Regarding our GDP and productivity we have comparative advantage in very-high end manufacturing, creative industries, pharmaceuticals, telecoms, and financial professional services.
Therefore, we'd want policies and trade deals to leverage those globally as best we could, and that includes the EU.
However, in and of itself I don't think that's sufficient because a good mass of our population will never get high paying jobs in any of those sectors and we have to be able to offer them something other than low-wage, low-security, low-value work that is migrant heavy and convenient for those in the thriving sectors but drags down our GDP and income per head and our productivity measures.
Switzerland and Germany have both largely solved that issue though.
And they have done so by (a) having lots of vocational training for 16 to 21 year olds who aren't going to University, and (b) having largely contributory benefits schemes, so that young people essentially have to choose between working and training. There is no "don't work, and still recieve money" option.
It's also led to a very high effective minimum wage in Switzerland which means there's no corporate subsidisation of low wages.
Fundamentally our education system isn't fit for the 21st century. It's very good for people who can and people who will, but not very good for those who can't and especially bad for people who won't. The UK is one of very few mug countries that has universal benefits without significant contributions required to qualify and a very large and complex system of in working benefits to lower the marginal cost of labour to get the can'ts and won'ts into low productivity jobs.
So on the one hand they don't get paid enough and need to be subsidised with in working benefits and on the other side we've incentivised companies to hire these low productivity people over investing in capital by lowering the marginal cost of labour.
It's a pincer movement that has wrecked the UK economy for 20+ years.
Yep: our education (particularly vocational education) and benefits systems are massive problem.
I'd add one other: German banking is a mess in many ways, but it's a hell of a lot easier for small and medium sized companies to access bank funding than in the UK. It's next to impossible for £2m year revenue companies to get bank funding in the UK, because banks would much rather lend to Joe Schmoo for him to spend on his credit card.
In Germany and Switzerland, by contrast getting bank funding for smaller companies is - if not easy - a hell of a lot easier. This means that smaller companies find it a lot easier to invest in capital equipment than they do in the UK.
Now... remind me, have either of Sunak or Truss actually mentioned any of these issues?
This board should run for office.
Regardless of current affiliation we'd do a much better job than any of the lot on offer.
Me as Prime Minister.
You know it makes sense.
There hasn’t been a PM from the Lords for a 100 years or so.
More like 60 years. On his appointment as PM in 1963, I imagine the Earl of Home was still a peer, albeit he must have renounced it almost immediately to seek election to the Commons. I fear this might be another example of the tedious pedantry that periodically afflicts this place.
You are right, he was PM as Lord for about five minutes.
@christopherhope ** EXCLUSIVE ** Boris Johnson has said he does not want to resign and will stay on if the membership backs him The PM told former treasurer @peteratcmc over lunch at Chequers on Friday he wishes he could "wipe away" his resignation.
The man's a bloody disgrace. It isn't the confidence of the members that decides who is PM, and teasing people that it should be that way doesn't help anyone, including him.
He really cannot think more than 5 minutes ahead and so just throws temper tantrums, doesn't he?
He's only got himself to blame.
He could have stayed as PM by not being phenomenally lazy and covering up for and excusing other's gross misconduct.
Manly Sea Eagles, the Sydney-based rugby league team, are facing a revolt from players who are refusing to wear a rainbow-themed Pride jersey celebrating inclusivity for their game against Sydney Roosters on Thursday.
The Daily Telegraph based in Sydney reported that seven players have said they will boycott the NRL game due to their religious beliefs about homosexuality, while Des Hasler, the coach, was said to have been supportive of their decision not to play.
Ian Roberts, the club’s former forward, who became the first rugby league player to come out as gay in 1995, described his disappointment at the episode.
The bulk of the refusniks are from pacific island backgrounds, which we know rugby union has similar issues with players from the same communities over this issue.
"@christopherhope ** EXCLUSIVE ** Boris Johnson has said he does not want to resign and will stay on if the membership backs him The PM told former treasurer @peteratcmc over lunch at Chequers on Friday he wishes he could "wipe away" his resignation."
"@christopherhope ** EXCLUSIVE ** Boris Johnson has said he does not want to resign and will stay on if the membership backs him The PM told former treasurer @peteratcmc over lunch at Chequers on Friday he wishes he could "wipe away" his resignation."
Day one of the summer holidays: Have resorted to creating origin stories for everything on his dinner plate:
"I was just a lowly wife, and my one sin was to look back to see if I'd left the iron on because my useless 'usband couldn't be 'rsed to check 'imself. So 'im up there, that B------, that UTTER B------, turned me to SALT. And there I lie for a millennia, carefully minding me own business, then some machine grabs me up and puts me in a 'opper. I get taken to a place I've never been before, and put in a plastic container. AND SOLD!! I then gets put into a clay container and sprinkled over some CUCUMBER! I mean, I was a good wife, and 'ere I am, sprinkled on some cucumber. And then, to add insult to all that injury, I get eaten by an eight year old! All because I thought I left the iron on!"
(Repeat similar origin stories for pasta, cucumber, peperoni, lettuce and water. But you really don't want to experience the water's story. For the eighth time...)
I've just received my new (blue) passport - The Brexit dividend is complete!
Congratulations. You are hereby now entitled to join a long, long queue to get across the Channel (once it's been stamped by a surly French customs agent). Brexit - the joy!
And potential deportation if you get an incompetent border agent who forgets to stamp your passport correctly on the way out.
I have read several times on this very forum that it still only takes seconds to stamp a passport.
This is simply not true. Said surly and incompetent border guard has to leaf through your passport to find the most recent entry and exit stamps to ensure you are compliant with the visa-free 90/180 rule. That takes longer than a few seconds.
But checks were always required, so nothing is new.
If checks take twice as long then if you have twice as many staff on, then nothing has changed. Just staff appropriately based upon today's circumstances.
Sorry, you keep repeating this, but the checks are new. Even if they were required previously, they weren't done. Those of us who hopped across the Channel can testify that most of the time you were just waved through, with the occasional random check.
Indeed - that was my experience too. Normally the only checks outbound were done by the UK Border force, the French normally just checked you were waving the same number of passports at them as there were passengers in the car. They might stop Eastern European vehicles occasionally.
Also @BartholomewRoberts doesn't consider that Dover and Folkestone both have major constraints on capacity due to geography. Given the extra time taken to process, it may be that it isn't possible simply to keep increasing the number of border posts - there needs to be somewhere to put them, and the waiting cars. A more realistic option may be to limit the number of vehicle crossings.
Incidentally I notice that my shiny new blue passport has, in 4 months, already received the same number of stamps (5) as my previous one had in its lifetime.
In the event it takes 24 booths instead of 12 then would the responsible thing to do be:
A: Get 24 booths. Use compulsory purchase orders if necessary.
B: Stick with 12. Blame voters for a choice they may six years ago.
They've had six years to prepare for this. It isn't voters responsibility to deal with this, it's government's responsibility to accept voters choices and adapt.
Have you actually been to Dover? Have you seen where the port actually is? Folkestone isn't much better. Are you planning to requisition the Castle, or the White Cliffs?
Yes I have and yes there's space for 12 extra booths if they're needed. Where there's a will, there's a way.
As @RochdalePioneers has repeatedly said the Port of Dover requested ~£30 million to build new facilities. Oddly enough they didn't seem bothered that they'd need to requisition the White Cliffs to do so.
Considering that EU membership cost us £350mn a week gross, less net, and considering that this is supposedly your big problem with Brexit - spending half of one working day's gross EU membership fees to construct 12 extra booths and eliminate the problem seems like a bit of a bargain does it not?
Extending Article 50 and then the transition period cost us about €20 billion, so €20,000,000,000, so if £30,000,000 is the cost of fixing this and then we're out of the EU and the problem is dealt with, then voting Brexit seems eminently logical does it not?
If after six years this problem is real and hasn't been fixed, that's a failure of one or more of the respective government's not a failure of voting for Brexit.
Once again you miss the fact Dover asked the UK Government for £30m to resolve the issues the UK Government created.
And the UK Government offered them £30,000 or 0.1% of what was needed.
And yes £30m is a lot of money - but adding space to a port by concreting over the open sea doesn't come cheap.
I didn't miss that, I addressed it.
£30m is less than half of one working day's gross EU membership fee. Its peanuts, but the existing booths weren't staffed.
For an hour or so then they were manned. The delays didn't stop but they did manage to move the queues out of Dover Port to the M20 thanks to Brock.
Reports on that seem disputed, many seem to be saying that the booths weren't manned.
But either way it's moot. EU membership was costing us £350mn a week, gross, per week. About a billion per month net.
Extending article 50 came with about a €9 billion fee attached. Transition game with about a €11 billion fee attached.
If Brexit means investing £30mn as a one off to expand capacity and that's it, then just do it already, if it's actually needed. What a bargain compared to membership and transition fees.
And if it's not been done that isn't the fault of Brexit voters.
Personally I would blame you, not the French. You voted for people to be subjected to 11 hour delays at the border; they didn't. But it doesn't matter either way. I have no agency over your vote nor how the French manage their border. Until something changes the delays will stay.
The basic facts show that you are talking utter bollocks. Hardly surprising from someone who is so unreconciled with Brexit.
The French could have put sufficient staff on to prevent the delays. They chose not to - whether for political or some other reason is immaterial. It was their choice and their responsibility.
When they did then decide to put sufficient staff on - with no other changes nor need for additional resources beyond what is normal - the delays massively reduced as did the backlogs. And yet Brexit still exists today just as it did yesterday.
Au contraire, if I'm allowed to use a French expression. Unlike you I am reconciled to the 11 hour delays at the Channel, at least to the extent of realising this is the new normal.
Its only normal if the French don't staff their border. There's no divine reason they can't.
In any case, surely people will plan different sorts of holidays. So they won't drive to France, particularly not on the first weekend of the school holidays. That will cut the queues. And French tourist revenue.
There’s probably a lot of truth in people heading for Dover to avoid the airports, on what’s usually one of the busiest weekends of the year.
It won’t take long for word to get around, that any particular country or destination was easy on the bureaucracy this year, for them to find themselves exceptionally busy next year. Macron is shooting his own country’s tourist industry in the foot, if they can’t be bothered to try and get the queues down.
Mallorca was an absolute doddle a couple of weeks ago.
really interesting, as ever.
Manchester excellent a few weeks ago
Edit: in fact, on the way out it was terrible. Huge queue for a pint.
"@christopherhope ** EXCLUSIVE ** Boris Johnson has said he does not want to resign and will stay on if the membership backs him The PM told former treasurer @peteratcmc over lunch at Chequers on Friday he wishes he could "wipe away" his resignation."
In that kind of mood tonight, so happened on to Farage on GB News.
Now, GB News is soft ball interviewing for Conservative MPs and Mark Francois was on to extol the virtues of Liz Truss. Farage listened to his spiel but wasn't impressed with Truss's line on immigration and border controls. Poor old Francois looked stunned - a nice cosy little chat with old Nige had become more difficult.
@christopherhope ** EXCLUSIVE ** Boris Johnson has said he does not want to resign and will stay on if the membership backs him The PM told former treasurer @peteratcmc over lunch at Chequers on Friday he wishes he could "wipe away" his resignation.
The man's a bloody disgrace. It isn't the confidence of the members that decides who is PM, and teasing people that it should be that way doesn't help anyone, including him.
He really cannot think more than 5 minutes ahead and so just throws temper tantrums, doesn't he?
He's only got himself to blame.
He could have stayed as PM by not being phenomenally lazy and covering up for and excusing other's gross misconduct.
He didn't step up, so now he has to step down
I don't think he ever learned the lesson about running into arseholes all day long.
rcs1000 said: "The US has a great many toll roads. It also has "FastTrak" lanes on many freeways which you can pay to access. Basically, you have the choice between paying $5 for FastTrak and getting home 20 minutes earlier, or just lumping it and saving the money."
There is one just a few blocks east from where I live, and I sometimes walk up to the overpass to observe the traffic. There are five lanes in each direction, two of the five having variable congestion pricing. (With large signs telling drivers the current price.) Charges are assessed with electronic tags and, for those who don't have them, photos of license plates.
When I have watched it, always in non-peak times so far, the fast track lanes are always almost empty, though the cars and the trucks in them do move faster. They can be expensive, more than a dollar a mile.
I haven't decided whether those lanes are a good idea, net -- but then I haven't even looked for studies on the question. The complexity does bother me.
To be fair, it should pretty much always be empty during off peak times!
Now... it is worth noting that highway throughput drops when demand is highest. By having two lanes less crowded and flowing at 60mph, you might well actually increase total throughput of the road, while raising revenue, and allowing people to self select whether they want to pay and get their quicker or not.
$1/mile for 10 miles that saves you 20 minutes is going to be worth it for a substantial minority of people. If it doesn't add significant delays to other road users, then it's win-win: more money raised and people who want get their quicker can do so.
Wasn’t that the whole point of the M6 toll road - I don’t think it’s worked
The the price is wrong.
Cut the price, and you'll see usage increase.
There are lots of toll roads in the world, and some have been enormous successes, and some have been dismal failures. It's all about getting the pricing right.
Yes, it should be £3 for cars, and £30 for trucks. And a 90mph speed limit.
Not sure about the 90mph speed limit, but that would be a great pricing plan for the M6 Toll. It would be the most profitable toll road in Europe at those prices.
As it is, it's run by fucktards who don't understand basic price elasticity of demand. Every time they lose money raise prices on cars to try and increase revenue. They're now up to £7.10 for cars and £12.90 for lorries.
A former BBC employee raised concerns about “unacceptable bullying” by Tim Westwood when he was a Radio 1 DJ but felt they were warned against taking further action, the Guardian has learned.
Regarding our GDP and productivity we have comparative advantage in very-high end manufacturing, creative industries, pharmaceuticals, telecoms, and financial professional services.
Therefore, we'd want policies and trade deals to leverage those globally as best we could, and that includes the EU.
However, in and of itself I don't think that's sufficient because a good mass of our population will never get high paying jobs in any of those sectors and we have to be able to offer them something other than low-wage, low-security, low-value work that is migrant heavy and convenient for those in the thriving sectors but drags down our GDP and income per head and our productivity measures.
Switzerland and Germany have both largely solved that issue though.
And they have done so by (a) having lots of vocational training for 16 to 21 year olds who aren't going to University, and (b) having largely contributory benefits schemes, so that young people essentially have to choose between working and training. There is no "don't work, and still recieve money" option.
It's also led to a very high effective minimum wage in Switzerland which means there's no corporate subsidisation of low wages.
Fundamentally our education system isn't fit for the 21st century. It's very good for people who can and people who will, but not very good for those who can't and especially bad for people who won't. The UK is one of very few mug countries that has universal benefits without significant contributions required to qualify and a very large and complex system of in working benefits to lower the marginal cost of labour to get the can'ts and won'ts into low productivity jobs.
So on the one hand they don't get paid enough and need to be subsidised with in working benefits and on the other side we've incentivised companies to hire these low productivity people over investing in capital by lowering the marginal cost of labour.
It's a pincer movement that has wrecked the UK economy for 20+ years.
Yep: our education (particularly vocational education) and benefits systems are massive problem.
I'd add one other: German banking is a mess in many ways, but it's a hell of a lot easier for small and medium sized companies to access bank funding than in the UK. It's next to impossible for £2m year revenue companies to get bank funding in the UK, because banks would much rather lend to Joe Schmoo for him to spend on his credit card.
In Germany and Switzerland, by contrast getting bank funding for smaller companies is - if not easy - a hell of a lot easier. This means that smaller companies find it a lot easier to invest in capital equipment than they do in the UK.
Now... remind me, have either of Sunak or Truss actually mentioned any of these issues?
This board should run for office.
Regardless of current affiliation we'd do a much better job than any of the lot on offer.
Me as Prime Minister.
You know it makes sense.
There hasn’t been a PM from the Lords for a 100 years or so.
More like 60 years. On his appointment as PM in 1963, I imagine the Earl of Home was still a peer, albeit he must have renounced it almost immediately to seek election to the Commons. I fear this might be another example of the tedious pedantry that periodically afflicts this place.
You are right, he was PM as Lord for about five minutes.
If so, then despite taking too long to act, that speaks well of the Tory MPs as compared to Republicans in Congress and in government. Mike Pence still won't dare publicly criticise Trump even though the latter's supporters talked about hanging him.
The big flaw with M6 Toll pricing from the very start was they didn't offer a season pass. I think the best you could do was get an electronic tag and I think it was 1 free journey for every 10 full priced ones.
Regarding our GDP and productivity we have comparative advantage in very-high end manufacturing, creative industries, pharmaceuticals, telecoms, and financial professional services.
Therefore, we'd want policies and trade deals to leverage those globally as best we could, and that includes the EU.
However, in and of itself I don't think that's sufficient because a good mass of our population will never get high paying jobs in any of those sectors and we have to be able to offer them something other than low-wage, low-security, low-value work that is migrant heavy and convenient for those in the thriving sectors but drags down our GDP and income per head and our productivity measures.
Switzerland and Germany have both largely solved that issue though.
And they have done so by (a) having lots of vocational training for 16 to 21 year olds who aren't going to University, and (b) having largely contributory benefits schemes, so that young people essentially have to choose between working and training. There is no "don't work, and still recieve money" option.
It's also led to a very high effective minimum wage in Switzerland which means there's no corporate subsidisation of low wages.
Fundamentally our education system isn't fit for the 21st century. It's very good for people who can and people who will, but not very good for those who can't and especially bad for people who won't. The UK is one of very few mug countries that has universal benefits without significant contributions required to qualify and a very large and complex system of in working benefits to lower the marginal cost of labour to get the can'ts and won'ts into low productivity jobs.
So on the one hand they don't get paid enough and need to be subsidised with in working benefits and on the other side we've incentivised companies to hire these low productivity people over investing in capital by lowering the marginal cost of labour.
It's a pincer movement that has wrecked the UK economy for 20+ years.
Yep: our education (particularly vocational education) and benefits systems are massive problem.
I'd add one other: German banking is a mess in many ways, but it's a hell of a lot easier for small and medium sized companies to access bank funding than in the UK. It's next to impossible for £2m year revenue companies to get bank funding in the UK, because banks would much rather lend to Joe Schmoo for him to spend on his credit card.
In Germany and Switzerland, by contrast getting bank funding for smaller companies is - if not easy - a hell of a lot easier. This means that smaller companies find it a lot easier to invest in capital equipment than they do in the UK.
Now... remind me, have either of Sunak or Truss actually mentioned any of these issues?
This board should run for office.
Regardless of current affiliation we'd do a much better job than any of the lot on offer.
Me as Prime Minister.
You know it makes sense.
There hasn’t been a PM from the Lords for a 100 years or so.
More like 60 years. On his appointment as PM in 1963, I imagine the Earl of Home was still a peer, albeit he must have renounced it almost immediately to seek election to the Commons. I fear this might be another example of the tedious pedantry that periodically afflicts this place.
You are right, he was PM as Lord for about five minutes.
Regarding our GDP and productivity we have comparative advantage in very-high end manufacturing, creative industries, pharmaceuticals, telecoms, and financial professional services.
Therefore, we'd want policies and trade deals to leverage those globally as best we could, and that includes the EU.
However, in and of itself I don't think that's sufficient because a good mass of our population will never get high paying jobs in any of those sectors and we have to be able to offer them something other than low-wage, low-security, low-value work that is migrant heavy and convenient for those in the thriving sectors but drags down our GDP and income per head and our productivity measures.
Switzerland and Germany have both largely solved that issue though.
And they have done so by (a) having lots of vocational training for 16 to 21 year olds who aren't going to University, and (b) having largely contributory benefits schemes, so that young people essentially have to choose between working and training. There is no "don't work, and still recieve money" option.
It's also led to a very high effective minimum wage in Switzerland which means there's no corporate subsidisation of low wages.
Fundamentally our education system isn't fit for the 21st century. It's very good for people who can and people who will, but not very good for those who can't and especially bad for people who won't. The UK is one of very few mug countries that has universal benefits without significant contributions required to qualify and a very large and complex system of in working benefits to lower the marginal cost of labour to get the can'ts and won'ts into low productivity jobs.
So on the one hand they don't get paid enough and need to be subsidised with in working benefits and on the other side we've incentivised companies to hire these low productivity people over investing in capital by lowering the marginal cost of labour.
It's a pincer movement that has wrecked the UK economy for 20+ years.
Yep: our education (particularly vocational education) and benefits systems are massive problem.
I'd add one other: German banking is a mess in many ways, but it's a hell of a lot easier for small and medium sized companies to access bank funding than in the UK. It's next to impossible for £2m year revenue companies to get bank funding in the UK, because banks would much rather lend to Joe Schmoo for him to spend on his credit card.
In Germany and Switzerland, by contrast getting bank funding for smaller companies is - if not easy - a hell of a lot easier. This means that smaller companies find it a lot easier to invest in capital equipment than they do in the UK.
Now... remind me, have either of Sunak or Truss actually mentioned any of these issues?
This board should run for office.
Regardless of current affiliation we'd do a much better job than any of the lot on offer.
Me as Prime Minister.
You know it makes sense.
There hasn’t been a PM from the Lords for a 100 years or so.
More like 60 years. On his appointment as PM in 1963, I imagine the Earl of Home was still a peer, albeit he must have renounced it almost immediately to seek election to the Commons. I fear this might be another example of the tedious pedantry that periodically afflicts this place.
You are right, he was PM as Lord for about five minutes.
Still counts!
Four days in fact.
Well I'm none the wiser. Can we call it three days?
The big flaw with M6 Toll pricing from the very start was they didn't offer a season pass. I think the best you could do was get an electronic tag and I think it was 1 free journey for every 10 full priced ones.
Regarding our GDP and productivity we have comparative advantage in very-high end manufacturing, creative industries, pharmaceuticals, telecoms, and financial professional services.
Therefore, we'd want policies and trade deals to leverage those globally as best we could, and that includes the EU.
However, in and of itself I don't think that's sufficient because a good mass of our population will never get high paying jobs in any of those sectors and we have to be able to offer them something other than low-wage, low-security, low-value work that is migrant heavy and convenient for those in the thriving sectors but drags down our GDP and income per head and our productivity measures.
Switzerland and Germany have both largely solved that issue though.
And they have done so by (a) having lots of vocational training for 16 to 21 year olds who aren't going to University, and (b) having largely contributory benefits schemes, so that young people essentially have to choose between working and training. There is no "don't work, and still recieve money" option.
It's also led to a very high effective minimum wage in Switzerland which means there's no corporate subsidisation of low wages.
Fundamentally our education system isn't fit for the 21st century. It's very good for people who can and people who will, but not very good for those who can't and especially bad for people who won't. The UK is one of very few mug countries that has universal benefits without significant contributions required to qualify and a very large and complex system of in working benefits to lower the marginal cost of labour to get the can'ts and won'ts into low productivity jobs.
So on the one hand they don't get paid enough and need to be subsidised with in working benefits and on the other side we've incentivised companies to hire these low productivity people over investing in capital by lowering the marginal cost of labour.
It's a pincer movement that has wrecked the UK economy for 20+ years.
Yep: our education (particularly vocational education) and benefits systems are massive problem.
I'd add one other: German banking is a mess in many ways, but it's a hell of a lot easier for small and medium sized companies to access bank funding than in the UK. It's next to impossible for £2m year revenue companies to get bank funding in the UK, because banks would much rather lend to Joe Schmoo for him to spend on his credit card.
In Germany and Switzerland, by contrast getting bank funding for smaller companies is - if not easy - a hell of a lot easier. This means that smaller companies find it a lot easier to invest in capital equipment than they do in the UK.
Now... remind me, have either of Sunak or Truss actually mentioned any of these issues?
This board should run for office.
Regardless of current affiliation we'd do a much better job than any of the lot on offer.
Me as Prime Minister.
You know it makes sense.
There hasn’t been a PM from the Lords for a 100 years or so.
More like 60 years. On his appointment as PM in 1963, I imagine the Earl of Home was still a peer, albeit he must have renounced it almost immediately to seek election to the Commons. I fear this might be another example of the tedious pedantry that periodically afflicts this place.
You are right, he was PM as Lord for about five minutes.
Regarding our GDP and productivity we have comparative advantage in very-high end manufacturing, creative industries, pharmaceuticals, telecoms, and financial professional services.
Therefore, we'd want policies and trade deals to leverage those globally as best we could, and that includes the EU.
However, in and of itself I don't think that's sufficient because a good mass of our population will never get high paying jobs in any of those sectors and we have to be able to offer them something other than low-wage, low-security, low-value work that is migrant heavy and convenient for those in the thriving sectors but drags down our GDP and income per head and our productivity measures.
Switzerland and Germany have both largely solved that issue though.
And they have done so by (a) having lots of vocational training for 16 to 21 year olds who aren't going to University, and (b) having largely contributory benefits schemes, so that young people essentially have to choose between working and training. There is no "don't work, and still recieve money" option.
It's also led to a very high effective minimum wage in Switzerland which means there's no corporate subsidisation of low wages.
Fundamentally our education system isn't fit for the 21st century. It's very good for people who can and people who will, but not very good for those who can't and especially bad for people who won't. The UK is one of very few mug countries that has universal benefits without significant contributions required to qualify and a very large and complex system of in working benefits to lower the marginal cost of labour to get the can'ts and won'ts into low productivity jobs.
So on the one hand they don't get paid enough and need to be subsidised with in working benefits and on the other side we've incentivised companies to hire these low productivity people over investing in capital by lowering the marginal cost of labour.
It's a pincer movement that has wrecked the UK economy for 20+ years.
Yep: our education (particularly vocational education) and benefits systems are massive problem.
I'd add one other: German banking is a mess in many ways, but it's a hell of a lot easier for small and medium sized companies to access bank funding than in the UK. It's next to impossible for £2m year revenue companies to get bank funding in the UK, because banks would much rather lend to Joe Schmoo for him to spend on his credit card.
In Germany and Switzerland, by contrast getting bank funding for smaller companies is - if not easy - a hell of a lot easier. This means that smaller companies find it a lot easier to invest in capital equipment than they do in the UK.
Now... remind me, have either of Sunak or Truss actually mentioned any of these issues?
This board should run for office.
Regardless of current affiliation we'd do a much better job than any of the lot on offer.
Me as Prime Minister.
You know it makes sense.
There hasn’t been a PM from the Lords for a 100 years or so.
More like 60 years. On his appointment as PM in 1963, I imagine the Earl of Home was still a peer, albeit he must have renounced it almost immediately to seek election to the Commons. I fear this might be another example of the tedious pedantry that periodically afflicts this place.
You are right, he was PM as Lord for about five minutes.
Still counts!
Four days in fact.
Well I'm none the wiser. Can we call it three days?
I think that's the difference between the Queen offering the commission and him accepting it. He was offered it first, but didn't kiss hands until he had formed a cabinet.
I've just received my new (blue) passport - The Brexit dividend is complete!
Congratulations. You are hereby now entitled to join a long, long queue to get across the Channel (once it's been stamped by a surly French customs agent). Brexit - the joy!
And potential deportation if you get an incompetent border agent who forgets to stamp your passport correctly on the way out.
I have read several times on this very forum that it still only takes seconds to stamp a passport.
This is simply not true. Said surly and incompetent border guard has to leaf through your passport to find the most recent entry and exit stamps to ensure you are compliant with the visa-free 90/180 rule. That takes longer than a few seconds.
But checks were always required, so nothing is new.
If checks take twice as long then if you have twice as many staff on, then nothing has changed. Just staff appropriately based upon today's circumstances.
Sorry, you keep repeating this, but the checks are new. Even if they were required previously, they weren't done. Those of us who hopped across the Channel can testify that most of the time you were just waved through, with the occasional random check.
Indeed - that was my experience too. Normally the only checks outbound were done by the UK Border force, the French normally just checked you were waving the same number of passports at them as there were passengers in the car. They might stop Eastern European vehicles occasionally.
Also @BartholomewRoberts doesn't consider that Dover and Folkestone both have major constraints on capacity due to geography. Given the extra time taken to process, it may be that it isn't possible simply to keep increasing the number of border posts - there needs to be somewhere to put them, and the waiting cars. A more realistic option may be to limit the number of vehicle crossings.
Incidentally I notice that my shiny new blue passport has, in 4 months, already received the same number of stamps (5) as my previous one had in its lifetime.
In the event it takes 24 booths instead of 12 then would the responsible thing to do be:
A: Get 24 booths. Use compulsory purchase orders if necessary.
B: Stick with 12. Blame voters for a choice they may six years ago.
They've had six years to prepare for this. It isn't voters responsibility to deal with this, it's government's responsibility to accept voters choices and adapt.
Have you actually been to Dover? Have you seen where the port actually is? Folkestone isn't much better. Are you planning to requisition the Castle, or the White Cliffs?
Yes I have and yes there's space for 12 extra booths if they're needed. Where there's a will, there's a way.
As @RochdalePioneers has repeatedly said the Port of Dover requested ~£30 million to build new facilities. Oddly enough they didn't seem bothered that they'd need to requisition the White Cliffs to do so.
Considering that EU membership cost us £350mn a week gross, less net, and considering that this is supposedly your big problem with Brexit - spending half of one working day's gross EU membership fees to construct 12 extra booths and eliminate the problem seems like a bit of a bargain does it not?
Extending Article 50 and then the transition period cost us about €20 billion, so €20,000,000,000, so if £30,000,000 is the cost of fixing this and then we're out of the EU and the problem is dealt with, then voting Brexit seems eminently logical does it not?
If after six years this problem is real and hasn't been fixed, that's a failure of one or more of the respective government's not a failure of voting for Brexit.
Once again you miss the fact Dover asked the UK Government for £30m to resolve the issues the UK Government created.
And the UK Government offered them £30,000 or 0.1% of what was needed.
And yes £30m is a lot of money - but adding space to a port by concreting over the open sea doesn't come cheap.
I didn't miss that, I addressed it.
£30m is less than half of one working day's gross EU membership fee. Its peanuts, but the existing booths weren't staffed.
For an hour or so then they were manned. The delays didn't stop but they did manage to move the queues out of Dover Port to the M20 thanks to Brock.
Reports on that seem disputed, many seem to be saying that the booths weren't manned.
But either way it's moot. EU membership was costing us £350mn a week, gross, per week. About a billion per month net.
Extending article 50 came with about a €9 billion fee attached. Transition game with about a €11 billion fee attached.
If Brexit means investing £30mn as a one off to expand capacity and that's it, then just do it already, if it's actually needed. What a bargain compared to membership and transition fees.
And if it's not been done that isn't the fault of Brexit voters.
Personally I would blame you, not the French. You voted for people to be subjected to 11 hour delays at the border; they didn't. But it doesn't matter either way. I have no agency over your vote nor how the French manage their border. Until something changes the delays will stay.
The basic facts show that you are talking utter bollocks. Hardly surprising from someone who is so unreconciled with Brexit.
The French could have put sufficient staff on to prevent the delays. They chose not to - whether for political or some other reason is immaterial. It was their choice and their responsibility.
When they did then decide to put sufficient staff on - with no other changes nor need for additional resources beyond what is normal - the delays massively reduced as did the backlogs. And yet Brexit still exists today just as it did yesterday.
Au contraire, if I'm allowed to use a French expression. Unlike you I am reconciled to the 11 hour delays at the Channel, at least to the extent of realising this is the new normal.
Its only normal if the French don't staff their border. There's no divine reason they can't.
In any case, surely people will plan different sorts of holidays. So they won't drive to France, particularly not on the first weekend of the school holidays. That will cut the queues. And French tourist revenue.
There’s probably a lot of truth in people heading for Dover to avoid the airports, on what’s usually one of the busiest weekends of the year.
It won’t take long for word to get around, that any particular country or destination was easy on the bureaucracy this year, for them to find themselves exceptionally busy next year. Macron is shooting his own country’s tourist industry in the foot, if they can’t be bothered to try and get the queues down.
Mallorca was an absolute doddle a couple of weeks ago.
I went to Spain in October, even with some Covid restrictions in place I walked straight through. Albania likewise (I realise that isn't everyone's cup of tea for their holidays but they have some nice beaches). Didn't even bother to stamp my passport. Gdańsk in June, likewise, no covid restrictions, even with a bit of a queue for the border I was through in 15 minutes. I have certainly been picking destinations based on ease of travel.
So have we. If nations want to make it awkward or time consuming for us to get in we will go elsewhere. Mallorca seemed to go out of their way to make it easy for British travellers to get through. We were guided to the electronic gates which worked really well. The baggage came quickly as well.
We go to Montenegro in September via Dubrovnik and that is supposed to be quite smooth too.
I've just received my new (blue) passport - The Brexit dividend is complete!
Congratulations. You are hereby now entitled to join a long, long queue to get across the Channel (once it's been stamped by a surly French customs agent). Brexit - the joy!
And potential deportation if you get an incompetent border agent who forgets to stamp your passport correctly on the way out.
I have read several times on this very forum that it still only takes seconds to stamp a passport.
This is simply not true. Said surly and incompetent border guard has to leaf through your passport to find the most recent entry and exit stamps to ensure you are compliant with the visa-free 90/180 rule. That takes longer than a few seconds.
But checks were always required, so nothing is new.
If checks take twice as long then if you have twice as many staff on, then nothing has changed. Just staff appropriately based upon today's circumstances.
Sorry, you keep repeating this, but the checks are new. Even if they were required previously, they weren't done. Those of us who hopped across the Channel can testify that most of the time you were just waved through, with the occasional random check.
Indeed - that was my experience too. Normally the only checks outbound were done by the UK Border force, the French normally just checked you were waving the same number of passports at them as there were passengers in the car. They might stop Eastern European vehicles occasionally.
Also @BartholomewRoberts doesn't consider that Dover and Folkestone both have major constraints on capacity due to geography. Given the extra time taken to process, it may be that it isn't possible simply to keep increasing the number of border posts - there needs to be somewhere to put them, and the waiting cars. A more realistic option may be to limit the number of vehicle crossings.
Incidentally I notice that my shiny new blue passport has, in 4 months, already received the same number of stamps (5) as my previous one had in its lifetime.
In the event it takes 24 booths instead of 12 then would the responsible thing to do be:
A: Get 24 booths. Use compulsory purchase orders if necessary.
B: Stick with 12. Blame voters for a choice they may six years ago.
They've had six years to prepare for this. It isn't voters responsibility to deal with this, it's government's responsibility to accept voters choices and adapt.
Have you actually been to Dover? Have you seen where the port actually is? Folkestone isn't much better. Are you planning to requisition the Castle, or the White Cliffs?
Yes I have and yes there's space for 12 extra booths if they're needed. Where there's a will, there's a way.
As @RochdalePioneers has repeatedly said the Port of Dover requested ~£30 million to build new facilities. Oddly enough they didn't seem bothered that they'd need to requisition the White Cliffs to do so.
Considering that EU membership cost us £350mn a week gross, less net, and considering that this is supposedly your big problem with Brexit - spending half of one working day's gross EU membership fees to construct 12 extra booths and eliminate the problem seems like a bit of a bargain does it not?
Extending Article 50 and then the transition period cost us about €20 billion, so €20,000,000,000, so if £30,000,000 is the cost of fixing this and then we're out of the EU and the problem is dealt with, then voting Brexit seems eminently logical does it not?
If after six years this problem is real and hasn't been fixed, that's a failure of one or more of the respective government's not a failure of voting for Brexit.
Once again you miss the fact Dover asked the UK Government for £30m to resolve the issues the UK Government created.
And the UK Government offered them £30,000 or 0.1% of what was needed.
And yes £30m is a lot of money - but adding space to a port by concreting over the open sea doesn't come cheap.
I didn't miss that, I addressed it.
£30m is less than half of one working day's gross EU membership fee. Its peanuts, but the existing booths weren't staffed.
For an hour or so then they were manned. The delays didn't stop but they did manage to move the queues out of Dover Port to the M20 thanks to Brock.
Reports on that seem disputed, many seem to be saying that the booths weren't manned.
But either way it's moot. EU membership was costing us £350mn a week, gross, per week. About a billion per month net.
Extending article 50 came with about a €9 billion fee attached. Transition game with about a €11 billion fee attached.
If Brexit means investing £30mn as a one off to expand capacity and that's it, then just do it already, if it's actually needed. What a bargain compared to membership and transition fees.
And if it's not been done that isn't the fault of Brexit voters.
Personally I would blame you, not the French. You voted for people to be subjected to 11 hour delays at the border; they didn't. But it doesn't matter either way. I have no agency over your vote nor how the French manage their border. Until something changes the delays will stay.
The basic facts show that you are talking utter bollocks. Hardly surprising from someone who is so unreconciled with Brexit.
The French could have put sufficient staff on to prevent the delays. They chose not to - whether for political or some other reason is immaterial. It was their choice and their responsibility.
When they did then decide to put sufficient staff on - with no other changes nor need for additional resources beyond what is normal - the delays massively reduced as did the backlogs. And yet Brexit still exists today just as it did yesterday.
Au contraire, if I'm allowed to use a French expression. Unlike you I am reconciled to the 11 hour delays at the Channel, at least to the extent of realising this is the new normal.
Its only normal if the French don't staff their border. There's no divine reason they can't.
In any case, surely people will plan different sorts of holidays. So they won't drive to France, particularly not on the first weekend of the school holidays. That will cut the queues. And French tourist revenue.
There’s probably a lot of truth in people heading for Dover to avoid the airports, on what’s usually one of the busiest weekends of the year.
It won’t take long for word to get around, that any particular country or destination was easy on the bureaucracy this year, for them to find themselves exceptionally busy next year. Macron is shooting his own country’s tourist industry in the foot, if they can’t be bothered to try and get the queues down.
Mallorca was an absolute doddle a couple of weeks ago.
Mrs Eek landed in Manchester 2 hours ago - still waiting for her bag to arrive and will miss the train I booked her on.
I hope she gets her bags soon.
Manchester was supposed to be improving since the problems it had a month or so ago.
I've just received my new (blue) passport - The Brexit dividend is complete!
Congratulations. You are hereby now entitled to join a long, long queue to get across the Channel (once it's been stamped by a surly French customs agent). Brexit - the joy!
And potential deportation if you get an incompetent border agent who forgets to stamp your passport correctly on the way out.
I have read several times on this very forum that it still only takes seconds to stamp a passport.
This is simply not true. Said surly and incompetent border guard has to leaf through your passport to find the most recent entry and exit stamps to ensure you are compliant with the visa-free 90/180 rule. That takes longer than a few seconds.
But checks were always required, so nothing is new.
If checks take twice as long then if you have twice as many staff on, then nothing has changed. Just staff appropriately based upon today's circumstances.
Sorry, you keep repeating this, but the checks are new. Even if they were required previously, they weren't done. Those of us who hopped across the Channel can testify that most of the time you were just waved through, with the occasional random check.
Indeed - that was my experience too. Normally the only checks outbound were done by the UK Border force, the French normally just checked you were waving the same number of passports at them as there were passengers in the car. They might stop Eastern European vehicles occasionally.
Also @BartholomewRoberts doesn't consider that Dover and Folkestone both have major constraints on capacity due to geography. Given the extra time taken to process, it may be that it isn't possible simply to keep increasing the number of border posts - there needs to be somewhere to put them, and the waiting cars. A more realistic option may be to limit the number of vehicle crossings.
Incidentally I notice that my shiny new blue passport has, in 4 months, already received the same number of stamps (5) as my previous one had in its lifetime.
In the event it takes 24 booths instead of 12 then would the responsible thing to do be:
A: Get 24 booths. Use compulsory purchase orders if necessary.
B: Stick with 12. Blame voters for a choice they may six years ago.
They've had six years to prepare for this. It isn't voters responsibility to deal with this, it's government's responsibility to accept voters choices and adapt.
Have you actually been to Dover? Have you seen where the port actually is? Folkestone isn't much better. Are you planning to requisition the Castle, or the White Cliffs?
Yes I have and yes there's space for 12 extra booths if they're needed. Where there's a will, there's a way.
As @RochdalePioneers has repeatedly said the Port of Dover requested ~£30 million to build new facilities. Oddly enough they didn't seem bothered that they'd need to requisition the White Cliffs to do so.
Considering that EU membership cost us £350mn a week gross, less net, and considering that this is supposedly your big problem with Brexit - spending half of one working day's gross EU membership fees to construct 12 extra booths and eliminate the problem seems like a bit of a bargain does it not?
Extending Article 50 and then the transition period cost us about €20 billion, so €20,000,000,000, so if £30,000,000 is the cost of fixing this and then we're out of the EU and the problem is dealt with, then voting Brexit seems eminently logical does it not?
If after six years this problem is real and hasn't been fixed, that's a failure of one or more of the respective government's not a failure of voting for Brexit.
Once again you miss the fact Dover asked the UK Government for £30m to resolve the issues the UK Government created.
And the UK Government offered them £30,000 or 0.1% of what was needed.
And yes £30m is a lot of money - but adding space to a port by concreting over the open sea doesn't come cheap.
I didn't miss that, I addressed it.
£30m is less than half of one working day's gross EU membership fee. Its peanuts, but the existing booths weren't staffed.
For an hour or so then they were manned. The delays didn't stop but they did manage to move the queues out of Dover Port to the M20 thanks to Brock.
Reports on that seem disputed, many seem to be saying that the booths weren't manned.
But either way it's moot. EU membership was costing us £350mn a week, gross, per week. About a billion per month net.
Extending article 50 came with about a €9 billion fee attached. Transition game with about a €11 billion fee attached.
If Brexit means investing £30mn as a one off to expand capacity and that's it, then just do it already, if it's actually needed. What a bargain compared to membership and transition fees.
And if it's not been done that isn't the fault of Brexit voters.
Personally I would blame you, not the French. You voted for people to be subjected to 11 hour delays at the border; they didn't. But it doesn't matter either way. I have no agency over your vote nor how the French manage their border. Until something changes the delays will stay.
The basic facts show that you are talking utter bollocks. Hardly surprising from someone who is so unreconciled with Brexit.
The French could have put sufficient staff on to prevent the delays. They chose not to - whether for political or some other reason is immaterial. It was their choice and their responsibility.
When they did then decide to put sufficient staff on - with no other changes nor need for additional resources beyond what is normal - the delays massively reduced as did the backlogs. And yet Brexit still exists today just as it did yesterday.
Au contraire, if I'm allowed to use a French expression. Unlike you I am reconciled to the 11 hour delays at the Channel, at least to the extent of realising this is the new normal.
Its only normal if the French don't staff their border. There's no divine reason they can't.
In any case, surely people will plan different sorts of holidays. So they won't drive to France, particularly not on the first weekend of the school holidays. That will cut the queues. And French tourist revenue.
There’s probably a lot of truth in people heading for Dover to avoid the airports, on what’s usually one of the busiest weekends of the year.
It won’t take long for word to get around, that any particular country or destination was easy on the bureaucracy this year, for them to find themselves exceptionally busy next year. Macron is shooting his own country’s tourist industry in the foot, if they can’t be bothered to try and get the queues down.
Mallorca was an absolute doddle a couple of weeks ago.
I went to Spain in October, even with some Covid restrictions in place I walked straight through. Albania likewise (I realise that isn't everyone's cup of tea for their holidays but they have some nice beaches). Didn't even bother to stamp my passport. Gdańsk in June, likewise, no covid restrictions, even with a bit of a queue for the border I was through in 15 minutes. I have certainly been picking destinations based on ease of travel.
So have we. If nations want to make it awkward or time consuming for us to get in we will go elsewhere. Mallorca seemed to go out of their way to make it easy for British travellers to get through. We were guided to the electronic gates which worked really well. The baggage came quickly as well.
We go to Montenegro in September via Dubrovnik and that is supposed to be quite smooth too.
I've just received my new (blue) passport - The Brexit dividend is complete!
Congratulations. You are hereby now entitled to join a long, long queue to get across the Channel (once it's been stamped by a surly French customs agent). Brexit - the joy!
And potential deportation if you get an incompetent border agent who forgets to stamp your passport correctly on the way out.
I have read several times on this very forum that it still only takes seconds to stamp a passport.
This is simply not true. Said surly and incompetent border guard has to leaf through your passport to find the most recent entry and exit stamps to ensure you are compliant with the visa-free 90/180 rule. That takes longer than a few seconds.
But checks were always required, so nothing is new.
If checks take twice as long then if you have twice as many staff on, then nothing has changed. Just staff appropriately based upon today's circumstances.
Sorry, you keep repeating this, but the checks are new. Even if they were required previously, they weren't done. Those of us who hopped across the Channel can testify that most of the time you were just waved through, with the occasional random check.
Indeed - that was my experience too. Normally the only checks outbound were done by the UK Border force, the French normally just checked you were waving the same number of passports at them as there were passengers in the car. They might stop Eastern European vehicles occasionally.
Also @BartholomewRoberts doesn't consider that Dover and Folkestone both have major constraints on capacity due to geography. Given the extra time taken to process, it may be that it isn't possible simply to keep increasing the number of border posts - there needs to be somewhere to put them, and the waiting cars. A more realistic option may be to limit the number of vehicle crossings.
Incidentally I notice that my shiny new blue passport has, in 4 months, already received the same number of stamps (5) as my previous one had in its lifetime.
In the event it takes 24 booths instead of 12 then would the responsible thing to do be:
A: Get 24 booths. Use compulsory purchase orders if necessary.
B: Stick with 12. Blame voters for a choice they may six years ago.
They've had six years to prepare for this. It isn't voters responsibility to deal with this, it's government's responsibility to accept voters choices and adapt.
Have you actually been to Dover? Have you seen where the port actually is? Folkestone isn't much better. Are you planning to requisition the Castle, or the White Cliffs?
Yes I have and yes there's space for 12 extra booths if they're needed. Where there's a will, there's a way.
As @RochdalePioneers has repeatedly said the Port of Dover requested ~£30 million to build new facilities. Oddly enough they didn't seem bothered that they'd need to requisition the White Cliffs to do so.
Considering that EU membership cost us £350mn a week gross, less net, and considering that this is supposedly your big problem with Brexit - spending half of one working day's gross EU membership fees to construct 12 extra booths and eliminate the problem seems like a bit of a bargain does it not?
Extending Article 50 and then the transition period cost us about €20 billion, so €20,000,000,000, so if £30,000,000 is the cost of fixing this and then we're out of the EU and the problem is dealt with, then voting Brexit seems eminently logical does it not?
If after six years this problem is real and hasn't been fixed, that's a failure of one or more of the respective government's not a failure of voting for Brexit.
Once again you miss the fact Dover asked the UK Government for £30m to resolve the issues the UK Government created.
And the UK Government offered them £30,000 or 0.1% of what was needed.
And yes £30m is a lot of money - but adding space to a port by concreting over the open sea doesn't come cheap.
I didn't miss that, I addressed it.
£30m is less than half of one working day's gross EU membership fee. Its peanuts, but the existing booths weren't staffed.
For an hour or so then they were manned. The delays didn't stop but they did manage to move the queues out of Dover Port to the M20 thanks to Brock.
Reports on that seem disputed, many seem to be saying that the booths weren't manned.
But either way it's moot. EU membership was costing us £350mn a week, gross, per week. About a billion per month net.
Extending article 50 came with about a €9 billion fee attached. Transition game with about a €11 billion fee attached.
If Brexit means investing £30mn as a one off to expand capacity and that's it, then just do it already, if it's actually needed. What a bargain compared to membership and transition fees.
And if it's not been done that isn't the fault of Brexit voters.
Personally I would blame you, not the French. You voted for people to be subjected to 11 hour delays at the border; they didn't. But it doesn't matter either way. I have no agency over your vote nor how the French manage their border. Until something changes the delays will stay.
The basic facts show that you are talking utter bollocks. Hardly surprising from someone who is so unreconciled with Brexit.
The French could have put sufficient staff on to prevent the delays. They chose not to - whether for political or some other reason is immaterial. It was their choice and their responsibility.
When they did then decide to put sufficient staff on - with no other changes nor need for additional resources beyond what is normal - the delays massively reduced as did the backlogs. And yet Brexit still exists today just as it did yesterday.
Au contraire, if I'm allowed to use a French expression. Unlike you I am reconciled to the 11 hour delays at the Channel, at least to the extent of realising this is the new normal.
Its only normal if the French don't staff their border. There's no divine reason they can't.
In any case, surely people will plan different sorts of holidays. So they won't drive to France, particularly not on the first weekend of the school holidays. That will cut the queues. And French tourist revenue.
There’s probably a lot of truth in people heading for Dover to avoid the airports, on what’s usually one of the busiest weekends of the year.
It won’t take long for word to get around, that any particular country or destination was easy on the bureaucracy this year, for them to find themselves exceptionally busy next year. Macron is shooting his own country’s tourist industry in the foot, if they can’t be bothered to try and get the queues down.
Mallorca was an absolute doddle a couple of weeks ago.
I went to Spain in October, even with some Covid restrictions in place I walked straight through. Albania likewise (I realise that isn't everyone's cup of tea for their holidays but they have some nice beaches). Didn't even bother to stamp my passport. Gdańsk in June, likewise, no covid restrictions, even with a bit of a queue for the border I was through in 15 minutes. I have certainly been picking destinations based on ease of travel.
So have we. If nations want to make it awkward or time consuming for us to get in we will go elsewhere. Mallorca seemed to go out of their way to make it easy for British travellers to get through. We were guided to the electronic gates which worked really well. The baggage came quickly as well.
We go to Montenegro in September via Dubrovnik and that is supposed to be quite smooth too.
I've just received my new (blue) passport - The Brexit dividend is complete!
Congratulations. You are hereby now entitled to join a long, long queue to get across the Channel (once it's been stamped by a surly French customs agent). Brexit - the joy!
And potential deportation if you get an incompetent border agent who forgets to stamp your passport correctly on the way out.
I have read several times on this very forum that it still only takes seconds to stamp a passport.
This is simply not true. Said surly and incompetent border guard has to leaf through your passport to find the most recent entry and exit stamps to ensure you are compliant with the visa-free 90/180 rule. That takes longer than a few seconds.
But checks were always required, so nothing is new.
If checks take twice as long then if you have twice as many staff on, then nothing has changed. Just staff appropriately based upon today's circumstances.
Sorry, you keep repeating this, but the checks are new. Even if they were required previously, they weren't done. Those of us who hopped across the Channel can testify that most of the time you were just waved through, with the occasional random check.
Indeed - that was my experience too. Normally the only checks outbound were done by the UK Border force, the French normally just checked you were waving the same number of passports at them as there were passengers in the car. They might stop Eastern European vehicles occasionally.
Also @BartholomewRoberts doesn't consider that Dover and Folkestone both have major constraints on capacity due to geography. Given the extra time taken to process, it may be that it isn't possible simply to keep increasing the number of border posts - there needs to be somewhere to put them, and the waiting cars. A more realistic option may be to limit the number of vehicle crossings.
Incidentally I notice that my shiny new blue passport has, in 4 months, already received the same number of stamps (5) as my previous one had in its lifetime.
In the event it takes 24 booths instead of 12 then would the responsible thing to do be:
A: Get 24 booths. Use compulsory purchase orders if necessary.
B: Stick with 12. Blame voters for a choice they may six years ago.
They've had six years to prepare for this. It isn't voters responsibility to deal with this, it's government's responsibility to accept voters choices and adapt.
Have you actually been to Dover? Have you seen where the port actually is? Folkestone isn't much better. Are you planning to requisition the Castle, or the White Cliffs?
Yes I have and yes there's space for 12 extra booths if they're needed. Where there's a will, there's a way.
As @RochdalePioneers has repeatedly said the Port of Dover requested ~£30 million to build new facilities. Oddly enough they didn't seem bothered that they'd need to requisition the White Cliffs to do so.
Considering that EU membership cost us £350mn a week gross, less net, and considering that this is supposedly your big problem with Brexit - spending half of one working day's gross EU membership fees to construct 12 extra booths and eliminate the problem seems like a bit of a bargain does it not?
Extending Article 50 and then the transition period cost us about €20 billion, so €20,000,000,000, so if £30,000,000 is the cost of fixing this and then we're out of the EU and the problem is dealt with, then voting Brexit seems eminently logical does it not?
If after six years this problem is real and hasn't been fixed, that's a failure of one or more of the respective government's not a failure of voting for Brexit.
Once again you miss the fact Dover asked the UK Government for £30m to resolve the issues the UK Government created.
And the UK Government offered them £30,000 or 0.1% of what was needed.
And yes £30m is a lot of money - but adding space to a port by concreting over the open sea doesn't come cheap.
I didn't miss that, I addressed it.
£30m is less than half of one working day's gross EU membership fee. Its peanuts, but the existing booths weren't staffed.
For an hour or so then they were manned. The delays didn't stop but they did manage to move the queues out of Dover Port to the M20 thanks to Brock.
Reports on that seem disputed, many seem to be saying that the booths weren't manned.
But either way it's moot. EU membership was costing us £350mn a week, gross, per week. About a billion per month net.
Extending article 50 came with about a €9 billion fee attached. Transition game with about a €11 billion fee attached.
If Brexit means investing £30mn as a one off to expand capacity and that's it, then just do it already, if it's actually needed. What a bargain compared to membership and transition fees.
And if it's not been done that isn't the fault of Brexit voters.
Personally I would blame you, not the French. You voted for people to be subjected to 11 hour delays at the border; they didn't. But it doesn't matter either way. I have no agency over your vote nor how the French manage their border. Until something changes the delays will stay.
The basic facts show that you are talking utter bollocks. Hardly surprising from someone who is so unreconciled with Brexit.
The French could have put sufficient staff on to prevent the delays. They chose not to - whether for political or some other reason is immaterial. It was their choice and their responsibility.
When they did then decide to put sufficient staff on - with no other changes nor need for additional resources beyond what is normal - the delays massively reduced as did the backlogs. And yet Brexit still exists today just as it did yesterday.
Au contraire, if I'm allowed to use a French expression. Unlike you I am reconciled to the 11 hour delays at the Channel, at least to the extent of realising this is the new normal.
Its only normal if the French don't staff their border. There's no divine reason they can't.
In any case, surely people will plan different sorts of holidays. So they won't drive to France, particularly not on the first weekend of the school holidays. That will cut the queues. And French tourist revenue.
There’s probably a lot of truth in people heading for Dover to avoid the airports, on what’s usually one of the busiest weekends of the year.
It won’t take long for word to get around, that any particular country or destination was easy on the bureaucracy this year, for them to find themselves exceptionally busy next year. Macron is shooting his own country’s tourist industry in the foot, if they can’t be bothered to try and get the queues down.
Mallorca was an absolute doddle a couple of weeks ago.
I went to Spain in October, even with some Covid restrictions in place I walked straight through. Albania likewise (I realise that isn't everyone's cup of tea for their holidays but they have some nice beaches). Didn't even bother to stamp my passport. Gdańsk in June, likewise, no covid restrictions, even with a bit of a queue for the border I was through in 15 minutes. I have certainly been picking destinations based on ease of travel.
So have we. If nations want to make it awkward or time consuming for us to get in we will go elsewhere. Mallorca seemed to go out of their way to make it easy for British travellers to get through. We were guided to the electronic gates which worked really well. The baggage came quickly as well.
We go to Montenegro in September via Dubrovnik and that is supposed to be quite smooth too.
"@christopherhope ** EXCLUSIVE ** Boris Johnson has said he does not want to resign and will stay on if the membership backs him The PM told former treasurer @peteratcmc over lunch at Chequers on Friday he wishes he could "wipe away" his resignation."
As i don't have a telegraph subscription so cant read the article i am guessing this looks like a bunch of things smashed together.
Whilst i bet Boris wishes had could wipe away his resignation I bet he didn't actually say he backs the membership write in campaign.
Two isolated sentences from the story:-
[Lord Cruddas] said Mr Johnson had told him he was "rooting for your campaign to succeed". ... He said Mr Johnson had told him he was "enjoying following" the peer's petition, adding: "There was no ambiguity in Boris’s views. He definitely does not want to resign. He wants to carry on and he believes that, with the membership behind him, he can." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/25/boris-johnson-tells-friend-dont-want-resign-will-stay-tory-members/ (£££)
If nothing else, it will give Liz and Rishi something to talk about.
rcs1000 said: "The US has a great many toll roads. It also has "FastTrak" lanes on many freeways which you can pay to access. Basically, you have the choice between paying $5 for FastTrak and getting home 20 minutes earlier, or just lumping it and saving the money."
There is one just a few blocks east from where I live, and I sometimes walk up to the overpass to observe the traffic. There are five lanes in each direction, two of the five having variable congestion pricing. (With large signs telling drivers the current price.) Charges are assessed with electronic tags and, for those who don't have them, photos of license plates.
When I have watched it, always in non-peak times so far, the fast track lanes are always almost empty, though the cars and the trucks in them do move faster. They can be expensive, more than a dollar a mile.
I haven't decided whether those lanes are a good idea, net -- but then I haven't even looked for studies on the question. The complexity does bother me.
To be fair, it should pretty much always be empty during off peak times!
Now... it is worth noting that highway throughput drops when demand is highest. By having two lanes less crowded and flowing at 60mph, you might well actually increase total throughput of the road, while raising revenue, and allowing people to self select whether they want to pay and get their quicker or not.
$1/mile for 10 miles that saves you 20 minutes is going to be worth it for a substantial minority of people. If it doesn't add significant delays to other road users, then it's win-win: more money raised and people who want get their quicker can do so.
Wasn’t that the whole point of the M6 toll road - I don’t think it’s worked
The the price is wrong.
Cut the price, and you'll see usage increase.
There are lots of toll roads in the world, and some have been enormous successes, and some have been dismal failures. It's all about getting the pricing right.
Yes, it should be £3 for cars, and £30 for trucks. And a 90mph speed limit.
Not sure about the 90mph speed limit, but that would be a great pricing plan for the M6 Toll. It would be the most profitable toll road in Europe at those prices.
As it is, it's run by fucktards who don't understand basic price elasticity of demand. Every time they lose money raise prices on cars to try and increase revenue. They're now up to £7.10 for cars and £12.90 for lorries.
Meanwhile, the M6 and the A5 are car parks.
If you don’t like the speed limit, then okay, make it an Autobahn and seriously increase the time saving vs the M6.
I used to use it weekly (on expenses) for a couple of years, when I had jobs in Manchester and Warrington while living down South. You wouldn’t want to use it daily out of your own pocket at that price though.
The respective prices for cars and lorries, are not in proportion to the wear and tear they cause to the road. £3 and £30 is still a little unfair on the cars.
Trump lost an election, incited violence to try to stay in power.
Boris won an election, resigned peacefully once it became clear his Party had lost confidence despite not losing a vote.
The two are the same thing in the same way as a tangerine is a brick.
You're better than that.
Boris Johnson was forced to quit when faced with a revolt led by his own Chancellor which led to a string of Cabinet and Ministerial resignations which effectively destroyed his ability to run a functioning Government.
Now, he's sulking on the side lines, wanting to come back - his band of diehard supporters are trying to subvert the leadership election process by getting his name on the ballot paper in the hope the members will return him to power (some parallels with former President Trump).
He has effectively salted the ground for his successor and will doubtless, despite the odd show of loyalty, use any and every opportunity to tell said successor where he or she is going wrong just as Mrs Thatcher grew tired of John major after about 3 weeks.
The big flaw with M6 Toll pricing from the very start was they didn't offer a season pass. I think the best you could do was get an electronic tag and I think it was 1 free journey for every 10 full priced ones.
But they don't as you note have seasonal ones. They all charge per journey.
They've actually withdrawn the one I was using, which was by far the best of them.
Ten years or so ago, Mrs J and I drove down the M6 Toll. And the prices were written on large sheets of cardboard because they had been increased, but no-one had been bothered to update the official boards.
"@christopherhope ** EXCLUSIVE ** Boris Johnson has said he does not want to resign and will stay on if the membership backs him The PM told former treasurer @peteratcmc over lunch at Chequers on Friday he wishes he could "wipe away" his resignation."
rcs1000 said: "The US has a great many toll roads. It also has "FastTrak" lanes on many freeways which you can pay to access. Basically, you have the choice between paying $5 for FastTrak and getting home 20 minutes earlier, or just lumping it and saving the money."
There is one just a few blocks east from where I live, and I sometimes walk up to the overpass to observe the traffic. There are five lanes in each direction, two of the five having variable congestion pricing. (With large signs telling drivers the current price.) Charges are assessed with electronic tags and, for those who don't have them, photos of license plates.
When I have watched it, always in non-peak times so far, the fast track lanes are always almost empty, though the cars and the trucks in them do move faster. They can be expensive, more than a dollar a mile.
I haven't decided whether those lanes are a good idea, net -- but then I haven't even looked for studies on the question. The complexity does bother me.
To be fair, it should pretty much always be empty during off peak times!
Now... it is worth noting that highway throughput drops when demand is highest. By having two lanes less crowded and flowing at 60mph, you might well actually increase total throughput of the road, while raising revenue, and allowing people to self select whether they want to pay and get their quicker or not.
$1/mile for 10 miles that saves you 20 minutes is going to be worth it for a substantial minority of people. If it doesn't add significant delays to other road users, then it's win-win: more money raised and people who want get their quicker can do so.
Wasn’t that the whole point of the M6 toll road - I don’t think it’s worked
The the price is wrong.
Cut the price, and you'll see usage increase.
There are lots of toll roads in the world, and some have been enormous successes, and some have been dismal failures. It's all about getting the pricing right.
Yes, it should be £3 for cars, and £30 for trucks. And a 90mph speed limit.
Not sure about the 90mph speed limit, but that would be a great pricing plan for the M6 Toll. It would be the most profitable toll road in Europe at those prices.
As it is, it's run by fucktards who don't understand basic price elasticity of demand. Every time they lose money raise prices on cars to try and increase revenue. They're now up to £7.10 for cars and £12.90 for lorries.
Meanwhile, the M6 and the A5 are car parks.
If you don’t like the speed limit, then okay, make it an Autobahn and seriously increase the time saving vs the M6.
I used to use it weekly (on expenses) for a couple of years, when I had jobs in Manchester and Warrington while living down South. You wouldn’t want to use it daily out of your own pocket at that price though.
The respective prices for cars and lorries, are not in proportion to the wear and tear they cause to the road. £3 and £30 is still a little unfair on the cars.
You know that. I know that. Pieces of moss know that.
The M6 Toll's board do not.
I think I may have been a bit harsh in my earlier post. I trust any fucktards who took offence will forgive me.
The big flaw with M6 Toll pricing from the very start was they didn't offer a season pass. I think the best you could do was get an electronic tag and I think it was 1 free journey for every 10 full priced ones.
But they don't as you note have seasonal ones. They all charge per journey.
They've actually withdrawn the one I was using, which was by far the best of them.
Ten years or so ago, Mrs J and I drove down the M6 Toll. And the prices were written on large sheets of cardboard because they had been increased, but no-one had been bothered to update the official boards.
A classic example of uality.
They now have electronic boards which flash up to the minute prices.
Except yesterday when the rain shorted them all out.
Oh and the British government will have all sorts of handy vetos over the merged company.
Rishi has quite possibly played an absolute blinder.
It does rather look like the LEO constellation data provision market will be
1) Starlink 2) OneWeb - being actually operational and everything. Being the alternative to Starlink, in OneWebs chosen markets is probably quite a good business plan. 3) Kuiper - if Jeff can ever get his rockets up.
Kuiper will happen. Even *If* New Glenn never gets to orbit, Kuiper will launch, as Kuiper is not dependent on NG. It's Kuiper and Oneweb's USP...
Also note sex-pest Musk's post that Starlink depends on the unlaunched Starship... (*)
(*) I don't believe that for one minute. he was just sh*tting on the employees he could not sh*g.
It may happen - the problem is persistent non-delivery. It is hard to think that the slow pace at Blue Origin may be matched by the satellites for Kuiper taking ages.
Remember when Surrey Satellites saved Galileo’s bacon? Just…
Starlink V2 is about getting an unassailable lead - even if Bezos is buying all the non Starship launch capacity on the planet, he can’t compete. Can’t solve that problem with money - he’d need throw weight. Which won’t be available for any price. Unless he launches on Starship
As ever, you are a little too pro-Musk and a little too anti- his rivals. If you had not noticed, SS has not launched, let alone reached orbit. They're nearly as late as NG. And Raptor 2 isn't looking that good.
Starlink is in operation now. Thousands of satellites. Hundreds of thousands of actual users etc. approval to operate in many countries. Uplink stations in many countries. More satellites being launched every week. Literally.
OneWeb is now beginning to come into service. Satellites in orbit, ground stations up and running, approval granted by various countries.
Kuiper - no satellites. No ground stations. No users. No approvals.
Currently just OneWeb and Starlink are in the game.
Not sure what you means about Raptor 2 - plenty of videos from the fence at McGregor of multi hundred second runs, thrust vectoring and everything…
There are plenty of videos of BE-4 as well, with the same criteria. And note they are on Raptor *2* because Raptor *1* did not cut the mustard. And they have blown three Raptor 2's in the last few months.
Now, this might mean they're pushing the limits. Or it could be a sign the program is in trouble. But bear in mind NG has seven BE-4 engines on its first stage. Super Heavy has 33 (*). As the N1 shows, even with protection, the failure of one engine can doom the rocket.
SpaceX has a great record in such things. But they are really pushing the limits of the technology, and they may be in for a world of pain. And tech is filled with companies that were leaders who vanished. I doubt that will happen with SpaceX, but don't swallow the Musk Kool-Aid.
(*) According to Wiki; it regularly changes.
The main problem with the N1 was lack of funding - they were trying for all up testing, but lacked the funds to lose the first 1/2 dozen boosters. Some of their stuff was mad even by SpaceX throw-it-at-the-sky standards - explosively opened valves, which couldn’t be reset. So completely untested engines off the production line, first flight was first fire…
The comments from those who’ve worked at SpaceX and were involved with them (as both competitors and helpers) all agree on one thing - it takes years to build an organisation that can launch orbital rockets. And it isn’t something you can create without launching to orbit. Blue Origin is years behind - they haven’t finalised the design of New Glenn to the point of building tooling - they’ve built some test tanks. They really need the experience that some of the small launcher companies have already got - flying rockets. There’s no substitute.
EDIT: At this point I would say that it is nearly certain that Rocket Lab will get Neutron into space before New Glenn.
The big flaw with M6 Toll pricing from the very start was they didn't offer a season pass. I think the best you could do was get an electronic tag and I think it was 1 free journey for every 10 full priced ones.
But they don't as you note have seasonal ones. They all charge per journey.
They've actually withdrawn the one I was using, which was by far the best of them.
Ten years or so ago, Mrs J and I drove down the M6 Toll. And the prices were written on large sheets of cardboard because they had been increased, but no-one had been bothered to update the official boards.
A classic example of uality.
They now have electronic boards which flash up to the minute prices.
Except yesterday when the rain shorted them all out.
We were wondering if it was a con: someone had gone out and put the boards up to get a little extra money from the fools using the toll. (This would both be really hard to do, and harder to get away with, nowadays with electronic payment...)
Because of Covid, I haven't been over the Dartford Crossing for three years. Is it still being run by idiots who wouldn't get any custom if they weren't the only practical route for many journeys?
In other news, Starmer's major economic speech has received little coverage beyond the focus on economic growth growth growth, and the five principles he set out. I know that's enough to go on for many people, but there's a bit more to it than that. I reckon the full speech is worth a read, so if anybody else is sad enough to be interested here it is for convenience:
It's got Reeves's fingerprints all over it, but maybe also Blair, Brown, Mandelson and who knows who else. It's a definite pitch to the centre, and not a bad critique of the shortcomings of current government policy. And for those who reckon Labour's policies are completely unknown, there's quite a lot of policy in here among the verbosity. It's a bit too much like Blair Mark 2 for my liking, but it's not really aimed at me. Starmer's slow but steady incremental, rather than inspirational, approach to winning the next GE continues, and he won't mind being underestimated.
I feel like being a picture editor must be a very rewarding job, you get to have a lot of fun. The BBC have chosen on their homepage to illustrate the story of Sunak and Truss facing off with a picture of Truss laughing her arse off.
The privileges committee needs to expel the cancer that is Boris Johnson from the House of Commons.
That seems the only way to move past the last few years . I doubt Tory MPs even those who still wanted him as PM will be too impressed if he continues to stink the place out with his victimhood .
Oh and the British government will have all sorts of handy vetos over the merged company.
Rishi has quite possibly played an absolute blinder.
It does rather look like the LEO constellation data provision market will be
1) Starlink 2) OneWeb - being actually operational and everything. Being the alternative to Starlink, in OneWebs chosen markets is probably quite a good business plan. 3) Kuiper - if Jeff can ever get his rockets up.
Kuiper will happen. Even *If* New Glenn never gets to orbit, Kuiper will launch, as Kuiper is not dependent on NG. It's Kuiper and Oneweb's USP...
Also note sex-pest Musk's post that Starlink depends on the unlaunched Starship... (*)
(*) I don't believe that for one minute. he was just sh*tting on the employees he could not sh*g.
It may happen - the problem is persistent non-delivery. It is hard to think that the slow pace at Blue Origin may be matched by the satellites for Kuiper taking ages.
Remember when Surrey Satellites saved Galileo’s bacon? Just…
Starlink V2 is about getting an unassailable lead - even if Bezos is buying all the non Starship launch capacity on the planet, he can’t compete. Can’t solve that problem with money - he’d need throw weight. Which won’t be available for any price. Unless he launches on Starship
As ever, you are a little too pro-Musk and a little too anti- his rivals. If you had not noticed, SS has not launched, let alone reached orbit. They're nearly as late as NG. And Raptor 2 isn't looking that good.
Starlink is in operation now. Thousands of satellites. Hundreds of thousands of actual users etc. approval to operate in many countries. Uplink stations in many countries. More satellites being launched every week. Literally.
OneWeb is now beginning to come into service. Satellites in orbit, ground stations up and running, approval granted by various countries.
Kuiper - no satellites. No ground stations. No users. No approvals.
Currently just OneWeb and Starlink are in the game.
Not sure what you means about Raptor 2 - plenty of videos from the fence at McGregor of multi hundred second runs, thrust vectoring and everything…
There are plenty of videos of BE-4 as well, with the same criteria. And note they are on Raptor *2* because Raptor *1* did not cut the mustard. And they have blown three Raptor 2's in the last few months.
Now, this might mean they're pushing the limits. Or it could be a sign the program is in trouble. But bear in mind NG has seven BE-4 engines on its first stage. Super Heavy has 33 (*). As the N1 shows, even with protection, the failure of one engine can doom the rocket.
SpaceX has a great record in such things. But they are really pushing the limits of the technology, and they may be in for a world of pain. And tech is filled with companies that were leaders who vanished. I doubt that will happen with SpaceX, but don't swallow the Musk Kool-Aid.
(*) According to Wiki; it regularly changes.
The main problem with the N1 was lack of funding - they were trying for all up testing, but lacked the funds to lose the first 1/2 dozen boosters. Some of their stuff was mad even by SpaceX throw-it-at-the-sky standards - explosively opened valves, which couldn’t be reset. So completely untested engines off the production line, first flight was first fire…
The comments from those who’ve worked at SpaceX and were involved with them (as both competitors and helpers) all agree on one thing - it takes years to build an organisation that can launch orbital rockets. And it isn’t something you can create without launching to orbit. Blue Origin is years behind - they haven’t finalised the design of New Glenn to the point of building tooling - they’ve built some test tanks. They really need the experience that some of the small launcher companies have already got - flying rockets. There’s no substitute.
Blue Origin gives the impression of going down the NASA route of over-engineering for perfection, with all the testing done in the lab and on the computers. Bezos doesn’t want to see a “failure”, as opposed to the SpaceX philosophy of doing their research in public, and if there’s a few big smoking holes in the ground on the way…
Oh and the British government will have all sorts of handy vetos over the merged company.
Rishi has quite possibly played an absolute blinder.
It does rather look like the LEO constellation data provision market will be
1) Starlink 2) OneWeb - being actually operational and everything. Being the alternative to Starlink, in OneWebs chosen markets is probably quite a good business plan. 3) Kuiper - if Jeff can ever get his rockets up.
Kuiper will happen. Even *If* New Glenn never gets to orbit, Kuiper will launch, as Kuiper is not dependent on NG. It's Kuiper and Oneweb's USP...
Also note sex-pest Musk's post that Starlink depends on the unlaunched Starship... (*)
(*) I don't believe that for one minute. he was just sh*tting on the employees he could not sh*g.
It may happen - the problem is persistent non-delivery. It is hard to think that the slow pace at Blue Origin may be matched by the satellites for Kuiper taking ages.
Remember when Surrey Satellites saved Galileo’s bacon? Just…
Starlink V2 is about getting an unassailable lead - even if Bezos is buying all the non Starship launch capacity on the planet, he can’t compete. Can’t solve that problem with money - he’d need throw weight. Which won’t be available for any price. Unless he launches on Starship
As ever, you are a little too pro-Musk and a little too anti- his rivals. If you had not noticed, SS has not launched, let alone reached orbit. They're nearly as late as NG. And Raptor 2 isn't looking that good.
Starlink is in operation now. Thousands of satellites. Hundreds of thousands of actual users etc. approval to operate in many countries. Uplink stations in many countries. More satellites being launched every week. Literally.
OneWeb is now beginning to come into service. Satellites in orbit, ground stations up and running, approval granted by various countries.
Kuiper - no satellites. No ground stations. No users. No approvals.
Currently just OneWeb and Starlink are in the game.
Not sure what you means about Raptor 2 - plenty of videos from the fence at McGregor of multi hundred second runs, thrust vectoring and everything…
There are plenty of videos of BE-4 as well, with the same criteria. And note they are on Raptor *2* because Raptor *1* did not cut the mustard. And they have blown three Raptor 2's in the last few months.
Now, this might mean they're pushing the limits. Or it could be a sign the program is in trouble. But bear in mind NG has seven BE-4 engines on its first stage. Super Heavy has 33 (*). As the N1 shows, even with protection, the failure of one engine can doom the rocket.
SpaceX has a great record in such things. But they are really pushing the limits of the technology, and they may be in for a world of pain. And tech is filled with companies that were leaders who vanished. I doubt that will happen with SpaceX, but don't swallow the Musk Kool-Aid.
(*) According to Wiki; it regularly changes.
The main problem with the N1 was lack of funding - they were trying for all up testing, but lacked the funds to lose the first 1/2 dozen boosters. Some of their stuff was mad even by SpaceX throw-it-at-the-sky standards - explosively opened valves, which couldn’t be reset. So completely untested engines off the production line, first flight was first fire…
The comments from those who’ve worked at SpaceX and were involved with them (as both competitors and helpers) all agree on one thing - it takes years to build an organisation that can launch orbital rockets. And it isn’t something you can create without launching to orbit. Blue Origin is years behind - they haven’t finalised the design of New Glenn to the point of building tooling - they’ve built some test tanks. They really need the experience that some of the small launcher companies have already got - flying rockets. There’s no substitute.
From memory (there's an online book about it written by an US/?Indian? chap), the N1 was meant to have a dozen+ launches before it successfully got to orbit. The political will - and hence financing - ran out.
As I keep on saying, you seem too down on Blue Origin, and far too *up* on Musk's ventures.
I want both to succeed. In fact, it's vital they both do.
Edit: 'Challenge to Apollo' by Asif A. Siddiqi. Available for free online, and a great resource.
I feel like being a picture editor must be a very rewarding job, you get to have a lot of fun. The BBC have chosen on their homepage to illustrate the story of Sunak and Truss facing off with a picture of Truss laughing her arse off.
It is, I never knew just how much fun it was until I started choosing pics for PB thread headers.
The big flaw with M6 Toll pricing from the very start was they didn't offer a season pass. I think the best you could do was get an electronic tag and I think it was 1 free journey for every 10 full priced ones.
But they don't as you note have seasonal ones. They all charge per journey.
They've actually withdrawn the one I was using, which was by far the best of them.
Ten years or so ago, Mrs J and I drove down the M6 Toll. And the prices were written on large sheets of cardboard because they had been increased, but no-one had been bothered to update the official boards.
A classic example of uality.
They now have electronic boards which flash up to the minute prices.
Except yesterday when the rain shorted them all out.
We were wondering if it was a con: someone had gone out and put the boards up to get a little extra money from the fools using the toll. (This would both be really hard to do, and harder to get away with, nowadays with electronic payment...)
Because of Covid, I haven't been over the Dartford Crossing for three years. Is it still being run by idiots who wouldn't get any custom if they weren't the only practical route for many journeys?
I've had no problems with Dartford. Easy to register, add car and card details, charged automatically.
The privileges committee needs to expel the cancer that is Boris Johnson from the House of Commons.
You can tell how much of a wrong 'un he is, if more proof were needed, by the sometimes expressed view that it'd be better to not pursue him over things he has definitely done, or that he face the level of sanctions his behaviour is supposed to receive, because of the fear of how he will lash out and the damage his reaction could cause. The sort of thing that gets expressed like 'leave it to the ballot box' or 'its over now, don't pursue it further', which really just means someone should not face consequences.
Regarding our GDP and productivity we have comparative advantage in very-high end manufacturing, creative industries, pharmaceuticals, telecoms, and financial professional services.
Therefore, we'd want policies and trade deals to leverage those globally as best we could, and that includes the EU.
However, in and of itself I don't think that's sufficient because a good mass of our population will never get high paying jobs in any of those sectors and we have to be able to offer them something other than low-wage, low-security, low-value work that is migrant heavy and convenient for those in the thriving sectors but drags down our GDP and income per head and our productivity measures.
Switzerland and Germany have both largely solved that issue though.
And they have done so by (a) having lots of vocational training for 16 to 21 year olds who aren't going to University, and (b) having largely contributory benefits schemes, so that young people essentially have to choose between working and training. There is no "don't work, and still recieve money" option.
It's also led to a very high effective minimum wage in Switzerland which means there's no corporate subsidisation of low wages.
Fundamentally our education system isn't fit for the 21st century. It's very good for people who can and people who will, but not very good for those who can't and especially bad for people who won't. The UK is one of very few mug countries that has universal benefits without significant contributions required to qualify and a very large and complex system of in working benefits to lower the marginal cost of labour to get the can'ts and won'ts into low productivity jobs.
So on the one hand they don't get paid enough and need to be subsidised with in working benefits and on the other side we've incentivised companies to hire these low productivity people over investing in capital by lowering the marginal cost of labour.
It's a pincer movement that has wrecked the UK economy for 20+ years.
Yep: our education (particularly vocational education) and benefits systems are massive problem.
I'd add one other: German banking is a mess in many ways, but it's a hell of a lot easier for small and medium sized companies to access bank funding than in the UK. It's next to impossible for £2m year revenue companies to get bank funding in the UK, because banks would much rather lend to Joe Schmoo for him to spend on his credit card.
In Germany and Switzerland, by contrast getting bank funding for smaller companies is - if not easy - a hell of a lot easier. This means that smaller companies find it a lot easier to invest in capital equipment than they do in the UK.
Now... remind me, have either of Sunak or Truss actually mentioned any of these issues?
This board should run for office.
Regardless of current affiliation we'd do a much better job than any of the lot on offer.
Me as Prime Minister.
You know it makes sense.
A Prime Minister of legendary modesty… with a good deal to be modest about ?
The privileges committee needs to expel the cancer that is Boris Johnson from the House of Commons.
That seems the only way to move past the last few years . I doubt Tory MPs even those who still wanted him as PM will be too impressed if he continues to stink the place out with his victimhood .
Who decides on the length of punishment if he is found guilty as hell?
The privileges committee needs to expel the cancer that is Boris Johnson from the House of Commons.
Yep the only solution is for Bozo to be banned for longer than 10 days (should be easy enough given the number of cases against him) and then Labour can be left to organise the Recall petition..
A former BBC employee raised concerns about “unacceptable bullying” by Tim Westwood when he was a Radio 1 DJ but felt they were warned against taking further action, the Guardian has learned.
A former BBC employee raised concerns about “unacceptable bullying” by Tim Westwood when he was a Radio 1 DJ but felt they were warned against taking further action, the Guardian has learned.
The privileges committee needs to expel the cancer that is Boris Johnson from the House of Commons.
That seems the only way to move past the last few years . I doubt Tory MPs even those who still wanted him as PM will be too impressed if he continues to stink the place out with his victimhood .
Who decides on the length of punishment if he is found guilty as hell?
Needs 10+ days out of commons to start a recall??
The Standards Committee isn't it? Though the Commons needs to approve it?
If it is misleading rather than knowingly misleading, which he can brazenly deny, he could get away with a sanction under 10 days assuming he's found guilty.
But bear in mind the Paterson/Bercow tactic of all incorrigible rogues everywhere, from parish council to parliament - obfuscate, delay and frustrate at every turn (whilst also complaining the delay from the events in question is unfair on you), use every legal and procedural blockage you can find, attack the process, attack the persons involved, flood them with nonsensical arguments and irrelevant information, cherry pick quotes and make a lot of hyperbolic references to free speech, dignity and honour. No doubt he'll attempt something of the same.
Oh and the British government will have all sorts of handy vetos over the merged company.
Rishi has quite possibly played an absolute blinder.
It does rather look like the LEO constellation data provision market will be
1) Starlink 2) OneWeb - being actually operational and everything. Being the alternative to Starlink, in OneWebs chosen markets is probably quite a good business plan. 3) Kuiper - if Jeff can ever get his rockets up.
Kuiper will happen. Even *If* New Glenn never gets to orbit, Kuiper will launch, as Kuiper is not dependent on NG. It's Kuiper and Oneweb's USP...
Also note sex-pest Musk's post that Starlink depends on the unlaunched Starship... (*)
(*) I don't believe that for one minute. he was just sh*tting on the employees he could not sh*g.
It may happen - the problem is persistent non-delivery. It is hard to think that the slow pace at Blue Origin may be matched by the satellites for Kuiper taking ages.
Remember when Surrey Satellites saved Galileo’s bacon? Just…
Starlink V2 is about getting an unassailable lead - even if Bezos is buying all the non Starship launch capacity on the planet, he can’t compete. Can’t solve that problem with money - he’d need throw weight. Which won’t be available for any price. Unless he launches on Starship
As ever, you are a little too pro-Musk and a little too anti- his rivals. If you had not noticed, SS has not launched, let alone reached orbit. They're nearly as late as NG. And Raptor 2 isn't looking that good.
Starlink is in operation now. Thousands of satellites. Hundreds of thousands of actual users etc. approval to operate in many countries. Uplink stations in many countries. More satellites being launched every week. Literally.
OneWeb is now beginning to come into service. Satellites in orbit, ground stations up and running, approval granted by various countries.
Kuiper - no satellites. No ground stations. No users. No approvals.
Currently just OneWeb and Starlink are in the game.
Not sure what you means about Raptor 2 - plenty of videos from the fence at McGregor of multi hundred second runs, thrust vectoring and everything…
There are plenty of videos of BE-4 as well, with the same criteria. And note they are on Raptor *2* because Raptor *1* did not cut the mustard. And they have blown three Raptor 2's in the last few months.
Now, this might mean they're pushing the limits. Or it could be a sign the program is in trouble. But bear in mind NG has seven BE-4 engines on its first stage. Super Heavy has 33 (*). As the N1 shows, even with protection, the failure of one engine can doom the rocket.
SpaceX has a great record in such things. But they are really pushing the limits of the technology, and they may be in for a world of pain. And tech is filled with companies that were leaders who vanished. I doubt that will happen with SpaceX, but don't swallow the Musk Kool-Aid.
(*) According to Wiki; it regularly changes.
The main problem with the N1 was lack of funding - they were trying for all up testing, but lacked the funds to lose the first 1/2 dozen boosters. Some of their stuff was mad even by SpaceX throw-it-at-the-sky standards - explosively opened valves, which couldn’t be reset. So completely untested engines off the production line, first flight was first fire…
The comments from those who’ve worked at SpaceX and were involved with them (as both competitors and helpers) all agree on one thing - it takes years to build an organisation that can launch orbital rockets. And it isn’t something you can create without launching to orbit. Blue Origin is years behind - they haven’t finalised the design of New Glenn to the point of building tooling - they’ve built some test tanks. They really need the experience that some of the small launcher companies have already got - flying rockets. There’s no substitute.
From memory (there's an online book about it written by an US/?Indian? chap), the N1 was meant to have a dozen+ launches before it successfully got to orbit. The political will - and hence financing - ran out.
As I keep on saying, you seem too down on Blue Origin, and far too *up* on Musk's ventures.
I want both to succeed. In fact, it's vital they both do.
Edit: 'Challenge to Apollo' by Asif A. Siddiqi. Available for free online, and a great resource.
If I may, here's a section on what it's like when an Apollo or SuperHeavy-sized rocket goes boom near the pad:
"Only in the trench did I understand the sense of the expression "your heart in your mouth." Something quite improbable was being created all around--the steppe was trembling like a vibration test thundering, rumbling, whistling, gnashing-- mixed together in some terrible, seemingly unending cacophony. The trench proved to be so shallow and unreliable that one wanted to burrow into the sand so as not to hear this nightmare.., the thick wave from the explosion passed over us, sweeping away and leveling everything. Behind it came hot metal raining down from above. Pieces of the rocket were thrown ten kilometers away, and large windows were shattered in structures 40 kilometers away. ,_ 400 kilogram spherical tank landed on the roof o[ the installation and testing wing. seven kilometers from the launch pad.
By some estimates, the strength of the explosion was close to 250 tons of TNT--not a nuclear explosion, but certainly the most powerful explosion ever in the history of rocketry. The booster had lifted off to a height of 200 meters before falling over and exploding on the launch pad itself, about twenty-three seconds after launch. The emergency rescue system fired in the nick of time, at T+ 14.5 seconds, to shoot the descent apparatus of the payload two kilometers from the pad, thus saving it from destruction. Remarkably, no doubt because of the stringent safety precautions, there were no fatalities or injuries, although the physical devastation was phenomenal. When the first teams arrived near the pad in the early-morning hours of July 4, there was only carnage left behind: We arrived at the fueling station and were horrified--the windows and doors were smashed out, the iron entrance gate was askew, the equipment was scattered about with the light o[ dawn and was turned to stone--the steppe was literally strewn withdead animals and birds. Where so many o[ them came [rom and how they appeared in such quantities at the station I still do not understand.'
And they reckon that only a small fraction of the fuel on the rocket went boom.
Oh and the British government will have all sorts of handy vetos over the merged company.
Rishi has quite possibly played an absolute blinder.
It does rather look like the LEO constellation data provision market will be
1) Starlink 2) OneWeb - being actually operational and everything. Being the alternative to Starlink, in OneWebs chosen markets is probably quite a good business plan. 3) Kuiper - if Jeff can ever get his rockets up.
Kuiper will happen. Even *If* New Glenn never gets to orbit, Kuiper will launch, as Kuiper is not dependent on NG. It's Kuiper and Oneweb's USP...
Also note sex-pest Musk's post that Starlink depends on the unlaunched Starship... (*)
(*) I don't believe that for one minute. he was just sh*tting on the employees he could not sh*g.
It may happen - the problem is persistent non-delivery. It is hard to think that the slow pace at Blue Origin may be matched by the satellites for Kuiper taking ages.
Remember when Surrey Satellites saved Galileo’s bacon? Just…
Starlink V2 is about getting an unassailable lead - even if Bezos is buying all the non Starship launch capacity on the planet, he can’t compete. Can’t solve that problem with money - he’d need throw weight. Which won’t be available for any price. Unless he launches on Starship
As ever, you are a little too pro-Musk and a little too anti- his rivals. If you had not noticed, SS has not launched, let alone reached orbit. They're nearly as late as NG. And Raptor 2 isn't looking that good.
Starlink is in operation now. Thousands of satellites. Hundreds of thousands of actual users etc. approval to operate in many countries. Uplink stations in many countries. More satellites being launched every week. Literally.
OneWeb is now beginning to come into service. Satellites in orbit, ground stations up and running, approval granted by various countries.
Kuiper - no satellites. No ground stations. No users. No approvals.
Currently just OneWeb and Starlink are in the game.
Not sure what you means about Raptor 2 - plenty of videos from the fence at McGregor of multi hundred second runs, thrust vectoring and everything…
There are plenty of videos of BE-4 as well, with the same criteria. And note they are on Raptor *2* because Raptor *1* did not cut the mustard. And they have blown three Raptor 2's in the last few months.
Now, this might mean they're pushing the limits. Or it could be a sign the program is in trouble. But bear in mind NG has seven BE-4 engines on its first stage. Super Heavy has 33 (*). As the N1 shows, even with protection, the failure of one engine can doom the rocket.
SpaceX has a great record in such things. But they are really pushing the limits of the technology, and they may be in for a world of pain. And tech is filled with companies that were leaders who vanished. I doubt that will happen with SpaceX, but don't swallow the Musk Kool-Aid.
(*) According to Wiki; it regularly changes.
The main problem with the N1 was lack of funding - they were trying for all up testing, but lacked the funds to lose the first 1/2 dozen boosters. Some of their stuff was mad even by SpaceX throw-it-at-the-sky standards - explosively opened valves, which couldn’t be reset. So completely untested engines off the production line, first flight was first fire…
The comments from those who’ve worked at SpaceX and were involved with them (as both competitors and helpers) all agree on one thing - it takes years to build an organisation that can launch orbital rockets. And it isn’t something you can create without launching to orbit. Blue Origin is years behind - they haven’t finalised the design of New Glenn to the point of building tooling - they’ve built some test tanks. They really need the experience that some of the small launcher companies have already got - flying rockets. There’s no substitute.
Blue Origin gives the impression of going down the NASA route of over-engineering for perfection, with all the testing done in the lab and on the computers. Bezos doesn’t want to see a “failure”, as opposed to the SpaceX philosophy of doing their research in public, and if there’s a few big smoking holes in the ground…
The interesting it is, to me, that much of what SpaceX is doing with hardware rich development is how it used to be done.
The original RR Merlin was developed by building dozens of versions, testing them to find where the reliability issues were (did any connecting rods fly past your ear?) and making changes to match
NASA blew up a number of tests stands with F1 engine - they just kept iterating until the test stands stopped going bang. And one engine blew up the week before Apollo 11…
The addition of the centre, 5th engine to the Saturn V was a relatively late hack to fix a combination of weight issues and worrying aerodynamic issues with trapped flow at the base of the rocket. They didn’t quite figure out the bending effects on the thrust structure which deepened the pogo problems…
Even in the 70s/80s we have the Have Blue stealth test bed - cobbled together from spare aircraft bits and, literally, the back of a filing cabinet…
rcs1000 said: "The US has a great many toll roads. It also has "FastTrak" lanes on many freeways which you can pay to access. Basically, you have the choice between paying $5 for FastTrak and getting home 20 minutes earlier, or just lumping it and saving the money."
There is one just a few blocks east from where I live, and I sometimes walk up to the overpass to observe the traffic. There are five lanes in each direction, two of the five having variable congestion pricing. (With large signs telling drivers the current price.) Charges are assessed with electronic tags and, for those who don't have them, photos of license plates.
When I have watched it, always in non-peak times so far, the fast track lanes are always almost empty, though the cars and the trucks in them do move faster. They can be expensive, more than a dollar a mile.
I haven't decided whether those lanes are a good idea, net -- but then I haven't even looked for studies on the question. The complexity does bother me.
To be fair, it should pretty much always be empty during off peak times!
Now... it is worth noting that highway throughput drops when demand is highest. By having two lanes less crowded and flowing at 60mph, you might well actually increase total throughput of the road, while raising revenue, and allowing people to self select whether they want to pay and get their quicker or not.
$1/mile for 10 miles that saves you 20 minutes is going to be worth it for a substantial minority of people. If it doesn't add significant delays to other road users, then it's win-win: more money raised and people who want get their quicker can do so.
Wasn’t that the whole point of the M6 toll road - I don’t think it’s worked
The the price is wrong.
Cut the price, and you'll see usage increase.
There are lots of toll roads in the world, and some have been enormous successes, and some have been dismal failures. It's all about getting the pricing right.
Yes, it should be £3 for cars, and £30 for trucks. And a 90mph speed limit.
Not sure about the 90mph speed limit, but that would be a great pricing plan for the M6 Toll. It would be the most profitable toll road in Europe at those prices.
As it is, it's run by fucktards who don't understand basic price elasticity of demand. Every time they lose money raise prices on cars to try and increase revenue. They're now up to £7.10 for cars and £12.90 for lorries.
Meanwhile, the M6 and the A5 are car parks.
If you don’t like the speed limit, then okay, make it an Autobahn and seriously increase the time saving vs the M6.
I used to use it weekly (on expenses) for a couple of years, when I had jobs in Manchester and Warrington while living down South. You wouldn’t want to use it daily out of your own pocket at that price though.
The respective prices for cars and lorries, are not in proportion to the wear and tear they cause to the road. £3 and £30 is still a little unfair on the cars.
Yes, wear and tear is roughly the 4th power of axle weight, so lorries do vastly more damage even if they have multiple axles.
Yet to see a 20 axle artic. And even there was one, it would still do 10x the damage of a car.
If the new leader doesn't improve the Tories' ratings in the opinion polls Boris Johnson could be back pretty soon.
Nope. Why would that be the case? MPs know that being as far behind as they were is not unrecoverable for a Prime Minister. They eventually were left with no option but to conclude he could not lead such a recovery, since all his and their efforts was spent defending his mistakes and his lies.
That problem would remain even if the new leader does poorly - MPs cannot trust him. They could not really trust him in 2019, but at least then they could see how he would lead them to victory.
Regarding our GDP and productivity we have comparative advantage in very-high end manufacturing, creative industries, pharmaceuticals, telecoms, and financial professional services.
Therefore, we'd want policies and trade deals to leverage those globally as best we could, and that includes the EU.
However, in and of itself I don't think that's sufficient because a good mass of our population will never get high paying jobs in any of those sectors and we have to be able to offer them something other than low-wage, low-security, low-value work that is migrant heavy and convenient for those in the thriving sectors but drags down our GDP and income per head and our productivity measures.
Switzerland and Germany have both largely solved that issue though.
And they have done so by (a) having lots of vocational training for 16 to 21 year olds who aren't going to University, and (b) having largely contributory benefits schemes, so that young people essentially have to choose between working and training. There is no "don't work, and still recieve money" option.
It's also led to a very high effective minimum wage in Switzerland which means there's no corporate subsidisation of low wages.
Fundamentally our education system isn't fit for the 21st century. It's very good for people who can and people who will, but not very good for those who can't and especially bad for people who won't. The UK is one of very few mug countries that has universal benefits without significant contributions required to qualify and a very large and complex system of in working benefits to lower the marginal cost of labour to get the can'ts and won'ts into low productivity jobs.
So on the one hand they don't get paid enough and need to be subsidised with in working benefits and on the other side we've incentivised companies to hire these low productivity people over investing in capital by lowering the marginal cost of labour.
It's a pincer movement that has wrecked the UK economy for 20+ years.
Yep: our education (particularly vocational education) and benefits systems are massive problem.
I'd add one other: German banking is a mess in many ways, but it's a hell of a lot easier for small and medium sized companies to access bank funding than in the UK. It's next to impossible for £2m year revenue companies to get bank funding in the UK, because banks would much rather lend to Joe Schmoo for him to spend on his credit card.
In Germany and Switzerland, by contrast getting bank funding for smaller companies is - if not easy - a hell of a lot easier. This means that smaller companies find it a lot easier to invest in capital equipment than they do in the UK.
Now... remind me, have either of Sunak or Truss actually mentioned any of these issues?
This board should run for office.
Regardless of current affiliation we'd do a much better job than any of the lot on offer.
Me as Prime Minister.
You know it makes sense.
A Prime Minister of legendary modesty… with a good deal to be modest about ?
That's me to a T.
Although I think we all know my modesty is more mythical than legendary.
If the new leader doesn't improve the Tories' ratings in the opinion polls Boris Johnson could be back pretty soon.
Next summer would be my guess for the next leadership election. Would give someone say 12 months until an Oct 2024 election. Any later for a leadership contest and it is becoming very tight.
So - my guess is that from day one Truss will be fighting internally to stop a leadership crisis next summer and somehow cling on until conference 2023 after which it is basically too late.
She will tank the tory polling (perhaps after a tiny brief honeymoon this autumn) imho and MP panic will set in by spring.
I see from parliament's website that the email contact for the committee of privileges is COMMITTEEOFPRIVILEG@parliament.uk. That just seems needlessly confusing.
Oh and the British government will have all sorts of handy vetos over the merged company.
Rishi has quite possibly played an absolute blinder.
It does rather look like the LEO constellation data provision market will be
1) Starlink 2) OneWeb - being actually operational and everything. Being the alternative to Starlink, in OneWebs chosen markets is probably quite a good business plan. 3) Kuiper - if Jeff can ever get his rockets up.
Kuiper will happen. Even *If* New Glenn never gets to orbit, Kuiper will launch, as Kuiper is not dependent on NG. It's Kuiper and Oneweb's USP...
Also note sex-pest Musk's post that Starlink depends on the unlaunched Starship... (*)
(*) I don't believe that for one minute. he was just sh*tting on the employees he could not sh*g.
It may happen - the problem is persistent non-delivery. It is hard to think that the slow pace at Blue Origin may be matched by the satellites for Kuiper taking ages.
Remember when Surrey Satellites saved Galileo’s bacon? Just…
Starlink V2 is about getting an unassailable lead - even if Bezos is buying all the non Starship launch capacity on the planet, he can’t compete. Can’t solve that problem with money - he’d need throw weight. Which won’t be available for any price. Unless he launches on Starship
As ever, you are a little too pro-Musk and a little too anti- his rivals. If you had not noticed, SS has not launched, let alone reached orbit. They're nearly as late as NG. And Raptor 2 isn't looking that good.
Starlink is in operation now. Thousands of satellites. Hundreds of thousands of actual users etc. approval to operate in many countries. Uplink stations in many countries. More satellites being launched every week. Literally.
OneWeb is now beginning to come into service. Satellites in orbit, ground stations up and running, approval granted by various countries.
Kuiper - no satellites. No ground stations. No users. No approvals.
Currently just OneWeb and Starlink are in the game.
Not sure what you means about Raptor 2 - plenty of videos from the fence at McGregor of multi hundred second runs, thrust vectoring and everything…
There are plenty of videos of BE-4 as well, with the same criteria. And note they are on Raptor *2* because Raptor *1* did not cut the mustard. And they have blown three Raptor 2's in the last few months.
Now, this might mean they're pushing the limits. Or it could be a sign the program is in trouble. But bear in mind NG has seven BE-4 engines on its first stage. Super Heavy has 33 (*). As the N1 shows, even with protection, the failure of one engine can doom the rocket.
SpaceX has a great record in such things. But they are really pushing the limits of the technology, and they may be in for a world of pain. And tech is filled with companies that were leaders who vanished. I doubt that will happen with SpaceX, but don't swallow the Musk Kool-Aid.
(*) According to Wiki; it regularly changes.
(Snip)
EDIT: At this point I would say that it is nearly certain that Rocket Lab will get Neutron into space before New Glenn.
Regarding your edit: there is next to no chance of that. IIRC, as of December last year, they have not even started developing the Archimedes (*) engines for the Neuron.
(*) I thoroughly approve of this name for world-beating tech products.
In other news, Starmer's major economic speech has received little coverage beyond the focus on economic growth growth growth, and the five principles he set out. I know that's enough to go on for many people, but there's a bit more to it than that. I reckon the full speech is worth a read, so if anybody else is sad enough to be interested here it is for convenience:
It's got Reeves's fingerprints all over it, but maybe also Blair, Brown, Mandelson and who knows who else. It's a definite pitch to the centre, and not a bad critique of the shortcomings of current government policy. And for those who reckon Labour's policies are completely unknown, there's quite a lot of policy in here among the verbosity. It's a bit too much like Blair Mark 2 for my liking, but it's not really aimed at me. Starmer's slow but steady incremental, rather than inspirational, approach to winning the next GE continues, and he won't mind being underestimated.
Yes, there' some interesting points in it. It does have more than a hint of unreconstructed Blairism but what we have from Sunak and Truss is unreconstructed Thatcherism from the former and economic insanity from the latter.
The line about the contract between hard work and reward being broken is going to resonate. Attitudes toward work have been fundamentally changed by the pandemic and I'd like to see more thinking about the post-work world.
If the new leader doesn't improve the Tories' ratings in the opinion polls Boris Johnson could be back pretty soon.
Next summer would be my guess for the next leadership election. Would give someone say 12 months until an Oct 2024 election. Any later for a leadership contest and it is becoming very tight.
So - my guess is that from day one Truss will be fighting internally to stop a leadership crisis next summer and somehow cling on until conference 2023 after which it is basically too late.
She will tank the tory polling (perhaps after a tiny brief honeymoon this autumn) imho and MP panic will set in by spring.
Assumes the new leader doesn't go for an early election
I feel like being a picture editor must be a very rewarding job, you get to have a lot of fun. The BBC have chosen on their homepage to illustrate the story of Sunak and Truss facing off with a picture of Truss laughing her arse off.
It is, I never knew just how much fun it was until I started choosing pics for PB thread headers.
Is that supposed to be laughing?
Looks more like primal scream therapy in a dodgy psychoanalyst workshop in southern California.
@christopherhope ** EXCLUSIVE ** Boris Johnson has said he does not want to resign and will stay on if the membership backs him The PM told former treasurer @peteratcmc over lunch at Chequers on Friday he wishes he could "wipe away" his resignation.
The man's a bloody disgrace. It isn't the confidence of the members that decides who is PM, and teasing people that it should be that way doesn't help anyone, including him.
He really cannot think more than 5 minutes ahead and so just throws temper tantrums, doesn't he?
He's only got himself to blame.
He could have stayed as PM by not being phenomenally lazy and covering up for and excusing other's gross misconduct.
He didn't step up, so now he has to step down
Nevertheless if you have money on Johnson’s exit date, the cash cost of taking profits now is sufficiently low that cashing in, just in case, has a lot to be said for it.
Oh and the British government will have all sorts of handy vetos over the merged company.
Rishi has quite possibly played an absolute blinder.
It does rather look like the LEO constellation data provision market will be
1) Starlink 2) OneWeb - being actually operational and everything. Being the alternative to Starlink, in OneWebs chosen markets is probably quite a good business plan. 3) Kuiper - if Jeff can ever get his rockets up.
Kuiper will happen. Even *If* New Glenn never gets to orbit, Kuiper will launch, as Kuiper is not dependent on NG. It's Kuiper and Oneweb's USP...
Also note sex-pest Musk's post that Starlink depends on the unlaunched Starship... (*)
(*) I don't believe that for one minute. he was just sh*tting on the employees he could not sh*g.
It may happen - the problem is persistent non-delivery. It is hard to think that the slow pace at Blue Origin may be matched by the satellites for Kuiper taking ages.
Remember when Surrey Satellites saved Galileo’s bacon? Just…
Starlink V2 is about getting an unassailable lead - even if Bezos is buying all the non Starship launch capacity on the planet, he can’t compete. Can’t solve that problem with money - he’d need throw weight. Which won’t be available for any price. Unless he launches on Starship
As ever, you are a little too pro-Musk and a little too anti- his rivals. If you had not noticed, SS has not launched, let alone reached orbit. They're nearly as late as NG. And Raptor 2 isn't looking that good.
Starlink is in operation now. Thousands of satellites. Hundreds of thousands of actual users etc. approval to operate in many countries. Uplink stations in many countries. More satellites being launched every week. Literally.
OneWeb is now beginning to come into service. Satellites in orbit, ground stations up and running, approval granted by various countries.
Kuiper - no satellites. No ground stations. No users. No approvals.
Currently just OneWeb and Starlink are in the game.
Not sure what you means about Raptor 2 - plenty of videos from the fence at McGregor of multi hundred second runs, thrust vectoring and everything…
There are plenty of videos of BE-4 as well, with the same criteria. And note they are on Raptor *2* because Raptor *1* did not cut the mustard. And they have blown three Raptor 2's in the last few months.
Now, this might mean they're pushing the limits. Or it could be a sign the program is in trouble. But bear in mind NG has seven BE-4 engines on its first stage. Super Heavy has 33 (*). As the N1 shows, even with protection, the failure of one engine can doom the rocket.
SpaceX has a great record in such things. But they are really pushing the limits of the technology, and they may be in for a world of pain. And tech is filled with companies that were leaders who vanished. I doubt that will happen with SpaceX, but don't swallow the Musk Kool-Aid.
(*) According to Wiki; it regularly changes.
The main problem with the N1 was lack of funding - they were trying for all up testing, but lacked the funds to lose the first 1/2 dozen boosters. Some of their stuff was mad even by SpaceX throw-it-at-the-sky standards - explosively opened valves, which couldn’t be reset. So completely untested engines off the production line, first flight was first fire…
The comments from those who’ve worked at SpaceX and were involved with them (as both competitors and helpers) all agree on one thing - it takes years to build an organisation that can launch orbital rockets. And it isn’t something you can create without launching to orbit. Blue Origin is years behind - they haven’t finalised the design of New Glenn to the point of building tooling - they’ve built some test tanks. They really need the experience that some of the small launcher companies have already got - flying rockets. There’s no substitute.
From memory (there's an online book about it written by an US/?Indian? chap), the N1 was meant to have a dozen+ launches before it successfully got to orbit. The political will - and hence financing - ran out.
As I keep on saying, you seem too down on Blue Origin, and far too *up* on Musk's ventures.
I want both to succeed. In fact, it's vital they both do.
Edit: 'Challenge to Apollo' by Asif A. Siddiqi. Available for free online, and a great resource.
One organisation has been launching orbital rockets with considerable success. They have had their processes and methods verified by all the leading organisations in the business. They are building a larger rocket - of which they have a prototype on the launch pad.
The other company hasn’t launched to orbit yet. They haven’t finalised the design for their first orbital rocket.
If the new leader doesn't improve the Tories' ratings in the opinion polls Boris Johnson could be back pretty soon.
Next summer would be my guess for the next leadership election. Would give someone say 12 months until an Oct 2024 election. Any later for a leadership contest and it is becoming very tight.
So - my guess is that from day one Truss will be fighting internally to stop a leadership crisis next summer and somehow cling on until conference 2023 after which it is basically too late.
She will tank the tory polling (perhaps after a tiny brief honeymoon this autumn) imho and MP panic will set in by spring.
Assumes the new leader doesn't go for an early election
Oh and the British government will have all sorts of handy vetos over the merged company.
Rishi has quite possibly played an absolute blinder.
It does rather look like the LEO constellation data provision market will be
1) Starlink 2) OneWeb - being actually operational and everything. Being the alternative to Starlink, in OneWebs chosen markets is probably quite a good business plan. 3) Kuiper - if Jeff can ever get his rockets up.
Kuiper will happen. Even *If* New Glenn never gets to orbit, Kuiper will launch, as Kuiper is not dependent on NG. It's Kuiper and Oneweb's USP...
Also note sex-pest Musk's post that Starlink depends on the unlaunched Starship... (*)
(*) I don't believe that for one minute. he was just sh*tting on the employees he could not sh*g.
It may happen - the problem is persistent non-delivery. It is hard to think that the slow pace at Blue Origin may be matched by the satellites for Kuiper taking ages.
Remember when Surrey Satellites saved Galileo’s bacon? Just…
Starlink V2 is about getting an unassailable lead - even if Bezos is buying all the non Starship launch capacity on the planet, he can’t compete. Can’t solve that problem with money - he’d need throw weight. Which won’t be available for any price. Unless he launches on Starship
As ever, you are a little too pro-Musk and a little too anti- his rivals. If you had not noticed, SS has not launched, let alone reached orbit. They're nearly as late as NG. And Raptor 2 isn't looking that good.
Starlink is in operation now. Thousands of satellites. Hundreds of thousands of actual users etc. approval to operate in many countries. Uplink stations in many countries. More satellites being launched every week. Literally.
OneWeb is now beginning to come into service. Satellites in orbit, ground stations up and running, approval granted by various countries.
Kuiper - no satellites. No ground stations. No users. No approvals.
Currently just OneWeb and Starlink are in the game.
Not sure what you means about Raptor 2 - plenty of videos from the fence at McGregor of multi hundred second runs, thrust vectoring and everything…
There are plenty of videos of BE-4 as well, with the same criteria. And note they are on Raptor *2* because Raptor *1* did not cut the mustard. And they have blown three Raptor 2's in the last few months.
Now, this might mean they're pushing the limits. Or it could be a sign the program is in trouble. But bear in mind NG has seven BE-4 engines on its first stage. Super Heavy has 33 (*). As the N1 shows, even with protection, the failure of one engine can doom the rocket.
SpaceX has a great record in such things. But they are really pushing the limits of the technology, and they may be in for a world of pain. And tech is filled with companies that were leaders who vanished. I doubt that will happen with SpaceX, but don't swallow the Musk Kool-Aid.
(*) According to Wiki; it regularly changes.
The main problem with the N1 was lack of funding - they were trying for all up testing, but lacked the funds to lose the first 1/2 dozen boosters. Some of their stuff was mad even by SpaceX throw-it-at-the-sky standards - explosively opened valves, which couldn’t be reset. So completely untested engines off the production line, first flight was first fire…
The comments from those who’ve worked at SpaceX and were involved with them (as both competitors and helpers) all agree on one thing - it takes years to build an organisation that can launch orbital rockets. And it isn’t something you can create without launching to orbit. Blue Origin is years behind - they haven’t finalised the design of New Glenn to the point of building tooling - they’ve built some test tanks. They really need the experience that some of the small launcher companies have already got - flying rockets. There’s no substitute.
From memory (there's an online book about it written by an US/?Indian? chap), the N1 was meant to have a dozen+ launches before it successfully got to orbit. The political will - and hence financing - ran out.
As I keep on saying, you seem too down on Blue Origin, and far too *up* on Musk's ventures.
I want both to succeed. In fact, it's vital they both do.
Edit: 'Challenge to Apollo' by Asif A. Siddiqi. Available for free online, and a great resource.
If I may, here's a section on what it's like when an Apollo or SuperHeavy-sized rocket goes boom near the pad:
"Only in the trench did I understand the sense of the expression "your heart in your mouth." Something quite improbable was being created all around--the steppe was trembling like a vibration test thundering, rumbling, whistling, gnashing-- mixed together in some terrible, seemingly unending cacophony. The trench proved to be so shallow and unreliable that one wanted to burrow into the sand so as not to hear this nightmare.., the thick wave from the explosion passed over us, sweeping away and leveling everything. Behind it came hot metal raining down from above. Pieces of the rocket were thrown ten kilometers away, and large windows were shattered in structures 40 kilometers away. ,_ 400 kilogram spherical tank landed on the roof o[ the installation and testing wing. seven kilometers from the launch pad.
By some estimates, the strength of the explosion was close to 250 tons of TNT--not a nuclear explosion, but certainly the most powerful explosion ever in the history of rocketry. The booster had lifted off to a height of 200 meters before falling over and exploding on the launch pad itself, about twenty-three seconds after launch. The emergency rescue system fired in the nick of time, at T+ 14.5 seconds, to shoot the descent apparatus of the payload two kilometers from the pad, thus saving it from destruction. Remarkably, no doubt because of the stringent safety precautions, there were no fatalities or injuries, although the physical devastation was phenomenal. When the first teams arrived near the pad in the early-morning hours of July 4, there was only carnage left behind: We arrived at the fueling station and were horrified--the windows and doors were smashed out, the iron entrance gate was askew, the equipment was scattered about with the light o[ dawn and was turned to stone--the steppe was literally strewn withdead animals and birds. Where so many o[ them came [rom and how they appeared in such quantities at the station I still do not understand.'
And they reckon that only a small fraction of the fuel on the rocket went boom.
If the new leader doesn't improve the Tories' ratings in the opinion polls Boris Johnson could be back pretty soon.
Next summer would be my guess for the next leadership election. Would give someone say 12 months until an Oct 2024 election. Any later for a leadership contest and it is becoming very tight.
So - my guess is that from day one Truss will be fighting internally to stop a leadership crisis next summer and somehow cling on until conference 2023 after which it is basically too late.
She will tank the tory polling (perhaps after a tiny brief honeymoon this autumn) imho and MP panic will set in by spring.
Assumes the new leader doesn't go for an early election
In other news, Starmer's major economic speech has received little coverage beyond the focus on economic growth growth growth, and the five principles he set out. I know that's enough to go on for many people, but there's a bit more to it than that. I reckon the full speech is worth a read, so if anybody else is sad enough to be interested here it is for convenience:
It's got Reeves's fingerprints all over it, but maybe also Blair, Brown, Mandelson and who knows who else. It's a definite pitch to the centre, and not a bad critique of the shortcomings of current government policy. And for those who reckon Labour's policies are completely unknown, there's quite a lot of policy in here among the verbosity. It's a bit too much like Blair Mark 2 for my liking, but it's not really aimed at me. Starmer's slow but steady incremental, rather than inspirational, approach to winning the next GE continues, and he won't mind being underestimated.
Yes, there' some interesting points in it. It does have more than a hint of unreconstructed Blairism but what we have from Sunak and Truss is unreconstructed Thatcherism from the former and economic insanity from the latter.
The line about the contract between hard work and reward being broken is going to resonate. Attitudes toward work have been fundamentally changed by the pandemic and I'd like to see more thinking about the post-work world.
Was it wise though to do it during the tory leadership election's first week? Not much oxygen of publicity when the journos are chasing Invisible Liz and Sunak around the country.
If the new leader doesn't improve the Tories' ratings in the opinion polls Boris Johnson could be back pretty soon.
Next summer would be my guess for the next leadership election. Would give someone say 12 months until an Oct 2024 election. Any later for a leadership contest and it is becoming very tight.
So - my guess is that from day one Truss will be fighting internally to stop a leadership crisis next summer and somehow cling on until conference 2023 after which it is basically too late.
She will tank the tory polling (perhaps after a tiny brief honeymoon this autumn) imho and MP panic will set in by spring.
Assumes the new leader doesn't go for an early election
LOL.
That would be box office madness.
Might get a polling bounce
True. But I doubt it will be enough to justify risking being the shortest PM since god knows when.
In other news, Starmer's major economic speech has received little coverage beyond the focus on economic growth growth growth, and the five principles he set out. I know that's enough to go on for many people, but there's a bit more to it than that. I reckon the full speech is worth a read, so if anybody else is sad enough to be interested here it is for convenience:
It's got Reeves's fingerprints all over it, but maybe also Blair, Brown, Mandelson and who knows who else. It's a definite pitch to the centre, and not a bad critique of the shortcomings of current government policy. And for those who reckon Labour's policies are completely unknown, there's quite a lot of policy in here among the verbosity. It's a bit too much like Blair Mark 2 for my liking, but it's not really aimed at me. Starmer's slow but steady incremental, rather than inspirational, approach to winning the next GE continues, and he won't mind being underestimated.
It's still quite thin. Honestly not being snarky here but we know the problems, and there's still little evidence any party has any real idea how to fix things.
I'll give them 5/10 for at least talking about something other the the bloody NHS.
Oh and the British government will have all sorts of handy vetos over the merged company.
Rishi has quite possibly played an absolute blinder.
It does rather look like the LEO constellation data provision market will be
1) Starlink 2) OneWeb - being actually operational and everything. Being the alternative to Starlink, in OneWebs chosen markets is probably quite a good business plan. 3) Kuiper - if Jeff can ever get his rockets up.
Kuiper will happen. Even *If* New Glenn never gets to orbit, Kuiper will launch, as Kuiper is not dependent on NG. It's Kuiper and Oneweb's USP...
Also note sex-pest Musk's post that Starlink depends on the unlaunched Starship... (*)
(*) I don't believe that for one minute. he was just sh*tting on the employees he could not sh*g.
It may happen - the problem is persistent non-delivery. It is hard to think that the slow pace at Blue Origin may be matched by the satellites for Kuiper taking ages.
Remember when Surrey Satellites saved Galileo’s bacon? Just…
Starlink V2 is about getting an unassailable lead - even if Bezos is buying all the non Starship launch capacity on the planet, he can’t compete. Can’t solve that problem with money - he’d need throw weight. Which won’t be available for any price. Unless he launches on Starship
As ever, you are a little too pro-Musk and a little too anti- his rivals. If you had not noticed, SS has not launched, let alone reached orbit. They're nearly as late as NG. And Raptor 2 isn't looking that good.
Starlink is in operation now. Thousands of satellites. Hundreds of thousands of actual users etc. approval to operate in many countries. Uplink stations in many countries. More satellites being launched every week. Literally.
OneWeb is now beginning to come into service. Satellites in orbit, ground stations up and running, approval granted by various countries.
Kuiper - no satellites. No ground stations. No users. No approvals.
Currently just OneWeb and Starlink are in the game.
Not sure what you means about Raptor 2 - plenty of videos from the fence at McGregor of multi hundred second runs, thrust vectoring and everything…
There are plenty of videos of BE-4 as well, with the same criteria. And note they are on Raptor *2* because Raptor *1* did not cut the mustard. And they have blown three Raptor 2's in the last few months.
Now, this might mean they're pushing the limits. Or it could be a sign the program is in trouble. But bear in mind NG has seven BE-4 engines on its first stage. Super Heavy has 33 (*). As the N1 shows, even with protection, the failure of one engine can doom the rocket.
SpaceX has a great record in such things. But they are really pushing the limits of the technology, and they may be in for a world of pain. And tech is filled with companies that were leaders who vanished. I doubt that will happen with SpaceX, but don't swallow the Musk Kool-Aid.
(*) According to Wiki; it regularly changes.
The main problem with the N1 was lack of funding - they were trying for all up testing, but lacked the funds to lose the first 1/2 dozen boosters. Some of their stuff was mad even by SpaceX throw-it-at-the-sky standards - explosively opened valves, which couldn’t be reset. So completely untested engines off the production line, first flight was first fire…
The comments from those who’ve worked at SpaceX and were involved with them (as both competitors and helpers) all agree on one thing - it takes years to build an organisation that can launch orbital rockets. And it isn’t something you can create without launching to orbit. Blue Origin is years behind - they haven’t finalised the design of New Glenn to the point of building tooling - they’ve built some test tanks. They really need the experience that some of the small launcher companies have already got - flying rockets. There’s no substitute.
From memory (there's an online book about it written by an US/?Indian? chap), the N1 was meant to have a dozen+ launches before it successfully got to orbit. The political will - and hence financing - ran out.
As I keep on saying, you seem too down on Blue Origin, and far too *up* on Musk's ventures.
I want both to succeed. In fact, it's vital they both do.
Edit: 'Challenge to Apollo' by Asif A. Siddiqi. Available for free online, and a great resource.
If I may, here's a section on what it's like when an Apollo or SuperHeavy-sized rocket goes boom near the pad:
"Only in the trench did I understand the sense of the expression "your heart in your mouth." Something quite improbable was being created all around--the steppe was trembling like a vibration test thundering, rumbling, whistling, gnashing-- mixed together in some terrible, seemingly unending cacophony. The trench proved to be so shallow and unreliable that one wanted to burrow into the sand so as not to hear this nightmare.., the thick wave from the explosion passed over us, sweeping away and leveling everything. Behind it came hot metal raining down from above. Pieces of the rocket were thrown ten kilometers away, and large windows were shattered in structures 40 kilometers away. ,_ 400 kilogram spherical tank landed on the roof o[ the installation and testing wing. seven kilometers from the launch pad.
By some estimates, the strength of the explosion was close to 250 tons of TNT--not a nuclear explosion, but certainly the most powerful explosion ever in the history of rocketry. The booster had lifted off to a height of 200 meters before falling over and exploding on the launch pad itself, about twenty-three seconds after launch. The emergency rescue system fired in the nick of time, at T+ 14.5 seconds, to shoot the descent apparatus of the payload two kilometers from the pad, thus saving it from destruction. Remarkably, no doubt because of the stringent safety precautions, there were no fatalities or injuries, although the physical devastation was phenomenal. When the first teams arrived near the pad in the early-morning hours of July 4, there was only carnage left behind: We arrived at the fueling station and were horrified--the windows and doors were smashed out, the iron entrance gate was askew, the equipment was scattered about with the light o[ dawn and was turned to stone--the steppe was literally strewn withdead animals and birds. Where so many o[ them came [rom and how they appeared in such quantities at the station I still do not understand.'
And they reckon that only a small fraction of the fuel on the rocket went boom.
It looks interesting but, honestly, couldn't somebody create a pdf text version rather than those wonky page images?
Oh and the British government will have all sorts of handy vetos over the merged company.
Rishi has quite possibly played an absolute blinder.
It does rather look like the LEO constellation data provision market will be
1) Starlink 2) OneWeb - being actually operational and everything. Being the alternative to Starlink, in OneWebs chosen markets is probably quite a good business plan. 3) Kuiper - if Jeff can ever get his rockets up.
Kuiper will happen. Even *If* New Glenn never gets to orbit, Kuiper will launch, as Kuiper is not dependent on NG. It's Kuiper and Oneweb's USP...
Also note sex-pest Musk's post that Starlink depends on the unlaunched Starship... (*)
(*) I don't believe that for one minute. he was just sh*tting on the employees he could not sh*g.
It may happen - the problem is persistent non-delivery. It is hard to think that the slow pace at Blue Origin may be matched by the satellites for Kuiper taking ages.
Remember when Surrey Satellites saved Galileo’s bacon? Just…
Starlink V2 is about getting an unassailable lead - even if Bezos is buying all the non Starship launch capacity on the planet, he can’t compete. Can’t solve that problem with money - he’d need throw weight. Which won’t be available for any price. Unless he launches on Starship
As ever, you are a little too pro-Musk and a little too anti- his rivals. If you had not noticed, SS has not launched, let alone reached orbit. They're nearly as late as NG. And Raptor 2 isn't looking that good.
Starlink is in operation now. Thousands of satellites. Hundreds of thousands of actual users etc. approval to operate in many countries. Uplink stations in many countries. More satellites being launched every week. Literally.
OneWeb is now beginning to come into service. Satellites in orbit, ground stations up and running, approval granted by various countries.
Kuiper - no satellites. No ground stations. No users. No approvals.
Currently just OneWeb and Starlink are in the game.
Not sure what you means about Raptor 2 - plenty of videos from the fence at McGregor of multi hundred second runs, thrust vectoring and everything…
There are plenty of videos of BE-4 as well, with the same criteria. And note they are on Raptor *2* because Raptor *1* did not cut the mustard. And they have blown three Raptor 2's in the last few months.
Now, this might mean they're pushing the limits. Or it could be a sign the program is in trouble. But bear in mind NG has seven BE-4 engines on its first stage. Super Heavy has 33 (*). As the N1 shows, even with protection, the failure of one engine can doom the rocket.
SpaceX has a great record in such things. But they are really pushing the limits of the technology, and they may be in for a world of pain. And tech is filled with companies that were leaders who vanished. I doubt that will happen with SpaceX, but don't swallow the Musk Kool-Aid.
(*) According to Wiki; it regularly changes.
The main problem with the N1 was lack of funding - they were trying for all up testing, but lacked the funds to lose the first 1/2 dozen boosters. Some of their stuff was mad even by SpaceX throw-it-at-the-sky standards - explosively opened valves, which couldn’t be reset. So completely untested engines off the production line, first flight was first fire…
The comments from those who’ve worked at SpaceX and were involved with them (as both competitors and helpers) all agree on one thing - it takes years to build an organisation that can launch orbital rockets. And it isn’t something you can create without launching to orbit. Blue Origin is years behind - they haven’t finalised the design of New Glenn to the point of building tooling - they’ve built some test tanks. They really need the experience that some of the small launcher companies have already got - flying rockets. There’s no substitute.
From memory (there's an online book about it written by an US/?Indian? chap), the N1 was meant to have a dozen+ launches before it successfully got to orbit. The political will - and hence financing - ran out.
As I keep on saying, you seem too down on Blue Origin, and far too *up* on Musk's ventures.
I want both to succeed. In fact, it's vital they both do.
Edit: 'Challenge to Apollo' by Asif A. Siddiqi. Available for free online, and a great resource.
If I may, here's a section on what it's like when an Apollo or SuperHeavy-sized rocket goes boom near the pad:
"Only in the trench did I understand the sense of the expression "your heart in your mouth." Something quite improbable was being created all around--the steppe was trembling like a vibration test thundering, rumbling, whistling, gnashing-- mixed together in some terrible, seemingly unending cacophony. The trench proved to be so shallow and unreliable that one wanted to burrow into the sand so as not to hear this nightmare.., the thick wave from the explosion passed over us, sweeping away and leveling everything. Behind it came hot metal raining down from above. Pieces of the rocket were thrown ten kilometers away, and large windows were shattered in structures 40 kilometers away. ,_ 400 kilogram spherical tank landed on the roof o[ the installation and testing wing. seven kilometers from the launch pad.
By some estimates, the strength of the explosion was close to 250 tons of TNT--not a nuclear explosion, but certainly the most powerful explosion ever in the history of rocketry. The booster had lifted off to a height of 200 meters before falling over and exploding on the launch pad itself, about twenty-three seconds after launch. The emergency rescue system fired in the nick of time, at T+ 14.5 seconds, to shoot the descent apparatus of the payload two kilometers from the pad, thus saving it from destruction. Remarkably, no doubt because of the stringent safety precautions, there were no fatalities or injuries, although the physical devastation was phenomenal. When the first teams arrived near the pad in the early-morning hours of July 4, there was only carnage left behind: We arrived at the fueling station and were horrified--the windows and doors were smashed out, the iron entrance gate was askew, the equipment was scattered about with the light o[ dawn and was turned to stone--the steppe was literally strewn withdead animals and birds. Where so many o[ them came [rom and how they appeared in such quantities at the station I still do not understand.'
And they reckon that only a small fraction of the fuel on the rocket went boom.
Oh and the British government will have all sorts of handy vetos over the merged company.
Rishi has quite possibly played an absolute blinder.
It does rather look like the LEO constellation data provision market will be
1) Starlink 2) OneWeb - being actually operational and everything. Being the alternative to Starlink, in OneWebs chosen markets is probably quite a good business plan. 3) Kuiper - if Jeff can ever get his rockets up.
Kuiper will happen. Even *If* New Glenn never gets to orbit, Kuiper will launch, as Kuiper is not dependent on NG. It's Kuiper and Oneweb's USP...
Also note sex-pest Musk's post that Starlink depends on the unlaunched Starship... (*)
(*) I don't believe that for one minute. he was just sh*tting on the employees he could not sh*g.
It may happen - the problem is persistent non-delivery. It is hard to think that the slow pace at Blue Origin may be matched by the satellites for Kuiper taking ages.
Remember when Surrey Satellites saved Galileo’s bacon? Just…
Starlink V2 is about getting an unassailable lead - even if Bezos is buying all the non Starship launch capacity on the planet, he can’t compete. Can’t solve that problem with money - he’d need throw weight. Which won’t be available for any price. Unless he launches on Starship
As ever, you are a little too pro-Musk and a little too anti- his rivals. If you had not noticed, SS has not launched, let alone reached orbit. They're nearly as late as NG. And Raptor 2 isn't looking that good.
Starlink is in operation now. Thousands of satellites. Hundreds of thousands of actual users etc. approval to operate in many countries. Uplink stations in many countries. More satellites being launched every week. Literally.
OneWeb is now beginning to come into service. Satellites in orbit, ground stations up and running, approval granted by various countries.
Kuiper - no satellites. No ground stations. No users. No approvals.
Currently just OneWeb and Starlink are in the game.
Not sure what you means about Raptor 2 - plenty of videos from the fence at McGregor of multi hundred second runs, thrust vectoring and everything…
There are plenty of videos of BE-4 as well, with the same criteria. And note they are on Raptor *2* because Raptor *1* did not cut the mustard. And they have blown three Raptor 2's in the last few months.
Now, this might mean they're pushing the limits. Or it could be a sign the program is in trouble. But bear in mind NG has seven BE-4 engines on its first stage. Super Heavy has 33 (*). As the N1 shows, even with protection, the failure of one engine can doom the rocket.
SpaceX has a great record in such things. But they are really pushing the limits of the technology, and they may be in for a world of pain. And tech is filled with companies that were leaders who vanished. I doubt that will happen with SpaceX, but don't swallow the Musk Kool-Aid.
(*) According to Wiki; it regularly changes.
The main problem with the N1 was lack of funding - they were trying for all up testing, but lacked the funds to lose the first 1/2 dozen boosters. Some of their stuff was mad even by SpaceX throw-it-at-the-sky standards - explosively opened valves, which couldn’t be reset. So completely untested engines off the production line, first flight was first fire…
The comments from those who’ve worked at SpaceX and were involved with them (as both competitors and helpers) all agree on one thing - it takes years to build an organisation that can launch orbital rockets. And it isn’t something you can create without launching to orbit. Blue Origin is years behind - they haven’t finalised the design of New Glenn to the point of building tooling - they’ve built some test tanks. They really need the experience that some of the small launcher companies have already got - flying rockets. There’s no substitute.
From memory (there's an online book about it written by an US/?Indian? chap), the N1 was meant to have a dozen+ launches before it successfully got to orbit. The political will - and hence financing - ran out.
As I keep on saying, you seem too down on Blue Origin, and far too *up* on Musk's ventures.
I want both to succeed. In fact, it's vital they both do.
Edit: 'Challenge to Apollo' by Asif A. Siddiqi. Available for free online, and a great resource.
If I may, here's a section on what it's like when an Apollo or SuperHeavy-sized rocket goes boom near the pad:
"Only in the trench did I understand the sense of the expression "your heart in your mouth." Something quite improbable was being created all around--the steppe was trembling like a vibration test thundering, rumbling, whistling, gnashing-- mixed together in some terrible, seemingly unending cacophony. The trench proved to be so shallow and unreliable that one wanted to burrow into the sand so as not to hear this nightmare.., the thick wave from the explosion passed over us, sweeping away and leveling everything. Behind it came hot metal raining down from above. Pieces of the rocket were thrown ten kilometers away, and large windows were shattered in structures 40 kilometers away. ,_ 400 kilogram spherical tank landed on the roof o[ the installation and testing wing. seven kilometers from the launch pad.
By some estimates, the strength of the explosion was close to 250 tons of TNT--not a nuclear explosion, but certainly the most powerful explosion ever in the history of rocketry. The booster had lifted off to a height of 200 meters before falling over and exploding on the launch pad itself, about twenty-three seconds after launch. The emergency rescue system fired in the nick of time, at T+ 14.5 seconds, to shoot the descent apparatus of the payload two kilometers from the pad, thus saving it from destruction. Remarkably, no doubt because of the stringent safety precautions, there were no fatalities or injuries, although the physical devastation was phenomenal. When the first teams arrived near the pad in the early-morning hours of July 4, there was only carnage left behind: We arrived at the fueling station and were horrified--the windows and doors were smashed out, the iron entrance gate was askew, the equipment was scattered about with the light o[ dawn and was turned to stone--the steppe was literally strewn withdead animals and birds. Where so many o[ them came [rom and how they appeared in such quantities at the station I still do not understand.'
And they reckon that only a small fraction of the fuel on the rocket went boom.
The little I read of either space programme, but particularly the Soviet one, the more I'm amazed anyone made it up there and back in their death traps.
I've just received my new (blue) passport - The Brexit dividend is complete!
Congratulations. You are hereby now entitled to join a long, long queue to get across the Channel (once it's been stamped by a surly French customs agent). Brexit - the joy!
And potential deportation if you get an incompetent border agent who forgets to stamp your passport correctly on the way out.
I have read several times on this very forum that it still only takes seconds to stamp a passport.
This is simply not true. Said surly and incompetent border guard has to leaf through your passport to find the most recent entry and exit stamps to ensure you are compliant with the visa-free 90/180 rule. That takes longer than a few seconds.
But checks were always required, so nothing is new.
If checks take twice as long then if you have twice as many staff on, then nothing has changed. Just staff appropriately based upon today's circumstances.
Sorry, you keep repeating this, but the checks are new. Even if they were required previously, they weren't done. Those of us who hopped across the Channel can testify that most of the time you were just waved through, with the occasional random check.
Indeed - that was my experience too. Normally the only checks outbound were done by the UK Border force, the French normally just checked you were waving the same number of passports at them as there were passengers in the car. They might stop Eastern European vehicles occasionally.
Also @BartholomewRoberts doesn't consider that Dover and Folkestone both have major constraints on capacity due to geography. Given the extra time taken to process, it may be that it isn't possible simply to keep increasing the number of border posts - there needs to be somewhere to put them, and the waiting cars. A more realistic option may be to limit the number of vehicle crossings.
Incidentally I notice that my shiny new blue passport has, in 4 months, already received the same number of stamps (5) as my previous one had in its lifetime.
In the event it takes 24 booths instead of 12 then would the responsible thing to do be:
A: Get 24 booths. Use compulsory purchase orders if necessary.
B: Stick with 12. Blame voters for a choice they may six years ago.
They've had six years to prepare for this. It isn't voters responsibility to deal with this, it's government's responsibility to accept voters choices and adapt.
Have you actually been to Dover? Have you seen where the port actually is? Folkestone isn't much better. Are you planning to requisition the Castle, or the White Cliffs?
Yes I have and yes there's space for 12 extra booths if they're needed. Where there's a will, there's a way.
As @RochdalePioneers has repeatedly said the Port of Dover requested ~£30 million to build new facilities. Oddly enough they didn't seem bothered that they'd need to requisition the White Cliffs to do so.
Considering that EU membership cost us £350mn a week gross, less net, and considering that this is supposedly your big problem with Brexit - spending half of one working day's gross EU membership fees to construct 12 extra booths and eliminate the problem seems like a bit of a bargain does it not?
Extending Article 50 and then the transition period cost us about €20 billion, so €20,000,000,000, so if £30,000,000 is the cost of fixing this and then we're out of the EU and the problem is dealt with, then voting Brexit seems eminently logical does it not?
If after six years this problem is real and hasn't been fixed, that's a failure of one or more of the respective government's not a failure of voting for Brexit.
Once again you miss the fact Dover asked the UK Government for £30m to resolve the issues the UK Government created.
And the UK Government offered them £30,000 or 0.1% of what was needed.
And yes £30m is a lot of money - but adding space to a port by concreting over the open sea doesn't come cheap.
I didn't miss that, I addressed it.
£30m is less than half of one working day's gross EU membership fee. Its peanuts, but the existing booths weren't staffed.
For an hour or so then they were manned. The delays didn't stop but they did manage to move the queues out of Dover Port to the M20 thanks to Brock.
Reports on that seem disputed, many seem to be saying that the booths weren't manned.
But either way it's moot. EU membership was costing us £350mn a week, gross, per week. About a billion per month net.
Extending article 50 came with about a €9 billion fee attached. Transition game with about a €11 billion fee attached.
If Brexit means investing £30mn as a one off to expand capacity and that's it, then just do it already, if it's actually needed. What a bargain compared to membership and transition fees.
And if it's not been done that isn't the fault of Brexit voters.
Personally I would blame you, not the French. You voted for people to be subjected to 11 hour delays at the border; they didn't. But it doesn't matter either way. I have no agency over your vote nor how the French manage their border. Until something changes the delays will stay.
The basic facts show that you are talking utter bollocks. Hardly surprising from someone who is so unreconciled with Brexit.
The French could have put sufficient staff on to prevent the delays. They chose not to - whether for political or some other reason is immaterial. It was their choice and their responsibility.
When they did then decide to put sufficient staff on - with no other changes nor need for additional resources beyond what is normal - the delays massively reduced as did the backlogs. And yet Brexit still exists today just as it did yesterday.
Au contraire, if I'm allowed to use a French expression. Unlike you I am reconciled to the 11 hour delays at the Channel, at least to the extent of realising this is the new normal.
Its only normal if the French don't staff their border. There's no divine reason they can't.
Are the red herrings still swimming around two days later?
The "butbutbutwhatabouttheboothswedidn'tfundin2016" is another one.
When the French staff eventually turned up to their jobs (I think the one hour was a bit of a fairy story as tstified by witnesses on the site, after having been diverted by the French authorities, the queues gradually cleared. French problem on French border caused by French f*ckup by French authorities.
Would booths 13-24 be there, when booths 7-12 were already not staffed, it would not exactly make a difference.
As it happens more booths are now being built.
Anyhoo, you should be debating the inability of the authorities in Paris to provide more staff to provide capacity for some extra Eurostars.
Obviously another problem entirely caused by Brexit
In other news, Starmer's major economic speech has received little coverage beyond the focus on economic growth growth growth, and the five principles he set out. I know that's enough to go on for many people, but there's a bit more to it than that. I reckon the full speech is worth a read, so if anybody else is sad enough to be interested here it is for convenience:
It's got Reeves's fingerprints all over it, but maybe also Blair, Brown, Mandelson and who knows who else. It's a definite pitch to the centre, and not a bad critique of the shortcomings of current government policy. And for those who reckon Labour's policies are completely unknown, there's quite a lot of policy in here among the verbosity. It's a bit too much like Blair Mark 2 for my liking, but it's not really aimed at me. Starmer's slow but steady incremental, rather than inspirational, approach to winning the next GE continues, and he won't mind being underestimated.
Yes, there' some interesting points in it. It does have more than a hint of unreconstructed Blairism but what we have from Sunak and Truss is unreconstructed Thatcherism from the former and economic insanity from the latter.
The line about the contract between hard work and reward being broken is going to resonate. Attitudes toward work have been fundamentally changed by the pandemic and I'd like to see more thinking about the post-work world.
Was it wise though to do it during the tory leadership election's first week? Not much oxygen of publicity when the journos are chasing Invisible Liz and Sunak around the country.
Quite deliberate, I think. Labour being serious about the economy on the same day that Sunak and Truss appear on TV spouting magic money trees and/or irresponsible tax cutting programmes. The contrast is there for all to see.
The headlines don't matter so much. I'm increasingly of the view that it's all carefully planned by Starmer and his aides - a drip-drip, incremental approach to restoring Labour's (economic) credibility. It's a long-term plan, doesn't need to make the news every day. It seems to be working.
Oh and the British government will have all sorts of handy vetos over the merged company.
Rishi has quite possibly played an absolute blinder.
It does rather look like the LEO constellation data provision market will be
1) Starlink 2) OneWeb - being actually operational and everything. Being the alternative to Starlink, in OneWebs chosen markets is probably quite a good business plan. 3) Kuiper - if Jeff can ever get his rockets up.
Kuiper will happen. Even *If* New Glenn never gets to orbit, Kuiper will launch, as Kuiper is not dependent on NG. It's Kuiper and Oneweb's USP...
Also note sex-pest Musk's post that Starlink depends on the unlaunched Starship... (*)
(*) I don't believe that for one minute. he was just sh*tting on the employees he could not sh*g.
It may happen - the problem is persistent non-delivery. It is hard to think that the slow pace at Blue Origin may be matched by the satellites for Kuiper taking ages.
Remember when Surrey Satellites saved Galileo’s bacon? Just…
Starlink V2 is about getting an unassailable lead - even if Bezos is buying all the non Starship launch capacity on the planet, he can’t compete. Can’t solve that problem with money - he’d need throw weight. Which won’t be available for any price. Unless he launches on Starship
As ever, you are a little too pro-Musk and a little too anti- his rivals. If you had not noticed, SS has not launched, let alone reached orbit. They're nearly as late as NG. And Raptor 2 isn't looking that good.
Starlink is in operation now. Thousands of satellites. Hundreds of thousands of actual users etc. approval to operate in many countries. Uplink stations in many countries. More satellites being launched every week. Literally.
OneWeb is now beginning to come into service. Satellites in orbit, ground stations up and running, approval granted by various countries.
Kuiper - no satellites. No ground stations. No users. No approvals.
Currently just OneWeb and Starlink are in the game.
Not sure what you means about Raptor 2 - plenty of videos from the fence at McGregor of multi hundred second runs, thrust vectoring and everything…
There are plenty of videos of BE-4 as well, with the same criteria. And note they are on Raptor *2* because Raptor *1* did not cut the mustard. And they have blown three Raptor 2's in the last few months.
Now, this might mean they're pushing the limits. Or it could be a sign the program is in trouble. But bear in mind NG has seven BE-4 engines on its first stage. Super Heavy has 33 (*). As the N1 shows, even with protection, the failure of one engine can doom the rocket.
SpaceX has a great record in such things. But they are really pushing the limits of the technology, and they may be in for a world of pain. And tech is filled with companies that were leaders who vanished. I doubt that will happen with SpaceX, but don't swallow the Musk Kool-Aid.
(*) According to Wiki; it regularly changes.
The main problem with the N1 was lack of funding - they were trying for all up testing, but lacked the funds to lose the first 1/2 dozen boosters. Some of their stuff was mad even by SpaceX throw-it-at-the-sky standards - explosively opened valves, which couldn’t be reset. So completely untested engines off the production line, first flight was first fire…
The comments from those who’ve worked at SpaceX and were involved with them (as both competitors and helpers) all agree on one thing - it takes years to build an organisation that can launch orbital rockets. And it isn’t something you can create without launching to orbit. Blue Origin is years behind - they haven’t finalised the design of New Glenn to the point of building tooling - they’ve built some test tanks. They really need the experience that some of the small launcher companies have already got - flying rockets. There’s no substitute.
From memory (there's an online book about it written by an US/?Indian? chap), the N1 was meant to have a dozen+ launches before it successfully got to orbit. The political will - and hence financing - ran out.
As I keep on saying, you seem too down on Blue Origin, and far too *up* on Musk's ventures.
I want both to succeed. In fact, it's vital they both do.
Edit: 'Challenge to Apollo' by Asif A. Siddiqi. Available for free online, and a great resource.
If I may, here's a section on what it's like when an Apollo or SuperHeavy-sized rocket goes boom near the pad:
"Only in the trench did I understand the sense of the expression "your heart in your mouth." Something quite improbable was being created all around--the steppe was trembling like a vibration test thundering, rumbling, whistling, gnashing-- mixed together in some terrible, seemingly unending cacophony. The trench proved to be so shallow and unreliable that one wanted to burrow into the sand so as not to hear this nightmare.., the thick wave from the explosion passed over us, sweeping away and leveling everything. Behind it came hot metal raining down from above. Pieces of the rocket were thrown ten kilometers away, and large windows were shattered in structures 40 kilometers away. ,_ 400 kilogram spherical tank landed on the roof o[ the installation and testing wing. seven kilometers from the launch pad.
By some estimates, the strength of the explosion was close to 250 tons of TNT--not a nuclear explosion, but certainly the most powerful explosion ever in the history of rocketry. The booster had lifted off to a height of 200 meters before falling over and exploding on the launch pad itself, about twenty-three seconds after launch. The emergency rescue system fired in the nick of time, at T+ 14.5 seconds, to shoot the descent apparatus of the payload two kilometers from the pad, thus saving it from destruction. Remarkably, no doubt because of the stringent safety precautions, there were no fatalities or injuries, although the physical devastation was phenomenal. When the first teams arrived near the pad in the early-morning hours of July 4, there was only carnage left behind: We arrived at the fueling station and were horrified--the windows and doors were smashed out, the iron entrance gate was askew, the equipment was scattered about with the light o[ dawn and was turned to stone--the steppe was literally strewn withdead animals and birds. Where so many o[ them came [rom and how they appeared in such quantities at the station I still do not understand.'
And they reckon that only a small fraction of the fuel on the rocket went boom.
The little I read of either space programme, but particularly the Soviet one, the more I'm amazed anyone made it up there and back in their death traps.
Gemini was certainly funky - don’t worry, the explosion will be slow, so all you need is an ejection seat….
The first incarnation of Soyuz was demented in its lethality. Komarov knew but flew anyway to prevent Gagarin taking over the flight. If you have a strong stomach you can see a picture of the open casket funeral for Komarov that was arranged by colleagues to get the message about safety through to the top brass…
A genuine loss to the world. He knowingly sacrificed his career to help push through change in NI. Not many people have walked that walk.
In all fairness to the man's legacy especially today, he did not do so - he held his job for seven years after the GFA, and the rise of SF-DUP was not widely foreseen at the time.
Could it work? Do enough people know what a reboot is vaguely?
I quite like it myself.
I think not. "Have you tried rebooting?" is too often associated with 'I haven't got a clue but try this, it will buy me some time to think of something'.
In other news, Starmer's major economic speech has received little coverage beyond the focus on economic growth growth growth, and the five principles he set out. I know that's enough to go on for many people, but there's a bit more to it than that. I reckon the full speech is worth a read, so if anybody else is sad enough to be interested here it is for convenience:
It's got Reeves's fingerprints all over it, but maybe also Blair, Brown, Mandelson and who knows who else. It's a definite pitch to the centre, and not a bad critique of the shortcomings of current government policy. And for those who reckon Labour's policies are completely unknown, there's quite a lot of policy in here among the verbosity. It's a bit too much like Blair Mark 2 for my liking, but it's not really aimed at me. Starmer's slow but steady incremental, rather than inspirational, approach to winning the next GE continues, and he won't mind being underestimated.
Yes, there' some interesting points in it. It does have more than a hint of unreconstructed Blairism but what we have from Sunak and Truss is unreconstructed Thatcherism from the former and economic insanity from the latter.
The line about the contract between hard work and reward being broken is going to resonate. Attitudes toward work have been fundamentally changed by the pandemic and I'd like to see more thinking about the post-work world.
Was it wise though to do it during the tory leadership election's first week? Not much oxygen of publicity when the journos are chasing Invisible Liz and Sunak around the country.
Quite deliberate, I think. Labour being serious about the economy on the same day that Sunak and Truss appear on TV spouting magic money trees and/or irresponsible tax cutting programmes. The contrast is there for all to see.
The headlines don't matter so much. I'm increasingly of the view that it's all carefully planned by Starmer and his aides - a drip-drip, incremental approach to restoring Labour's (economic) credibility. It's a long-term plan, doesn't need to make the news every day. It seems to be working.
I agree in general that Starmer and team clearly have a well worked out plan and they are methodically going through it. Clear signs of that now.
The Owen Jones's of the left are loathed to admit it but Reeves is bringing the economic heft and sense that is needed to deliver at least a chance of a working Labour government.
Oh and the British government will have all sorts of handy vetos over the merged company.
Rishi has quite possibly played an absolute blinder.
It does rather look like the LEO constellation data provision market will be
1) Starlink 2) OneWeb - being actually operational and everything. Being the alternative to Starlink, in OneWebs chosen markets is probably quite a good business plan. 3) Kuiper - if Jeff can ever get his rockets up.
Kuiper will happen. Even *If* New Glenn never gets to orbit, Kuiper will launch, as Kuiper is not dependent on NG. It's Kuiper and Oneweb's USP...
Also note sex-pest Musk's post that Starlink depends on the unlaunched Starship... (*)
(*) I don't believe that for one minute. he was just sh*tting on the employees he could not sh*g.
It may happen - the problem is persistent non-delivery. It is hard to think that the slow pace at Blue Origin may be matched by the satellites for Kuiper taking ages.
Remember when Surrey Satellites saved Galileo’s bacon? Just…
Starlink V2 is about getting an unassailable lead - even if Bezos is buying all the non Starship launch capacity on the planet, he can’t compete. Can’t solve that problem with money - he’d need throw weight. Which won’t be available for any price. Unless he launches on Starship
As ever, you are a little too pro-Musk and a little too anti- his rivals. If you had not noticed, SS has not launched, let alone reached orbit. They're nearly as late as NG. And Raptor 2 isn't looking that good.
Starlink is in operation now. Thousands of satellites. Hundreds of thousands of actual users etc. approval to operate in many countries. Uplink stations in many countries. More satellites being launched every week. Literally.
OneWeb is now beginning to come into service. Satellites in orbit, ground stations up and running, approval granted by various countries.
Kuiper - no satellites. No ground stations. No users. No approvals.
Currently just OneWeb and Starlink are in the game.
Not sure what you means about Raptor 2 - plenty of videos from the fence at McGregor of multi hundred second runs, thrust vectoring and everything…
There are plenty of videos of BE-4 as well, with the same criteria. And note they are on Raptor *2* because Raptor *1* did not cut the mustard. And they have blown three Raptor 2's in the last few months.
Now, this might mean they're pushing the limits. Or it could be a sign the program is in trouble. But bear in mind NG has seven BE-4 engines on its first stage. Super Heavy has 33 (*). As the N1 shows, even with protection, the failure of one engine can doom the rocket.
SpaceX has a great record in such things. But they are really pushing the limits of the technology, and they may be in for a world of pain. And tech is filled with companies that were leaders who vanished. I doubt that will happen with SpaceX, but don't swallow the Musk Kool-Aid.
(*) According to Wiki; it regularly changes.
The main problem with the N1 was lack of funding - they were trying for all up testing, but lacked the funds to lose the first 1/2 dozen boosters. Some of their stuff was mad even by SpaceX throw-it-at-the-sky standards - explosively opened valves, which couldn’t be reset. So completely untested engines off the production line, first flight was first fire…
The comments from those who’ve worked at SpaceX and were involved with them (as both competitors and helpers) all agree on one thing - it takes years to build an organisation that can launch orbital rockets. And it isn’t something you can create without launching to orbit. Blue Origin is years behind - they haven’t finalised the design of New Glenn to the point of building tooling - they’ve built some test tanks. They really need the experience that some of the small launcher companies have already got - flying rockets. There’s no substitute.
From memory (there's an online book about it written by an US/?Indian? chap), the N1 was meant to have a dozen+ launches before it successfully got to orbit. The political will - and hence financing - ran out.
As I keep on saying, you seem too down on Blue Origin, and far too *up* on Musk's ventures.
I want both to succeed. In fact, it's vital they both do.
Edit: 'Challenge to Apollo' by Asif A. Siddiqi. Available for free online, and a great resource.
If I may, here's a section on what it's like when an Apollo or SuperHeavy-sized rocket goes boom near the pad:
"Only in the trench did I understand the sense of the expression "your heart in your mouth." Something quite improbable was being created all around--the steppe was trembling like a vibration test thundering, rumbling, whistling, gnashing-- mixed together in some terrible, seemingly unending cacophony. The trench proved to be so shallow and unreliable that one wanted to burrow into the sand so as not to hear this nightmare.., the thick wave from the explosion passed over us, sweeping away and leveling everything. Behind it came hot metal raining down from above. Pieces of the rocket were thrown ten kilometers away, and large windows were shattered in structures 40 kilometers away. ,_ 400 kilogram spherical tank landed on the roof o[ the installation and testing wing. seven kilometers from the launch pad.
By some estimates, the strength of the explosion was close to 250 tons of TNT--not a nuclear explosion, but certainly the most powerful explosion ever in the history of rocketry. The booster had lifted off to a height of 200 meters before falling over and exploding on the launch pad itself, about twenty-three seconds after launch. The emergency rescue system fired in the nick of time, at T+ 14.5 seconds, to shoot the descent apparatus of the payload two kilometers from the pad, thus saving it from destruction. Remarkably, no doubt because of the stringent safety precautions, there were no fatalities or injuries, although the physical devastation was phenomenal. When the first teams arrived near the pad in the early-morning hours of July 4, there was only carnage left behind: We arrived at the fueling station and were horrified--the windows and doors were smashed out, the iron entrance gate was askew, the equipment was scattered about with the light o[ dawn and was turned to stone--the steppe was literally strewn withdead animals and birds. Where so many o[ them came [rom and how they appeared in such quantities at the station I still do not understand.'
And they reckon that only a small fraction of the fuel on the rocket went boom.
It looks interesting but, honestly, couldn't somebody create a pdf text version rather than those wonky page images?
IMV it's well worth a read. A reader may even see connections with what is currently happening in Ukraine.
I can also recommend NASA's two -part book on the development of the Space Shuttle. Available online, but I also have it in dead-tree form: https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221.pdf
It is so comprehensive, the first part goes into just the *decision* to make the Shuttle; the development is all in part two.
One thing I really desire is that SpaceX, BO, Rocket Lab et al will produce such comprehensive and honest histories.
Oh and the British government will have all sorts of handy vetos over the merged company.
Rishi has quite possibly played an absolute blinder.
It does rather look like the LEO constellation data provision market will be
1) Starlink 2) OneWeb - being actually operational and everything. Being the alternative to Starlink, in OneWebs chosen markets is probably quite a good business plan. 3) Kuiper - if Jeff can ever get his rockets up.
Kuiper will happen. Even *If* New Glenn never gets to orbit, Kuiper will launch, as Kuiper is not dependent on NG. It's Kuiper and Oneweb's USP...
Also note sex-pest Musk's post that Starlink depends on the unlaunched Starship... (*)
(*) I don't believe that for one minute. he was just sh*tting on the employees he could not sh*g.
It may happen - the problem is persistent non-delivery. It is hard to think that the slow pace at Blue Origin may be matched by the satellites for Kuiper taking ages.
Remember when Surrey Satellites saved Galileo’s bacon? Just…
Starlink V2 is about getting an unassailable lead - even if Bezos is buying all the non Starship launch capacity on the planet, he can’t compete. Can’t solve that problem with money - he’d need throw weight. Which won’t be available for any price. Unless he launches on Starship
As ever, you are a little too pro-Musk and a little too anti- his rivals. If you had not noticed, SS has not launched, let alone reached orbit. They're nearly as late as NG. And Raptor 2 isn't looking that good.
Starlink is in operation now. Thousands of satellites. Hundreds of thousands of actual users etc. approval to operate in many countries. Uplink stations in many countries. More satellites being launched every week. Literally.
OneWeb is now beginning to come into service. Satellites in orbit, ground stations up and running, approval granted by various countries.
Kuiper - no satellites. No ground stations. No users. No approvals.
Currently just OneWeb and Starlink are in the game.
Not sure what you means about Raptor 2 - plenty of videos from the fence at McGregor of multi hundred second runs, thrust vectoring and everything…
There are plenty of videos of BE-4 as well, with the same criteria. And note they are on Raptor *2* because Raptor *1* did not cut the mustard. And they have blown three Raptor 2's in the last few months.
Now, this might mean they're pushing the limits. Or it could be a sign the program is in trouble. But bear in mind NG has seven BE-4 engines on its first stage. Super Heavy has 33 (*). As the N1 shows, even with protection, the failure of one engine can doom the rocket.
SpaceX has a great record in such things. But they are really pushing the limits of the technology, and they may be in for a world of pain. And tech is filled with companies that were leaders who vanished. I doubt that will happen with SpaceX, but don't swallow the Musk Kool-Aid.
(*) According to Wiki; it regularly changes.
The main problem with the N1 was lack of funding - they were trying for all up testing, but lacked the funds to lose the first 1/2 dozen boosters. Some of their stuff was mad even by SpaceX throw-it-at-the-sky standards - explosively opened valves, which couldn’t be reset. So completely untested engines off the production line, first flight was first fire…
The comments from those who’ve worked at SpaceX and were involved with them (as both competitors and helpers) all agree on one thing - it takes years to build an organisation that can launch orbital rockets. And it isn’t something you can create without launching to orbit. Blue Origin is years behind - they haven’t finalised the design of New Glenn to the point of building tooling - they’ve built some test tanks. They really need the experience that some of the small launcher companies have already got - flying rockets. There’s no substitute.
From memory (there's an online book about it written by an US/?Indian? chap), the N1 was meant to have a dozen+ launches before it successfully got to orbit. The political will - and hence financing - ran out.
As I keep on saying, you seem too down on Blue Origin, and far too *up* on Musk's ventures.
I want both to succeed. In fact, it's vital they both do.
Edit: 'Challenge to Apollo' by Asif A. Siddiqi. Available for free online, and a great resource.
If I may, here's a section on what it's like when an Apollo or SuperHeavy-sized rocket goes boom near the pad:
"Only in the trench did I understand the sense of the expression "your heart in your mouth." Something quite improbable was being created all around--the steppe was trembling like a vibration test thundering, rumbling, whistling, gnashing-- mixed together in some terrible, seemingly unending cacophony. The trench proved to be so shallow and unreliable that one wanted to burrow into the sand so as not to hear this nightmare.., the thick wave from the explosion passed over us, sweeping away and leveling everything. Behind it came hot metal raining down from above. Pieces of the rocket were thrown ten kilometers away, and large windows were shattered in structures 40 kilometers away. ,_ 400 kilogram spherical tank landed on the roof o[ the installation and testing wing. seven kilometers from the launch pad.
By some estimates, the strength of the explosion was close to 250 tons of TNT--not a nuclear explosion, but certainly the most powerful explosion ever in the history of rocketry. The booster had lifted off to a height of 200 meters before falling over and exploding on the launch pad itself, about twenty-three seconds after launch. The emergency rescue system fired in the nick of time, at T+ 14.5 seconds, to shoot the descent apparatus of the payload two kilometers from the pad, thus saving it from destruction. Remarkably, no doubt because of the stringent safety precautions, there were no fatalities or injuries, although the physical devastation was phenomenal. When the first teams arrived near the pad in the early-morning hours of July 4, there was only carnage left behind: We arrived at the fueling station and were horrified--the windows and doors were smashed out, the iron entrance gate was askew, the equipment was scattered about with the light o[ dawn and was turned to stone--the steppe was literally strewn withdead animals and birds. Where so many o[ them came [rom and how they appeared in such quantities at the station I still do not understand.'
And they reckon that only a small fraction of the fuel on the rocket went boom.
A genuine loss to the world. He knowingly sacrificed his career to help push through change in NI. Not many people have walked that walk.
In all fairness to the man's legacy especially today, he did not do so - he held his job for seven years after the GFA, and the rise of SF-DUP was not widely foreseen at the time.
I recall him talking about the probable outcome at the time - he was seen by many in the Unionist community as having given too much. Just like Hume in his community.
I’m one interview he openly suggested that the anti-agreement (and semi-anti agreement) hypocrites would reap the benefits.
In other news, Starmer's major economic speech has received little coverage beyond the focus on economic growth growth growth, and the five principles he set out. I know that's enough to go on for many people, but there's a bit more to it than that. I reckon the full speech is worth a read, so if anybody else is sad enough to be interested here it is for convenience:
It's got Reeves's fingerprints all over it, but maybe also Blair, Brown, Mandelson and who knows who else. It's a definite pitch to the centre, and not a bad critique of the shortcomings of current government policy. And for those who reckon Labour's policies are completely unknown, there's quite a lot of policy in here among the verbosity. It's a bit too much like Blair Mark 2 for my liking, but it's not really aimed at me. Starmer's slow but steady incremental, rather than inspirational, approach to winning the next GE continues, and he won't mind being underestimated.
I think it's pretty good. Borrowing to invest is music to my ears. Making work pay also a pretty good theme.
And distinctively british/playing to British strengths sounds patriotic enough to convince - whilst also actually being sensible. Some of the partnership levelling up stuff a bit wishy washy but overall sounds good to me. This leftie is on board.
Oh and the British government will have all sorts of handy vetos over the merged company.
Rishi has quite possibly played an absolute blinder.
It does rather look like the LEO constellation data provision market will be
1) Starlink 2) OneWeb - being actually operational and everything. Being the alternative to Starlink, in OneWebs chosen markets is probably quite a good business plan. 3) Kuiper - if Jeff can ever get his rockets up.
Kuiper will happen. Even *If* New Glenn never gets to orbit, Kuiper will launch, as Kuiper is not dependent on NG. It's Kuiper and Oneweb's USP...
Also note sex-pest Musk's post that Starlink depends on the unlaunched Starship... (*)
(*) I don't believe that for one minute. he was just sh*tting on the employees he could not sh*g.
It may happen - the problem is persistent non-delivery. It is hard to think that the slow pace at Blue Origin may be matched by the satellites for Kuiper taking ages.
Remember when Surrey Satellites saved Galileo’s bacon? Just…
Starlink V2 is about getting an unassailable lead - even if Bezos is buying all the non Starship launch capacity on the planet, he can’t compete. Can’t solve that problem with money - he’d need throw weight. Which won’t be available for any price. Unless he launches on Starship
As ever, you are a little too pro-Musk and a little too anti- his rivals. If you had not noticed, SS has not launched, let alone reached orbit. They're nearly as late as NG. And Raptor 2 isn't looking that good.
Starlink is in operation now. Thousands of satellites. Hundreds of thousands of actual users etc. approval to operate in many countries. Uplink stations in many countries. More satellites being launched every week. Literally.
OneWeb is now beginning to come into service. Satellites in orbit, ground stations up and running, approval granted by various countries.
Kuiper - no satellites. No ground stations. No users. No approvals.
Currently just OneWeb and Starlink are in the game.
Not sure what you means about Raptor 2 - plenty of videos from the fence at McGregor of multi hundred second runs, thrust vectoring and everything…
There are plenty of videos of BE-4 as well, with the same criteria. And note they are on Raptor *2* because Raptor *1* did not cut the mustard. And they have blown three Raptor 2's in the last few months.
Now, this might mean they're pushing the limits. Or it could be a sign the program is in trouble. But bear in mind NG has seven BE-4 engines on its first stage. Super Heavy has 33 (*). As the N1 shows, even with protection, the failure of one engine can doom the rocket.
SpaceX has a great record in such things. But they are really pushing the limits of the technology, and they may be in for a world of pain. And tech is filled with companies that were leaders who vanished. I doubt that will happen with SpaceX, but don't swallow the Musk Kool-Aid.
(*) According to Wiki; it regularly changes.
The main problem with the N1 was lack of funding - they were trying for all up testing, but lacked the funds to lose the first 1/2 dozen boosters. Some of their stuff was mad even by SpaceX throw-it-at-the-sky standards - explosively opened valves, which couldn’t be reset. So completely untested engines off the production line, first flight was first fire…
The comments from those who’ve worked at SpaceX and were involved with them (as both competitors and helpers) all agree on one thing - it takes years to build an organisation that can launch orbital rockets. And it isn’t something you can create without launching to orbit. Blue Origin is years behind - they haven’t finalised the design of New Glenn to the point of building tooling - they’ve built some test tanks. They really need the experience that some of the small launcher companies have already got - flying rockets. There’s no substitute.
From memory (there's an online book about it written by an US/?Indian? chap), the N1 was meant to have a dozen+ launches before it successfully got to orbit. The political will - and hence financing - ran out.
As I keep on saying, you seem too down on Blue Origin, and far too *up* on Musk's ventures.
I want both to succeed. In fact, it's vital they both do.
Edit: 'Challenge to Apollo' by Asif A. Siddiqi. Available for free online, and a great resource.
If I may, here's a section on what it's like when an Apollo or SuperHeavy-sized rocket goes boom near the pad:
"Only in the trench did I understand the sense of the expression "your heart in your mouth." Something quite improbable was being created all around--the steppe was trembling like a vibration test thundering, rumbling, whistling, gnashing-- mixed together in some terrible, seemingly unending cacophony. The trench proved to be so shallow and unreliable that one wanted to burrow into the sand so as not to hear this nightmare.., the thick wave from the explosion passed over us, sweeping away and leveling everything. Behind it came hot metal raining down from above. Pieces of the rocket were thrown ten kilometers away, and large windows were shattered in structures 40 kilometers away. ,_ 400 kilogram spherical tank landed on the roof o[ the installation and testing wing. seven kilometers from the launch pad.
By some estimates, the strength of the explosion was close to 250 tons of TNT--not a nuclear explosion, but certainly the most powerful explosion ever in the history of rocketry. The booster had lifted off to a height of 200 meters before falling over and exploding on the launch pad itself, about twenty-three seconds after launch. The emergency rescue system fired in the nick of time, at T+ 14.5 seconds, to shoot the descent apparatus of the payload two kilometers from the pad, thus saving it from destruction. Remarkably, no doubt because of the stringent safety precautions, there were no fatalities or injuries, although the physical devastation was phenomenal. When the first teams arrived near the pad in the early-morning hours of July 4, there was only carnage left behind: We arrived at the fueling station and were horrified--the windows and doors were smashed out, the iron entrance gate was askew, the equipment was scattered about with the light o[ dawn and was turned to stone--the steppe was literally strewn withdead animals and birds. Where so many o[ them came [rom and how they appeared in such quantities at the station I still do not understand.'
And they reckon that only a small fraction of the fuel on the rocket went boom.
The little I read of either space programme, but particularly the Soviet one, the more I'm amazed anyone made it up there and back in their death traps.
The people involved in the early days of spaceflight and on the Apollo programme, knew they were pushing the boundaries of technology like they’d never been pushed before. They knew that there was a huge risk of it all going wrong, and had seen colleagues lose their lives in persuit of the dream.
The President, on the other hand, pre-recorded his address to the Nation on the moon landing failure, because he knew he’d have been unable to do it, knowing that the worst had just happened.
Comments
He could have stayed as PM by not being phenomenally lazy and covering up for and excusing other's gross misconduct.
He didn't step up, so now he has to step down
Edit: in fact, on the way out it was terrible. Huge queue for a pint.
Now, GB News is soft ball interviewing for Conservative MPs and Mark Francois was on to extol the virtues of Liz Truss. Farage listened to his spiel but wasn't impressed with Truss's line on immigration and border controls. Poor old Francois looked stunned - a nice cosy little chat with old Nige had become more difficult.
As it is, it's run by fucktards who don't understand basic price elasticity of demand. Every time they lose money raise prices on cars to try and increase revenue. They're now up to £7.10 for cars and £12.90 for lorries.
Meanwhile, the M6 and the A5 are car parks.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jul/25/tim-westwood-faced-bullying-allegation-inside-bbc-while-radio-1-dj
The nobody knew anything line isn't really holding.
https://www.m6toll.co.uk/savers/
But they don't as you note have seasonal ones. They all charge per journey.
They've actually withdrawn the one I was using, which was by far the best of them.
Trump lost an election, incited violence to try to stay in power.
Boris won an election, resigned peacefully once it became clear his Party had lost confidence despite not losing a vote.
The two are the same thing in the same way as a tangerine is a brick.
We go to Montenegro in September via Dubrovnik and that is supposed to be quite smooth too.
Manchester was supposed to be improving since the problems it had a month or so ago.
OK
[Lord Cruddas] said Mr Johnson had told him he was "rooting for your campaign to succeed".
...
He said Mr Johnson had told him he was "enjoying following" the peer's petition, adding: "There was no ambiguity in Boris’s views. He definitely does not want to resign. He wants to carry on and he believes that, with the membership behind him, he can."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/25/boris-johnson-tells-friend-dont-want-resign-will-stay-tory-members/ (£££)
If nothing else, it will give Liz and Rishi something to talk about.
I used to use it weekly (on expenses) for a couple of years, when I had jobs in Manchester and Warrington while living down South. You wouldn’t want to use it daily out of your own pocket at that price though.
The respective prices for cars and lorries, are not in proportion to the wear and tear they cause to the road. £3 and £30 is still a little unfair on the cars.
Boris Johnson was forced to quit when faced with a revolt led by his own Chancellor which led to a string of Cabinet and Ministerial resignations which effectively destroyed his ability to run a functioning Government.
Now, he's sulking on the side lines, wanting to come back - his band of diehard supporters are trying to subvert the leadership election process by getting his name on the ballot paper in the hope the members will return him to power (some parallels with former President Trump).
He has effectively salted the ground for his successor and will doubtless, despite the odd show of loyalty, use any and every opportunity to tell said successor where he or she is going wrong just as Mrs Thatcher grew tired of John major after about 3 weeks.
A classic example of uality.
The M6 Toll's board do not.
I think I may have been a bit harsh in my earlier post. I trust any fucktards who took offence will forgive me.
Except yesterday when the rain shorted them all out.
The comments from those who’ve worked at SpaceX and were involved with them (as both competitors and helpers) all agree on one thing - it takes years to build an organisation that can launch orbital rockets. And it isn’t something you can create without launching to orbit. Blue Origin is years behind - they haven’t finalised the design of New Glenn to the point of building tooling - they’ve built some test tanks. They really need the experience that some of the small launcher companies have already got - flying rockets. There’s no substitute.
EDIT: At this point I would say that it is nearly certain that Rocket Lab will get Neutron into space before New Glenn.
Because of Covid, I haven't been over the Dartford Crossing for three years. Is it still being run by idiots who wouldn't get any custom if they weren't the only practical route for many journeys?
https://labourlist.org/2022/07/starmer-labour-is-ready-to-reboot-our-economy-and-end-the-cost-of-living-crisis/
It's got Reeves's fingerprints all over it, but maybe also Blair, Brown, Mandelson and who knows who else. It's a definite pitch to the centre, and not a bad critique of the shortcomings of current government policy. And for those who reckon Labour's policies are completely unknown, there's quite a lot of policy in here among the verbosity. It's a bit too much like Blair Mark 2 for my liking, but it's not really aimed at me. Starmer's slow but steady incremental, rather than inspirational, approach to winning the next GE continues, and he won't mind being underestimated.
As I keep on saying, you seem too down on Blue Origin, and far too *up* on Musk's ventures.
I want both to succeed. In fact, it's vital they both do.
Edit: 'Challenge to Apollo' by Asif A. Siddiqi. Available for free online, and a great resource.
Part 1:
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4408pt1.pdf
Part 2:
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4408pt2.pdf
Needs 10+ days out of commons to start a recall??
If it is misleading rather than knowingly misleading, which he can brazenly deny, he could get away with a sanction under 10 days assuming he's found guilty.
But bear in mind the Paterson/Bercow tactic of all incorrigible rogues everywhere, from parish council to parliament - obfuscate, delay and frustrate at every turn (whilst also complaining the delay from the events in question is unfair on you), use every legal and procedural blockage you can find, attack the process, attack the persons involved, flood them with nonsensical arguments and irrelevant information, cherry pick quotes and make a lot of hyperbolic references to free speech, dignity and honour. No doubt he'll attempt something of the same.
"Only in the trench did I understand the sense of the expression "your heart in your mouth." Something quite improbable was being created all around--the steppe was trembling like a vibration test thundering, rumbling, whistling, gnashing-- mixed together in some terrible, seemingly unending cacophony. The trench proved to be so shallow and unreliable that one wanted to burrow into the sand so as not to hear this nightmare.., the thick wave from the explosion passed over us, sweeping away and leveling everything. Behind it came hot metal raining down from above. Pieces of the rocket were thrown ten kilometers away, and large windows were shattered in structures
40 kilometers away. ,_ 400 kilogram spherical tank landed on the roof o[ the installation and testing wing. seven kilometers from the launch pad.
By some estimates, the strength of the explosion was close to 250 tons of TNT--not a nuclear explosion, but certainly the most powerful explosion ever in the history of rocketry. The booster had lifted off to a height of 200 meters before falling over and exploding on the launch pad itself, about twenty-three seconds after launch. The emergency rescue system fired in the nick of time, at T+ 14.5 seconds, to shoot the descent apparatus of the payload two kilometers from the pad, thus saving it from destruction. Remarkably, no doubt because of the
stringent safety precautions, there were no fatalities or injuries, although the physical devastation was phenomenal. When the first teams arrived near the pad in the early-morning hours of July 4, there was only carnage left behind:
We arrived at the fueling station and were horrified--the windows and doors were smashed out, the iron entrance gate was askew, the equipment was scattered about with the light o[ dawn and was turned to stone--the steppe was literally strewn withdead animals and birds. Where so many o[ them came [rom and how they appeared in
such quantities at the station I still do not understand.'
And they reckon that only a small fraction of the fuel on the rocket went boom.
The original RR Merlin was developed by building dozens of versions, testing them to find where the reliability issues were (did any connecting rods fly past your ear?) and making changes to match
NASA blew up a number of tests stands with F1 engine - they just kept iterating until the test stands stopped going bang. And one engine blew up the week before Apollo 11…
The addition of the centre, 5th engine to the Saturn V was a relatively late hack to fix a combination of weight issues and worrying aerodynamic issues with trapped flow at the base of the rocket. They didn’t quite figure out the bending effects on the thrust structure which deepened the pogo problems…
Even in the 70s/80s we have the Have Blue stealth test bed - cobbled together from spare aircraft bits and, literally, the back of a filing cabinet…
Yet to see a 20 axle artic. And even there was one, it would still do 10x the damage of a car.
That problem would remain even if the new leader does poorly - MPs cannot trust him. They could not really trust him in 2019, but at least then they could see how he would lead them to victory.
Although I think we all know my modesty is more mythical than legendary.
So - my guess is that from day one Truss will be fighting internally to stop a leadership crisis next summer and somehow cling on until conference 2023 after which it is basically too late.
She will tank the tory polling (perhaps after a tiny brief honeymoon this autumn) imho and MP panic will set in by spring.
Tracy Chapman
(*) I thoroughly approve of this name for world-beating tech products.
The line about the contract between hard work and reward being broken is going to resonate. Attitudes toward work have been fundamentally changed by the pandemic and I'd like to see more thinking about the post-work world.
Looks more like primal scream therapy in a dodgy psychoanalyst workshop in southern California.
One organisation has been launching orbital rockets with considerable success. They have had their processes and methods verified by all the leading organisations in the business. They are building a larger rocket - of which they have a prototype on the launch pad.
The other company hasn’t launched to orbit yet. They haven’t finalised the design for their first orbital rocket.
One company is clearly in the lead.
That would be box office madness.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=wX5GD1N7bEw
Is Truss a risk taking person?
I'll give them 5/10 for at least talking about something other the the bloody NHS.
If you don’t mind watching humans burning to death - https://youtu.be/_ybnj4jcnwg
"you have Liz Truss, the latest graduate from the school of magic money tree economics."
The "butbutbutwhatabouttheboothswedidn'tfundin2016" is another one.
When the French staff eventually turned up to their jobs (I think the one hour was a bit of a fairy story as tstified by witnesses on the site, after having been diverted by the French authorities, the queues gradually cleared. French problem on French border caused by French f*ckup by French authorities.
Would booths 13-24 be there, when booths 7-12 were already not staffed, it would not exactly make a difference.
As it happens more booths are now being built.
Anyhoo, you should be debating the inability of the authorities in Paris to provide more staff to provide capacity for some extra Eurostars.
Obviously another problem entirely caused by Brexit
Play nicely.
The headlines don't matter so much. I'm increasingly of the view that it's all carefully planned by Starmer and his aides - a drip-drip, incremental approach to restoring Labour's (economic) credibility. It's a long-term plan, doesn't need to make the news every day. It seems to be working.
Labour slogan?
Could it work? Do enough people know what a reboot is vaguely?
I quite like it myself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUhK5vnSigo
The first incarnation of Soyuz was demented in its lethality. Komarov knew but flew anyway to prevent Gagarin taking over the flight. If you have a strong stomach you can see a picture of the open casket funeral for Komarov that was arranged by colleagues to get the message about safety through to the top brass…
The Owen Jones's of the left are loathed to admit it but Reeves is bringing the economic heft and sense that is needed to deliver at least a chance of a working Labour government.
I look forward to seeing the turnout figures for the election.
I can also recommend NASA's two -part book on the development of the Space Shuttle. Available online, but I also have it in dead-tree form:
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221.pdf
It is so comprehensive, the first part goes into just the *decision* to make the Shuttle; the development is all in part two.
One thing I really desire is that SpaceX, BO, Rocket Lab et al will produce such comprehensive and honest histories.
Life is cheap and we have loads of it seems to be the Russian imperial ruler basic operating principle.
I’m one interview he openly suggested that the anti-agreement (and semi-anti agreement) hypocrites would reap the benefits.
And even after Truss has left, it will still boast a large musical instrument.
And distinctively british/playing to British strengths sounds patriotic enough to convince - whilst also actually being sensible. Some of the partnership levelling up stuff a bit wishy washy but overall sounds good to me. This leftie is on board.
The President, on the other hand, pre-recorded his address to the Nation on the moon landing failure, because he knew he’d have been unable to do it, knowing that the worst had just happened.