The Good Week/Bad Week Index (GWBWI) is designed to remove partiality from analysing council by-election results. By using figures for the council balance, each party's strength, and history in the ward, we can produce a numerical value how 'important' a ward is to each party. Combining this with the results of the election, we can calculate a numerical value for how well each party has done.
Council By-Elections, 16/6/22
GWBWI
Lab +109 Con +92 LDm +34 Grn -7
The Adjusted Seat Value (ASV) is calculated by dividing the GWBWI by the base value of a seat to the defending party. Based on historical by-elections, this base value is assessed as 60.
ASV
Lab: +1.82 Con: +1.53 LDm: +0.57 Grn: -0.12
It’s Jim Doyle’s GloopyWoopy algorithm!
This is what we have been waiting for a bit of perspective on yesterdays raw vote and seat changes.
Fantastic! 👍🏻
And it seems to perfectly back up Slades “on the night” summoning up “is that it. Boring week.” 😆
The Good Week/Bad Week Index (GWBWI) is designed to remove partiality from analysing council by-election results. By using figures for the council balance, each party's strength, and history in the ward, we can produce a numerical value how 'important' a ward is to each party. Combining this with the results of the election, we can calculate a numerical value for how well each party has done.
Council By-Elections, 16/6/22
GWBWI
Lab +109 Con +92 LDm +34 Grn -7
The Adjusted Seat Value (ASV) is calculated by dividing the GWBWI by the base value of a seat to the defending party. Based on historical by-elections, this base value is assessed as 60.
ASV
Lab: +1.82 Con: +1.53 LDm: +0.57 Grn: -0.12
It’s Jim Doyle’s GloopyWoopy algorithm!
This is what we have been waiting for a bit of perspective on yesterdays raw vote and seat changes.
Fantastic! 👍🏻
And it seems to perfectly back up Slades “on the night” summoning up “is that it. Boring week.” 😆
"Trust in BBC News has fallen 20 percentage points in the last five years, from 75% to 55%. Equally telling is the proportion who say they distrust the BBC, which has grown from 11% to 26% (see next chart). The majority of these are from the political right, echoing criticism from Boris Johnson’s government about an alleged anti-Brexit and liberal bias, but we also find that low trust in the BBC also comes from those who are less interested in news altogether.
It is important to note that other big brands in the UK (e.g. the Guardian and the Mail) have been affected by growing levels of distrust, though not as severely. Declining trust is a particular challenge for public media organisations, as they try to fulfil their mission to appeal to all audiences."
It seems to me that the news itself in generally accurate and fairly cautious. The untrustworthiness is more in story selection and in the tone of surrounding commentary.
To give two examples. It constantly - every day - promotes comment and 'awareness raising' from people and groups who want to spend more taxpayers money on something and rarely do the opposite.
Secondly it rarely counteracts the lazy assumption that government is there to blame for everything. My favourite example, which crops up all the time, is that to the BBC everything good about health care is down to something called the NHS. Everything bad about it is down to 'the government'.
Positive covid test this morning - it's finally caught up with me. Feel like sh*t too.
Hey ho.
Rest and drink lots of water. Battling through it is really not the best plan.
Thanks David, I'll do that. Helped by the fact that Mrs P. has a bit of sympathy now that she's seen the test result she knows it's not just man flu.
She's off to buy me a tin of Heinz Tomato Soup - nowadays a terrible ultra-processed food, no doubt, but my childhood comfort blanket for every kind of minor sickness :-)
Hope you get better soon. I had it last week. Two days of feeling a bit crap then fine so not to worry too much.
It didn't seem to matter if I rested or not. It's just a case of the virus working through your body. Was the faintest of faint lines for a while (days 5-7) but cleared up completely day 8.
Interesting, thanks.
I had a negative test on Tuesday, even though I felt crap. The test I did this morning though left a very deep bold T line - no doubts at all. And no surprise tbh.
I don't need to work so I am just putting my feet up and enjoying the weather. Could be a lot worse.
Sorry to hear about the positive covid test. I've heard of a few recently.
Incidentally, where are people getting tests from? I keep hearing people say 'but I tested negative so all good' or 'weirdly tested positive, no symptoms'
Are people still testing themselves all the time? With stockpiled tests?
Incidentally, where are people getting tests from? I keep hearing people say 'but I tested negative so all good' or 'weirdly tested positive, no symptoms'
Are people still testing themselves all the time? With stockpiled tests?
I have half a dozen or so left over from my last free box, which I expect to be enough to test if and when I get covid-ish symptoms for at least the next year or so. I was never doing regular tests even when test kits were handed out free.
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
That is unique about Johnson. His is a campaigning style of boosterish optimism. He will piss on you and tell you it is raining, then shit on you and tell you it is powerful fertiliser for growth. Some people are quite willing to believe lies, even when they know they are lies. It is sometimes rather painful to face the truth.
"Net Zero" is a great objective, but a very poor slogan. The policy can be sold, but needs an optimistic spin: Clean air, energy independence, well paid green jobs in manufacturing and engineering, a protected countyside and healthier cities for the good life.
Indeed "The Good Life" is a better slogan, and one that mite appeal to Boomers as well as Millenials, for different reasons.
The best way to sell the policy, surely, is to get rid of the hard target and rely on persuasion rather than diktat.
That hasn’t worked already.
It is the hard target that has driven the enthusiasm for electric vehicles, with many new models on the way. Vehicle manufacturers want to stay in business after 2030.
Fuel taxes, road tax based on Co2 production, ULEZ etc is what governments have done to help with the switch.
Its driven enthusiasm for electric cars among the rich. Most car owners cannot afford an electric vehicle whether they want one or not. Much less afford to run one, given rocketing electricity prices.
And this is my point. The privations the electorate will endure over the next 12 months are acute, but they are as nothing compared to what voters will have to endure going forward.
We are going back to the 1920s, when few travelled abroad, had central heating or had their own motorised transport.
What next, a return to outside toilets?
The cost of electricity to "fill up" an electric vehicle is vastly less than the price of the petrol for an equivalent ICE vehicle.
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
That is unique about Johnson. His is a campaigning style of boosterish optimism. He will piss on you and tell you it is raining, then shit on you and tell you it is powerful fertiliser for growth. Some people are quite willing to believe lies, even when they know they are lies. It is sometimes rather painful to face the truth.
"Net Zero" is a great objective, but a very poor slogan. The policy can be sold, but needs an optimistic spin: Clean air, energy independence, well paid green jobs in manufacturing and engineering, a protected countyside and healthier cities for the good life.
Indeed "The Good Life" is a better slogan, and one that mite appeal to Boomers as well as Millenials, for different reasons.
The best way to sell the policy, surely, is to get rid of the hard target and rely on persuasion rather than diktat.
That hasn’t worked already.
It is the hard target that has driven the enthusiasm for electric vehicles, with many new models on the way. Vehicle manufacturers want to stay in business after 2030.
Fuel taxes, road tax based on Co2 production, ULEZ etc is what governments have done to help with the switch.
Its driven enthusiasm for electric car among the rich. Most car owners cannot afford an electric vehicle whether they want one or not. Much less afford to run one, given rocketing electricity prices.
This is 50% true (I find the car makers’ obsession with expensive electric SUVs deeply annoying). I wanted to go electric this time round but got a super efficient petrol due to the cost of new EVs. The other half is rot.
Even if you exclusively use public charging the RAC estimate an EV is 50% cheaper to fuel per mile than an ICE car. It’s cheaper than that if you charge at home, and once the government unpegs electric prices from gas prices it’ll drop further (and if they cut VAT on public leccy). EVs are now at parity with ICE cars in the premium segment at least. There’s no reason to buy an ICE 4 series over an i4 because the fuel savings exceed the increase in your finance payment (and you pay less tax). Heck it’s barely more expensive than a similarly specced 4 series diesel. EVs are slowly becoming adopted because they’re a sensible financial choice if you can afford the balloon payment.
And that's where we are now. EVs are going to get cheaper as more battery factories are built, and battery chemistries and designs improve (which they do incrementally, and then every half decade, markedly).
The installation of charging points at workplaces will increase as EV ownership increases - and fitting low powered chargers at home is quite easy and relatively cheap, even if not possible for everyone.
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
That is unique about Johnson. His is a campaigning style of boosterish optimism. He will piss on you and tell you it is raining, then shit on you and tell you it is powerful fertiliser for growth. Some people are quite willing to believe lies, even when they know they are lies. It is sometimes rather painful to face the truth.
"Net Zero" is a great objective, but a very poor slogan. The policy can be sold, but needs an optimistic spin: Clean air, energy independence, well paid green jobs in manufacturing and engineering, a protected countyside and healthier cities for the good life.
Indeed "The Good Life" is a better slogan, and one that mite appeal to Boomers as well as Millenials, for different reasons.
The best way to sell the policy, surely, is to get rid of the hard target and rely on persuasion rather than diktat.
That hasn’t worked already.
It is the hard target that has driven the enthusiasm for electric vehicles, with many new models on the way. Vehicle manufacturers want to stay in business after 2030.
Fuel taxes, road tax based on Co2 production, ULEZ etc is what governments have done to help with the switch.
Its driven enthusiasm for electric car among the rich. Most car owners cannot afford an electric vehicle whether they want one or not. Much less afford to run one, given rocketing electricity prices.
This is 50% true (I find the car makers’ obsession with expensive electric SUVs deeply annoying). I wanted to go electric this time round but got a super efficient petrol due to the cost of new EVs. The other half is rot.
Even if you exclusively use public charging the RAC estimate an EV is 50% cheaper to fuel per mile than an ICE car. It’s cheaper than that if you charge at home, and once the government unpegs electric prices from gas prices it’ll drop further (and if they cut VAT on public leccy). EVs are now at parity with ICE cars in the premium segment at least. There’s no reason to buy an ICE 4 series over an i4 because the fuel savings exceed the increase in your finance payment (and you pay less tax). Heck it’s barely more expensive than a similarly specced 4 series diesel. EVs are slowly becoming adopted because they’re a sensible financial choice if you can afford the balloon payment.
Although, of course, estimates of fuel savings will depend on annual mileage vs depreciation. A low-mileage expensive new EV will almost certainly cost more. On the other hand the convenience of charging at home would be a useful bonus. Petrol stations as we know them will gradually dwindle and eventually disappear. People who need to will charge up in a supermarket or public car park while shopping or eating. Petrol vapour and electric sparks are an undesirable combination so there's no way existing sites can adapt. They have valuable, prominent positions on arterial roads and they'll be redeveloped for some other use.
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
That is unique about Johnson. His is a campaigning style of boosterish optimism. He will piss on you and tell you it is raining, then shit on you and tell you it is powerful fertiliser for growth. Some people are quite willing to believe lies, even when they know they are lies. It is sometimes rather painful to face the truth.
"Net Zero" is a great objective, but a very poor slogan. The policy can be sold, but needs an optimistic spin: Clean air, energy independence, well paid green jobs in manufacturing and engineering, a protected countyside and healthier cities for the good life.
Indeed "The Good Life" is a better slogan, and one that mite appeal to Boomers as well as Millenials, for different reasons.
The best way to sell the policy, surely, is to get rid of the hard target and rely on persuasion rather than diktat.
That hasn’t worked already.
It is the hard target that has driven the enthusiasm for electric vehicles, with many new models on the way. Vehicle manufacturers want to stay in business after 2030.
Fuel taxes, road tax based on Co2 production, ULEZ etc is what governments have done to help with the switch.
Its driven enthusiasm for electric car among the rich. Most car owners cannot afford an electric vehicle whether they want one or not. Much less afford to run one, given rocketing electricity prices.
This is 50% true (I find the car makers’ obsession with expensive electric SUVs deeply annoying). I wanted to go electric this time round but got a super efficient petrol due to the cost of new EVs. The other half is rot.
Even if you exclusively use public charging the RAC estimate an EV is 50% cheaper to fuel per mile than an ICE car. It’s cheaper than that if you charge at home, and once the government unpegs electric prices from gas prices it’ll drop further (and if they cut VAT on public leccy). EVs are now at parity with ICE cars in the premium segment at least. There’s no reason to buy an ICE 4 series over an i4 because the fuel savings exceed the increase in your finance payment (and you pay less tax). Heck it’s barely more expensive than a similarly specced 4 series diesel. EVs are slowly becoming adopted because they’re a sensible financial choice if you can afford the balloon payment.
And that's where we are now. EVs are going to get cheaper as more battery factories are built, and battery chemistries and designs improve (which they do incrementally, and then every half decade, markedly).
The installation of charging points at workplaces will increase as EV ownership increases - and fitting low powered chargers at home is quite easy and relatively cheap, even if not possible for everyone.
The charger issue makes properties with off-road parking even more attractive.
Positive covid test this morning - it's finally caught up with me. Feel like sh*t too.
Hey ho.
Rest and drink lots of water. Battling through it is really not the best plan.
Thanks David, I'll do that. Helped by the fact that Mrs P. has a bit of sympathy now that she's seen the test result she knows it's not just man flu.
She's off to buy me a tin of Heinz Tomato Soup - nowadays a terrible ultra-processed food, no doubt, but my childhood comfort blanket for every kind of minor sickness :-)
Hope you get better soon. I had it last week. Two days of feeling a bit crap then fine so not to worry too much.
It didn't seem to matter if I rested or not. It's just a case of the virus working through your body. Was the faintest of faint lines for a while (days 5-7) but cleared up completely day 8.
Interesting, thanks.
I had a negative test on Tuesday, even though I felt crap. The test I did this morning though left a very deep bold T line - no doubts at all. And no surprise tbh.
I don't need to work so I am just putting my feet up and enjoying the weather. Could be a lot worse.
Sorry to hear about the positive covid test. I've heard of a few recently.
Incidentally, where are people getting tests from? I keep hearing people say 'but I tested negative so all good' or 'weirdly tested positive, no symptoms'
Are people still testing themselves all the time? With stockpiled tests?
Since Stingy froze my pay last year I decided to extract my compensation in Lateral Flow Tests.
More seriously, I work in the field a lot and we’re short staffed as it is so we test before travelling to try to ensure we don’t give it to each other and muck up next week’s work plan.
NEW: I've done an analysis of every time No10 announced a phone call between Boris Johnson and President Zelensky and it's amazing how many have coincided with his worst crises (full disclosure, No10 have told me this thesis is "ludicrous")
So while it may be completely coincidental/just fancy that, here are some dates:
15 June: 6.58pm Lord Geidt resigns / 7.48pm No10 announces PM has had a call with Zelensky
6 June: 8.10am Graham Brady announces confidence vote from MPs / 11.50am PM call with Zelensky announced
19 May: Met probe ends with 126 fines and No10 most fined UK location / 1.21pm PM call with Zelensky announced
5 May: Interest rates go up to 1% to highest level in 13 years/local elections take place with defeats for Tories expected / 3.54pm PM call with Zelensky announced
12 April: PM fined by Met over partygate / 5.49pm PM call with Zelensky announced.
Positive covid test this morning - it's finally caught up with me. Feel like sh*t too.
Hey ho.
Rest and drink lots of water. Battling through it is really not the best plan.
Thanks David, I'll do that. Helped by the fact that Mrs P. has a bit of sympathy now that she's seen the test result she knows it's not just man flu.
She's off to buy me a tin of Heinz Tomato Soup - nowadays a terrible ultra-processed food, no doubt, but my childhood comfort blanket for every kind of minor sickness :-)
Hope you get better soon. I had it last week. Two days of feeling a bit crap then fine so not to worry too much.
It didn't seem to matter if I rested or not. It's just a case of the virus working through your body. Was the faintest of faint lines for a while (days 5-7) but cleared up completely day 8.
Interesting, thanks.
I had a negative test on Tuesday, even though I felt crap. The test I did this morning though left a very deep bold T line - no doubts at all. And no surprise tbh.
I don't need to work so I am just putting my feet up and enjoying the weather. Could be a lot worse.
Sorry to hear about the positive covid test. I've heard of a few recently.
Incidentally, where are people getting tests from? I keep hearing people say 'but I tested negative so all good' or 'weirdly tested positive, no symptoms'
Are people still testing themselves all the time? With stockpiled tests?
You can buy them cheaply in the supermarkets. Useful for (eg) making sure you don't visit your ageing relatives while infected.
Tremendous poll for Scottish Labour: 29%. That’s the level where SNP seats start to tumble. Partly offset of course by the Scottish Tory tumble. Remember, YouGov are the only pollster to correctly weight geographical subsamples.
(YouGov/The Times; Sample Size: 1727; 15-16 June 2022)
Electoral calculus says 318 seats with that subsample taken into account
Baxter says 40 SNP 11 Slab 4 Scon 4 SLD on those figures.
Would be SLab's best performance since 2010
If they were to get another 3% swing from Scon, they could gain another 3 seats. If, however, they were to get a 3% swing from SNP, they could gain another 8 seats. However, that would require them to be a bit less anti indy, e.g. we will support a referendum but recommend a no vote, instead of following Tory policy. That would probably be a step too far for them. Maybe SKS should be having a word with Sarwar?
Incidentally, where are people getting tests from? I keep hearing people say 'but I tested negative so all good' or 'weirdly tested positive, no symptoms'
Are people still testing themselves all the time? With stockpiled tests?
I have half a dozen or so left over from my last free box, which I expect to be enough to test if and when I get covid-ish symptoms for at least the next year or so. I was never doing regular tests even when test kits were handed out free.
I don't think many people were. Used largely to check if a cold was just a cold, or something worse, I think.
NEW: I've done an analysis of every time No10 announced a phone call between Boris Johnson and President Zelensky and it's amazing how many have coincided with his worst crises (full disclosure, No10 have told me this thesis is "ludicrous")
So while it may be completely coincidental/just fancy that, here are some dates:
15 June: 6.58pm Lord Geidt resigns / 7.48pm No10 announces PM has had a call with Zelensky
6 June: 8.10am Graham Brady announces confidence vote from MPs / 11.50am PM call with Zelensky announced
19 May: Met probe ends with 126 fines and No10 most fined UK location / 1.21pm PM call with Zelensky announced
5 May: Interest rates go up to 1% to highest level in 13 years/local elections take place with defeats for Tories expected / 3.54pm PM call with Zelensky announced
12 April: PM fined by Met over partygate / 5.49pm PM call with Zelensky announced.
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
That is unique about Johnson. His is a campaigning style of boosterish optimism. He will piss on you and tell you it is raining, then shit on you and tell you it is powerful fertiliser for growth. Some people are quite willing to believe lies, even when they know they are lies. It is sometimes rather painful to face the truth.
"Net Zero" is a great objective, but a very poor slogan. The policy can be sold, but needs an optimistic spin: Clean air, energy independence, well paid green jobs in manufacturing and engineering, a protected countyside and healthier cities for the good life.
Indeed "The Good Life" is a better slogan, and one that mite appeal to Boomers as well as Millenials, for different reasons.
The best way to sell the policy, surely, is to get rid of the hard target and rely on persuasion rather than diktat.
That hasn’t worked already.
It is the hard target that has driven the enthusiasm for electric vehicles, with many new models on the way. Vehicle manufacturers want to stay in business after 2030.
Fuel taxes, road tax based on Co2 production, ULEZ etc is what governments have done to help with the switch.
Its driven enthusiasm for electric car among the rich. Most car owners cannot afford an electric vehicle whether they want one or not. Much less afford to run one, given rocketing electricity prices.
This is 50% true (I find the car makers’ obsession with expensive electric SUVs deeply annoying). I wanted to go electric this time round but got a super efficient petrol due to the cost of new EVs. The other half is rot.
Even if you exclusively use public charging the RAC estimate an EV is 50% cheaper to fuel per mile than an ICE car. It’s cheaper than that if you charge at home, and once the government unpegs electric prices from gas prices it’ll drop further (and if they cut VAT on public leccy). EVs are now at parity with ICE cars in the premium segment at least. There’s no reason to buy an ICE 4 series over an i4 because the fuel savings exceed the increase in your finance payment (and you pay less tax). Heck it’s barely more expensive than a similarly specced 4 series diesel. EVs are slowly becoming adopted because they’re a sensible financial choice if you can afford the balloon payment.
Although, of course, estimates of fuel savings will depend on annual mileage vs depreciation. A low-mileage expensive new EV will almost certainly cost more. On the other hand the convenience of charging at home would be a useful bonus. Petrol stations as we know them will gradually dwindle and eventually disappear. People who need to will charge up in a supermarket or public car park while shopping or eating. Petrol vapour and electric sparks are an undesirable combination so there's no way existing sites can adapt. They have valuable, prominent positions on arterial roads and they'll be redeveloped for some other use.
I used to work at an oil company.
Despite the various claims, there is no evidence that anyone, ever, caused and explosion/fire at a petrol station by using mobile phone.
Having explosive vapour present on a forecourt would be a massive, massive failure.
Using electrical equipment in a petrol station is quite common. Some petrol stations actually have charging points - the design of the plugs and the initiation of the current flow is designed not to create sparks anyway.
That being said, mixed is not the standard thing.
Shell, among others, is starting on conversion of filling stations to charging stations. They are digging up the tanks - which are not as big as you might think - and removing the petrol/diesel completely, IIRC.
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
That is unique about Johnson. His is a campaigning style of boosterish optimism. He will piss on you and tell you it is raining, then shit on you and tell you it is powerful fertiliser for growth. Some people are quite willing to believe lies, even when they know they are lies. It is sometimes rather painful to face the truth.
"Net Zero" is a great objective, but a very poor slogan. The policy can be sold, but needs an optimistic spin: Clean air, energy independence, well paid green jobs in manufacturing and engineering, a protected countyside and healthier cities for the good life.
Indeed "The Good Life" is a better slogan, and one that mite appeal to Boomers as well as Millenials, for different reasons.
The best way to sell the policy, surely, is to get rid of the hard target and rely on persuasion rather than diktat.
That hasn’t worked already.
It is the hard target that has driven the enthusiasm for electric vehicles, with many new models on the way. Vehicle manufacturers want to stay in business after 2030.
Fuel taxes, road tax based on Co2 production, ULEZ etc is what governments have done to help with the switch.
Its driven enthusiasm for electric car among the rich. Most car owners cannot afford an electric vehicle whether they want one or not. Much less afford to run one, given rocketing electricity prices.
This is 50% true (I find the car makers’ obsession with expensive electric SUVs deeply annoying). I wanted to go electric this time round but got a super efficient petrol due to the cost of new EVs. The other half is rot.
Even if you exclusively use public charging the RAC estimate an EV is 50% cheaper to fuel per mile than an ICE car. It’s cheaper than that if you charge at home, and once the government unpegs electric prices from gas prices it’ll drop further (and if they cut VAT on public leccy). EVs are now at parity with ICE cars in the premium segment at least. There’s no reason to buy an ICE 4 series over an i4 because the fuel savings exceed the increase in your finance payment (and you pay less tax). Heck it’s barely more expensive than a similarly specced 4 series diesel. EVs are slowly becoming adopted because they’re a sensible financial choice if you can afford the balloon payment.
Although, of course, estimates of fuel savings will depend on annual mileage vs depreciation. A low-mileage expensive new EV will almost certainly cost more. On the other hand the convenience of charging at home would be a useful bonus. Petrol stations as we know them will gradually dwindle and eventually disappear. People who need to will charge up in a supermarket or public car park while shopping or eating. Petrol vapour and electric sparks are an undesirable combination so there's no way existing sites can adapt. They have valuable, prominent positions on arterial roads and they'll be redeveloped for some other use.
Yeah naturally. For me, it wasn’t worth the extra £100-£150 a month car payment since I don’t drive enough commuter miles to make up that difference. I know people who do though. Plus, in my price bracket the range and (more importantly) fast charge power is a fraction too low. The ZoE is a cracking little car but 50% of my miles are on long journeys, so I need something with 100kW fast charge plus 200 miles of real world motorway range. That’s currently 3 Series money and I can’t quite stretch to it. PHEV was an option but they’re rare as hen’s teeth atm.
Interestingly a couple of BP stations near me are getting bays of rapid chargers installed. Beefy 300kW models I think. From a safety standpoint, provided the forecourt has an area set back from the storage tank or pumps, there’s likely to be lower risk than the baseline “fag smoking numpty” level.
Tremendous poll for Scottish Labour: 29%. That’s the level where SNP seats start to tumble. Partly offset of course by the Scottish Tory tumble. Remember, YouGov are the only pollster to correctly weight geographical subsamples.
(YouGov/The Times; Sample Size: 1727; 15-16 June 2022)
Electoral calculus says 318 seats with that subsample taken into account
Baxter says 40 SNP 11 Slab 4 Scon 4 SLD on those figures.
Would be SLab's best performance since 2010
If they were to get another 3% swing from Scon, they could gain another 3 seats. If, however, they were to get a 3% swing from SNP, they could gain another 8 seats. However, that would require them to be a bit less anti indy, e.g. we will support a referendum but recommend a no vote, instead of following Tory policy. That would probably be a step too far for them. Maybe SKS should be having a word with Sarwar?
Tremendous poll for Scottish Labour: 29%. That’s the level where SNP seats start to tumble. Partly offset of course by the Scottish Tory tumble. Remember, YouGov are the only pollster to correctly weight geographical subsamples.
(YouGov/The Times; Sample Size: 1727; 15-16 June 2022)
Electoral calculus says 318 seats with that subsample taken into account
Baxter says 40 SNP 11 Slab 4 Scon 4 SLD on those figures.
Would be SLab's best performance since 2010
If they were to get another 3% swing from Scon, they could gain another 3 seats. If, however, they were to get a 3% swing from SNP, they could gain another 8 seats. However, that would require them to be a bit less anti indy, e.g. we will support a referendum but recommend a no vote, instead of following Tory policy. That would probably be a step too far for them. Maybe SKS should be having a word with Sarwar?
Scottish Labour could only plausibly peddle that line if Head Office were signed up to it.
Head Office won't sign up to it. Unless or until the public mood changes in Scotland, polite stonewalling of all plebiscite demands is the best strategy for Starmer as well as for Johnson. The general idea being, of course, to let the SNP beat its head against said wall until its head falls off.
Peter Oborne on how Boris Johnson's ruthless drive for power is dismantling democracy in the interest of the super-rich https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAXqrUN1qEo (10 minutes long)
PB Tories should skip to the second half where Oborne attacks Keir Starmer as worse and Tony Blair as having started it.
NEW: I've done an analysis of every time No10 announced a phone call between Boris Johnson and President Zelensky and it's amazing how many have coincided with his worst crises (full disclosure, No10 have told me this thesis is "ludicrous")
So while it may be completely coincidental/just fancy that, here are some dates:
15 June: 6.58pm Lord Geidt resigns / 7.48pm No10 announces PM has had a call with Zelensky
6 June: 8.10am Graham Brady announces confidence vote from MPs / 11.50am PM call with Zelensky announced
19 May: Met probe ends with 126 fines and No10 most fined UK location / 1.21pm PM call with Zelensky announced
5 May: Interest rates go up to 1% to highest level in 13 years/local elections take place with defeats for Tories expected / 3.54pm PM call with Zelensky announced
12 April: PM fined by Met over partygate / 5.49pm PM call with Zelensky announced.
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
That is unique about Johnson. His is a campaigning style of boosterish optimism. He will piss on you and tell you it is raining, then shit on you and tell you it is powerful fertiliser for growth. Some people are quite willing to believe lies, even when they know they are lies. It is sometimes rather painful to face the truth.
"Net Zero" is a great objective, but a very poor slogan. The policy can be sold, but needs an optimistic spin: Clean air, energy independence, well paid green jobs in manufacturing and engineering, a protected countyside and healthier cities for the good life.
Indeed "The Good Life" is a better slogan, and one that mite appeal to Boomers as well as Millenials, for different reasons.
The best way to sell the policy, surely, is to get rid of the hard target and rely on persuasion rather than diktat.
That hasn’t worked already.
It is the hard target that has driven the enthusiasm for electric vehicles, with many new models on the way. Vehicle manufacturers want to stay in business after 2030.
Fuel taxes, road tax based on Co2 production, ULEZ etc is what governments have done to help with the switch.
Its driven enthusiasm for electric car among the rich. Most car owners cannot afford an electric vehicle whether they want one or not. Much less afford to run one, given rocketing electricity prices.
This is 50% true (I find the car makers’ obsession with expensive electric SUVs deeply annoying). I wanted to go electric this time round but got a super efficient petrol due to the cost of new EVs. The other half is rot.
Even if you exclusively use public charging the RAC estimate an EV is 50% cheaper to fuel per mile than an ICE car. It’s cheaper than that if you charge at home, and once the government unpegs electric prices from gas prices it’ll drop further (and if they cut VAT on public leccy). EVs are now at parity with ICE cars in the premium segment at least. There’s no reason to buy an ICE 4 series over an i4 because the fuel savings exceed the increase in your finance payment (and you pay less tax). Heck it’s barely more expensive than a similarly specced 4 series diesel. EVs are slowly becoming adopted because they’re a sensible financial choice if you can afford the balloon payment.
Although, of course, estimates of fuel savings will depend on annual mileage vs depreciation. A low-mileage expensive new EV will almost certainly cost more. On the other hand the convenience of charging at home would be a useful bonus. Petrol stations as we know them will gradually dwindle and eventually disappear. People who need to will charge up in a supermarket or public car park while shopping or eating. Petrol vapour and electric sparks are an undesirable combination so there's no way existing sites can adapt. They have valuable, prominent positions on arterial roads and they'll be redeveloped for some other use.
I used to work at an oil company.
Despite the various claims, there is no evidence that anyone, ever, caused and explosion/fire at a petrol station by using mobile phone.
Having explosive vapour present on a forecourt would be a massive, massive failure.
Using electrical equipment in a petrol station is quite common. Some petrol stations actually have charging points - the design of the plugs and the initiation of the current flow is designed not to create sparks anyway.
That being said, mixed is not the standard thing.
Shell, among others, is starting on conversion of filling stations to charging stations. They are digging up the tanks - which are not as big as you might think - and removing the petrol/diesel completely, IIRC.
I was once told off vehemently for trying to jump-start an MGB on a petrol station forecourt, but that was then and this is now!
Isn't the problem with the 'EV filling station' model that (a) there's nothing much to do to while away the time and (b) there are far too many competing outlets?
NEW: I've done an analysis of every time No10 announced a phone call between Boris Johnson and President Zelensky and it's amazing how many have coincided with his worst crises (full disclosure, No10 have told me this thesis is "ludicrous")
So while it may be completely coincidental/just fancy that, here are some dates:
15 June: 6.58pm Lord Geidt resigns / 7.48pm No10 announces PM has had a call with Zelensky
6 June: 8.10am Graham Brady announces confidence vote from MPs / 11.50am PM call with Zelensky announced
19 May: Met probe ends with 126 fines and No10 most fined UK location / 1.21pm PM call with Zelensky announced
5 May: Interest rates go up to 1% to highest level in 13 years/local elections take place with defeats for Tories expected / 3.54pm PM call with Zelensky announced
12 April: PM fined by Met over partygate / 5.49pm PM call with Zelensky announced.
Tremendous poll for Scottish Labour: 29%. That’s the level where SNP seats start to tumble. Partly offset of course by the Scottish Tory tumble. Remember, YouGov are the only pollster to correctly weight geographical subsamples.
(YouGov/The Times; Sample Size: 1727; 15-16 June 2022)
Electoral calculus says 318 seats with that subsample taken into account
Baxter says 40 SNP 11 Slab 4 Scon 4 SLD on those figures.
Would be SLab's best performance since 2010
If they were to get another 3% swing from Scon, they could gain another 3 seats. If, however, they were to get a 3% swing from SNP, they could gain another 8 seats. However, that would require them to be a bit less anti indy, e.g. we will support a referendum but recommend a no vote, instead of following Tory policy. That would probably be a step too far for them. Maybe SKS should be having a word with Sarwar?
Scottish Labour could only plausibly peddle that line if Head Office were signed up to it.
Head Office won't sign up to it. Unless or until the public mood changes in Scotland, polite stonewalling of all plebiscite demands is the best strategy for Starmer as well as for Johnson. The general idea being, of course, to let the SNP beat its head against said wall until its head falls off.
Tremendous poll for Scottish Labour: 29%. That’s the level where SNP seats start to tumble. Partly offset of course by the Scottish Tory tumble. Remember, YouGov are the only pollster to correctly weight geographical subsamples.
(YouGov/The Times; Sample Size: 1727; 15-16 June 2022)
Electoral calculus says 318 seats with that subsample taken into account
Baxter says 40 SNP 11 Slab 4 Scon 4 SLD on those figures.
Would be SLab's best performance since 2010
If they were to get another 3% swing from Scon, they could gain another 3 seats. If, however, they were to get a 3% swing from SNP, they could gain another 8 seats. However, that would require them to be a bit less anti indy, e.g. we will support a referendum but recommend a no vote, instead of following Tory policy. That would probably be a step too far for them. Maybe SKS should be having a word with Sarwar?
Scottish Labour could only plausibly peddle that line if Head Office were signed up to it.
Head Office won't sign up to it. Unless or until the public mood changes in Scotland, polite stonewalling of all plebiscite demands is the best strategy for Starmer as well as for Johnson. The general idea being, of course, to let the SNP beat its head against said wall until its head falls off.
The correct strategy, even if it impairs the SNP to Lab swing.
I’m not convinced it does, though.
Indy sentiment is weakening and Nicola’s latest gambit looks decadent against a cost of living crisis.
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
The Tories best chance of not losing the next election is that the policies required from Labour will actually be painful and unappealing if they are to be truthful. Labour's choice is: silence, costly truths or unconvincing sunlit uplands. The evidence that painful truths don't win elections is well known to Labour.
Sadly I think Labour's stance is going to be mostly silence, with generalised uplift in the manifesto, sending all tricky matters to the department of 'comprehensive review' and 'when finances permit'.
This is not great but I don't blame them.
I would like to think that Starmer and his team have a clear vision, and concrete policies and plans to implement it, all being protected by a strict code of omerta for the manifesto.
I fear though that it is an empty cupboard, and that the manifesto will be full of weak platitudes that make the #Edstone look like the 1945 Attlee manifesto.
People will vote for a package that acknowledges some pain, provided it also prepares for a promised land of sunlit uplands.
One of the striking things about politics right now is that no party is offering any version of sunlit uplands at any time ever. That's quite unusual, isn't it? Down the decades there has always been the 'this time next year we'll be millionaires'' schtick.
What all the main parties are offering the electorate, however, is the moral triumph of Net Zero.
Its almost as if the the two are mutually exclusive.
That is unique about Johnson. His is a campaigning style of boosterish optimism. He will piss on you and tell you it is raining, then shit on you and tell you it is powerful fertiliser for growth. Some people are quite willing to believe lies, even when they know they are lies. It is sometimes rather painful to face the truth.
"Net Zero" is a great objective, but a very poor slogan. The policy can be sold, but needs an optimistic spin: Clean air, energy independence, well paid green jobs in manufacturing and engineering, a protected countyside and healthier cities for the good life.
Indeed "The Good Life" is a better slogan, and one that mite appeal to Boomers as well as Millenials, for different reasons.
The best way to sell the policy, surely, is to get rid of the hard target and rely on persuasion rather than diktat.
That hasn’t worked already.
It is the hard target that has driven the enthusiasm for electric vehicles, with many new models on the way. Vehicle manufacturers want to stay in business after 2030.
Fuel taxes, road tax based on Co2 production, ULEZ etc is what governments have done to help with the switch.
Its driven enthusiasm for electric car among the rich. Most car owners cannot afford an electric vehicle whether they want one or not. Much less afford to run one, given rocketing electricity prices.
This is 50% true (I find the car makers’ obsession with expensive electric SUVs deeply annoying). I wanted to go electric this time round but got a super efficient petrol due to the cost of new EVs. The other half is rot.
Even if you exclusively use public charging the RAC estimate an EV is 50% cheaper to fuel per mile than an ICE car. It’s cheaper than that if you charge at home, and once the government unpegs electric prices from gas prices it’ll drop further (and if they cut VAT on public leccy). EVs are now at parity with ICE cars in the premium segment at least. There’s no reason to buy an ICE 4 series over an i4 because the fuel savings exceed the increase in your finance payment (and you pay less tax). Heck it’s barely more expensive than a similarly specced 4 series diesel. EVs are slowly becoming adopted because they’re a sensible financial choice if you can afford the balloon payment.
Although, of course, estimates of fuel savings will depend on annual mileage vs depreciation. A low-mileage expensive new EV will almost certainly cost more. On the other hand the convenience of charging at home would be a useful bonus. Petrol stations as we know them will gradually dwindle and eventually disappear. People who need to will charge up in a supermarket or public car park while shopping or eating. Petrol vapour and electric sparks are an undesirable combination so there's no way existing sites can adapt. They have valuable, prominent positions on arterial roads and they'll be redeveloped for some other use.
I used to work at an oil company.
Despite the various claims, there is no evidence that anyone, ever, caused and explosion/fire at a petrol station by using mobile phone.
Having explosive vapour present on a forecourt would be a massive, massive failure.
Using electrical equipment in a petrol station is quite common. Some petrol stations actually have charging points - the design of the plugs and the initiation of the current flow is designed not to create sparks anyway.
That being said, mixed is not the standard thing.
Shell, among others, is starting on conversion of filling stations to charging stations. They are digging up the tanks - which are not as big as you might think - and removing the petrol/diesel completely, IIRC.
I was once told off vehemently for trying to jump-start an MGB on a petrol station forecourt, but that was then and this is now!
Isn't the problem with the 'EV filling station' model that (a) there's nothing much to do to while away the time and (b) there are far too many competing outlets?
(b) Most filling stations are a good way from other filling stations.
(a) The current average for a charge up at a fast charger is apparently 20-30 minutes. Given that petrol stations actually make money from Mars Bars etc (the petrol makes little money) the oil companies are seeing this as an advantage.
NEW: I've done an analysis of every time No10 announced a phone call between Boris Johnson and President Zelensky and it's amazing how many have coincided with his worst crises (full disclosure, No10 have told me this thesis is "ludicrous")
So while it may be completely coincidental/just fancy that, here are some dates:
15 June: 6.58pm Lord Geidt resigns / 7.48pm No10 announces PM has had a call with Zelensky
6 June: 8.10am Graham Brady announces confidence vote from MPs / 11.50am PM call with Zelensky announced
19 May: Met probe ends with 126 fines and No10 most fined UK location / 1.21pm PM call with Zelensky announced
5 May: Interest rates go up to 1% to highest level in 13 years/local elections take place with defeats for Tories expected / 3.54pm PM call with Zelensky announced
12 April: PM fined by Met over partygate / 5.49pm PM call with Zelensky announced.
NEW: I've done an analysis of every time No10 announced a phone call between Boris Johnson and President Zelensky and it's amazing how many have coincided with his worst crises (full disclosure, No10 have told me this thesis is "ludicrous")
So while it may be completely coincidental/just fancy that, here are some dates:
15 June: 6.58pm Lord Geidt resigns / 7.48pm No10 announces PM has had a call with Zelensky
6 June: 8.10am Graham Brady announces confidence vote from MPs / 11.50am PM call with Zelensky announced
19 May: Met probe ends with 126 fines and No10 most fined UK location / 1.21pm PM call with Zelensky announced
5 May: Interest rates go up to 1% to highest level in 13 years/local elections take place with defeats for Tories expected / 3.54pm PM call with Zelensky announced
12 April: PM fined by Met over partygate / 5.49pm PM call with Zelensky announced.
NEW: I've done an analysis of every time No10 announced a phone call between Boris Johnson and President Zelensky and it's amazing how many have coincided with his worst crises (full disclosure, No10 have told me this thesis is "ludicrous")
So while it may be completely coincidental/just fancy that, here are some dates:
15 June: 6.58pm Lord Geidt resigns / 7.48pm No10 announces PM has had a call with Zelensky
6 June: 8.10am Graham Brady announces confidence vote from MPs / 11.50am PM call with Zelensky announced
19 May: Met probe ends with 126 fines and No10 most fined UK location / 1.21pm PM call with Zelensky announced
5 May: Interest rates go up to 1% to highest level in 13 years/local elections take place with defeats for Tories expected / 3.54pm PM call with Zelensky announced
12 April: PM fined by Met over partygate / 5.49pm PM call with Zelensky announced.
It isn't all that surprising they are in regular contact.
I have this invisible Garden Bridge I would like to sell to you for £63m. You'll love it.
What this does show is just the sheer number of crises they are facing. There's almost one a day, so it isn't surprising coincidences like this crop up.
Tremendous poll for Scottish Labour: 29%. That’s the level where SNP seats start to tumble. Partly offset of course by the Scottish Tory tumble. Remember, YouGov are the only pollster to correctly weight geographical subsamples.
(YouGov/The Times; Sample Size: 1727; 15-16 June 2022)
Electoral calculus says 318 seats with that subsample taken into account
Baxter says 40 SNP 11 Slab 4 Scon 4 SLD on those figures.
Would be SLab's best performance since 2010
If they were to get another 3% swing from Scon, they could gain another 3 seats. If, however, they were to get a 3% swing from SNP, they could gain another 8 seats. However, that would require them to be a bit less anti indy, e.g. we will support a referendum but recommend a no vote, instead of following Tory policy. That would probably be a step too far for them. Maybe SKS should be having a word with Sarwar?
Scottish Labour could only plausibly peddle that line if Head Office were signed up to it.
Head Office won't sign up to it. Unless or until the public mood changes in Scotland, polite stonewalling of all plebiscite demands is the best strategy for Starmer as well as for Johnson. The general idea being, of course, to let the SNP beat its head against said wall until its head falls off.
Unionist genius jape No.472,908
Esepcially as Slab voters are genuinely split between Yes and No, so it is actually risky for Slab to *even do what Pigeon suggests*. Fairliered's a bit closer to reality. But that would mean splitting the Labour Party in two - Slab isn't even a separate accounting centre and it can only call itself that at election by a special dispensation of the electoral legislation so the Electoral Commission's not down its neck at once. Remember how Jenny Formby yanked Kezia Dugdale's chain when she wanted to spend lots more on legal fees for that defamation case.
NEW: I've done an analysis of every time No10 announced a phone call between Boris Johnson and President Zelensky and it's amazing how many have coincided with his worst crises (full disclosure, No10 have told me this thesis is "ludicrous")
So while it may be completely coincidental/just fancy that, here are some dates:
15 June: 6.58pm Lord Geidt resigns / 7.48pm No10 announces PM has had a call with Zelensky
6 June: 8.10am Graham Brady announces confidence vote from MPs / 11.50am PM call with Zelensky announced
19 May: Met probe ends with 126 fines and No10 most fined UK location / 1.21pm PM call with Zelensky announced
5 May: Interest rates go up to 1% to highest level in 13 years/local elections take place with defeats for Tories expected / 3.54pm PM call with Zelensky announced
12 April: PM fined by Met over partygate / 5.49pm PM call with Zelensky announced.
It isn't all that surprising they are in regular contact.
I have this invisible Garden Bridge I would like to sell to you for £63m. You'll love it.
What this does show is just the sheer number of crises they are facing. There's almost one a day, so it isn't surprising coincidences like this crop up.
4 out of 5 of the cited crises involving one particular person? Pull the other plonker - it's got bells on.
NEW: I've done an analysis of every time No10 announced a phone call between Boris Johnson and President Zelensky and it's amazing how many have coincided with his worst crises (full disclosure, No10 have told me this thesis is "ludicrous")
So while it may be completely coincidental/just fancy that, here are some dates:
15 June: 6.58pm Lord Geidt resigns / 7.48pm No10 announces PM has had a call with Zelensky
6 June: 8.10am Graham Brady announces confidence vote from MPs / 11.50am PM call with Zelensky announced
19 May: Met probe ends with 126 fines and No10 most fined UK location / 1.21pm PM call with Zelensky announced
5 May: Interest rates go up to 1% to highest level in 13 years/local elections take place with defeats for Tories expected / 3.54pm PM call with Zelensky announced
12 April: PM fined by Met over partygate / 5.49pm PM call with Zelensky announced.
It isn't all that surprising they are in regular contact.
I have this invisible Garden Bridge I would like to sell to you for £63m. You'll love it.
What this does show is just the sheer number of crises they are facing. There's almost one a day, so it isn't surprising coincidences like this crop up.
4 out of 5 of the cited crises involving one particular person? Pull the other plonker - it's got bells on.
Most of them do involve Johnson, that’s just a fact.
NEW: I've done an analysis of every time No10 announced a phone call between Boris Johnson and President Zelensky and it's amazing how many have coincided with his worst crises (full disclosure, No10 have told me this thesis is "ludicrous")
So while it may be completely coincidental/just fancy that, here are some dates:
15 June: 6.58pm Lord Geidt resigns / 7.48pm No10 announces PM has had a call with Zelensky
6 June: 8.10am Graham Brady announces confidence vote from MPs / 11.50am PM call with Zelensky announced
19 May: Met probe ends with 126 fines and No10 most fined UK location / 1.21pm PM call with Zelensky announced
5 May: Interest rates go up to 1% to highest level in 13 years/local elections take place with defeats for Tories expected / 3.54pm PM call with Zelensky announced
12 April: PM fined by Met over partygate / 5.49pm PM call with Zelensky announced.
It isn't all that surprising they are in regular contact.
I have this invisible Garden Bridge I would like to sell to you for £63m. You'll love it.
What this does show is just the sheer number of crises they are facing. There's almost one a day, so it isn't surprising coincidences like this crop up.
You may have a point, however I suspect the Aussies have decided there is mileage in Johnson the Churchillian war leader.
Now I am imagining a sign outside a church - "Tanks to park on the extreme right. Or extreme left."
Would be "APCs to the forecourt, troop carriers to the rear" - they would have had, I think, Oxford Carriers or FV432s at most in the way of armour, not tanks, plus the usual Bedford lorries: infantry battalion, closed in 1968 IIRC.
NEW: I've done an analysis of every time No10 announced a phone call between Boris Johnson and President Zelensky and it's amazing how many have coincided with his worst crises (full disclosure, No10 have told me this thesis is "ludicrous")
So while it may be completely coincidental/just fancy that, here are some dates:
15 June: 6.58pm Lord Geidt resigns / 7.48pm No10 announces PM has had a call with Zelensky
6 June: 8.10am Graham Brady announces confidence vote from MPs / 11.50am PM call with Zelensky announced
19 May: Met probe ends with 126 fines and No10 most fined UK location / 1.21pm PM call with Zelensky announced
5 May: Interest rates go up to 1% to highest level in 13 years/local elections take place with defeats for Tories expected / 3.54pm PM call with Zelensky announced
12 April: PM fined by Met over partygate / 5.49pm PM call with Zelensky announced.
It isn't all that surprising they are in regular contact.
I have this invisible Garden Bridge I would like to sell to you for £63m. You'll love it.
What this does show is just the sheer number of crises they are facing. There's almost one a day, so it isn't surprising coincidences like this crop up.
4 out of 5 of the cited crises involving one particular person? Pull the other plonker - it's got bells on.
Most of them do involve Johnson, that’s just a fact.
Now I am imagining a sign outside a church - "Tanks to park on the extreme right. Or extreme left."
Would be "APCs to the forecourt, troop carriers to the rear" - they would have had, I think, Oxford Carriers or FV432s at most in the way of armour, not tanks, plus the usual Bedford lorries: infantry battalion, closed in 1968 IIRC.
Was thinking of our favourite.... tankie? The Covenanter bit....
Palermo cathedral, the spot is the sun shining through the pinhole in the roof and indicating that it is in Cancer
Interesting Christian consciousness and use of Astrology, like Michelangelo putting satanic looking horns on Moses.
I shall quote from wiki.
Cancer" is an ancient word of Indo-European origin, derived from a root meaning "to scratch."[15] In ancient Egypt, the sign of Cancer was conceived as a scarab beetle, while in Mesopotamia it was represented by a turtle.[15] In each case, the animal representative of the sign was perceived as "pushing" the sun across the heavens, initiating the summer solstice.[15]
Latin cancer is the generic word for 'crab'.[15] According to Greek myth, the symbol of Cancer—often a crab, though sometimes a lobster—is based on the Karkinos (Greek: "Cancer"), a crab crushed under the foot of Hercules, and whose remains were placed in the sky by Hera, forming the Cancer constellation.[5] In Roman variations of the story, it is Juno—Hera's counterpart in Roman mythology—who places the crab in the sky.[16] Naturalist Richard Hinckley Allen, in 1899, deemed Cancer the "most inconspicuous figure in the zodiac," adding that its mythology "apologizes for its being there by the story that when the Crab was crushed by Hercules, for pinching his toes during a contest with the Hydra in the Marsh of Lerna, Juno exalted it to the sky."[16]
In the arts[edit] During the Middle Ages, the zodiacal symbol of Cancer was included in devotional books and incorporated into monumental sculptures.[15] The depiction of Cancer as a crab is most prevalent in Mediterranean and Western European art.[15]
The Tory candidate in #TivertonandHonitonByElection has produced an 8-page booklet in which she doesn't mention she's a Conservative until page 4. After that, the word Conservative appears just 3 more times.
By 2030 ICE will decidedly outmoded. In fact, Bloomberg said the other day we have already seen peak ICE.
This, and other green measures, is one of the (few) reasons to be cheerful about the 2020s.
IF that is the case, then why are electric cars being introduced by diktat? why are hydrocarbon engines being banned?
Past industrial revolutions have happened by advancements overtaking inferior technology. Governments never banned steam engines or telegraphs or valve TVs or gas lighting. They never had to. They just got overtaken by superior technology.
This industrial revolution is being driven by dogma, not by technological advancement. If it was being driven by the latter, then growth would be bounding ahead, productivity would be booming and we would be reaching the sunlit uplands. We would be getting richer by the month.
We aren't. The opposite is happening. Wealth is being destroyed. Living standards are collapsing. Markets are plunging.
Labour 6 points clear on the economy. Nobody would have suggested that were possible after 2019.
Keir Starmer has done an amazing job, whether he loses or wins, that in of itself is significant.
Barely ahead on best PM against this PM in these circumstances? I can see why you're spamming the board with a different "positive" in each comment, but nobody neutral is remotely impressed.
You're not remotely neutral my friend. We know you hate Keir, it's okay.
We've never met.
I don't hate SKS. I'm desperate for him to give me a reason to vote for him against this disgrace of an incumbent government. So far? Nothing. Trying to win by default doesn't remotely impress me. Where are the Labour policies?
Johnson & Co are running the country and I have no idea what their objectives and policies are.
FWIW I don't think either party is going to win a majority under their current leaders so my betting is based on which one is more likely to switch to a more attractive leader by 2024.
Beergate aside the Tories are the more likely to ditch Johnson but it is by no means certain that they will replace him with a vote winner - there are some real duffers amongst the runners and riders.
I would be happy for Starmer to get a FPN and resign if they replaced him with Streeting or Nandy but they are just as likely to choose a Corbynista loon.
Elsewhere in Europe PR has allowed new political groupings to emerge. In the UK FPTP consigns us to the Tory-Labour straitjacket for evermore. So we get a choice of 2 and both leaders are chosen by small groups of zealots that I wouldn't trust to run a bath.
By 2030 ICE will decidedly outmoded. In fact, Bloomberg said the other day we have already seen peak ICE.
This, and other green measures, is one of the (few) reasons to be cheerful about the 2020s.
IF that is the case, then why are electric cars being introduced by diktat? why are hydrocarbon engines being banned?
Past industrial revolutions have happened by advancements overtaking inferior technology. Governments never banned steam engines or telegraphs or valve TVs or gas lighting. They never had to. They just got overtaken by superior technology.
This industrial revolution is being driven by dogma, not by technological advancement. If it was being driven by the latter, then growth would be bounding ahead, productivity would be booming and we would be reaching the sunlit uplands. We would be getting richer by the month.
We aren't. The opposite is happening. Wealth is being destroyed. Living standards are collapsing. Markets are plunging.
I must have missed the diktat.
As for valve TVs, I don’t think they were thought to contribute to local pollution and a climate crisis. The Clean Air Act 1956 did proscribe certain fuels, though, didn’t it?
By 2030 ICE will decidedly outmoded. In fact, Bloomberg said the other day we have already seen peak ICE.
This, and other green measures, is one of the (few) reasons to be cheerful about the 2020s.
IF that is the case, then why are electric cars being introduced by diktat? why are hydrocarbon engines being banned?
Past industrial revolutions have happened by advancements overtaking inferior technology. Governments never banned steam engines or telegraphs or valve TVs or gas lighting. They never had to. They just got overtaken by superior technology.
This industrial revolution is being driven by dogma, not by technological advancement. If it was being driven by the latter, then growth would be bounding ahead, productivity would be booming and we would be reaching the sunlit uplands. We would be getting richer by the month.
We aren't. The opposite is happening. Wealth is being destroyed. Living standards are collapsing. Markets are plunging.
Because governments have agreed to force the investment upfront in order to keep the planet moderately habitable in a century's time. Impatient of them, I know.
OTOH, the price squeeze on gas and oil thanks to the war in Ukraine might suggest to you that the dash for renewables has other benefits too, within the next decade. Without that your living standards might never recover.
By 2030 ICE will decidedly outmoded. In fact, Bloomberg said the other day we have already seen peak ICE.
This, and other green measures, is one of the (few) reasons to be cheerful about the 2020s.
IF that is the case, then why are electric cars being introduced by diktat? why are hydrocarbon engines being banned?
Past industrial revolutions have happened by advancements overtaking inferior technology. Governments never banned steam engines or telegraphs or valve TVs or gas lighting. They never had to. They just got overtaken by superior technology.
This industrial revolution is being driven by dogma, not by technological advancement. If it was being driven by the latter, then growth would be bounding ahead, productivity would be booming and we would be reaching the sunlit uplands. We would be getting richer by the month.
We aren't. The opposite is happening. Wealth is being destroyed. Living standards are collapsing. Markets are plunging.
Because governments have agreed to force the investment upfront in order to keep the planet moderately habitable in a century's time. Impatient of them, I know.
OTOH, the price squeeze on gas and oil thanks to the war in Ukraine might suggest to you that the dash for renewables has other benefits too, within the next decade. Without that your living standards might never recover.
That would require the government to remove the planning legislation allowing Grumpy McNimby from being able to single handed lay derail any on-shore wind emery’s planning application. And they won’t because Grumpy and friends are Tory Association chairs.
By 2030 ICE will decidedly outmoded. In fact, Bloomberg said the other day we have already seen peak ICE.
This, and other green measures, is one of the (few) reasons to be cheerful about the 2020s.
IF that is the case, then why are electric cars being introduced by diktat? why are hydrocarbon engines being banned?
Past industrial revolutions have happened by advancements overtaking inferior technology. Governments never banned steam engines or telegraphs or valve TVs or gas lighting. They never had to. They just got overtaken by superior technology.
This industrial revolution is being driven by dogma, not by technological advancement. If it was being driven by the latter, then growth would be bounding ahead, productivity would be booming and we would be reaching the sunlit uplands. We would be getting richer by the month.
We aren't. The opposite is happening. Wealth is being destroyed. Living standards are collapsing. Markets are plunging.
Because governments have agreed to force the investment upfront in order to keep the planet moderately habitable in a century's time. Impatient of them, I know.
OTOH, the price squeeze on gas and oil thanks to the war in Ukraine might suggest to you that the dash for renewables has other benefits too, within the next decade. Without that your living standards might never recover.
That would require the government to remove the planning legislation allowing Grumpy McNimby from being able to single handed lay derail any on-shore wind emery’s planning application. And they won’t because Grumpy and friends are Tory Association chairs.
There is simply no need for more onshore wind - offshore is nearly as cheap and scaled up better. And the wind is more reliable there, as well.
By 2030 ICE will decidedly outmoded. In fact, Bloomberg said the other day we have already seen peak ICE.
This, and other green measures, is one of the (few) reasons to be cheerful about the 2020s.
IF that is the case, then why are electric cars being introduced by diktat? why are hydrocarbon engines being banned?
Past industrial revolutions have happened by advancements overtaking inferior technology. Governments never banned steam engines or telegraphs or valve TVs or gas lighting. They never had to. They just got overtaken by superior technology.
This industrial revolution is being driven by dogma, not by technological advancement. If it was being driven by the latter, then growth would be bounding ahead, productivity would be booming and we would be reaching the sunlit uplands. We would be getting richer by the month.
We aren't. The opposite is happening. Wealth is being destroyed. Living standards are collapsing. Markets are plunging.
Because governments have agreed to force the investment upfront in order to keep the planet moderately habitable in a century's time. Impatient of them, I know.
OTOH, the price squeeze on gas and oil thanks to the war in Ukraine might suggest to you that the dash for renewables has other benefits too, within the next decade. Without that your living standards might never recover.
That would require the government to remove the planning legislation allowing Grumpy McNimby from being able to single handed lay derail any on-shore wind emery’s planning application. And they won’t because Grumpy and friends are Tory Association chairs.
I don't disagree with you there - we could double our onshore generation capacity within 18 months just by removing the height restriction on turbines, for example (even allowing for air corridors, etc). There's plenty of stuff we could do better.
By 2030 ICE will decidedly outmoded. In fact, Bloomberg said the other day we have already seen peak ICE.
This, and other green measures, is one of the (few) reasons to be cheerful about the 2020s.
IF that is the case, then why are electric cars being introduced by diktat? why are hydrocarbon engines being banned?
Past industrial revolutions have happened by advancements overtaking inferior technology. Governments never banned steam engines or telegraphs or valve TVs or gas lighting. They never had to. They just got overtaken by superior technology.
This industrial revolution is being driven by dogma, not by technological advancement. If it was being driven by the latter, then growth would be bounding ahead, productivity would be booming and we would be reaching the sunlit uplands. We would be getting richer by the month.
We aren't. The opposite is happening. Wealth is being destroyed. Living standards are collapsing. Markets are plunging.
Because governments have agreed to force the investment upfront in order to keep the planet moderately habitable in a century's time. Impatient of them, I know.
OTOH, the price squeeze on gas and oil thanks to the war in Ukraine might suggest to you that the dash for renewables has other benefits too, within the next decade. Without that your living standards might never recover.
Based on projections from people who have been spectacularly wrong for decades.
By 2030 ICE will decidedly outmoded. In fact, Bloomberg said the other day we have already seen peak ICE.
This, and other green measures, is one of the (few) reasons to be cheerful about the 2020s.
IF that is the case, then why are electric cars being introduced by diktat? why are hydrocarbon engines being banned?
Past industrial revolutions have happened by advancements overtaking inferior technology. Governments never banned steam engines or telegraphs or valve TVs or gas lighting. They never had to. They just got overtaken by superior technology.
This industrial revolution is being driven by dogma, not by technological advancement. If it was being driven by the latter, then growth would be bounding ahead, productivity would be booming and we would be reaching the sunlit uplands. We would be getting richer by the month.
We aren't. The opposite is happening. Wealth is being destroyed. Living standards are collapsing. Markets are plunging.
Because governments have agreed to force the investment upfront in order to keep the planet moderately habitable in a century's time. Impatient of them, I know.
OTOH, the price squeeze on gas and oil thanks to the war in Ukraine might suggest to you that the dash for renewables has other benefits too, within the next decade. Without that your living standards might never recover.
That would require the government to remove the planning legislation allowing Grumpy McNimby from being able to single handed lay derail any on-shore wind emery’s planning application. And they won’t because Grumpy and friends are Tory Association chairs.
There is simply no need for more onshore wind - offshore is nearly as cheap and scaled up better. And the wind is more reliable there, as well.
Its a low bar.
Putin is doing us a favour by showing us what a world without hydrocarbons might look like. Its so bad that countries are happy to betray everything if only he will turn on the gas.
By 2030 ICE will decidedly outmoded. In fact, Bloomberg said the other day we have already seen peak ICE.
This, and other green measures, is one of the (few) reasons to be cheerful about the 2020s.
IF that is the case, then why are electric cars being introduced by diktat? why are hydrocarbon engines being banned?
Past industrial revolutions have happened by advancements overtaking inferior technology. Governments never banned steam engines or telegraphs or valve TVs or gas lighting. They never had to. They just got overtaken by superior technology.
This industrial revolution is being driven by dogma, not by technological advancement. If it was being driven by the latter, then growth would be bounding ahead, productivity would be booming and we would be reaching the sunlit uplands. We would be getting richer by the month.
We aren't. The opposite is happening. Wealth is being destroyed. Living standards are collapsing. Markets are plunging.
Because governments have agreed to force the investment upfront in order to keep the planet moderately habitable in a century's time. Impatient of them, I know.
OTOH, the price squeeze on gas and oil thanks to the war in Ukraine might suggest to you that the dash for renewables has other benefits too, within the next decade. Without that your living standards might never recover.
That would require the government to remove the planning legislation allowing Grumpy McNimby from being able to single handed lay derail any on-shore wind emery’s planning application. And they won’t because Grumpy and friends are Tory Association chairs.
There is simply no need for more onshore wind - offshore is nearly as cheap and scaled up better. And the wind is more reliable there, as well.
Its a low bar.
Putin is doing us a favour by showing us what a world without hydrocarbons might look like. Its so bad that countries are happy to betray everything if only he will turn on the gas.
Indeed. When power and transport is off hydrocarbons, we can tell various scumbags to go back to farming sand or snow, as they prefer.
By 2030 ICE will decidedly outmoded. In fact, Bloomberg said the other day we have already seen peak ICE.
This, and other green measures, is one of the (few) reasons to be cheerful about the 2020s.
IF that is the case, then why are electric cars being introduced by diktat? why are hydrocarbon engines being banned?
Past industrial revolutions have happened by advancements overtaking inferior technology. Governments never banned steam engines or telegraphs or valve TVs or gas lighting. They never had to. They just got overtaken by superior technology.
This industrial revolution is being driven by dogma, not by technological advancement. If it was being driven by the latter, then growth would be bounding ahead, productivity would be booming and we would be reaching the sunlit uplands. We would be getting richer by the month.
We aren't. The opposite is happening. Wealth is being destroyed. Living standards are collapsing. Markets are plunging.
Because governments have agreed to force the investment upfront in order to keep the planet moderately habitable in a century's time. Impatient of them, I know.
OTOH, the price squeeze on gas and oil thanks to the war in Ukraine might suggest to you that the dash for renewables has other benefits too, within the next decade. Without that your living standards might never recover.
That would require the government to remove the planning legislation allowing Grumpy McNimby from being able to single handed lay derail any on-shore wind emery’s planning application. And they won’t because Grumpy and friends are Tory Association chairs.
There is simply no need for more onshore wind - offshore is nearly as cheap and scaled up better. And the wind is more reliable there, as well.
Its a low bar.
Putin is doing us a favour by showing us what a world without hydrocarbons might look like. Its so bad that countries are happy to betray everything if only he will turn on the gas.
Ah, you’re one of those people. I suspect arguing the toss with you on this is pointless. Life without hydrocarbon energy would be pretty great given the improvement in air quality, reduction in noise pollution and more efficient and cheaper heating.
Life without hydrocarbons when the oil industry has spent years ensuring there is no alternative is hard. Unless you’re French, who were smarter and built lots of nuclear.
Trying to link going cold turkey on fossil fuels due to geopolitical disruption with a well organised transition to clean energy (which is so cheap that even the Yanks are building solar farms as fast as they can source the bits) lacks logic or good faith.
By 2030 ICE will decidedly outmoded. In fact, Bloomberg said the other day we have already seen peak ICE.
This, and other green measures, is one of the (few) reasons to be cheerful about the 2020s.
IF that is the case, then why are electric cars being introduced by diktat? why are hydrocarbon engines being banned?
Past industrial revolutions have happened by advancements overtaking inferior technology. Governments never banned steam engines or telegraphs or valve TVs or gas lighting. They never had to. They just got overtaken by superior technology.
This industrial revolution is being driven by dogma, not by technological advancement. If it was being driven by the latter, then growth would be bounding ahead, productivity would be booming and we would be reaching the sunlit uplands. We would be getting richer by the month.
We aren't. The opposite is happening. Wealth is being destroyed. Living standards are collapsing. Markets are plunging.
Because governments have agreed to force the investment upfront in order to keep the planet moderately habitable in a century's time. Impatient of them, I know.
OTOH, the price squeeze on gas and oil thanks to the war in Ukraine might suggest to you that the dash for renewables has other benefits too, within the next decade. Without that your living standards might never recover.
That would require the government to remove the planning legislation allowing Grumpy McNimby from being able to single handed lay derail any on-shore wind emery’s planning application. And they won’t because Grumpy and friends are Tory Association chairs.
There is simply no need for more onshore wind - offshore is nearly as cheap and scaled up better. And the wind is more reliable there, as well.
Its a low bar.
Putin is doing us a favour by showing us what a world without hydrocarbons might look like. Its so bad that countries are happy to betray everything if only he will turn on the gas.
Indeed. When power and transport is off hydrocarbons, we can tell various scumbags to go back to farming sand or snow, as they prefer.
A pleasant side effect of saving our elderly from regularly cooking will be the ability to tell the Saudis to do one.
By 2030 ICE will decidedly outmoded. In fact, Bloomberg said the other day we have already seen peak ICE.
This, and other green measures, is one of the (few) reasons to be cheerful about the 2020s.
IF that is the case, then why are electric cars being introduced by diktat? why are hydrocarbon engines being banned?
Past industrial revolutions have happened by advancements overtaking inferior technology. Governments never banned steam engines or telegraphs or valve TVs or gas lighting. They never had to. They just got overtaken by superior technology.
This industrial revolution is being driven by dogma, not by technological advancement. If it was being driven by the latter, then growth would be bounding ahead, productivity would be booming and we would be reaching the sunlit uplands. We would be getting richer by the month.
We aren't. The opposite is happening. Wealth is being destroyed. Living standards are collapsing. Markets are plunging.
Because governments have agreed to force the investment upfront in order to keep the planet moderately habitable in a century's time. Impatient of them, I know.
OTOH, the price squeeze on gas and oil thanks to the war in Ukraine might suggest to you that the dash for renewables has other benefits too, within the next decade. Without that your living standards might never recover.
That would require the government to remove the planning legislation allowing Grumpy McNimby from being able to single handed lay derail any on-shore wind emery’s planning application. And they won’t because Grumpy and friends are Tory Association chairs.
There is simply no need for more onshore wind - offshore is nearly as cheap and scaled up better. And the wind is more reliable there, as well.
Its a low bar.
Putin is doing us a favour by showing us what a world without hydrocarbons might look like. Its so bad that countries are happy to betray everything if only he will turn on the gas.
Ah, you’re one of those people. I suspect arguing the toss with you on this is pointless. Life without hydrocarbon energy would be pretty great given the improvement in air quality, reduction in noise pollution and more efficient and cheaper heating.
Life without hydrocarbons when the oil industry has spent years ensuring there is no alternative is hard. Unless you’re French, who were smarter and built lots of nuclear.
Trying to link going cold turkey on fossil fuels due to geopolitical disruption with a well organised transition to clean energy (which is so cheap that even the Yanks are building solar farms as fast as they can source the bits) lacks logic or good faith.
By 2030 ICE will decidedly outmoded. In fact, Bloomberg said the other day we have already seen peak ICE.
This, and other green measures, is one of the (few) reasons to be cheerful about the 2020s.
IF that is the case, then why are electric cars being introduced by diktat? why are hydrocarbon engines being banned?
Past industrial revolutions have happened by advancements overtaking inferior technology. Governments never banned steam engines or telegraphs or valve TVs or gas lighting. They never had to. They just got overtaken by superior technology.
This industrial revolution is being driven by dogma, not by technological advancement. If it was being driven by the latter, then growth would be bounding ahead, productivity would be booming and we would be reaching the sunlit uplands. We would be getting richer by the month.
We aren't. The opposite is happening. Wealth is being destroyed. Living standards are collapsing. Markets are plunging.
Because governments have agreed to force the investment upfront in order to keep the planet moderately habitable in a century's time. Impatient of them, I know.
OTOH, the price squeeze on gas and oil thanks to the war in Ukraine might suggest to you that the dash for renewables has other benefits too, within the next decade. Without that your living standards might never recover.
That would require the government to remove the planning legislation allowing Grumpy McNimby from being able to single handed lay derail any on-shore wind emery’s planning application. And they won’t because Grumpy and friends are Tory Association chairs.
There is simply no need for more onshore wind - offshore is nearly as cheap and scaled up better. And the wind is more reliable there, as well.
Its a low bar.
Putin is doing us a favour by showing us what a world without hydrocarbons might look like. Its so bad that countries are happy to betray everything if only he will turn on the gas.
Indeed. When power and transport is off hydrocarbons, we can tell various scumbags to go back to farming sand or snow, as they prefer.
Of course we can do that anyway by exploiting our own hydrocarbons, which are plentiful.
By 2030 ICE will decidedly outmoded. In fact, Bloomberg said the other day we have already seen peak ICE.
This, and other green measures, is one of the (few) reasons to be cheerful about the 2020s.
IF that is the case, then why are electric cars being introduced by diktat? why are hydrocarbon engines being banned?
Past industrial revolutions have happened by advancements overtaking inferior technology. Governments never banned steam engines or telegraphs or valve TVs or gas lighting. They never had to. They just got overtaken by superior technology.
This industrial revolution is being driven by dogma, not by technological advancement. If it was being driven by the latter, then growth would be bounding ahead, productivity would be booming and we would be reaching the sunlit uplands. We would be getting richer by the month.
We aren't. The opposite is happening. Wealth is being destroyed. Living standards are collapsing. Markets are plunging.
Because governments have agreed to force the investment upfront in order to keep the planet moderately habitable in a century's time. Impatient of them, I know.
OTOH, the price squeeze on gas and oil thanks to the war in Ukraine might suggest to you that the dash for renewables has other benefits too, within the next decade. Without that your living standards might never recover.
That would require the government to remove the planning legislation allowing Grumpy McNimby from being able to single handed lay derail any on-shore wind emery’s planning application. And they won’t because Grumpy and friends are Tory Association chairs.
There is simply no need for more onshore wind - offshore is nearly as cheap and scaled up better. And the wind is more reliable there, as well.
Its a low bar.
Putin is doing us a favour by showing us what a world without hydrocarbons might look like. Its so bad that countries are happy to betray everything if only he will turn on the gas.
Ah, you’re one of those people. I suspect arguing the toss with you on this is pointless. Life without hydrocarbon energy would be pretty great given the improvement in air quality, reduction in noise pollution and more efficient and cheaper heating.
Life without hydrocarbons when the oil industry has spent years ensuring there is no alternative is hard. Unless you’re French, who were smarter and built lots of nuclear.
Trying to link going cold turkey on fossil fuels due to geopolitical disruption with a well organised transition to clean energy (which is so cheap that even the Yanks are building solar farms as fast as they can source the bits) lacks logic or good faith.
Sorry???
Just this week eco warrior Joe Biden implored oil and gas companies to pump more to save his rotten neck in a breathtaking piece of hypocrisy.
That's when he wasn't raiding the strategic oil reserve in a desperate attempt to keep prices down.
By 2030 ICE will decidedly outmoded. In fact, Bloomberg said the other day we have already seen peak ICE.
This, and other green measures, is one of the (few) reasons to be cheerful about the 2020s.
IF that is the case, then why are electric cars being introduced by diktat? why are hydrocarbon engines being banned?
Past industrial revolutions have happened by advancements overtaking inferior technology. Governments never banned steam engines or telegraphs or valve TVs or gas lighting. They never had to. They just got overtaken by superior technology.
This industrial revolution is being driven by dogma, not by technological advancement. If it was being driven by the latter, then growth would be bounding ahead, productivity would be booming and we would be reaching the sunlit uplands. We would be getting richer by the month.
We aren't. The opposite is happening. Wealth is being destroyed. Living standards are collapsing. Markets are plunging.
Because governments have agreed to force the investment upfront in order to keep the planet moderately habitable in a century's time. Impatient of them, I know.
OTOH, the price squeeze on gas and oil thanks to the war in Ukraine might suggest to you that the dash for renewables has other benefits too, within the next decade. Without that your living standards might never recover.
That would require the government to remove the planning legislation allowing Grumpy McNimby from being able to single handed lay derail any on-shore wind emery’s planning application. And they won’t because Grumpy and friends are Tory Association chairs.
There is simply no need for more onshore wind - offshore is nearly as cheap and scaled up better. And the wind is more reliable there, as well.
Its a low bar.
Putin is doing us a favour by showing us what a world without hydrocarbons might look like. Its so bad that countries are happy to betray everything if only he will turn on the gas.
Ah, you’re one of those people. I suspect arguing the toss with you on this is pointless. Life without hydrocarbon energy would be pretty great given the improvement in air quality, reduction in noise pollution and more efficient and cheaper heating.
Life without hydrocarbons when the oil industry has spent years ensuring there is no alternative is hard. Unless you’re French, who were smarter and built lots of nuclear.
Trying to link going cold turkey on fossil fuels due to geopolitical disruption with a well organised transition to clean energy (which is so cheap that even the Yanks are building solar farms as fast as they can source the bits) lacks logic or good faith.
By 2030 ICE will decidedly outmoded. In fact, Bloomberg said the other day we have already seen peak ICE.
This, and other green measures, is one of the (few) reasons to be cheerful about the 2020s.
IF that is the case, then why are electric cars being introduced by diktat? why are hydrocarbon engines being banned?
Past industrial revolutions have happened by advancements overtaking inferior technology. Governments never banned steam engines or telegraphs or valve TVs or gas lighting. They never had to. They just got overtaken by superior technology.
This industrial revolution is being driven by dogma, not by technological advancement. If it was being driven by the latter, then growth would be bounding ahead, productivity would be booming and we would be reaching the sunlit uplands. We would be getting richer by the month.
We aren't. The opposite is happening. Wealth is being destroyed. Living standards are collapsing. Markets are plunging.
Because governments have agreed to force the investment upfront in order to keep the planet moderately habitable in a century's time. Impatient of them, I know.
OTOH, the price squeeze on gas and oil thanks to the war in Ukraine might suggest to you that the dash for renewables has other benefits too, within the next decade. Without that your living standards might never recover.
That would require the government to remove the planning legislation allowing Grumpy McNimby from being able to single handed lay derail any on-shore wind emery’s planning application. And they won’t because Grumpy and friends are Tory Association chairs.
There is simply no need for more onshore wind - offshore is nearly as cheap and scaled up better. And the wind is more reliable there, as well.
Its a low bar.
Putin is doing us a favour by showing us what a world without hydrocarbons might look like. Its so bad that countries are happy to betray everything if only he will turn on the gas.
Indeed. When power and transport is off hydrocarbons, we can tell various scumbags to go back to farming sand or snow, as they prefer.
Of course we can do that anyway by exploiting our own hydrocarbons, which are plentiful.
The North Sea has become progressively more difficult and expensive to extract from, while we have far less fracking reserves than previously expected (according to the government’s own reporting). And that doesn’t matter in the end as long as global prices stay high. It doesn’t matter how much we extract, it won’t compete with the cartels of petrostate bastards who will happily reduce supply to keep their profits flowing.
By 2030 ICE will decidedly outmoded. In fact, Bloomberg said the other day we have already seen peak ICE.
This, and other green measures, is one of the (few) reasons to be cheerful about the 2020s.
IF that is the case, then why are electric cars being introduced by diktat? why are hydrocarbon engines being banned?
Past industrial revolutions have happened by advancements overtaking inferior technology. Governments never banned steam engines or telegraphs or valve TVs or gas lighting. They never had to. They just got overtaken by superior technology.
This industrial revolution is being driven by dogma, not by technological advancement. If it was being driven by the latter, then growth would be bounding ahead, productivity would be booming and we would be reaching the sunlit uplands. We would be getting richer by the month.
We aren't. The opposite is happening. Wealth is being destroyed. Living standards are collapsing. Markets are plunging.
Because governments have agreed to force the investment upfront in order to keep the planet moderately habitable in a century's time. Impatient of them, I know.
OTOH, the price squeeze on gas and oil thanks to the war in Ukraine might suggest to you that the dash for renewables has other benefits too, within the next decade. Without that your living standards might never recover.
That would require the government to remove the planning legislation allowing Grumpy McNimby from being able to single handed lay derail any on-shore wind emery’s planning application. And they won’t because Grumpy and friends are Tory Association chairs.
There is simply no need for more onshore wind - offshore is nearly as cheap and scaled up better. And the wind is more reliable there, as well.
Onshore is much quicker and cheaper to put up, though, even if the overall rate of return is similar. We need both.
By 2030 ICE will decidedly outmoded. In fact, Bloomberg said the other day we have already seen peak ICE.
This, and other green measures, is one of the (few) reasons to be cheerful about the 2020s.
IF that is the case, then why are electric cars being introduced by diktat? why are hydrocarbon engines being banned?
Past industrial revolutions have happened by advancements overtaking inferior technology. Governments never banned steam engines or telegraphs or valve TVs or gas lighting. They never had to. They just got overtaken by superior technology.
This industrial revolution is being driven by dogma, not by technological advancement. If it was being driven by the latter, then growth would be bounding ahead, productivity would be booming and we would be reaching the sunlit uplands. We would be getting richer by the month.
We aren't. The opposite is happening. Wealth is being destroyed. Living standards are collapsing. Markets are plunging.
Because governments have agreed to force the investment upfront in order to keep the planet moderately habitable in a century's time. Impatient of them, I know.
OTOH, the price squeeze on gas and oil thanks to the war in Ukraine might suggest to you that the dash for renewables has other benefits too, within the next decade. Without that your living standards might never recover.
That would require the government to remove the planning legislation allowing Grumpy McNimby from being able to single handed lay derail any on-shore wind emery’s planning application. And they won’t because Grumpy and friends are Tory Association chairs.
There is simply no need for more onshore wind - offshore is nearly as cheap and scaled up better. And the wind is more reliable there, as well.
Its a low bar.
Putin is doing us a favour by showing us what a world without hydrocarbons might look like. Its so bad that countries are happy to betray everything if only he will turn on the gas.
Indeed. When power and transport is off hydrocarbons, we can tell various scumbags to go back to farming sand or snow, as they prefer.
Sadly or not, Saudi Arabia will still be an energy superpower, with the lowest cost and most reliable solar on the planet. Though its comparative advantage will be much reduced.
By 2030 ICE will decidedly outmoded. In fact, Bloomberg said the other day we have already seen peak ICE.
This, and other green measures, is one of the (few) reasons to be cheerful about the 2020s.
IF that is the case, then why are electric cars being introduced by diktat? why are hydrocarbon engines being banned?
Past industrial revolutions have happened by advancements overtaking inferior technology. Governments never banned steam engines or telegraphs or valve TVs or gas lighting. They never had to. They just got overtaken by superior technology.
This industrial revolution is being driven by dogma, not by technological advancement. If it was being driven by the latter, then growth would be bounding ahead, productivity would be booming and we would be reaching the sunlit uplands. We would be getting richer by the month.
We aren't. The opposite is happening. Wealth is being destroyed. Living standards are collapsing. Markets are plunging.
Because governments have agreed to force the investment upfront in order to keep the planet moderately habitable in a century's time. Impatient of them, I know.
OTOH, the price squeeze on gas and oil thanks to the war in Ukraine might suggest to you that the dash for renewables has other benefits too, within the next decade. Without that your living standards might never recover.
That would require the government to remove the planning legislation allowing Grumpy McNimby from being able to single handed lay derail any on-shore wind emery’s planning application. And they won’t because Grumpy and friends are Tory Association chairs.
There is simply no need for more onshore wind - offshore is nearly as cheap and scaled up better. And the wind is more reliable there, as well.
Its a low bar.
Putin is doing us a favour by showing us what a world without hydrocarbons might look like. Its so bad that countries are happy to betray everything if only he will turn on the gas.
Ah, you’re one of those people. I suspect arguing the toss with you on this is pointless. Life without hydrocarbon energy would be pretty great given the improvement in air quality, reduction in noise pollution and more efficient and cheaper heating.
Life without hydrocarbons when the oil industry has spent years ensuring there is no alternative is hard. Unless you’re French, who were smarter and built lots of nuclear.
Trying to link going cold turkey on fossil fuels due to geopolitical disruption with a well organised transition to clean energy (which is so cheap that even the Yanks are building solar farms as fast as they can source the bits) lacks logic or good faith.
Sorry???
Just this week eco warrior Joe Biden implored oil and gas companies to pump more to save his rotten neck in a breathtaking piece of hypocrisy.
That's when he wasn't raiding the strategic oil reserve in a desperate attempt to keep prices down.
Politician in short term thinking shock. This is a non-sequitur. Biden is being pressured by petrol prices rises. Which wouldn’t matter a damn if the transport infrastructure was electrified off the gigantic amounts of solar and wind energy the Midwest has to offer. If oil and coal wasn’t subsidised so heavily it would have ceased being profitable a decade ago.
By 2030 ICE will decidedly outmoded. In fact, Bloomberg said the other day we have already seen peak ICE.
This, and other green measures, is one of the (few) reasons to be cheerful about the 2020s.
IF that is the case, then why are electric cars being introduced by diktat? why are hydrocarbon engines being banned?
Past industrial revolutions have happened by advancements overtaking inferior technology. Governments never banned steam engines or telegraphs or valve TVs or gas lighting. They never had to. They just got overtaken by superior technology.
This industrial revolution is being driven by dogma, not by technological advancement. If it was being driven by the latter, then growth would be bounding ahead, productivity would be booming and we would be reaching the sunlit uplands. We would be getting richer by the month.
We aren't. The opposite is happening. Wealth is being destroyed. Living standards are collapsing. Markets are plunging.
Because governments have agreed to force the investment upfront in order to keep the planet moderately habitable in a century's time. Impatient of them, I know.
OTOH, the price squeeze on gas and oil thanks to the war in Ukraine might suggest to you that the dash for renewables has other benefits too, within the next decade. Without that your living standards might never recover.
That would require the government to remove the planning legislation allowing Grumpy McNimby from being able to single handed lay derail any on-shore wind emery’s planning application. And they won’t because Grumpy and friends are Tory Association chairs.
There is simply no need for more onshore wind - offshore is nearly as cheap and scaled up better. And the wind is more reliable there, as well.
Its a low bar.
Putin is doing us a favour by showing us what a world without hydrocarbons might look like. Its so bad that countries are happy to betray everything if only he will turn on the gas.
Indeed. When power and transport is off hydrocarbons, we can tell various scumbags to go back to farming sand or snow, as they prefer.
Sadly or not, Saudi Arabia will still be an energy superpower, with the lowest cost and most reliable solar on the planet. Though its comparative advantage will be much reduced.
The difference is that you need to get that solar somewhere useful. It’s hard to transmit electricity across a continent, particularly in hot places. They can electrolyse water for Hydrogen but so can any sunny or windy nation on the sea. Regionally they’ll be a player, but why import Hydrogen from Saudi when China will make it themselves and Europe will import from the UK and Norway?
By 2030 ICE will decidedly outmoded. In fact, Bloomberg said the other day we have already seen peak ICE.
This, and other green measures, is one of the (few) reasons to be cheerful about the 2020s.
IF that is the case, then why are electric cars being introduced by diktat? why are hydrocarbon engines being banned?
Past industrial revolutions have happened by advancements overtaking inferior technology. Governments never banned steam engines or telegraphs or valve TVs or gas lighting. They never had to. They just got overtaken by superior technology.
This industrial revolution is being driven by dogma, not by technological advancement. If it was being driven by the latter, then growth would be bounding ahead, productivity would be booming and we would be reaching the sunlit uplands. We would be getting richer by the month.
We aren't. The opposite is happening. Wealth is being destroyed. Living standards are collapsing. Markets are plunging.
Because governments have agreed to force the investment upfront in order to keep the planet moderately habitable in a century's time. Impatient of them, I know.
OTOH, the price squeeze on gas and oil thanks to the war in Ukraine might suggest to you that the dash for renewables has other benefits too, within the next decade. Without that your living standards might never recover.
That would require the government to remove the planning legislation allowing Grumpy McNimby from being able to single handed lay derail any on-shore wind emery’s planning application. And they won’t because Grumpy and friends are Tory Association chairs.
There is simply no need for more onshore wind - offshore is nearly as cheap and scaled up better. And the wind is more reliable there, as well.
Its a low bar.
Putin is doing us a favour by showing us what a world without hydrocarbons might look like. Its so bad that countries are happy to betray everything if only he will turn on the gas.
Ah, you’re one of those people. I suspect arguing the toss with you on this is pointless. Life without hydrocarbon energy would be pretty great given the improvement in air quality, reduction in noise pollution and more efficient and cheaper heating.
Life without hydrocarbons when the oil industry has spent years ensuring there is no alternative is hard. Unless you’re French, who were smarter and built lots of nuclear.
Trying to link going cold turkey on fossil fuels due to geopolitical disruption with a well organised transition to clean energy (which is so cheap that even the Yanks are building solar farms as fast as they can source the bits) lacks logic or good faith.
Sorry???
Just this week eco warrior Joe Biden implored oil and gas companies to pump more to save his rotten neck in a breathtaking piece of hypocrisy.
That's when he wasn't raiding the strategic oil reserve in a desperate attempt to keep prices down.
The Democrats had their prime-time, stage-managed Jan 6th enquiry, but half of their own friendly media dropped it after one day, in favour of leading with “Gas is $5 a gallon”.
By 2030 ICE will decidedly outmoded. In fact, Bloomberg said the other day we have already seen peak ICE.
This, and other green measures, is one of the (few) reasons to be cheerful about the 2020s.
IF that is the case, then why are electric cars being introduced by diktat? why are hydrocarbon engines being banned?
Past industrial revolutions have happened by advancements overtaking inferior technology. Governments never banned steam engines or telegraphs or valve TVs or gas lighting. They never had to. They just got overtaken by superior technology.
This industrial revolution is being driven by dogma, not by technological advancement. If it was being driven by the latter, then growth would be bounding ahead, productivity would be booming and we would be reaching the sunlit uplands. We would be getting richer by the month.
We aren't. The opposite is happening. Wealth is being destroyed. Living standards are collapsing. Markets are plunging.
Because governments have agreed to force the investment upfront in order to keep the planet moderately habitable in a century's time. Impatient of them, I know.
OTOH, the price squeeze on gas and oil thanks to the war in Ukraine might suggest to you that the dash for renewables has other benefits too, within the next decade. Without that your living standards might never recover.
That would require the government to remove the planning legislation allowing Grumpy McNimby from being able to single handed lay derail any on-shore wind emery’s planning application. And they won’t because Grumpy and friends are Tory Association chairs.
There is simply no need for more onshore wind - offshore is nearly as cheap and scaled up better. And the wind is more reliable there, as well.
Its a low bar.
Putin is doing us a favour by showing us what a world without hydrocarbons might look like. Its so bad that countries are happy to betray everything if only he will turn on the gas.
Ah, you’re one of those people. I suspect arguing the toss with you on this is pointless. Life without hydrocarbon energy would be pretty great given the improvement in air quality, reduction in noise pollution and more efficient and cheaper heating.
Life without hydrocarbons when the oil industry has spent years ensuring there is no alternative is hard. Unless you’re French, who were smarter and built lots of nuclear.
Trying to link going cold turkey on fossil fuels due to geopolitical disruption with a well organised transition to clean energy (which is so cheap that even the Yanks are building solar farms as fast as they can source the bits) lacks logic or good faith.
By 2030 ICE will decidedly outmoded. In fact, Bloomberg said the other day we have already seen peak ICE.
This, and other green measures, is one of the (few) reasons to be cheerful about the 2020s.
IF that is the case, then why are electric cars being introduced by diktat? why are hydrocarbon engines being banned?
Past industrial revolutions have happened by advancements overtaking inferior technology. Governments never banned steam engines or telegraphs or valve TVs or gas lighting. They never had to. They just got overtaken by superior technology.
This industrial revolution is being driven by dogma, not by technological advancement. If it was being driven by the latter, then growth would be bounding ahead, productivity would be booming and we would be reaching the sunlit uplands. We would be getting richer by the month.
We aren't. The opposite is happening. Wealth is being destroyed. Living standards are collapsing. Markets are plunging.
Because governments have agreed to force the investment upfront in order to keep the planet moderately habitable in a century's time. Impatient of them, I know.
OTOH, the price squeeze on gas and oil thanks to the war in Ukraine might suggest to you that the dash for renewables has other benefits too, within the next decade. Without that your living standards might never recover.
That would require the government to remove the planning legislation allowing Grumpy McNimby from being able to single handed lay derail any on-shore wind emery’s planning application. And they won’t because Grumpy and friends are Tory Association chairs.
There is simply no need for more onshore wind - offshore is nearly as cheap and scaled up better. And the wind is more reliable there, as well.
Its a low bar.
Putin is doing us a favour by showing us what a world without hydrocarbons might look like. Its so bad that countries are happy to betray everything if only he will turn on the gas.
Indeed. When power and transport is off hydrocarbons, we can tell various scumbags to go back to farming sand or snow, as they prefer.
Of course we can do that anyway by exploiting our own hydrocarbons, which are plentiful.
No, they are not plentiful. The geology for fracking for gas is mostly rubbish in the U.K.
And no, the coal that is underground is not economic either.
By 2030 ICE will decidedly outmoded. In fact, Bloomberg said the other day we have already seen peak ICE.
This, and other green measures, is one of the (few) reasons to be cheerful about the 2020s.
IF that is the case, then why are electric cars being introduced by diktat? why are hydrocarbon engines being banned?
Past industrial revolutions have happened by advancements overtaking inferior technology. Governments never banned steam engines or telegraphs or valve TVs or gas lighting. They never had to. They just got overtaken by superior technology.
This industrial revolution is being driven by dogma, not by technological advancement. If it was being driven by the latter, then growth would be bounding ahead, productivity would be booming and we would be reaching the sunlit uplands. We would be getting richer by the month.
We aren't. The opposite is happening. Wealth is being destroyed. Living standards are collapsing. Markets are plunging.
Because governments have agreed to force the investment upfront in order to keep the planet moderately habitable in a century's time. Impatient of them, I know.
OTOH, the price squeeze on gas and oil thanks to the war in Ukraine might suggest to you that the dash for renewables has other benefits too, within the next decade. Without that your living standards might never recover.
That would require the government to remove the planning legislation allowing Grumpy McNimby from being able to single handed lay derail any on-shore wind emery’s planning application. And they won’t because Grumpy and friends are Tory Association chairs.
There is simply no need for more onshore wind - offshore is nearly as cheap and scaled up better. And the wind is more reliable there, as well.
Its a low bar.
Putin is doing us a favour by showing us what a world without hydrocarbons might look like. Its so bad that countries are happy to betray everything if only he will turn on the gas.
Indeed. When power and transport is off hydrocarbons, we can tell various scumbags to go back to farming sand or snow, as they prefer.
Sadly or not, Saudi Arabia will still be an energy superpower, with the lowest cost and most reliable solar on the planet. Though its comparative advantage will be much reduced.
The difference is that you need to get that solar somewhere useful. It’s hard to transmit electricity across a continent, particularly in hot places. They can electrolyse water for Hydrogen but so can any sunny or windy nation on the sea. Regionally they’ll be a player, but why import Hydrogen from Saudi when China will make it themselves and Europe will import from the UK and Norway?
Transporting hydrogen long distances won’t work. Daily boil off in the percent range from the liquid. And transporting it compressed would be er…. Interesting.
Comments
Oh, and @MoonRabbit - not Jim. Never Jim.
To give two examples. It constantly - every day - promotes comment and 'awareness raising' from people and groups who want to spend more taxpayers money on something and rarely do the opposite.
Secondly it rarely counteracts the lazy assumption that government is there to blame for everything. My favourite example, which crops up all the time, is that to the BBC everything good about health care is down to something called the NHS. Everything bad about it is down to 'the government'.
2024 1.2
2023 6
2022 17.5
Just over those hills is the Azerbaijani enclave of Naviwotsit
It is lush
Incidentally, where are people getting tests from? I keep hearing people say 'but I tested negative so all good' or 'weirdly tested positive, no symptoms'
Are people still testing themselves all the time? With stockpiled tests?
Palermo cathedral, the spot is the sun shining through the pinhole in the roof and indicating that it is in Cancer
EVs are going to get cheaper as more battery factories are built, and battery chemistries and designs improve (which they do incrementally, and then every half decade, markedly).
The installation of charging points at workplaces will increase as EV ownership increases - and fitting low powered chargers at home is quite easy and relatively cheap, even if not possible for everyone.
More seriously, I work in the field a lot and we’re short staffed as it is so we test before travelling to try to ensure we don’t give it to each other and muck up next week’s work plan.
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/how-boris-johnsons-calls-with-president-zelensky-have-been-announced-just-after-the-pms-biggest-crises-1691400
So while it may be completely coincidental/just fancy that, here are some dates:
15 June: 6.58pm Lord Geidt resigns / 7.48pm No10 announces PM has had a call with Zelensky
6 June: 8.10am Graham Brady announces confidence vote from MPs / 11.50am PM call with Zelensky announced
19 May: Met probe ends with 126 fines and No10 most fined UK location / 1.21pm PM call with Zelensky announced
5 May: Interest rates go up to 1% to highest level in 13 years/local elections take place with defeats for Tories expected / 3.54pm PM call with Zelensky announced
12 April: PM fined by Met over partygate / 5.49pm PM call with Zelensky announced.
More here: https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/how-boris-johnsons-calls-with-president-zelensky-have-been-announced-just-after-the-pms-biggest-crises-1691400
Useful for (eg) making sure you don't visit your ageing relatives while infected.
Used largely to check if a cold was just a cold, or something worse, I think.
LAB: 39.2% (+6.3)
CON: 33.1% (-11.6)
LDM: 11.9% (+0.1)
GRN: 5.7% (+2.9)
SNP: 4.0% (-0.3)
RFM: 3.2% (+1.1)
Changes w/ GE2019
BJO please explain
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/us/vestavia-hills-alabama-church-shooting.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/world/europe/lysychansk-sievierodonetsk-ukraine-civilian-deaths.html
# Thoughts and prayers when’s the next vigil !
The USA the richest third world country in the world .
Despite the various claims, there is no evidence that anyone, ever, caused and explosion/fire at a petrol station by using mobile phone.
Having explosive vapour present on a forecourt would be a massive, massive failure.
Using electrical equipment in a petrol station is quite common. Some petrol stations actually have charging points - the design of the plugs and the initiation of the current flow is designed not to create sparks anyway.
That being said, mixed is not the standard thing.
Shell, among others, is starting on conversion of filling stations to charging stations. They are digging up the tanks - which are not as big as you might think - and removing the petrol/diesel completely, IIRC.
Interestingly a couple of BP stations near me are getting bays of rapid chargers installed. Beefy 300kW models I think. From a safety standpoint, provided the forecourt has an area set back from the storage tank or pumps, there’s likely to be lower risk than the baseline “fag smoking numpty” level.
Head Office won't sign up to it. Unless or until the public mood changes in Scotland, polite stonewalling of all plebiscite demands is the best strategy for Starmer as well as for Johnson. The general idea being, of course, to let the SNP beat its head against said wall until its head falls off.
HONK
HONK
Isn't the problem with the 'EV filling station' model that (a) there's nothing much to do to while away the time and (b) there are far too many competing outlets?
http://www.cameronians.org/regiment/regiments_story_cameronianregiment.html
I’m not convinced it does, though.
Indy sentiment is weakening and Nicola’s latest gambit looks decadent against a cost of living crisis.
https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1537711934992162817?s=20&t=oQ2-7iYZiRpLbpyvYMpmGg
(a) The current average for a charge up at a fast charger is apparently 20-30 minutes. Given that petrol stations actually make money from Mars Bars etc (the petrol makes little money) the oil companies are seeing this as an advantage.
https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-pulls-out-of-red-wall-summit-at-last-minute-12635601
In fact, Bloomberg said the other day we have already seen peak ICE.
This, and other green measures, is one of the (few) reasons to be cheerful about the 2020s.
Lord Reith revered Hitler, says daughter
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lord-reith-revered-hitler-says-daughter-c5q6f6zbk5k
Centuries from Salt, Malan and Buttler, and 66 from 22 balls from Liam Livingstone.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/england-in-netherlands-2022-1281442/netherlands-vs-england-1st-odi-1281444/full-scorecard
And England have not just the highest, but the 3 highest totals for all three of these records.
I shall quote from wiki.
Cancer" is an ancient word of Indo-European origin, derived from a root meaning "to scratch."[15] In ancient Egypt, the sign of Cancer was conceived as a scarab beetle, while in Mesopotamia it was represented by a turtle.[15] In each case, the animal representative of the sign was perceived as "pushing" the sun across the heavens, initiating the summer solstice.[15]
Latin cancer is the generic word for 'crab'.[15] According to Greek myth, the symbol of Cancer—often a crab, though sometimes a lobster—is based on the Karkinos (Greek: "Cancer"), a crab crushed under the foot of Hercules, and whose remains were placed in the sky by Hera, forming the Cancer constellation.[5] In Roman variations of the story, it is Juno—Hera's counterpart in Roman mythology—who places the crab in the sky.[16] Naturalist Richard Hinckley Allen, in 1899, deemed Cancer the "most inconspicuous figure in the zodiac," adding that its mythology "apologizes for its being there by the story that when the Crab was crushed by Hercules, for pinching his toes during a contest with the Hydra in the Marsh of Lerna, Juno exalted it to the sky."[16]
In the arts[edit]
During the Middle Ages, the zodiacal symbol of Cancer was included in devotional books and incorporated into monumental sculptures.[15] The depiction of Cancer as a crab is most prevalent in Mediterranean and Western European art.[15]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrwIs10XvKA
The Tory candidate in #TivertonandHonitonByElection has produced an 8-page booklet in which she doesn't mention she's a Conservative until page 4. After that, the word Conservative appears just 3 more times.
This was what Labour MPs in 2019 did
Past industrial revolutions have happened by advancements overtaking inferior technology. Governments never banned steam engines or telegraphs or valve TVs or gas lighting. They never had to. They just got overtaken by superior technology.
This industrial revolution is being driven by dogma, not by technological advancement. If it was being driven by the latter, then growth would be bounding ahead, productivity would be booming and we would be reaching the sunlit uplands. We would be getting richer by the month.
We aren't. The opposite is happening. Wealth is being destroyed. Living standards are collapsing. Markets are plunging.
In this epoch, and at this time of year, roughly that of the Summer Solstice, the Sun lies on the borders of Taurus and Gemini.
FWIW I don't think either party is going to win a majority under their current leaders so my betting is based on which one is more likely to switch to a more attractive leader by 2024.
Beergate aside the Tories are the more likely to ditch Johnson but it is by no means certain that they will replace him with a vote winner - there are some real duffers amongst the runners and riders.
I would be happy for Starmer to get a FPN and resign if they replaced him with Streeting or Nandy but they are just as likely to choose a Corbynista loon.
Elsewhere in Europe PR has allowed new political groupings to emerge. In the UK FPTP consigns us to the Tory-Labour straitjacket for evermore. So we get a choice of 2 and both leaders are chosen by small groups of zealots that I wouldn't trust to run a bath.
As for valve TVs, I don’t think they were thought to contribute to local pollution and a climate crisis. The Clean Air Act 1956 did proscribe certain fuels, though, didn’t it?
Impatient of them, I know.
OTOH, the price squeeze on gas and oil thanks to the war in Ukraine might suggest to you that the dash for renewables has other benefits too, within the next decade.
Without that your living standards might never recover.
There's plenty of stuff we could do better.
Putin is doing us a favour by showing us what a world without hydrocarbons might look like. Its so bad that countries are happy to betray everything if only he will turn on the gas.
Life without hydrocarbons when the oil industry has spent years ensuring there is no alternative is hard. Unless you’re French, who were smarter and built lots of nuclear.
Trying to link going cold turkey on fossil fuels due to geopolitical disruption with a well organised transition to clean energy (which is so cheap that even the Yanks are building solar farms as fast as they can source the bits) lacks logic or good faith.
Just this week eco warrior Joe Biden implored oil and gas companies to pump more to save his rotten neck in a breathtaking piece of hypocrisy.
That's when he wasn't raiding the strategic oil reserve in a desperate attempt to keep prices down.
We need both.
Though its comparative advantage will be much reduced.
And no, the coal that is underground is not economic either.