What a waste of time. Poor candidates, terrible format, awful moderation. Can’t imagine a single mind was changed.
The moderation was extremely poor and probably did Sunak no favours. He will have annoyed a lot of women in particular. And no closing statements? I mean, really? At least it would have kept Rishi quiet for more than 1 minute.
I doubt anyone enjoyed that quite as much as the Labour Party….
You could have pre-written that, but both of those two are leaps ahead of Starmer and this debate was far more serious than the last Labour leader debate.
ROFL leaps ahead? Really?
Easily.
Normally can't stand vox pops, but the "manslaining" quote on the vox pop could stick.
Genuinely the environment stuff was an absolute joke. Fucking joke
I would have been interested to hear what they had to say about net zero. Its a real issue when times are very tough economically but we have just had the hottest day ever. Worrying about the number of bins we have for recycling really didn't address the point.
One of those cases where the gut feeling turns out to be right. A poll in Austria found that most vaccinated Austrians believe Russia is responsible for the war in Ukraine, while the unvaccinated mostly blame the US and NATO. https://twitter.com/TadeuszGiczan/status/1551562520174989316
Genuinely the environment stuff was an absolute joke. Fucking joke
I would have been interested to hear what they had to say about net zero. Its a real issue when times are very tough economically but we have just had the hottest day ever. Worrying about the number of bins we have for recycling really didn't address the point.
A man with 10 houses who flies to Santa's Monica for Christmas is not an eco-warrior.
Neither is a woman who took the private jet for the G20 meeting then buggered off home immediately.
Truss is strangely reminiscent of @NickPalmer nemesis Anna Soubry. Just watch her speaking mannerisms and expressions.
Nah. Soubry was patronising with every breath she took. I don't rate Truss but she is a million times better than Soubry.
You’re showing your bias, there. Soubry has a talent for speaking plainly and getting her point across in a hard-hitting way. Although this is a mixed blessing it is nevertheless a talent that Truss doesn’t have.
Nope. I got to see her speak both formally and informally dozens of times over the years. She really was patronising to everyone she spoke to. On every subject. Her delivery just oozed scorn and derision.
There were and are other many politicians I very strongly disagree with who I think are genuinely decent people and who are willing to listen and debate in a reasonable manner. Ken Clarke is a classic example of this. Soubry was just offensive.
I doubt anyone enjoyed that quite as much as the Labour Party….
You could have pre-written that, but both of those two are leaps ahead of Starmer and this debate was far more serious than the last Labour leader debate.
ROFL leaps ahead? Really?
Easily.
Normally can't stand vox pops, but the "manslaining" quote on the vox pop could stick.
Go on then, let's hear it.
The Tory environment policy is "I have recycling bins"
I doubt anyone enjoyed that quite as much as the Labour Party….
You could have pre-written that, but both of those two are leaps ahead of Starmer and this debate was far more serious than the last Labour leader debate.
ROFL leaps ahead? Really?
They are both better, warmer communicators than Starmer
The great thing about it is if it is true, that's bad for him, and if it is not true Truss can still use it to bat away any criticism of her plans by him.
I mean, he talked over everyone at the last debate, I think that is just his style, particularly when he knows he's behind.
Truss has gone up in my estimation - though I fear her policies may be duds, while Shouty Sunak has gone down. If he mentioned his mother’s pharmacy once he mentioned it a dozen times….I suppose Truss was a LibDem in the ‘80s so going on about how tough things were (under Thatcher governments) is fair game….
I doubt anyone enjoyed that quite as much as the Labour Party….
You could have pre-written that, but both of those two are leaps ahead of Starmer and this debate was far more serious than the last Labour leader debate.
ROFL leaps ahead? Really?
They are both better, warmer communicators than Starmer
Truss is strangely reminiscent of @NickPalmer nemesis Anna Soubry. Just watch her speaking mannerisms and expressions.
Nah. Soubry was patronising with every breath she took. I don't rate Truss but she is a million times better than Soubry.
You’re showing your bias, there. Soubry has a talent for speaking plainly and getting her point across in a hard-hitting way. Although this is a mixed blessing it is nevertheless a talent that Truss doesn’t have.
Nope. I got to see her speak both formally and informally dozens of times over the years. She really was patronising to everyone she spoke to. On every subject. Her delivery just oozed scorn and derision.
There were and are other many politicians I very strongly disagree with who I think are genuinely decent people and who are willing to listen and debate in a reasonable manner. Ken Clarke is a classic example of this. Soubry was just offensive.
Soubry was offensive even to people who campaigned for her, as well as needlessly rude to Nick Palmer when he tried to congratulate her.
I don't think Starmer has much to fear, they clearly don't have any ideas.
Better presentation? Maybe but not clear that this makes any difference
Starmer is junking all the promises he made to win the leadership, stuffing the membership by backing Hard Brexit, and copying Tory policies on the economy. What exactly are his ideas?
Truss is strangely reminiscent of @NickPalmer nemesis Anna Soubry. Just watch her speaking mannerisms and expressions.
Nah. Soubry was patronising with every breath she took. I don't rate Truss but she is a million times better than Soubry.
You’re showing your bias, there. Soubry has a talent for speaking plainly and getting her point across in a hard-hitting way. Although this is a mixed blessing it is nevertheless a talent that Truss doesn’t have.
Nope. I got to see her speak both formally and informally dozens of times over the years. She really was patronising to everyone she spoke to. On every subject. Her delivery just oozed scorn and derision.
There were and are other many politicians I very strongly disagree with who I think are genuinely decent people and who are willing to listen and debate in a reasonable manner. Ken Clarke is a classic example of this. Soubry was just offensive.
Were you still awake for Soubry’s Brexit tears? I was. LOL
Genuinely the environment stuff was an absolute joke. Fucking joke
I would have been interested to hear what they had to say about net zero. Its a real issue when times are very tough economically but we have just had the hottest day ever. Worrying about the number of bins we have for recycling really didn't address the point.
A man with 10 houses who flies to Santa's Monica for Christmas is not an eco-warrior.
Neither is a woman who took the private jet for the G20 meeting then buggered off home immediately.
I doubt anyone enjoyed that quite as much as the Labour Party….
You could have pre-written that, but both of those two are leaps ahead of Starmer and this debate was far more serious than the last Labour leader debate.
ROFL leaps ahead? Really?
Easily.
Normally can't stand vox pops, but the "manslaining" quote on the vox pop could stick.
Go on then, let's hear it.
The Tory environment policy is "I have recycling bins"
Boyan Slat’s Ocean Cleanup put up an interesting vid on YouTube this week, about how they will scale from the (successful) pilot operation at the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
I doubt anyone enjoyed that quite as much as the Labour Party….
You could have pre-written that, but both of those two are leaps ahead of Starmer and this debate was far more serious than the last Labour leader debate.
ROFL leaps ahead? Really?
They are both better, warmer communicators than Starmer
I don't think Starmer has much to fear, they clearly don't have any ideas.
Better presentation? Maybe but not clear that this makes any difference
Starmer's is junking all the promises he made to win the leadership, stuffing the membership by backing Hard Brexit, and copying Tory policies on the economy. What exactly are his ideas?
I must admit even I'm struggling to see what he offers the Labour base.
Genuinely the environment stuff was an absolute joke. Fucking joke
I would have been interested to hear what they had to say about net zero. Its a real issue when times are very tough economically but we have just had the hottest day ever. Worrying about the number of bins we have for recycling really didn't address the point.
The question was very badly framed
Irrelevant how the question was put. It's now very clear: you can tell the obvious truth about the climate or you can get elected. One or the other.
Genuinely the environment stuff was an absolute joke. Fucking joke
I would have been interested to hear what they had to say about net zero. Its a real issue when times are very tough economically but we have just had the hottest day ever. Worrying about the number of bins we have for recycling really didn't address the point.
A man with 10 houses who flies to Santa's Monica for Christmas is not an eco-warrior.
Neither is a woman who took the private jet for the G20 meeting then buggered off home immediately.
I don't think Starmer has much to fear, they clearly don't have any ideas.
Better presentation? Maybe but not clear that this makes any difference
Starmer's is junking all the promises he made to win the leadership, stuffing the membership by backing Hard Brexit, and copying Tory policies on the economy. What exactly are his ideas?
Pretty sure people have won elections even without ideas, so neither side requires them I suppose.
But on the theory that all elections eventually come down to 'It's time for a change' and 'Don't risk a change', a 14 year government with a number of crises to handle, and possibly a mutinous ex-PM looking to undermine them in revenge, probably needs ideas more than the opposition.
It's probably over. Sunak needed a clear and crushing victory. From what I can see from the reaction, he didn't get it. Game over, I suspect. God help us.
Here's a format with an honorable history: "Each debate lasted about three hours; one candidate spoke for 60 minutes, followed by a 90-minute response and a final 30-minute rejoinder by the first candidate. The candidates alternated speaking first. As the incumbent, Douglas spoke first in four of the debates. They were held outdoors, weather permitting, from about 2 to 5 p.m. There were fields full of listeners." source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln–Douglas_debates
Though Senator Stephen Douglas was a famed debater, most historians believe challenger Abraham Lincoln won the seven debates.
The format hasn't been much used in the US, in recent years. Unfortunately. I like the idea of doing without journalists.
(With the poor behavior of so many candidates in American "debates" in recent years, I think we should consider adding people who can prevent interuptions by carrying off any candidate who interupts more than once. A pair of middle linebackers for the men, and a couple of wrestling ladies for the women would add to the entertainment value.)
I doubt anyone enjoyed that quite as much as the Labour Party….
You could have pre-written that, but both of those two are leaps ahead of Starmer and this debate was far more serious than the last Labour leader debate.
ROFL leaps ahead? Really?
They are both better, warmer communicators than Starmer
Probably not ‘leaps ahead’ but, yes, better
Yes but you're so inclined anyway.
Let's hear from somebody in the centre ground
Ok - I think Starmer beats them on gravitas and it's a draw on warmth.
I doubt anyone enjoyed that quite as much as the Labour Party….
You could have pre-written that, but both of those two are leaps ahead of Starmer and this debate was far more serious than the last Labour leader debate.
ROFL leaps ahead? Really?
Easily.
Normally can't stand vox pops, but the "manslaining" quote on the vox pop could stick.
Go on then, let's hear it.
The Tory environment policy is "I have recycling bins"
Poor question from Sophy imo.
It was "What three things would you do?", not "what is your policy?".
The trend on C02 emission in the UK is fine - we have reduced them by somewhere towards 55% since 1990 ie 32 years, and we have 28 to do the other half of the job.
Why did the BBC go to a focus group in Workington? They aren't the selectorate.
The selectorate might be interested in what the electorate thinks.
HY says not
Almost certainly not. They don't care as long as they can carry on believe in fantasies and shouting 'Get Brexit Done' before being tucked in with a mug of cocoa.
Labour voters thought Sunak did better (41% vs 30% for Truss).
That's ironic because on the economy, Sunak was reprising all of George Osborne's lines about austerity, while Truss was debunking them with arguments not a million miles away from Ed Balls.
Well Sunak really pissed me off. I am not a fan of either really although I agree 100% with Kinabalu that either would be a vast improvement on Johnson.
But Sunak was just rude and arrogant, continually talking over Truss and interrupting. You cannot even claim it was because she was waffling or taking too long to answer. He was just trying to shut her down - or rather shout her down at ever opportunity.
Really poor.
Spot on. At 9pm Mrs Al had a strong preference for Sunak if we have to have a Tory PM. By 10pm she had a strong preference for Truss if we have to have a Tory PM. Simply because of Sunak's behaviour. Not that she has any say, of course.
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 constellations 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.
Very true.
But not just in Russia: Brazil had a really nasty one in 2003, killing 19 people. This is one thing I fear with SpaceX's SH/SS development: failing frequently is fine until it is not.
The trick is not having people close to where you are playing with propellants.
That and flight termination systems make rocketry safe. A kiloton or 2 on the horizon is just a loud bang.
The Brazilian thing was stupid negligence of the most basic sort.
Also see the event where Virgin Galactic's friends killed three engineers in an explosion.
Or the event this year where another 'emergent' rocket company had an event with people nearby, fortunately without casualties. Can't find a link immediately, but they got *lots* of criticism...
I’ll refrain from commenting too much on the Virgin thing. He likes to sue.
The engineers were
1) pumping around multiple tons of a known monopropellant. AKA an explosive. 2) they were unaware of the pressure/temperature issues documented in the literature about said propellant. 3) they had no temperature measurement or control on the propellant tanks 4) they had done no worst case (or any case) study to work out a safe zone. 5) they did their tests with people nearby. For no requirement or reason. 6) it was a blazing hot day in the desert, and they had no idea what that was doing to their test rig.
EDIT - do you mean those idiots who were running a giant blow torch they called a rocket motor, while trying to kill themselves? Complete with hiding behind a small hummock of earth about 6 feet from their “test”?
I’ll stop there…
Indeed. But the fact they were in that position was down to the company. Scaled, I think.
Don't blame them for their actions; blame the company that put them in that position.
At any time anyone could have criticised what they were doing. “We need to clear the test area”. “We need a $10 temperature sensor on the tank”.
No one mandated that test was run that way - just no one enforced any kind of discipline.
What exactly is your point? They were employees of a company, doing tests for the company. If there is *any* chance of a serious life-threatening event occurring, the company needs to ensure that the tests are as safe as possible, given the knowledge.
Do you blame Chernobyl on the engineers in the control room, or on the system that led them to make those mistakes?
I blame Chernobyl on the engineers *and* management. They all fucked together.
At the Scaled test, all it would have taken was someone who’d actually read up on the properties of nitrous to say “according to this scientific paper, STOP”
Im not much of a chemist, I just play one on the internet, but a Google search finds plenty of papers saying Here Be Dragons. That’s the nice thing about modern chemistry. All the dead guys mistakes are written down for you to read…
They hadn’t read up.
It works both ways - management has a duty to listen to the engineers. The engineers have a duty to have clue.
I doubt anyone enjoyed that quite as much as the Labour Party….
You could have pre-written that, but both of those two are leaps ahead of Starmer and this debate was far more serious than the last Labour leader debate.
ROFL leaps ahead? Really?
Easily.
Normally can't stand vox pops, but the "manslaining" quote on the vox pop could stick.
Go on then, let's hear it.
The Tory environment policy is "I have recycling bins"
Both spoke about technology which is the correct answer on the environment. Also mentioned were insulation, recycling, energy efficiency etc
Pretty sensible answers really, what more did you want? Clean technologies are what is needed to get to our environmental targets.
The NHS could still employ EU doctors and nurses as they’re likely to meet the new visa rules, however the appeal of the UK to EU nationals to move here now isn’t what it was pre Brexit.
So it looks like the UK will have to appeal to countries like India and the Philippines to help plug the gap .
The NHS staffing crisis is very worrying given how much of a backlog has built up . No 10 would like to dupe people into thinking this was just due to covid but this isn’t the case . There were big problems before that and covid has just been the final straw.
Recently the government massively boosted the number of medical school places, but it will take time for the results to filter through, of course.
Rookies have never been a problem, but retention of fully trained people has become a major issue.
The NHS could still employ EU doctors and nurses as they’re likely to meet the new visa rules, however the appeal of the UK to EU nationals to move here now isn’t what it was pre Brexit.
So it looks like the UK will have to appeal to countries like India and the Philippines to help plug the gap .
The NHS staffing crisis is very worrying given how much of a backlog has built up . No 10 would like to dupe people into thinking this was just due to covid but this isn’t the case . There were big problems before that and covid has just been the final straw.
The major reason that we don't get many EU applicants now is because their Specialist qualifications are no longer recognised automatically, nor their primary qualification. Instead of getting a GMC number in 2 weeks it now takes 6 months (the same as India etc, with multiple hoops). It is the same for nurses and their PIN numbers.
Thanks for explaining that . It’s a real shame that when the UK EU deal was done there wasn’t an automatic exemption for certain key areas.
It's a real shame the Tories elected a lazy clown who had no interest in anything other than soundbites.
Comments
Yes, I'm taking part in this poll as well.
Normally can't stand vox pops, but the "manslaining" quote on the vox pop could stick.
Tonight we asked over 1000 regular voters to watch the debate and we have just asked them who they thought performed best.
Results:
Sunak 39% vs Truss 38%
https://twitter.com/TadeuszGiczan/status/1551562520174989316
Neither is a woman who took the private jet for the G20 meeting then buggered off home immediately.
There were and are other many politicians I very strongly disagree with who I think are genuinely decent people and who are willing to listen and debate in a reasonable manner. Ken Clarke is a classic example of this. Soubry was just offensive.
The Tory environment policy is "I have recycling bins"
Probably not ‘leaps ahead’ but, yes, better
I mean, he talked over everyone at the last debate, I think that is just his style, particularly when he knows he's behind.
Now I think of it all the Tory members I know who are big fans of him are blokes.
Let's hear from somebody in the centre ground
What a joke. Neither candidate brought that up. Media trying to set the story rather than tell it is absurd.
Better presentation? Maybe but not clear that this makes any difference
Dreadful behaviour.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnC6ZPURTm4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo0N4X9ZUos
(It isn't very good, to be honest.)
Conservative voters thought Truss did better (47% vs 38% for Sunak).
Labour voters thought Sunak did better (41% vs 30% for Truss).
Even Tony Blair threw them some red meat.
Labour voters thought Sunak did better (41% vs 30% for Truss).
https://twitter.com/opiniumresearch/status/1551678417824784388
But on the theory that all elections eventually come down to 'It's time for a change' and 'Don't risk a change', a 14 year government with a number of crises to handle, and possibly a mutinous ex-PM looking to undermine them in revenge, probably needs ideas more than the opposition.
"Each debate lasted about three hours; one candidate spoke for 60 minutes, followed by a 90-minute response and a final 30-minute rejoinder by the first candidate. The candidates alternated speaking first. As the incumbent, Douglas spoke first in four of the debates. They were held outdoors, weather permitting, from about 2 to 5 p.m. There were fields full of listeners."
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln–Douglas_debates
Though Senator Stephen Douglas was a famed debater, most historians believe challenger Abraham Lincoln won the seven debates.
The format hasn't been much used in the US, in recent years. Unfortunately. I like the idea of doing without journalists.
(With the poor behavior of so many candidates in American "debates" in recent years, I think we should consider adding people who can prevent interuptions by carrying off any candidate who interupts more than once. A pair of middle linebackers for the men, and a couple of wrestling ladies for the women would add to the entertainment value.)
No idea why, but I only managed to watch the first 15mins before real life intervened.
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1551677976093368327?s=20&t=u0JUIrI8Jgtzg7OJhxEQrg
It was "What three things would you do?", not "what is your policy?".
The trend on C02 emission in the UK is fine - we have reduced them by somewhere towards 55% since 1990 ie 32 years, and we have 28 to do the other half of the job.
I know I am a new Scot, but have to ask - we play cricket?
NEW THREAD
At the Scaled test, all it would have taken was someone who’d actually read up on the properties of nitrous to say “according to this scientific paper, STOP”
Im not much of a chemist, I just play one on the internet, but a Google search finds plenty of papers saying Here Be Dragons. That’s the nice thing about modern chemistry. All the dead guys mistakes are written down for you to read…
They hadn’t read up.
It works both ways - management has a duty to listen to the engineers. The engineers have a duty to have clue.
Pretty sensible answers really, what more did you want? Clean technologies are what is needed to get to our environmental targets.
But good luck to the Conservative and Unionist Party.