it's one for NATO not (yet) one for the EU.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
If they pulled the plug, we'd link with America. Same as we long have.
We can trust, to a large extent, the five eyes nations. Not perfect (esp NZ under their current awful PM) but the alliance is generally right regardless of transient political leaders. A bit like having a permanent civil service regardless of transient politicians.
Europe ... Not so much. What does costing up with Germany achieve strategically?
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
No chance, if the US decides it's done with NATO the UK would quickly follow suit.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
If they pulled the plug, we'd link with America. Same as we long have.
We can trust, to a large extent, the five eyes nations. Not perfect (esp NZ under their current awful PM) but the alliance is generally right regardless of transient political leaders. A bit like having a permanent civil service regardless of transient politicians.
Europe ... Not so much. What does costing up with Germany achieve strategically?
You’re doing Putins job for him, coming out with tripe like that.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
No chance, if the US decides it's done with NATO the UK would quickly follow suit.
I am not so sure that is true. We know that in a modern world the sorts of military threats that NATO was designed to challenge cannot generally be dealt with by one country. I suspect we would push for the rump NATO to be reconfigured and continue outside the EU structure perhaps still including Canada. There would also be the consideration that, as with the aberration that was the Trump administration, whichever President withdrew the US from NATO, would not be around for ever and that if NATO in some form still existed they could be tempted to rejoin.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
Definitely because modern defence capabilities are staggeringly expensive and require highly trained technical experts not meatbags with rifles. This means single countries can't provide the full spectrum of defence capabilities on their own and have to collaborate with those other countries that have shared needs.
It won't be as integrated as NATO for a long time. The PESCO structure has different functional areas led by individual member states (Lithuania do Cyber, Germany does medical, Netherlands does transport, etc.) and other members can participate or not as they wish in those areas.
The slight problem with that, is if some of the members of the EU think their safety is a transactional issue for Germany.
One thing that unites Poles of my acquaintance, is that when dealing with the Russian issue, they don't trust Germany.
Again, the territorial integrity of members states is not (yet) an EU responsibility because that's how the US told them it was going to be.
If German Russophilia is a security and strategic problem it's one for NATO not (yet) one for the EU.
And again, there's a snowball chance in hell that an EU responsibility for defence will occur if a large chuck of the EU doesn't trust another large chunk to defend it.
The reason that the Baltics, Poland etc are turning to the US, is that they get troops on the ground, weapons etc. Plus the implied menace of x metric tons of Plutonium in the background. Tangibles.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
Pedal cycling is not motorcycling. Although I do choose to wear a helmet, this is mostly out of respect and deference to the feelings of my wife.
I've tripped over and fallen a couple of times when walking or running and I don't feel the need to wear a helmet as a pedestrian. The times when I have come off my bicycle, the helmet has made no difference at all.
We can argue all day about whether the marginal improvement in safety afforded by a bicycle helmet is worth the reduction in the number of cyclists that obsessing over helmets (and thereby the implication that cycling is more dangerous than it is). It's a handy way for motorists to distract from their role as the main cause of harm to cyclists.
Drivers pass closer to you if you're wearing a helmet, too.
- no helmet - weave erratically as if drunk - Attach child seat with child dummy - 3000 lumen rear light so the driver is blinded and unable to drive at all - at junctions sit in the middle of the road and pull away slowly so if you miss a gear you won't have a fast car right on arse
From memory, the evidence for the 'with helmets, cars pass closer' evidence is patchy.
But there's a more important point: many bike accidents happen without cars. The year before last, I came off my bike on a local road in the rain, when my adhesion was somewhat less than my ambition. And I know two people who had bad crashes on their bikes on roads with no cars directly involved, who were glad of their helmets.
Helmets work.
Agree with that - I wear mine because I seem to have rather inconsistent braking distances, huge potholes and the tram tracks.
I think the one thing I will concede to the anti-bike lobby is compulsory helmets (and lights, though that is already a rule). You can survive most other injuries.
A bell as well (AIUI all bikes have to be sold with one, but they can be removed). I rarely use my bell, but when I do it's very useful - particularly when approaching people from behind on roads or shared-use paths.
But some people are deaf, so it is not a panacea (not that you are implying that).
I regularly walk on Sustrans cycle paths(ex-railway lines). I prefer to walk on the right, because my eyesight is better than my hearing.
An acquaintance of mine brags about having managed 30 MPH sustained over a long distance on a shared use trail, an ex-railway line. IMO totally irresponsible on a shared-use path where there might be other cyclists, walkers, runners, horse riders or kids.
He's also broken many bones in several BMX crashes. As an adult...
He's a nice bloke, but when he dies 'EXTREEEEMMMMEEE' will be written on his gravestone.
I've broken bones in 15 separate cycling crashes and only 5 in various motorbike accidents. 10 of the cycling accidents were in races where all judgement is just thrown to the wind.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
We are in an energy war. Putin is about to test how far his strategy of controlling the lights across Europe has worked.
Meanwhile, we have a Government that has had ample opportunity to tap that 50% of Europe's tidal power that comes through the UK. In this energy war, we could have our own squadrons of Spitfires, in the shape of tidal lagoon power stations. We have a PM that was all in favour of them when doing his tour of the country to get elected as Conservative leader and thus PM. But now it is his Government, he has done nothing to back them.
As good a reason as any for him to go.
We also have very considerably more than our fair share of wind power and the sale of the licences for Scottish waters last week, which should ultimately double our wind energy, was a very positive step in the right direction as was the investment in battery production in the UK. So its a bit of a mixed picture.
For me, our biggest economic problem for the last 20 years has been a chronic trade deficit which is bleeding this country of its wealth and future prosperity. Its why I am very keen on domestic energy production including lagoons and domestic fracking as well as wind and solar. 3 of these also mean that we can make our global wwarming targets with less disruption. As we convert more and more vehicles to electric we are going to need a lot more power and the capacity to store it. It really is a no brainer to go for lagoon power and other internal production as the current price of international gas shows all too vividly.
Our Government invested £9 billion in putting wind and solar energy into this country.
That sucked in £14 billion in solar panels and wind turbine imports.....
In our local villages there are new houses popping up left, right and centre. None of them has a solar panel fitted at the building stage, although a very few householders have gone to the expense of getting them retrofitted. This is madness, all the more so when there's a planning application before the council to build a solar farm on a mile of agricultural land.
It's also madness to weigh the cost of tidal power against the cost of wind and solar. All three are necessary for balanced energy security. Last week was cold, calm and overcast and next week is shaping up to be the same. The call of a running tide may not be denied.
I know of some council houses in SE Scotland where they had solar panels fitted from the start.
This has been my massive bugbear for years. We build a couple of hundred thousand houses a year in the UK. Why can we not make it a planning condition that every new house has to be fitted with solar panels during the construction process? Both economies of scale and removing the need for remedial alterations to fit them would make it much cheaper than it currently is to retro-fit and if you are spending £150K or more on a new house then the additional marginal cost to the buyer is insignificant.
I don't disagree at all. But is there not a problem with contracts for solar panels? Making owner occupied houses difficult to sell etc. I have no idea how that works with the council houses (or even if those are water or electric panels).
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
ha! It sounds like you deliberately set-up a rumble though ! Shall I bite? ermm - I will go this far- I have done the odd triathlon in the past and have of course worn a helmet (in the bike bit) as its the rules - fair enough. When i trained for it , I sometimes wore one and sometimes did not depending on my own risk assessment (did not actually fill in a form!) of where i was cycling. So (like facemasks ) I think it should be up to the individual to decide and I woudl have thought if Chris Boardman read your post he woudl find the name calling a bit tedious and disrespectful as would any human on the end of a judging insult like that. As you quote Meat Loaf - Isn't the line " will you hose me down with holy water if I get to hot" just about the best line in any rock song?
Yes, I'll bite too. I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about. Also, it doesn't help as much as you think it does. Cyclists with helmets take more risks, and drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists. It's a zero sum game: the safer you make people, the more risks they will take. Also, Chris Boardman's mum was killed while cycling (by a lorry, I think). He is tragically aware of the risks.
For years I commuted to work by bike, though no longer due to a change in duties. The key to safe cycling is safe routes in cities more than anything and few British cities have safe cycle routes. In Leicester there were a number that just disappeared at the point that they were needed, such as complex junctions and roundabouts.
Certainly there are lots of anti-social cyclists breaking the rules of the road, and also unlit in dark clothes, but we cannot base policy on them.
Why can't we have a registration scheme and insurance for cyclists over the age of 16? Mandatory uniquely numbered hi-viz tops and mandatory third party insurance for when the undertaking cyclist accidentally tears off a £500 to replace door mirror before they anonymously disappear into the ether, like a jet black lycra ghost.
Because poor people cycle, and this is yet another way for rich car drivers to shit on people just getting by.
You'll see no bikes on the road, more air pollution and more fat people.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
ha! It sounds like you deliberately set-up a rumble though ! Shall I bite? ermm - I will go this far- I have done the odd triathlon in the past and have of course worn a helmet (in the bike bit) as its the rules - fair enough. When i trained for it , I sometimes wore one and sometimes did not depending on my own risk assessment (did not actually fill in a form!) of where i was cycling. So (like facemasks ) I think it should be up to the individual to decide and I woudl have thought if Chris Boardman read your post he woudl find the name calling a bit tedious and disrespectful as would any human on the end of a judging insult like that. As you quote Meat Loaf - Isn't the line " will you hose me down with holy water if I get to hot" just about the best line in any rock song?
Yes, I'll bite too. I know a bit about Chris Boardman's position on this. Which is that if we are hoping for cycling to become the norm, like in the Netherlands, we shouldn't be putting obstacles to people cycling in place. It's not the responsibility of the cyclist to armour himself up against careless drivers. Cycling should be as unremarkable a way of getting about as walking. When Chris Boardman had this role in Mamchester, he was very deliberate that promotional material should not show helmeted cyclists, but that cycling should be a normal, unremarkable way of getting about. Also, it doesn't help as much as you think it does. Cyclists with helmets take more risks, and drivers take more risks with helmeted cyclists. It's a zero sum game: the safer you make people, the more risks they will take. Also, Chris Boardman's mum was killed while cycling (by a lorry, I think). He is tragically aware of the risks.
For years I commuted to work by bike, though no longer due to a change in duties. The key to safe cycling is safe routes in cities more than anything and few British cities have safe cycle routes. In Leicester there were a number that just disappeared at the point that they were needed, such as complex junctions and roundabouts.
Certainly there are lots of anti-social cyclists breaking the rules of the road, and also unlit in dark clothes, but we cannot base policy on them.
Why can't we have a registration scheme and insurance for cyclists over the age of 16? Mandatory uniquely numbered hi-viz tops and mandatory third party insurance for when the undertaking cyclist accidentally tears off a £500 to replace door mirror before they anonymously disappear into the ether, like a jet black lycra ghost.
Because poor people cycle, and this is yet another way for rich car drivers to shit on people just getting by.
You'll see no bikes on the road, more air pollution and more fat people.
That is not my experience, and why should the undertaking at the red traffic lights lycra clad eco-warrior leave me with a £500 bill because I didn't leave enough room between the kerb and my car? And of course he can't be caught as he negotiates the gaps in the traffic to run the red light and be on his way while we all survey the damage waiting an eternity for the light to turn green.
I didn't manage to catch the car (with registration and mandatory insurance) that knocked my wing mirror off either.
Not going to solve your issue.
(That lycra clad eco-warrior is helping to repair the damage older generations have done to the environment, and reduce strain on the NHS by keeping fit and healthy. Indeed, he's probably saved the country well over £500- model citizen )
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
If they pulled the plug, we'd link with America. Same as we long have.
We can trust, to a large extent, the five eyes nations. Not perfect (esp NZ under their current awful PM) but the alliance is generally right regardless of transient political leaders. A bit like having a permanent civil service regardless of transient politicians.
Europe ... Not so much. What does costing up with Germany achieve strategically?
You’re doing Putins job for him, coming out with tripe like that.
No, the Germans are.
The fact the Germans aren't willing to stand up to Putin, but the Americans are, means there's no real choice here.
If the Americans go, our future is with them. Or joining Germany and abandoning any pretence of standing up to Russia.
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
Pedal cycling is not motorcycling. Although I do choose to wear a helmet, this is mostly out of respect and deference to the feelings of my wife.
I've tripped over and fallen a couple of times when walking or running and I don't feel the need to wear a helmet as a pedestrian. The times when I have come off my bicycle, the helmet has made no difference at all.
We can argue all day about whether the marginal improvement in safety afforded by a bicycle helmet is worth the reduction in the number of cyclists that obsessing over helmets (and thereby the implication that cycling is more dangerous than it is). It's a handy way for motorists to distract from their role as the main cause of harm to cyclists.
Drivers pass closer to you if you're wearing a helmet, too.
- no helmet - weave erratically as if drunk - Attach child seat with child dummy - 3000 lumen rear light so the driver is blinded and unable to drive at all - at junctions sit in the middle of the road and pull away slowly so if you miss a gear you won't have a fast car right on arse
From memory, the evidence for the 'with helmets, cars pass closer' evidence is patchy.
But there's a more important point: many bike accidents happen without cars. The year before last, I came off my bike on a local road in the rain, when my adhesion was somewhat less than my ambition. And I know two people who had bad crashes on their bikes on roads with no cars directly involved, who were glad of their helmets.
Helmets work.
Agree with that - I wear mine because I seem to have rather inconsistent braking distances, huge potholes and the tram tracks.
I think the one thing I will concede to the anti-bike lobby is compulsory helmets (and lights, though that is already a rule). You can survive most other injuries.
A bell as well (AIUI all bikes have to be sold with one, but they can be removed). I rarely use my bell, but when I do it's very useful - particularly when approaching people from behind on roads or shared-use paths.
But some people are deaf, so it is not a panacea (not that you are implying that).
I regularly walk on Sustrans cycle paths(ex-railway lines). I prefer to walk on the right, because my eyesight is better than my hearing.
An acquaintance of mine brags about having managed 30 MPH sustained over a long distance on a shared use trail, an ex-railway line. IMO totally irresponsible on a shared-use path where there might be other cyclists, walkers, runners, horse riders or kids.
He's also broken many bones in several BMX crashes. As an adult...
He's a nice bloke, but when he dies 'EXTREEEEMMMMEEE' will be written on his gravestone.
The ebike idiots are trying to take over the embankments and pathways along the Thames.
The other week a moron slammed into a rowing boat that was being taken out of a club. Fortunately the boat was a training skiff, built like a battleship, so no damage was done to anything valuable.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
No chance, if the US decides it's done with NATO the UK would quickly follow suit.
I am not so sure that is true. We know that in a modern world the sorts of military threats that NATO was designed to challenge cannot generally be dealt with by one country. I suspect we would push for the rump NATO to be reconfigured and continue outside the EU structure perhaps still including Canada. There would also be the consideration that, as with the aberration that was the Trump administration, whichever President withdrew the US from NATO, would not be around for ever and that if NATO in some form still existed they could be tempted to rejoin.
NATO without the US is a wholly pointless organisation. Doesn't make sense at all for us at all. We'd be more likely to reformulate a mutual defence pact with Pacific allies and let the EU deal with Russia.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
I get how the optics are terrible in making it look like Germany is taking Russia's side on this, but should we have requested flight paths over rather heavily populated northern Germany for planes stuffed with explosives?
Surely such flights should take the least populated route, just in case? If the Germans were sending similarly loaded planes to Dublin for some reason, I'd prefer them not to fly right over London.
There were plenty of ways the Germans could have assisted, but they chose not to.
Yes, it does look like they’re taking Putin’s side, being at best ambivalent to Russia advancing right to the border of the EU and NATO, if it means the gas for German heavy industry keeps flowing.
I just realised that the story linked to isn't about our flight paths; it's about Germany blocking weapons they sold to Estonia being supplied to Ukraine.
German naval chief says "need to do more" re offering alternatives & not just ltd resources or convincing govts re human rights.
"because China is giving money whether to dictators, to killers, to criminals. It doesn’t matter -- as long as they give their resources to China" "Russia threaten its neighbors with military force to prevent them leaving the Russian sphere of influence"
In Q&A says "Putin is probably putting pressure on [Ukraine] because he can do it," to split Europe & for respect What [Putin] really wants is respect...and, my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost. So if I was asked...it is easy to even give him the respect he really demands and probably also deserves"
@tanvi_madan German naval chief: "we need Russia because we need Russia against China...From my perspective, I’m a very radical Roman Catholic. I’m believing in God & I believe in Christianity. & there we have a Christian country; even Putin, he’s an atheist but it doesn't matter" https://twitter.com/tanvi_madan/status/1484642943499649026
Completely barking.
If a GOP Senator said that we'd think it's insane even for them, let alone what's supposed to be a rational country.
It reminds me of some of the wibbling coming from No.10
And for the same reason - someone's worldview has just broken, and he can't get the pieces to fit together, again.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
We are in an energy war. Putin is about to test how far his strategy of controlling the lights across Europe has worked.
Meanwhile, we have a Government that has had ample opportunity to tap that 50% of Europe's tidal power that comes through the UK. In this energy war, we could have our own squadrons of Spitfires, in the shape of tidal lagoon power stations. We have a PM that was all in favour of them when doing his tour of the country to get elected as Conservative leader and thus PM. But now it is his Government, he has done nothing to back them.
As good a reason as any for him to go.
We also have very considerably more than our fair share of wind power and the sale of the licences for Scottish waters last week, which should ultimately double our wind energy, was a very positive step in the right direction as was the investment in battery production in the UK. So its a bit of a mixed picture.
For me, our biggest economic problem for the last 20 years has been a chronic trade deficit which is bleeding this country of its wealth and future prosperity. Its why I am very keen on domestic energy production including lagoons and domestic fracking as well as wind and solar. 3 of these also mean that we can make our global wwarming targets with less disruption. As we convert more and more vehicles to electric we are going to need a lot more power and the capacity to store it. It really is a no brainer to go for lagoon power and other internal production as the current price of international gas shows all too vividly.
Our Government invested £9 billion in putting wind and solar energy into this country.
That sucked in £14 billion in solar panels and wind turbine imports.....
In our local villages there are new houses popping up left, right and centre. None of them has a solar panel fitted at the building stage, although a very few householders have gone to the expense of getting them retrofitted. This is madness, all the more so when there's a planning application before the council to build a solar farm on a mile of agricultural land.
It's also madness to weigh the cost of tidal power against the cost of wind and solar. All three are necessary for balanced energy security. Last week was cold, calm and overcast and next week is shaping up to be the same. The call of a running tide may not be denied.
I know of some council houses in SE Scotland where they had solar panels fitted from the start.
This has been my massive bugbear for years. We build a couple of hundred thousand houses a year in the UK. Why can we not make it a planning condition that every new house has to be fitted with solar panels during the construction process? Both economies of scale and removing the need for remedial alterations to fit them would make it much cheaper than it currently is to retro-fit and if you are spending £150K or more on a new house then the additional marginal cost to the buyer is insignificant.
I don't disagree at all. But is there not a problem with contracts for solar panels? Making owner occupied houses difficult to sell etc. I have no idea how that works with the council houses (or even if those are water or electric panels).
If you front up all the cost yourself, no problem. The issue is deals where cowboys say We'll instal the panels at no cost to you and you will pay them off by paying us part of the feed in tariff
Johnson is thought to have sounded out Sir Lynton Crosby, who masterminded his two successful London mayoral campaigns. The pair fell out in 2019 in part, it was claimed, over Crosby’s concern at the “strong influence” of Johnson’s then girlfriend Carrie Symonds. Johnson is understood to have assured Crosby that if he came into government he would have a free hand to oversee the government’s political operations and would subject himself to “general election-style discipline”.
Crosby is understood to have reservations about leaving his business and is concerned that Johnson cannot be taken at his word. “Nobody thinks he would be disciplined in the long term so they’re worried about any commitment he makes,” said one source. “Changing how he operates is the number one thing he has to do. ‘It’s time to shit or get off the pot’ is how Lynton has put it to friends.” Crosby is also understood to have concerns that Johnson “may not survive” his current travails.
Is Crosby not really an expert in running electoral campaigns rather than government? A bit like Cummings in that respect. Not sure that is the answer. Boris needs a Peter Mandelson in the same way as Brown did. I am struggling to think who that could be, however. The best option would probably be Osborne but there is no chance he would do it.
Osborne ???
I know you're a fan but given his trail of fuckups and troughing ...
What you need is someone with common sense and a willingness to say NO.
You could start with seeing which Conservative MPs were opposed to the Paterson disaster.
Osborne was the key player in the coalition which gave this country excellent governance in very difficult times. He had no problem saying no either, indeed most criticisms were that he was rather too prone to do so. But its academic, he is making far too much money to be tempted back into politics.
Has anyone seen/heard any utterances from Turkey about Russia/Ukraine so far? It’s very much in their sphere of influence and not sure there is much love for the Russians from Turkey so would be interesting how they see this.
Also as a well armed NATO state they will surely have quite a lot of influence on direction.
The trick they need, is how to deliver “Levelling Up” to the new marginals, without massive amounts of public money being involved.
We saw a preview of this yesterday, with the announcement of the Blyth battery factory with £1.7bn of private money and £100m of public money, creating 3,000 direct jobs and (possibly) 5,000 indirect jobs, but there need to be many more similar projects in the next couple of years if the Conservatives are to retain these seats.
I know he’s a marmite politician, but the appointment of Gove to the ministry is an acknowledgement of the scale of the problem. He has a reputation for understanding what needs to be done, and will fight with the Treasury to make sure it happens.
Yes, Gove is the one for this. The Secretary of State for Taking Your Finger Out.
Has anyone seen/heard any utterances from Turkey about Russia/Ukraine so far? It’s very much in their sphere of influence and not sure there is much love for the Russians from Turkey so would be interesting how they see this.
Also as a well armed NATO state they will surely have quite a lot of influence on direction.
Has anyone seen/heard any utterances from Turkey about Russia/Ukraine so far? It’s very much in their sphere of influence and not sure there is much love for the Russians from Turkey so would be interesting how they see this.
Also as a well armed NATO state they will surely have quite a lot of influence on direction.
Selling TB2s to the Ukranian Air Force and Navy while setting up a Ukranian production line for them.
Time for all those who are convinced the EU is so wonderful to step up and tell us just how they can support Germany aligning with Russia against the Ukraine and the EU's own Baltic states
All the big city Boris-bike type schemes designed to get for doing more active travel or whatever it's called are a total non-starter if you're obliged to wear a helmet.
The trick they need, is how to deliver “Levelling Up” to the new marginals, without massive amounts of public money being involved.
We saw a preview of this yesterday, with the announcement of the Blyth battery factory with £1.7bn of private money and £100m of public money, creating 3,000 direct jobs and (possibly) 5,000 indirect jobs, but there need to be many more similar projects in the next couple of years if the Conservatives are to retain these seats.
I know he’s a marmite politician, but the appointment of Gove to the ministry is an acknowledgement of the scale of the problem. He has a reputation for understanding what needs to be done, and will fight with the Treasury to make sure it happens.
Yes, Gove is the one for this. The Secretary of State for Taking Your Finger Out.
I said exactly this 6 months ago. Where Boris deploys Gove tells you where his political priorities are because that is where something will happen. Its sad we have a government with so few innovative thinkers (who sometimes get it wrong of course) but that is where we are.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
We are in an energy war. Putin is about to test how far his strategy of controlling the lights across Europe has worked.
Meanwhile, we have a Government that has had ample opportunity to tap that 50% of Europe's tidal power that comes through the UK. In this energy war, we could have our own squadrons of Spitfires, in the shape of tidal lagoon power stations. We have a PM that was all in favour of them when doing his tour of the country to get elected as Conservative leader and thus PM. But now it is his Government, he has done nothing to back them.
As good a reason as any for him to go.
We also have very considerably more than our fair share of wind power and the sale of the licences for Scottish waters last week, which should ultimately double our wind energy, was a very positive step in the right direction as was the investment in battery production in the UK. So its a bit of a mixed picture.
For me, our biggest economic problem for the last 20 years has been a chronic trade deficit which is bleeding this country of its wealth and future prosperity. Its why I am very keen on domestic energy production including lagoons and domestic fracking as well as wind and solar. 3 of these also mean that we can make our global wwarming targets with less disruption. As we convert more and more vehicles to electric we are going to need a lot more power and the capacity to store it. It really is a no brainer to go for lagoon power and other internal production as the current price of international gas shows all too vividly.
Our Government invested £9 billion in putting wind and solar energy into this country.
That sucked in £14 billion in solar panels and wind turbine imports.....
In our local villages there are new houses popping up left, right and centre. None of them has a solar panel fitted at the building stage, although a very few householders have gone to the expense of getting them retrofitted. This is madness, all the more so when there's a planning application before the council to build a solar farm on a mile of agricultural land.
It's also madness to weigh the cost of tidal power against the cost of wind and solar. All three are necessary for balanced energy security. Last week was cold, calm and overcast and next week is shaping up to be the same. The call of a running tide may not be denied.
I know of some council houses in SE Scotland where they had solar panels fitted from the start.
This has been my massive bugbear for years. We build a couple of hundred thousand houses a year in the UK. Why can we not make it a planning condition that every new house has to be fitted with solar panels during the construction process? Both economies of scale and removing the need for remedial alterations to fit them would make it much cheaper than it currently is to retro-fit and if you are spending £150K or more on a new house then the additional marginal cost to the buyer is insignificant.
I don't disagree at all. But is there not a problem with contracts for solar panels? Making owner occupied houses difficult to sell etc. I have no idea how that works with the council houses (or even if those are water or electric panels).
The problem with contracts is when you lease your roof out to save having to pay the capital cost of the panels, then sell the house. It is a creature of too-generous subsidy early on.
On compulsory solar in new houses I disagree. It is a mistake to be so prescriptive. There are situations where solar panels do not work well - examples are at the base of a North-facing steep hill (eg some glens in Scotland or Stoniey Middleton or Matlock Bath in Derbyshire), potentially in a mature wooded area, or in some configurations of estate design.
It is better to have a model that allows tradeoffs as appropriate, and a high overall standard, which is what we have with the as-designed SAP procedure.
A similar method is eg to trade off bigger windows against better insulated walls - a long established approach in Building Regs.
Here's a great example of what happens when you mandate (or here, subsidise beyond the benefit provided) things. Solar panels on a Doctors near me. I'd say these were installed for the grant not the environment. Perhaps they also got a grant for the trees.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
I think we too easily attribute it mostly to worries about gas. The closer one is to the issue the more the historical complexities become apparent. Nationalist Ukranians see history as a long struggle for independence, finally achieved and now threatened once again. Nationalist Russians see Ukraine as separatists, and are baffled by talk of Crimea or East Ukraine themselves being separatists. Russians with family memories of WWII remember early Ukranian collaboration with the Nazis, and point to the toleration of armed neo-Nazi militia in Ukraine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion). Ukranians with family memories of the 30s think of Stalin's Holodomor and near-national starvation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor).
Germans are conscious of the their history of genocidal aggression against both, and are really reluctant to get involved. It's hard to blame them.
I agree. Part of the penance for their great crime is to limit their power in the world to the economic sphere. It's hardcoded.
Sure. But having power and not exercising it, or using one type of power to influence or direct others in the use of their own power, is still power of a kind, is it not?
Germany's actions and non actions both matter. I won't pretend to be sure of what they should do in their or others' interests, but sitting out, and influencing others to do so, impacts things beyond the economic sphere too.
Oh yes, I'm not opining on the practical merits of their response so far to this particular crisis. I was more just agreeing with Nick's post about it being a mistake to think they're purely or even mainly driven by their exposed position on gas.
Part of the WW2 settlement as regards Germany was, "You can rebuild as an economic powerhouse, in fact we'd like that, but you will never again throw your weight around militarily outside your borders." I think this still resonates in 2022.
On this latest conflict with Russia, I hope diplomacy plus a serious enough counterthreat will mean no invasion of Ukraine. And I see it as a conflict not with Russia but with Vladimir Putin. He's essentially a crime boss rather than a national political leader.
Of course the crunch point is this: say you have a photo of Johnson doing something embarrassing at a lockdown party. Release it today and, Sensation: photo of Johnson doing something embarrassing at a lockdown party. Gray report delayed to process new info. Release it after Gray reports, and Sensation: photo of Johnson doing something embarrassing at a lockdown party and he failed to disclose this to Gray. Sensation b has about 100x the kilotonnage of sensation a. Therefore the phoney war silence of the past 3 days is entirely compatible with Johnson being completely fucked.
He must be in agonies at the moment, being finessed over how much to tell Gray up front.
Has anyone seen/heard any utterances from Turkey about Russia/Ukraine so far? It’s very much in their sphere of influence and not sure there is much love for the Russians from Turkey so would be interesting how they see this.
Also as a well armed NATO state they will surely have quite a lot of influence on direction.
All the big city Boris-bike type schemes designed to get for doing more active travel or whatever it's called are a total non-starter if you're obliged to wear a helmet.
Of course the crunch point is this: say you have a photo of Johnson doing something embarrassing at a lockdown party. Release it today and, Sensation: photo of Johnson doing something embarrassing at a lockdown party. Gray report delayed to process new info. Release it after Gray reports, and Sensation: photo of Johnson doing something embarrassing at a lockdown party and he failed to disclose this to Gray. Sensation b has about 100x the kilotonnage of sensation a. Therefore the phoney war silence of the past 3 days is entirely compatible with Johnson being completely fucked.
He must be in agonies at the moment, being finessed over how much to tell Gray up front.
He needs to have told her it all
It will also be interesting to see if anything comes out in tomorrows papers
All the big city Boris-bike type schemes designed to get for doing more active travel or whatever it's called are a total non-starter if you're obliged to wear a helmet.
It is perfectly possible to carry a bike helmet - and useful folding ones are beginning to come on the market.
Johnson is thought to have sounded out Sir Lynton Crosby, who masterminded his two successful London mayoral campaigns. The pair fell out in 2019 in part, it was claimed, over Crosby’s concern at the “strong influence” of Johnson’s then girlfriend Carrie Symonds. Johnson is understood to have assured Crosby that if he came into government he would have a free hand to oversee the government’s political operations and would subject himself to “general election-style discipline”.
Crosby is understood to have reservations about leaving his business and is concerned that Johnson cannot be taken at his word. “Nobody thinks he would be disciplined in the long term so they’re worried about any commitment he makes,” said one source. “Changing how he operates is the number one thing he has to do. ‘It’s time to shit or get off the pot’ is how Lynton has put it to friends.” Crosby is also understood to have concerns that Johnson “may not survive” his current travails.
Is Crosby not really an expert in running electoral campaigns rather than government? A bit like Cummings in that respect. Not sure that is the answer. Boris needs a Peter Mandelson in the same way as Brown did. I am struggling to think who that could be, however. The best option would probably be Osborne but there is no chance he would do it.
Osborne ???
I know you're a fan but given his trail of fuckups and troughing ...
What you need is someone with common sense and a willingness to say NO.
You could start with seeing which Conservative MPs were opposed to the Paterson disaster.
Osborne was the key player in the coalition which gave this country excellent governance in very difficult times. He had no problem saying no either, indeed most criticisms were that he was rather too prone to do so. But its academic, he is making far too much money to be tempted back into politics.
Not full time no but Boris could make him Lord Osborne and a part time adviser.
Brown similarly only steadied the ship as PM with Lord Mandelson back in his camp as First Secretary of State
Has anyone seen/heard any utterances from Turkey about Russia/Ukraine so far? It’s very much in their sphere of influence and not sure there is much love for the Russians from Turkey so would be interesting how they see this.
Also as a well armed NATO state they will surely have quite a lot of influence on direction.
Has anyone seen/heard any utterances from Turkey about Russia/Ukraine so far? It’s very much in their sphere of influence and not sure there is much love for the Russians from Turkey so would be interesting how they see this.
Also as a well armed NATO state they will surely have quite a lot of influence on direction.
Turkey will have to back Ukraine on this, or the Black Sea will be a Russian Lake.
If you go back a century Russia / USSR was plotting to occupy the Bosporus area to gain control of the straits. But at that time they were up against the British and French Empires.
Has anyone seen/heard any utterances from Turkey about Russia/Ukraine so far? It’s very much in their sphere of influence and not sure there is much love for the Russians from Turkey so would be interesting how they see this.
Also as a well armed NATO state they will surely have quite a lot of influence on direction.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
We are in an energy war. Putin is about to test how far his strategy of controlling the lights across Europe has worked.
Meanwhile, we have a Government that has had ample opportunity to tap that 50% of Europe's tidal power that comes through the UK. In this energy war, we could have our own squadrons of Spitfires, in the shape of tidal lagoon power stations. We have a PM that was all in favour of them when doing his tour of the country to get elected as Conservative leader and thus PM. But now it is his Government, he has done nothing to back them.
As good a reason as any for him to go.
We'd be in a far better position had we started this a decade back. As you know, it's one political issue I strongly agree with you on.
Johnson is thought to have sounded out Sir Lynton Crosby, who masterminded his two successful London mayoral campaigns. The pair fell out in 2019 in part, it was claimed, over Crosby’s concern at the “strong influence” of Johnson’s then girlfriend Carrie Symonds. Johnson is understood to have assured Crosby that if he came into government he would have a free hand to oversee the government’s political operations and would subject himself to “general election-style discipline”.
Crosby is understood to have reservations about leaving his business and is concerned that Johnson cannot be taken at his word. “Nobody thinks he would be disciplined in the long term so they’re worried about any commitment he makes,” said one source. “Changing how he operates is the number one thing he has to do. ‘It’s time to shit or get off the pot’ is how Lynton has put it to friends.” Crosby is also understood to have concerns that Johnson “may not survive” his current travails.
Is Crosby not really an expert in running electoral campaigns rather than government? A bit like Cummings in that respect. Not sure that is the answer. Boris needs a Peter Mandelson in the same way as Brown did. I am struggling to think who that could be, however. The best option would probably be Osborne but there is no chance he would do it.
Osborne ???
I know you're a fan but given his trail of fuckups and troughing ...
What you need is someone with common sense and a willingness to say NO.
You could start with seeing which Conservative MPs were opposed to the Paterson disaster.
Osborne was the key player in the coalition which gave this country excellent governance in very difficult times. He had no problem saying no either, indeed most criticisms were that he was rather too prone to do so. But its academic, he is making far too much money to be tempted back into politics.
But he didn't half think he was clever, rather than a Clever Dick. He f*cked up an incredible number of things.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
No chance, if the US decides it's done with NATO the UK would quickly follow suit.
No we won't, that would be idiotic.
We would continue it with Canada, France, Poland, Turkey, Italy etc to contain Russia.
Though the Biden administration at least has committed the US to NATO again anyway
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
We are in an energy war. Putin is about to test how far his strategy of controlling the lights across Europe has worked.
Meanwhile, we have a Government that has had ample opportunity to tap that 50% of Europe's tidal power that comes through the UK. In this energy war, we could have our own squadrons of Spitfires, in the shape of tidal lagoon power stations. We have a PM that was all in favour of them when doing his tour of the country to get elected as Conservative leader and thus PM. But now it is his Government, he has done nothing to back them.
As good a reason as any for him to go.
We also have very considerably more than our fair share of wind power and the sale of the licences for Scottish waters last week, which should ultimately double our wind energy, was a very positive step in the right direction as was the investment in battery production in the UK. So its a bit of a mixed picture.
For me, our biggest economic problem for the last 20 years has been a chronic trade deficit which is bleeding this country of its wealth and future prosperity. Its why I am very keen on domestic energy production including lagoons and domestic fracking as well as wind and solar. 3 of these also mean that we can make our global wwarming targets with less disruption. As we convert more and more vehicles to electric we are going to need a lot more power and the capacity to store it. It really is a no brainer to go for lagoon power and other internal production as the current price of international gas shows all too vividly.
Our Government invested £9 billion in putting wind and solar energy into this country.
That sucked in £14 billion in solar panels and wind turbine imports.....
In our local villages there are new houses popping up left, right and centre. None of them has a solar panel fitted at the building stage, although a very few householders have gone to the expense of getting them retrofitted. This is madness, all the more so when there's a planning application before the council to build a solar farm on a mile of agricultural land.
It's also madness to weigh the cost of tidal power against the cost of wind and solar. All three are necessary for balanced energy security. Last week was cold, calm and overcast and next week is shaping up to be the same. The call of a running tide may not be denied.
I know of some council houses in SE Scotland where they had solar panels fitted from the start.
This has been my massive bugbear for years. We build a couple of hundred thousand houses a year in the UK. Why can we not make it a planning condition that every new house has to be fitted with solar panels during the construction process? Both economies of scale and removing the need for remedial alterations to fit them would make it much cheaper than it currently is to retro-fit and if you are spending £150K or more on a new house then the additional marginal cost to the buyer is insignificant.
I don't disagree at all. But is there not a problem with contracts for solar panels? Making owner occupied houses difficult to sell etc. I have no idea how that works with the council houses (or even if those are water or electric panels).
Are the council house solar panels actually set up in a way that saves the tenants money on their utility bills, or are the council simply using the roofs as real estate to maximise their own benefit from feed-in tarrifs?
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
No chance, if the US decides it's done with NATO the UK would quickly follow suit.
No we won't, that would be idiotic.
We would continue it with Canada, France, Poland, Turkey, Italy etc to contain Russia.
Though the Biden administration at least has committed the US to NATO again anyway
All the big city Boris-bike type schemes designed to get for doing more active travel or whatever it's called are a total non-starter if you're obliged to wear a helmet.
It is perfectly possible to carry a bike helmet - and useful folding ones are beginning to come on the market.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
We are in an energy war. Putin is about to test how far his strategy of controlling the lights across Europe has worked.
Meanwhile, we have a Government that has had ample opportunity to tap that 50% of Europe's tidal power that comes through the UK. In this energy war, we could have our own squadrons of Spitfires, in the shape of tidal lagoon power stations. We have a PM that was all in favour of them when doing his tour of the country to get elected as Conservative leader and thus PM. But now it is his Government, he has done nothing to back them.
As good a reason as any for him to go.
We'd be in a far better position had we started this a decade back. As you know, it's one political issue I strongly agree with you on.
Tidal barrages would be a useful addition to the power supply mix, but IMO MM is over-egging the pudding. Schemes large enough to make a massive difference are problematic and hyper-expensive in their own right.
Johnson is thought to have sounded out Sir Lynton Crosby, who masterminded his two successful London mayoral campaigns. The pair fell out in 2019 in part, it was claimed, over Crosby’s concern at the “strong influence” of Johnson’s then girlfriend Carrie Symonds. Johnson is understood to have assured Crosby that if he came into government he would have a free hand to oversee the government’s political operations and would subject himself to “general election-style discipline”.
Crosby is understood to have reservations about leaving his business and is concerned that Johnson cannot be taken at his word. “Nobody thinks he would be disciplined in the long term so they’re worried about any commitment he makes,” said one source. “Changing how he operates is the number one thing he has to do. ‘It’s time to shit or get off the pot’ is how Lynton has put it to friends.” Crosby is also understood to have concerns that Johnson “may not survive” his current travails.
Is Crosby not really an expert in running electoral campaigns rather than government? A bit like Cummings in that respect. Not sure that is the answer. Boris needs a Peter Mandelson in the same way as Brown did. I am struggling to think who that could be, however. The best option would probably be Osborne but there is no chance he would do it.
Osborne ???
I know you're a fan but given his trail of fuckups and troughing ...
What you need is someone with common sense and a willingness to say NO.
You could start with seeing which Conservative MPs were opposed to the Paterson disaster.
Osborne was the key player in the coalition which gave this country excellent governance in very difficult times. He had no problem saying no either, indeed most criticisms were that he was rather too prone to do so. But its academic, he is making far too much money to be tempted back into politics.
Osborne was the Shadow Chancellor who failed to predict a recession which happened and the Chancellor whose budgets had a habit of disintegrating from a lack of proper presentation.
And when did Osborne ever say NO to anything he wanted to do ?
As to 'excellent governance' - it did some things well and made some useful changes but it also made many mistakes and sowed the sees of other problems.
Just like every other government to varying extents.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
If they pulled the plug, we'd link with America. Same as we long have.
We can trust, to a large extent, the five eyes nations. Not perfect (esp NZ under their current awful PM) but the alliance is generally right regardless of transient political leaders. A bit like having a permanent civil service regardless of transient politicians.
Europe ... Not so much. What does costing up with Germany achieve strategically?
You’re doing Putins job for him, coming out with tripe like that.
No, the Germans are.
The fact the Germans aren't willing to stand up to Putin, but the Americans are, means there's no real choice here.
If the Americans go, our future is with them. Or joining Germany and abandoning any pretence of standing up to Russia.
The Germans have also been active in rearming Russia. Though La Baerbock is a little less supine.
Mutti Merkel's reputation is for the compost heap.
Has anyone seen/heard any utterances from Turkey about Russia/Ukraine so far? It’s very much in their sphere of influence and not sure there is much love for the Russians from Turkey so would be interesting how they see this.
Also as a well armed NATO state they will surely have quite a lot of influence on direction.
I wonder if we will start seeing the Eastern European states and theBaltics start agitating for Turkey to join the EU….
The EU doesn’t like Ergodan and what he’s doing to Turkey, but the ambition of Turkish EU membership has never gone away. It requires an awful lot of strategic thinking about Turkey’s Eastern borders though. Maybe, under a different leader in future…
Of course the crunch point is this: say you have a photo of Johnson doing something embarrassing at a lockdown party. Release it today and, Sensation: photo of Johnson doing something embarrassing at a lockdown party. Gray report delayed to process new info. Release it after Gray reports, and Sensation: photo of Johnson doing something embarrassing at a lockdown party and he failed to disclose this to Gray. Sensation b has about 100x the kilotonnage of sensation a. Therefore the phoney war silence of the past 3 days is entirely compatible with Johnson being completely fucked.
He must be in agonies at the moment, being finessed over how much to tell Gray up front.
He needs to have told her it all
It will also be interesting to see if anything comes out in tomorrows papers
I hope it doesn't, for the reasons stated. If it does I shall suspect it's a false flag op by Boris to delay Gray further.
Of course the next question on Gray's timing is: before or after pmq?
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
No chance, if the US decides it's done with NATO the UK would quickly follow suit.
No US = No NATO and the question then is - would we turn away from the defence of Europe or be part of the European alternative? I think the latter. But I also think NATO still has legs.
Of course the crunch point is this: say you have a photo of Johnson doing something embarrassing at a lockdown party. Release it today and, Sensation: photo of Johnson doing something embarrassing at a lockdown party. Gray report delayed to process new info. Release it after Gray reports, and Sensation: photo of Johnson doing something embarrassing at a lockdown party and he failed to disclose this to Gray. Sensation b has about 100x the kilotonnage of sensation a. Therefore the phoney war silence of the past 3 days is entirely compatible with Johnson being completely fucked.
He must be in agonies at the moment, being finessed over how much to tell Gray up front.
He needs to have told her it all
It will also be interesting to see if anything comes out in tomorrows papers
Even if Boris has told all - a photo would trump what was said even if it's in the report.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
I get how the optics are terrible in making it look like Germany is taking Russia's side on this, but should we have requested flight paths over rather heavily populated northern Germany for planes stuffed with explosives?
Surely such flights should take the least populated route, just in case? If the Germans were sending similarly loaded planes to Dublin for some reason, I'd prefer them not to fly right over London.
There were plenty of ways the Germans could have assisted, but they chose not to.
Yes, it does look like they’re taking Putin’s side, being at best ambivalent to Russia advancing right to the border of the EU and NATO, if it means the gas for German heavy industry keeps flowing.
I just realised that the story linked to isn't about our flight paths; it's about Germany blocking weapons they sold to Estonia being supplied to Ukraine.
German naval chief says "need to do more" re offering alternatives & not just ltd resources or convincing govts re human rights.
"because China is giving money whether to dictators, to killers, to criminals. It doesn’t matter -- as long as they give their resources to China" "Russia threaten its neighbors with military force to prevent them leaving the Russian sphere of influence"
In Q&A says "Putin is probably putting pressure on [Ukraine] because he can do it," to split Europe & for respect What [Putin] really wants is respect...and, my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost. So if I was asked...it is easy to even give him the respect he really demands and probably also deserves"
@tanvi_madan German naval chief: "we need Russia because we need Russia against China...From my perspective, I’m a very radical Roman Catholic. I’m believing in God & I believe in Christianity. & there we have a Christian country; even Putin, he’s an atheist but it doesn't matter" https://twitter.com/tanvi_madan/status/1484642943499649026
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
We are in an energy war. Putin is about to test how far his strategy of controlling the lights across Europe has worked.
Meanwhile, we have a Government that has had ample opportunity to tap that 50% of Europe's tidal power that comes through the UK. In this energy war, we could have our own squadrons of Spitfires, in the shape of tidal lagoon power stations. We have a PM that was all in favour of them when doing his tour of the country to get elected as Conservative leader and thus PM. But now it is his Government, he has done nothing to back them.
As good a reason as any for him to go.
We also have very considerably more than our fair share of wind power and the sale of the licences for Scottish waters last week, which should ultimately double our wind energy, was a very positive step in the right direction as was the investment in battery production in the UK. So its a bit of a mixed picture.
For me, our biggest economic problem for the last 20 years has been a chronic trade deficit which is bleeding this country of its wealth and future prosperity. Its why I am very keen on domestic energy production including lagoons and domestic fracking as well as wind and solar. 3 of these also mean that we can make our global wwarming targets with less disruption. As we convert more and more vehicles to electric we are going to need a lot more power and the capacity to store it. It really is a no brainer to go for lagoon power and other internal production as the current price of international gas shows all too vividly.
Our Government invested £9 billion in putting wind and solar energy into this country.
That sucked in £14 billion in solar panels and wind turbine imports.....
In our local villages there are new houses popping up left, right and centre. None of them has a solar panel fitted at the building stage, although a very few householders have gone to the expense of getting them retrofitted. This is madness, all the more so when there's a planning application before the council to build a solar farm on a mile of agricultural land.
It's also madness to weigh the cost of tidal power against the cost of wind and solar. All three are necessary for balanced energy security. Last week was cold, calm and overcast and next week is shaping up to be the same. The call of a running tide may not be denied.
I know of some council houses in SE Scotland where they had solar panels fitted from the start.
This has been my massive bugbear for years. We build a couple of hundred thousand houses a year in the UK. Why can we not make it a planning condition that every new house has to be fitted with solar panels during the construction process? Both economies of scale and removing the need for remedial alterations to fit them would make it much cheaper than it currently is to retro-fit and if you are spending £150K or more on a new house then the additional marginal cost to the buyer is insignificant.
I don't disagree at all. But is there not a problem with contracts for solar panels? Making owner occupied houses difficult to sell etc. I have no idea how that works with the council houses (or even if those are water or electric panels).
Are the council house solar panels actually set up in a way that saves the tenants money on their utility bills, or are the council simply using the roofs as real estate to maximise their own benefit from feed-in tarrifs?
No idea. I can't find anything for the houses I saw. But [edit] I assume direct feed to the tenants' leccy, as a wider look at council housing and solar panels in Scotland brought those up -
Johnson is thought to have sounded out Sir Lynton Crosby, who masterminded his two successful London mayoral campaigns. The pair fell out in 2019 in part, it was claimed, over Crosby’s concern at the “strong influence” of Johnson’s then girlfriend Carrie Symonds. Johnson is understood to have assured Crosby that if he came into government he would have a free hand to oversee the government’s political operations and would subject himself to “general election-style discipline”.
Crosby is understood to have reservations about leaving his business and is concerned that Johnson cannot be taken at his word. “Nobody thinks he would be disciplined in the long term so they’re worried about any commitment he makes,” said one source. “Changing how he operates is the number one thing he has to do. ‘It’s time to shit or get off the pot’ is how Lynton has put it to friends.” Crosby is also understood to have concerns that Johnson “may not survive” his current travails.
Is Crosby not really an expert in running electoral campaigns rather than government? A bit like Cummings in that respect. Not sure that is the answer. Boris needs a Peter Mandelson in the same way as Brown did. I am struggling to think who that could be, however. The best option would probably be Osborne but there is no chance he would do it.
Osborne ???
I know you're a fan but given his trail of fuckups and troughing ...
What you need is someone with common sense and a willingness to say NO.
You could start with seeing which Conservative MPs were opposed to the Paterson disaster.
Osborne was the key player in the coalition which gave this country excellent governance in very difficult times. He had no problem saying no either, indeed most criticisms were that he was rather too prone to do so. But its academic, he is making far too much money to be tempted back into politics.
Osborne was the Shadow Chancellor who failed to predict a recession which happened and the Chancellor whose budgets had a habit of disintegrating from a lack of proper presentation.
And when did Osborne ever say NO to anything he wanted to do ?
As to 'excellent governance' - it did some things well and made some useful changes but it also made many mistakes and sowed the sees of other problems.
Just like every other government to varying extents.
I am trying to recall any Chancellor ever who predicted a recession before it happened. Or a governor of the BoE either. It just isn't in the DNA of either the Treasury or the Bank to forecast things are going to go wrong.
Posting a bit early, before morning check going stick and non runners, I might sleep in if I get comfortable. I have fallen off horses so many times my back and hip not happy from time to time.
All three PB Racing Shrewdies tipped a winner last week, yours truly 2/4
I appreciate not every gambler loves sharing and sharing publicly. I suspect though some reading PB may be betting on horse racing regular particularly the Saturday coverage, I will be placing at least Lucky 15 today and means a degree of “due diligence” on my choices - I’m a open and honest girl I don’t mind sharing what led to my decision even if it likely a illegal mix of chemicals 😵💫
It’s my chance of contributing something back to the site actually 🙂 as I know nothing about anti tank drones, Epidemiology, chimpanzee testicles, or how 200 conservative PMs can collectively lose their spines at the same time.
My Lucky 15 today and my reasons
ASCOT - 13:45 - Stellar Magic (NAP) Secret weapon on my betting slip. Just the 4 races under rules in career so far, 2 wins at this distance.
HAYDOCK - 14:00 - Hunters Call Has form, but not like the favourite of this race, I’m betting against Tommys Oscar managing 4 in a row. I do such things sometimes. Maybe today it will work.
ASCOT - 14:55 - Amour De Nuit (LONG SHOT) Based on form in last race, and previous history for being there or thereabouts.
ASCOT - 15:35 - Amoola Gold (THE GIRLS LOST IT) Alcohol, Tranquillisers, pickled eggs, a bad back and bad night means I am overlooking its priced at 100-1? With a bit of looking into its history and there is no way it should be priced at that in this small field.
Good luck 🙋♀️
Good luck. Amour de Nuit is a non-runner btw. Hunters Call is 12 and Amoola Gold is, well, good luck.
My own tentative itv yankee is as follows but is subject to change:- Ascot 1.45 Fils d'Oudaries so against you there Ascot 2.20 Anything for Love Haydock 2.35 Empire Steel Ascot 2.55 Knight in Dubai
Anything for Love will have silly money on it from Meat Loaf mourners
My bet for today. My birthday , 21 again , so looking to win but will not make me rich. I will enjoy first football match for a while, off to see Ayr United v St Mirren in Scottish cup. Also put a small amount for nostalgia re Meat Loaf. Trixie Irish Hill 12:35 Ascot Shishkin 15:35 Ascot Galia Des Liteaux 16:05 Ascot
Single Outlaw Peter 12:58 Taunton
Good luck to all on the nags.
Happy Birthday! Go at it hard today is my advice 🥳
Has anyone seen/heard any utterances from Turkey about Russia/Ukraine so far? It’s very much in their sphere of influence and not sure there is much love for the Russians from Turkey so would be interesting how they see this.
Also as a well armed NATO state they will surely have quite a lot of influence on direction.
I wonder if we will start seeing the Eastern European states and theBaltics start agitating for Turkey to join the EU….
The EU doesn’t like Ergodan and what he’s doing to Turkey, but the ambition of Turkish EU membership has never gone away. It requires an awful lot of strategic thinking about Turkey’s Eastern borders though. Maybe, under a different leader in future…
Is what the EU is becoming a body Turkey would wish to join?
Of course the crunch point is this: say you have a photo of Johnson doing something embarrassing at a lockdown party. Release it today and, Sensation: photo of Johnson doing something embarrassing at a lockdown party. Gray report delayed to process new info. Release it after Gray reports, and Sensation: photo of Johnson doing something embarrassing at a lockdown party and he failed to disclose this to Gray. Sensation b has about 100x the kilotonnage of sensation a. Therefore the phoney war silence of the past 3 days is entirely compatible with Johnson being completely fucked.
He must be in agonies at the moment, being finessed over how much to tell Gray up front.
He needs to have told her it all
It will also be interesting to see if anything comes out in tomorrows papers
The best thing would be to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
But this is Boris Johnson we're discussing, so I expect that's unlikely.
The trouble with endemic dishonesty is that it's hard work and always at risk of collapsing anyway.
Has anyone seen/heard any utterances from Turkey about Russia/Ukraine so far? It’s very much in their sphere of influence and not sure there is much love for the Russians from Turkey so would be interesting how they see this.
Also as a well armed NATO state they will surely have quite a lot of influence on direction.
Turkey will have to back Ukraine on this, or the Black Sea will be a Russian Lake.
If you go back a century Russia / USSR was plotting to occupy the Bosporus area to gain control of the straits. But at that time they were up against the British and French Empires.
That "Donbass the heart of Russia" picture I just posted was from 1921. There's a vein (or artery?) heading Turkey's way..
After the catastrophic failures of the past two weeks, @stodge once again invites you to, as an alternative to throwing it out the window or down a toilet, release your cash by investing in a scheme which makes the South Sea Bubble look like a good idea.
Yes, it's the @stodge Saturday Patent (back by unpopular demand).
This week's equine victims guaranteed to sink faster than a Conservative poll rating are:
1.10 Ascot: WINDS OF FIRE 1.20 Lingfield: MARSH LAW 2.30 Lingfield: RESILIENCE
Have a point win or each way on these though other ways of losing your money are available.
Very funny! 🙂
You forgot to mention you tipped a winner here last week.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
No chance, if the US decides it's done with NATO the UK would quickly follow suit.
No we won't, that would be idiotic.
We would continue it with Canada, France, Poland, Turkey, Italy etc to contain Russia.
Though the Biden administration at least has committed the US to NATO again anyway
Without the US, NATO is finished
What a ridiculous statement when Putin is far more of a threat to us and Europe than Yeltsin or even Gorbachev were.
Nope, NATO would continue of course under UK, French, Canadian, Polish and Turkish and Italian leadership even if Trump returned to the White House in the 2024 US presidential election and took the US out of NATO.
Has anyone seen/heard any utterances from Turkey about Russia/Ukraine so far? It’s very much in their sphere of influence and not sure there is much love for the Russians from Turkey so would be interesting how they see this.
Also as a well armed NATO state they will surely have quite a lot of influence on direction.
Turkey will have to back Ukraine on this, or the Black Sea will be a Russian Lake.
If you go back a century Russia / USSR was plotting to occupy the Bosporus area to gain control of the straits. But at that time they were up against the British and French Empires.
That "Donbass the heart of Russia" picture I just posted was from 1921. There's a vein (or artery?) heading Turkey's way..
So at the time of the Soviet reconquest of the Ukraine? I hope that isn't eerily prophetic...
After the catastrophic failures of the past two weeks, @stodge once again invites you to, as an alternative to throwing it out the window or down a toilet, release your cash by investing in a scheme which makes the South Sea Bubble look like a good idea.
Yes, it's the @stodge Saturday Patent (back by unpopular demand).
This week's equine victims guaranteed to sink faster than a Conservative poll rating are:
1.10 Ascot: WINDS OF FIRE 1.20 Lingfield: MARSH LAW 2.30 Lingfield: RESILIENCE
Have a point win or each way on these though other ways of losing your money are available.
Very funny! 🙂
You forgot to mention you tipped a winner here last week.
And the SSB was great, for those who sold up before the peak.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
I think we too easily attribute it mostly to worries about gas. The closer one is to the issue the more the historical complexities become apparent. Nationalist Ukranians see history as a long struggle for independence, finally achieved and now threatened once again. Nationalist Russians see Ukraine as separatists, and are baffled by talk of Crimea or East Ukraine themselves being separatists. Russians with family memories of WWII remember early Ukranian collaboration with the Nazis, and point to the toleration of armed neo-Nazi militia in Ukraine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion). Ukranians with family memories of the 30s think of Stalin's Holodomor and near-national starvation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor).
Germans are conscious of the their history of genocidal aggression against both, and are really reluctant to get involved. It's hard to blame them.
Except they are getting involved to some extent - by putting roadblocks in the way if aid to Ukraine.
The fact stands that Putin is set to violate the UN Charter, again. This is not really a 'both sides' situation.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
We are in an energy war. Putin is about to test how far his strategy of controlling the lights across Europe has worked.
Meanwhile, we have a Government that has had ample opportunity to tap that 50% of Europe's tidal power that comes through the UK. In this energy war, we could have our own squadrons of Spitfires, in the shape of tidal lagoon power stations. We have a PM that was all in favour of them when doing his tour of the country to get elected as Conservative leader and thus PM. But now it is his Government, he has done nothing to back them.
As good a reason as any for him to go.
We also have very considerably more than our fair share of wind power and the sale of the licences for Scottish waters last week, which should ultimately double our wind energy, was a very positive step in the right direction as was the investment in battery production in the UK. So its a bit of a mixed picture.
For me, our biggest economic problem for the last 20 years has been a chronic trade deficit which is bleeding this country of its wealth and future prosperity. Its why I am very keen on domestic energy production including lagoons and domestic fracking as well as wind and solar. 3 of these also mean that we can make our global wwarming targets with less disruption. As we convert more and more vehicles to electric we are going to need a lot more power and the capacity to store it. It really is a no brainer to go for lagoon power and other internal production as the current price of international gas shows all too vividly.
Our Government invested £9 billion in putting wind and solar energy into this country.
That sucked in £14 billion in solar panels and wind turbine imports.....
In our local villages there are new houses popping up left, right and centre. None of them has a solar panel fitted at the building stage, although a very few householders have gone to the expense of getting them retrofitted. This is madness, all the more so when there's a planning application before the council to build a solar farm on a mile of agricultural land.
It's also madness to weigh the cost of tidal power against the cost of wind and solar. All three are necessary for balanced energy security. Last week was cold, calm and overcast and next week is shaping up to be the same. The call of a running tide may not be denied.
I know of some council houses in SE Scotland where they had solar panels fitted from the start.
This has been my massive bugbear for years. We build a couple of hundred thousand houses a year in the UK. Why can we not make it a planning condition that every new house has to be fitted with solar panels during the construction process? Both economies of scale and removing the need for remedial alterations to fit them would make it much cheaper than it currently is to retro-fit and if you are spending £150K or more on a new house then the additional marginal cost to the buyer is insignificant.
I don't disagree at all. But is there not a problem with contracts for solar panels? Making owner occupied houses difficult to sell etc. I have no idea how that works with the council houses (or even if those are water or electric panels).
Are the council house solar panels actually set up in a way that saves the tenants money on their utility bills, or are the council simply using the roofs as real estate to maximise their own benefit from feed-in tarrifs?
No idea. I can't find anything for the houses I saw. But [edit] I assume direct feed to the tenants' leccy, as a wider look at council housing and solar panels in Scotland brought those up -
Usually the way it would be set up on a rental would be the T gets the lecky, and on some occasions (in the PRS) there might be a small part compensating rise in the rent. If it was done in FIT days, the LL would get the FIT payments, which come via a special elec meter.
When I invest heavily in insulation to reduce T bills, I usually get 3-4% extra rent and we both benefit.
I know one or two innovative LLs who went in quite heavily on solar panels when you got 30-40p per unit generated, as a deliberate investment.
LLs would generally imo look rent-a-roof gift-horse schemes in the mouth and walk away a) because they are designed to make the wide-boy supplier rich not the houseowner and b) because the FIT return would be lost to the supplier, the T gets the lecky, and the landlord gets the complications.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
No chance, if the US decides it's done with NATO the UK would quickly follow suit.
I am not so sure that is true. We know that in a modern world the sorts of military threats that NATO was designed to challenge cannot generally be dealt with by one country. I suspect we would push for the rump NATO to be reconfigured and continue outside the EU structure perhaps still including Canada. There would also be the consideration that, as with the aberration that was the Trump administration, whichever President withdrew the US from NATO, would not be around for ever and that if NATO in some form still existed they could be tempted to rejoin.
NATO without the US is a wholly pointless organisation. Doesn't make sense at all for us at all. We'd be more likely to reformulate a mutual defence pact with Pacific allies and let the EU deal with Russia.
Defend the Pacific but not our own continent? This would be perverse.
Went for a walk on he beach to avoid reading the tedious cyclist-baiting that I felt certain would follow the earlier discussion. Right decision.
You saw 'cyclist-baiting'?
I saw a relatively polite discussion on the way a limited resource should be split between disparate users, and the rights and responsibilities each of those users have, and should show others.
Which is actually at the heart of much of politics.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
No chance, if the US decides it's done with NATO the UK would quickly follow suit.
No we won't, that would be idiotic.
We would continue it with Canada, France, Poland, Turkey, Italy etc to contain Russia.
Though the Biden administration at least has committed the US to NATO again anyway
Without the US, NATO is finished
What a ridiculous statement when Putin is far more of a threat to us and Europe than Yeltsin or even Gorbachev were.
Nope, NATO would continue of course under UK, French, Canadian, Polish and Turkish and Italian leadership even if Trump returned to the White House in the 2024 US presidential election and took the US out of NATO.
It would be a chaotic free for all with no shared objectives and virtually impotent - NATO it will not be
p.s. I realise that this is lighting a blue touch paper to a few of you hardiest freedom-at-all-costs folk on here who think the Meatloaf approach to control is the right example
Pedal cycling is not motorcycling. Although I do choose to wear a helmet, this is mostly out of respect and deference to the feelings of my wife.
I've tripped over and fallen a couple of times when walking or running and I don't feel the need to wear a helmet as a pedestrian. The times when I have come off my bicycle, the helmet has made no difference at all.
We can argue all day about whether the marginal improvement in safety afforded by a bicycle helmet is worth the reduction in the number of cyclists that obsessing over helmets (and thereby the implication that cycling is more dangerous than it is). It's a handy way for motorists to distract from their role as the main cause of harm to cyclists.
Drivers pass closer to you if you're wearing a helmet, too.
- no helmet - weave erratically as if drunk - Attach child seat with child dummy - 3000 lumen rear light so the driver is blinded and unable to drive at all - at junctions sit in the middle of the road and pull away slowly so if you miss a gear you won't have a fast car right on arse
From memory, the evidence for the 'with helmets, cars pass closer' evidence is patchy.
But there's a more important point: many bike accidents happen without cars. The year before last, I came off my bike on a local road in the rain, when my adhesion was somewhat less than my ambition. And I know two people who had bad crashes on their bikes on roads with no cars directly involved, who were glad of their helmets.
Helmets work.
Agree with that - I wear mine because I seem to have rather inconsistent braking distances, huge potholes and the tram tracks.
I think the one thing I will concede to the anti-bike lobby is compulsory helmets (and lights, though that is already a rule). You can survive most other injuries.
A bell as well (AIUI all bikes have to be sold with one, but they can be removed). I rarely use my bell, but when I do it's very useful - particularly when approaching people from behind on roads or shared-use paths.
But some people are deaf, so it is not a panacea (not that you are implying that).
I regularly walk on Sustrans cycle paths(ex-railway lines). I prefer to walk on the right, because my eyesight is better than my hearing.
An acquaintance of mine brags about having managed 30 MPH sustained over a long distance on a shared use trail, an ex-railway line. IMO totally irresponsible on a shared-use path where there might be other cyclists, walkers, runners, horse riders or kids.
He's also broken many bones in several BMX crashes. As an adult...
He's a nice bloke, but when he dies 'EXTREEEEMMMMEEE' will be written on his gravestone.
Emphasis on the “MEEE” which is what it’s all about
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
The demise of NATO is about as prophesied as the demise of the EU.
In the case of NATO, there is already a number of examples where members.... er... drop out? for various crises when they feel like it.
There has been no attack from an foreign state yet on any part of NATO territory within the area covered by the agreement. That is a massive success and a huge strength, making NATO value for money among other things.
Then demise of the EU while unlikely is more possible than that of NATO. The EU members of what looks like an EU state but isn't do not have common defence alliances. What, for example, would be German policy following a Russian incursion into Finland is complete guesswork.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
I think we too easily attribute it mostly to worries about gas. The closer one is to the issue the more the historical complexities become apparent. Nationalist Ukranians see history as a long struggle for independence, finally achieved and now threatened once again. Nationalist Russians see Ukraine as separatists, and are baffled by talk of Crimea or East Ukraine themselves being separatists. Russians with family memories of WWII remember early Ukranian collaboration with the Nazis, and point to the toleration of armed neo-Nazi militia in Ukraine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion). Ukranians with family memories of the 30s think of Stalin's Holodomor and near-national starvation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor).
Germans are conscious of the their history of genocidal aggression against both, and are really reluctant to get involved. It's hard to blame them.
I agree. Part of the penance for their great crime is to limit their power in the world to the economic sphere. It's hardcoded.
Sure. But having power and not exercising it, or using one type of power to influence or direct others in the use of their own power, is still power of a kind, is it not?
Germany's actions and non actions both matter. I won't pretend to be sure of what they should do in their or others' interests, but sitting out, and influencing others to do so, impacts things beyond the economic sphere too.
...On this latest conflict with Russia, I hope diplomacy plus a serious enough counterthreat will mean no invasion of Ukraine. And I see it as a conflict not with Russia but with Vladimir Putin. He's essentially a crime boss rather than a national political leader.
The counterthreat would carry more weight were Germany to back its allies. They are making conflict more, not less likely IMO.
Of course the crunch point is this: say you have a photo of Johnson doing something embarrassing at a lockdown party. Release it today and, Sensation: photo of Johnson doing something embarrassing at a lockdown party. Gray report delayed to process new info. Release it after Gray reports, and Sensation: photo of Johnson doing something embarrassing at a lockdown party and he failed to disclose this to Gray. Sensation b has about 100x the kilotonnage of sensation a. Therefore the phoney war silence of the past 3 days is entirely compatible with Johnson being completely fucked.
He must be in agonies at the moment, being finessed over how much to tell Gray up front.
Wonder how Sue Gray is feeling. Enjoying this or feeling stressed and put upon?
Posting a bit early, before morning check going stick and non runners, I might sleep in if I get comfortable. I have fallen off horses so many times my back and hip not happy from time to time.
All three PB Racing Shrewdies tipped a winner last week, yours truly 2/4
I appreciate not every gambler loves sharing and sharing publicly. I suspect though some reading PB may be betting on horse racing regular particularly the Saturday coverage, I will be placing at least Lucky 15 today and means a degree of “due diligence” on my choices - I’m a open and honest girl I don’t mind sharing what led to my decision even if it likely a illegal mix of chemicals 😵💫
It’s my chance of contributing something back to the site actually 🙂 as I know nothing about anti tank drones, Epidemiology, chimpanzee testicles, or how 200 conservative PMs can collectively lose their spines at the same time.
My Lucky 15 today and my reasons
ASCOT - 13:45 - Stellar Magic (NAP) Secret weapon on my betting slip. Just the 4 races under rules in career so far, 2 wins at this distance.
HAYDOCK - 14:00 - Hunters Call Has form, but not like the favourite of this race, I’m betting against Tommys Oscar managing 4 in a row. I do such things sometimes. Maybe today it will work.
ASCOT - 14:55 - Amour De Nuit (LONG SHOT) Based on form in last race, and previous history for being there or thereabouts.
ASCOT - 15:35 - Amoola Gold (THE GIRLS LOST IT) Alcohol, Tranquillisers, pickled eggs, a bad back and bad night means I am overlooking its priced at 100-1? With a bit of looking into its history and there is no way it should be priced at that in this small field.
Good luck 🙋♀️
Good luck. Amour de Nuit is a non-runner btw. Hunters Call is 12 and Amoola Gold is, well, good luck.
My own tentative itv yankee is as follows but is subject to change:- Ascot 1.45 Fils d'Oudaries so against you there Ascot 2.20 Anything for Love Haydock 2.35 Empire Steel Ascot 2.55 Knight in Dubai
Thanks for mentioning the NR John.
I’ve gone with a clown to complete my Luck15. I might just leave it at that today as I can’t get my head round it. 🥱
But adding your itv Yankee to the usual Shrewdies there’s plenty of 🐎 tips in this thread today 🙂
I don't disagree with the historical complexities Nick but the fact is that a pusillaminous Germany is very likely to cause a hot war to break out in central Europe. If Germany was clear that the EU would back the Ukraine whatever it takes, SWIFT, munitions etc, it would be much less likely to happen. Of course Biden wittering about minor incursions being ok doesn't exactly help either.
Yes, Biden's comment was weird and dangerous - I can't imagine what he was thinking.
That said, the Russian strategic paranoia (which I think goes far beyond Putin's circle) is that the West wants to have an armed presence right up to their (shrunken) border, and they correctly note that Gorbachev was assured that we wouldn't expand Nato eastwards, and then we did it anyway. If we shovel weapons into Ukraine (which are hardly going to make a difference if Russia really does invade) and refuse to promise not to add Ukraine to Nato, it feeds the paranoia.
I absolutely think Nordstream should not be opened before the Russians pull back, and if they do it should be clear that it will be closed again if they resume menacing behaviour. But I don't think sending arms is sensible - the threat of economic sanctions, just starting with Nordstream, should be both more effective and less inflammatory. It would be good if Germany said that Nordstream will *never* be opened (not merely delayed) if Russia attacks Ukraine, but otherwise the German policy looks about right.
Basically its a mess. The Greens are constitutionally opposed to the deployment of German weapons abroad. The US is getting seriously impatient with both the Secretary of State and the head of the CIA delivering increasingly blunt messages. The Chancellor seems out of his depth and more focused on divisions in the SPD. The Germans are still dependent upon Russia for 45% of their gas. They have no LPG port and the Greens have serious reservations about importing gas gained from fracking anyway.
Leaderless, policy free, trying to please everyone but in fact pleasing no one.
I think we too easily attribute it mostly to worries about gas. The closer one is to the issue the more the historical complexities become apparent. Nationalist Ukranians see history as a long struggle for independence, finally achieved and now threatened once again. Nationalist Russians see Ukraine as separatists, and are baffled by talk of Crimea or East Ukraine themselves being separatists. Russians with family memories of WWII remember early Ukranian collaboration with the Nazis, and point to the toleration of armed neo-Nazi militia in Ukraine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion). Ukranians with family memories of the 30s think of Stalin's Holodomor and near-national starvation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor).
Germans are conscious of the their history of genocidal aggression against both, and are really reluctant to get involved. It's hard to blame them.
Except they are getting involved to some extent - by putting roadblocks in the way if aid to Ukraine.
The fact stands that Putin is set to violate the UN Charter, again. This is not really a 'both sides' situation.
It reminds me of the Yugoslav wars - since the Serbians inherited much of the equipment of the Yugoslav Army, they were winning.
Thatcher was told, by the "diplomacy experts" that supplying are to the Croats etc would just be "Levelling the killing field".
So the futile talks carried on, while more and more territory was seized and more and more "ethnic cleansing" went on.
More importantly, what are the Baltics, Poland, Romania et al thinking of Germany, the EU and NATO right now?
This is becoming a very serious and divisive crisis for the EU
The EU has no security responsibility for the territorial integrity of member states because that's what Madeline Albright insisted on with the famous 'Three Ds' when she laid down the law to Blair and Chirac.
This crisis is just another crooked milestone, like Afghanistan and Trump's second term, on the road to the demise of NATO.
If NATO were wound down there'd need to be a Common European Defence capability, wouldn't there?
"NATO without the US and UK" is an interesting concept.
It's just the US, really, isn't it. If they pulled the plug I think we'd link with Europe. Can't see how we wouldn't. Not that I'm agreeing NATO is toast btw. I remain bullish on America detrumping and pulling itself together.
If they pulled the plug, we'd link with America. Same as we long have.
We can trust, to a large extent, the five eyes nations. Not perfect (esp NZ under their current awful PM) but the alliance is generally right regardless of transient political leaders. A bit like having a permanent civil service regardless of transient politicians.
Europe ... Not so much. What does costing up with Germany achieve strategically?
Went for a walk on he beach to avoid reading the tedious cyclist-baiting that I felt certain would follow the earlier discussion. Right decision.
You saw 'cyclist-baiting'?
I saw a relatively polite discussion on the way a limited resource should be split between disparate users, and the rights and responsibilities each of those users have, and should show others.
Which is actually at the heart of much of politics.
Yes, the "what lights" and "the rest were on the pavement". Silliness, really, in response to an honest quantification of the problem.
Comments
What I see on a daily basis out of the three groups, drivers by far do the most aggressive and dangerous acts. Pedestrians are the next biggest group of people doing stupid things (usually not aggressive, but just looking at their phones while walking into traffic), then cyclists.
I am absolutely certain that the minority of drivers who drive dangerously with cyclists change their behaviour depending on the type of cyclist - since I cycle with a bakfiets type bicycle with a hefty wooden box in front I almost never experience drivers deliberately cutting me up - something that happened at least once every day before even when I had a small child in a child seat on the bicycle. I just assume they are more careful with the cargo bike because they don't want a big dent in their Audi.
This also chimes very much with my experience:
https://www.autoblog.com/2020/02/03/men-who-are-jerks-and-who-break-traffic-laws-prefer-high-status-cars-study-says/
@tanvi_madan
German naval chief: "we need Russia because we need Russia against China...From my perspective, I’m a very radical Roman Catholic. I’m believing in God & I believe in Christianity. & there we have a Christian country; even Putin, he’s an atheist but it doesn't matter"
https://twitter.com/tanvi_madan/status/1484642943499649026
Apparently there have already been collisions with people have the temerity to be cycling in the other direction....
It is remarkable how much of the time, a tiny minority fucks it up for everyone else.
Mind you, before the cycle lanes were put in, there was a design for having two cycles lanes, one for each direction. But apparently the planners didn't think that looked nice or something.
I know you're a fan but given his trail of fuckups and troughing ...
What you need is someone with common sense and a willingness to say NO.
You could start with seeing which Conservative MPs were opposed to the Paterson disaster.
It won't be as integrated as NATO for a long time. The PESCO structure has different functional areas led by individual member states (Lithuania do Cyber, Germany does medical, Netherlands does transport, etc.) and other members can participate or not as they wish in those areas.
Not going to solve your issue.
(That lycra clad eco-warrior is helping to repair the damage older generations have done to the environment, and reduce strain on the NHS by keeping fit and healthy. Indeed, he's probably saved the country well over £500- model citizen
One thing that unites Poles of my acquaintance, is that when dealing with the Russian issue, they don't trust Germany.
For normal people without hearing loss, AIUI, bone conduction through the skin tends to lose the high frequencies. The sound quality is unlikely to be as good as decent over-ear headphones.
Germany's actions and non actions both matter. I won't pretend to be sure of what they should do in their or others' interests, but sitting out, and influencing others to do so, impacts things beyond the economic sphere too.
It trips over an interesting point in that Ukraine's best hope might be for China to move a few troops about or sail some warships past Siberia. Russia is very, very big so it cannot concentrate its forces against Europe and China at the same time.
We saw a preview of this yesterday, with the announcement of the Blyth battery factory with £1.7bn of private money and £100m of public money, creating 3,000 direct jobs and (possibly) 5,000 indirect jobs, but there need to be many more similar projects in the next couple of years if the Conservatives are to retain these seats.
I know he’s a marmite politician, but the appointment of Gove to the ministry is an acknowledgement of the scale of the problem. He has a reputation for understanding what needs to be done, and will fight with the Treasury to make sure it happens.
He's also broken many bones in several BMX crashes. As an adult...
He's a nice bloke, but when he dies 'EXTREEEEMMMMEEE' will be written on his gravestone.
If German Russophilia is a security and strategic problem it's one for NATO not (yet) one for the EU.
We can trust, to a large extent, the five eyes nations. Not perfect (esp NZ under their current awful PM) but the alliance is generally right regardless of transient political leaders. A bit like having a permanent civil service regardless of transient politicians.
Europe ... Not so much. What does costing up with Germany achieve strategically?
The reason that the Baltics, Poland etc are turning to the US, is that they get troops on the ground, weapons etc. Plus the implied menace of x metric tons of Plutonium in the background. Tangibles.
The fact the Germans aren't willing to stand up to Putin, but the Americans are, means there's no real choice here.
If the Americans go, our future is with them. Or joining Germany and abandoning any pretence of standing up to Russia.
The other week a moron slammed into a rowing boat that was being taken out of a club. Fortunately the boat was a training skiff, built like a battleship, so no damage was done to anything valuable.
And for the same reason - someone's worldview has just broken, and he can't get the pieces to fit together, again.
Also as a well armed NATO state they will surely have quite a lot of influence on direction.
Come on @Scott_P and @Roger
On compulsory solar in new houses I disagree. It is a mistake to be so prescriptive. There are situations where solar panels do not work well - examples are at the base of a North-facing steep hill (eg some glens in Scotland or Stoniey Middleton or Matlock Bath in Derbyshire), potentially in a mature wooded area, or in some configurations of estate design.
It is better to have a model that allows tradeoffs as appropriate, and a high overall standard, which is what we have with the as-designed SAP procedure.
A similar method is eg to trade off bigger windows against better insulated walls - a long established approach in Building Regs.
Here's a great example of what happens when you mandate (or here, subsidise beyond the benefit provided) things. Solar panels on a Doctors near me. I'd say these were installed for the grant not the environment. Perhaps they also got a grant for the trees.
How quickly could we set up a AUKUSUA military training camp near the Donbas?
I was just looking it up to see if it was one s or two and saw this.. "Donbass is the heart of Russia". Looks a little low for a heart.
Who would be a policeman?
https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1484818508282314756
It is NATO's job to contain Russia and Australia is not even in NATO
Part of the WW2 settlement as regards Germany was, "You can rebuild as an economic powerhouse, in fact we'd like that, but you will never again throw your weight around militarily outside your borders." I think this still resonates in 2022.
On this latest conflict with Russia, I hope diplomacy plus a serious enough counterthreat will mean no invasion of Ukraine. And I see it as a conflict not with Russia but with Vladimir Putin. He's essentially a crime boss rather than a national political leader.
"Update: Sue Gray report doesn’t seem to be ready for Monday - though could come any other day next week, according to sources"
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1484653055576625153
Of course the crunch point is this: say you have a photo of Johnson doing something embarrassing at a lockdown party. Release it today and, Sensation: photo of Johnson doing something embarrassing at a lockdown party. Gray report delayed to process new info. Release it after Gray reports, and Sensation: photo of Johnson doing something embarrassing at a lockdown party and he failed to disclose this to Gray. Sensation b has about 100x the kilotonnage of sensation a. Therefore the phoney war silence of the past 3 days is entirely compatible with Johnson being completely fucked.
He must be in agonies at the moment, being finessed over how much to tell Gray up front.
Helmet laws are a last redoubt of anti-cyclists.
It will also be interesting to see if anything comes out in tomorrows papers
Brown similarly only steadied the ship as PM with Lord Mandelson back in his camp as First Secretary of State
If you go back a century Russia / USSR was plotting to occupy the Bosporus area to gain control of the straits. But at that time they were up against the British and French Empires.
As you know, it's one political issue I strongly agree with you on.
We would continue it with Canada, France, Poland, Turkey, Italy etc to contain Russia.
Though the Biden administration at least has committed the US to NATO again anyway
And when did Osborne ever say NO to anything he wanted to do ?
As to 'excellent governance' - it did some things well and made some useful changes but it also made many mistakes and sowed the sees of other problems.
Just like every other government to varying extents.
Mutti Merkel's reputation is for the compost heap.
Of course the next question on Gray's timing is: before or after pmq?
https://www.north-ayrshire.gov.uk/housing/information-for-tenants/repairs-and-adaptations/solar-panels.aspx
https://www.changeworks.org.uk/projects/bringing-renewable-technology-to-gorebridge-and-dalkeith
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/new-eco-friendly-council-houses-25489025
Is this general in the UK or a Scottish thing?
But this is Boris Johnson we're discussing, so I expect that's unlikely.
The trouble with endemic dishonesty is that it's hard work and always at risk of collapsing anyway.
Right decision.
You forgot to mention you tipped a winner here last week.
Nope, NATO would continue of course under UK, French, Canadian, Polish and Turkish and Italian leadership even if Trump returned to the White House in the 2024 US presidential election and took the US out of NATO.
The fact stands that Putin is set to violate the UN Charter, again. This is not really a 'both sides' situation.
When I invest heavily in insulation to reduce T bills, I usually get 3-4% extra rent and we both benefit.
I know one or two innovative LLs who went in quite heavily on solar panels when you got 30-40p per unit generated, as a deliberate investment.
LLs would generally imo look rent-a-roof gift-horse schemes in the mouth and walk away a) because they are designed to make the wide-boy supplier rich not the houseowner and b) because the FIT return would be lost to the supplier, the T gets the lecky, and the landlord gets the complications.
I saw a relatively polite discussion on the way a limited resource should be split between disparate users, and the rights and responsibilities each of those users have, and should show others.
Which is actually at the heart of much of politics.
Then demise of the EU while unlikely is more possible than that of NATO. The EU members of what looks like an EU state but isn't do not have common defence alliances. What, for example, would be German policy following a Russian incursion into Finland is complete guesswork.
They are making conflict more, not less likely IMO.
I’ve gone with a clown to complete my Luck15. I might just leave it at that today as I can’t get my head round it. 🥱
But adding your itv Yankee to the usual Shrewdies there’s plenty of 🐎 tips in this thread today 🙂
ASCOT - 14:55 - Killer Clown
That said, the Russian strategic paranoia (which I think goes far beyond Putin's circle) is that the West wants to have an armed presence right up to their (shrunken) border, and they correctly note that Gorbachev was assured that we wouldn't expand Nato eastwards, and then we did it anyway. If we shovel weapons into Ukraine (which are hardly going to make a difference if Russia really does invade) and refuse to promise not to add Ukraine to Nato, it feeds the paranoia.
I absolutely think Nordstream should not be opened before the Russians pull back, and if they do it should be clear that it will be closed again if they resume menacing behaviour. But I don't think sending arms is sensible - the threat of economic sanctions, just starting with Nordstream, should be both more effective and less inflammatory. It would be good if Germany said that Nordstream will *never* be opened (not merely delayed) if Russia attacks Ukraine, but otherwise the German policy looks about right.
Thatcher was told, by the "diplomacy experts" that supplying are to the Croats etc would just be "Levelling the killing field".
So the futile talks carried on, while more and more territory was seized and more and more "ethnic cleansing" went on.