Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Midterms betting: GOP favourite for the House – DEM for the Senate – politicalbetting.com

135678

Comments

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 32,310
    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:

    Alistair said:

    ...

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Little Marco….

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3603940-demings-up-by-4-points-in-challenge-to-rubio-poll/
    …Rep. Val Demings (D) leads Sen. Marco Rubio (R) by 4 percentage points in Florida’s Senate race, according to a poll released Tuesday.
    The poll, released by the University of North Florida’s Public Opinion Research Lab, shows Demings with the support of 48 percent of surveyed registered voters who said they would vote in the midterms.
    Rubio, in comparison, received 44 percent support, while 7 percent said they would choose someone else...

    Did anyone have that as a possible flip?

    A loss there would be a major and surely fatal blow to Republican chances of taking the Senate.
    If the GOP are losing Florida in the Senate (put me down as extremely sceptical of this) then it is a massacre, they won't be holding the House either.
    It's a strange poll as it puts De Santis up 7-8%. In practice, I think that hardly anyone will split their ticket between De Santis and Rubio.

    Both candidates, on average, have a pretty clear lead.
    What's striking though is the reduction in that lead. From 20 points six months ago to that 7-8 now.

    Although I note they hedge it with caveats about the certainty of 'certain to vote' Dems.
    No one's going to win by 20% in Florida. It's a polarised state with a Republican lean.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,604
    My side hustle is as an Instagram fashion and style influencer but I’m thinking about dipping my toe into political endorsements. Does anyone know what the rules are in this country for getting paid for this and have any contacts I could approach at the main parties to offer my services?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Alistair said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    The Woke Dems need to be destroyed. Trump for '24

    Silly boy.
    Remember Leon droning on about Remainers trying to overturn the EU ref result but in vomit inducing hypocrisy is backing Trump who sent a mob to storm Congress and who wanted to overturn the US election .
    I'm not backing Trump. My comment was a Situationist provocation to get the new thread off to a cracking start

    I'd not be - shall we say - *overly unhappy* if Trump dropped dead tomorrow. I'd mourn the passing of a human soul for a nanosecond then crack open several bottles of English fizz

    My ideal is for a non-religious-freak Republican to get the nomination, and thrash the Woke Dems
    Okay but you did say Trump 24 . Anyway good luck trying to find a non-religious -freak Republican.
    Yes, that is an issue

    De Santis is probably the best bet for Reps. Not obviously insane, and not entirely crazed about abortion

    https://eu.tallahassee.com/story/news/local/state/2022/07/02/florida-governor-desantis-post-roe-abortion-debate-roe-v-wade/7770054001/
    He's an absolute lunatic. Punished businesses for exercising free speech, banning books in schools, twisting the law to ignore the results of a referendum to disenfranchise voters.

    Absolute roaster.
    My betfair account (following an RCS tip) says he's a fine upstanding fellow.
    I think you'll find that Rubio is the man for the GOP.

    Failing that, Tom Cotton.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,506

    Nigelb said:

    Is there any possibility of the Truss thing making any difference at all to the result ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/16/leaked-audio-reveals-liz-truss-said-british-workers-needed-more-graft
    …Liz Truss, now the Tory leadership frontrunner, launched an astonishing broadside against British workers, saying they needed “more graft” and suggesting they lacked the “skill and application” of foreign rivals, the Guardian can reveal.

    In a leaked recording, the then No 2 at the Treasury also risked pitting Londoners against the rest of the country by attempting to explain the difference between the capital and other regions in the UK.

    Truss, who has put patriotism at the heart of her leadership campaign, suggested the disparity was “partly a mindset or attitude thing”.…


    Or was she just thinking of Boris ?

    'She's right' is what most will think. Especially Tory members.
    For the people she has to appeal to now, most of whom stopped having to work some time ago, it will be fine-to-appealing.

    In a general election, perhaps less so.
    Do you think Truss has ever shown any adaptability of thinking and willingness to appeal to the next election rather than the last one?

    The moment she's in Downing Street she'll be inevitably thinking about what does she need to do to win the next election, not what did she need to do to win her last one. She's a politician, and an agile and adaptable one at that. 👍
    Yes and no. In some ways she has proved to be remarkably agile, but other bits of her thinking are positively scleroic. There are several examples of bees taking residence in her bonnet and proving to be hard to shift, even after being taken through the "this is why it won't work" bit. The most obvious one being the "solar farms mean farmers can't grow food" thing, which you'd hope that a DEFRA minister would have realised is tosh. The same surely has to be true of her stated tax plan, which is the opposite of targeted on the needy.

    Maybe she is a political genius who is about to betray those who want a proper economic libertarian in charge. But I'm not convinced; mostly what you see in leadership campaigns is roughly what you get.

    Or, the fact that she was a DEFRA Minister means her view may have validity, and your view might be tosh. Or have you had enough of experts?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Leon said:

    Alistair said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    The Woke Dems need to be destroyed. Trump for '24

    Silly boy.
    Remember Leon droning on about Remainers trying to overturn the EU ref result but in vomit inducing hypocrisy is backing Trump who sent a mob to storm Congress and who wanted to overturn the US election .
    I'm not backing Trump. My comment was a Situationist provocation to get the new thread off to a cracking start

    I'd not be - shall we say - *overly unhappy* if Trump dropped dead tomorrow. I'd mourn the passing of a human soul for a nanosecond then crack open several bottles of English fizz

    My ideal is for a non-religious-freak Republican to get the nomination, and thrash the Woke Dems
    Okay but you did say Trump 24 . Anyway good luck trying to find a non-religious -freak Republican.
    Yes, that is an issue

    De Santis is probably the best bet for Reps. Not obviously insane, and not entirely crazed about abortion

    https://eu.tallahassee.com/story/news/local/state/2022/07/02/florida-governor-desantis-post-roe-abortion-debate-roe-v-wade/7770054001/
    He's an absolute lunatic. Punished businesses for exercising free speech, banning books in schools, twisting the law to ignore the results of a referendum to disenfranchise voters.

    Absolute roaster.
    I like him. Takes on The Woke

    If the GOP choose him he could slaughter the Dems in 2024, esp if they are mad enough to go for Biden or Harris
    I thought you were against people who try and undermine the results of referendums?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    edited August 2022

    Nigelb said:

    Is there any possibility of the Truss thing making any difference at all to the result ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/16/leaked-audio-reveals-liz-truss-said-british-workers-needed-more-graft
    …Liz Truss, now the Tory leadership frontrunner, launched an astonishing broadside against British workers, saying they needed “more graft” and suggesting they lacked the “skill and application” of foreign rivals, the Guardian can reveal.

    In a leaked recording, the then No 2 at the Treasury also risked pitting Londoners against the rest of the country by attempting to explain the difference between the capital and other regions in the UK.

    Truss, who has put patriotism at the heart of her leadership campaign, suggested the disparity was “partly a mindset or attitude thing”.…


    Or was she just thinking of Boris ?

    'She's right' is what most will think. Especially Tory members.
    For the people she has to appeal to now, most of whom stopped having to work some time ago, it will be fine-to-appealing.

    In a general election, perhaps less so.
    Do you think Truss has ever shown any adaptability of thinking and willingness to appeal to the next election rather than the last one?

    The moment she's in Downing Street she'll be inevitably thinking about what does she need to do to win the next election, not what did she need to do to win her last one. She's a politician, and an agile and adaptable one at that. 👍
    Yes and no. In some ways she has proved to be remarkably agile, but other bits of her thinking are positively scleroic. There are several examples of bees taking residence in her bonnet and proving to be hard to shift, even after being taken through the "this is why it won't work" bit. The most obvious one being the "solar farms mean farmers can't grow food" thing, which you'd hope that a DEFRA minister would have realised is tosh. The same surely has to be true of her stated tax plan, which is the opposite of targeted on the needy.

    Maybe she is a political genius who is about to betray those who want a proper economic libertarian in charge. But I'm not convinced; mostly what you see in leadership campaigns is roughly what you get.

    Or, the fact that she was a DEFRA Minister means her view may have validity, and your view might be tosh. Or have you had enough of experts?
    Given that the NFU England is tearing its hair out about the policies of the Conservative administrations in which she served, and about the Brexit which she promoted and still does, I wouldn't be too confident about the validity of her views.
  • .

    Pre-hustings prices

    Betfair next prime minister
    1.09 Liz Truss 92%
    12 Rishi Sunak 8%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.08 Liz Truss 93%
    12 Rishi Sunak 8%

    Late money for Liz, against Rishi.

    Betfair next prime minister
    1.09 Liz Truss 92%
    12 Rishi Sunak 8%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.08 Liz Truss 93%
    12.5 Rishi Sunak 8%
    At the end

    Betfair next prime minister
    1.09 Liz Truss 92%
    11.5 Rishi Sunak 9%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.09 Liz Truss 92%
    11 Rishi Sunak 9%
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    Graun feed:

    'We move on to questions from the Conservative members in the room.

    Truss is asked what the pension increase will be, with the man asking the question citing that Sunak backed down from an 8% increase and opting for 3.5% instead. He asks if she will “just fudge the figures again”?

    She says she is fully committed to the triple lock and the highest rate.'

    Sure knows which side her bread is buttered.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    The Woke Dems need to be destroyed. Trump for '24

    Silly boy.
    Remember Leon droning on about Remainers trying to overturn the EU ref result but in vomit inducing hypocrisy is backing Trump who sent a mob to storm Congress and who wanted to overturn the US election .
    I'm not backing Trump. My comment was a Situationist provocation to get the new thread off to a cracking start

    I'd not be - shall we say - *overly unhappy* if Trump dropped dead tomorrow. I'd mourn the passing of a human soul for a nanosecond then crack open several bottles of English fizz

    My ideal is for a non-religious-freak Republican to get the nomination, and thrash the Woke Dems
    From a British perspective, Trump was the most benign President since Reagan, if not before.
    Where British = Russian.

    Trump undermined Britain's alliances like NATO, friends like Ukraine whom he tried to shaft by tying aid to digging up dirt on his opponents etc.

    I can see why your mate Vlad likes Trump. Britain, not so much. Worst President of my life by far from a British perspective.
    I don't think there's any empirical measure by which your argument stacks up. Trump did not oblige Britain to enter any conflicts to shed treasure (or worse, blood) in so doing. He didn't seek to chide us or interfere with our domestic politics. He didn't oblige us to sanction anyone and force our biggest companies to divest their assets. He didn't sanction the pillage our companies in the manner of Standard Chartered or BP. He even made positive noises about a trade deal. I happen to think his proposed trade deal would have been bad for us and good for America, but I can't add that to the negative pile because it never happened. It was a brief, peaceful interregnum.
    "Peace" isn't a good thing if that peace is achieved by surrender.

    Your argument is no different to the argument of Ishmael that we shouldn't have women wearing short skirts as it might provoke rape, we shouldn't publish literature as it might provoke torture etc

    You want "peace" by surrendering to Putin etc. No thank you.
    Don't be such an utterly insufferable fucking prick. Nothing I said is analogous or reduces to the short skirt point, and your utterly moronic position is that the right to free speech always and everywhere overrides the right of Jews not to be tortured to death. If you don't understand that ask a grown up to read the previous thread and confirm it to you.
    Plenty of grown ups read the previous thread and they almost all confirmed that your moral compass is broken.

    Jews should not be tortured to death and if any are that is the responsibility of the torturers and those who aid and abet them, not those who sell short skirts or publish novels.
    You are a twat. You really are. It is like dealing with self righteous, very small children. You tell them that global warming is Very Bad, and then you ask them stuff like, would it be OK for ed the eskimo to burn some coal if his solar panels had broken down and his six children would be frozen to death. Oh no, miss, they say, global warming is Really Bad. You are the same: too irretrievaby dim to recognise competing rights and competing goods, including the right not to be tortured to death.

    Really stupid. I am not saying that to goad or insult, but because it is true. Taz level stupid.

    And I can't help noticing both the Bataclan and anne Frank examples, the ethnicity of the people about whom you self rghteously give not a fuck.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    Alistair said:

    Leon said:

    Alistair said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    The Woke Dems need to be destroyed. Trump for '24

    Silly boy.
    Remember Leon droning on about Remainers trying to overturn the EU ref result but in vomit inducing hypocrisy is backing Trump who sent a mob to storm Congress and who wanted to overturn the US election .
    I'm not backing Trump. My comment was a Situationist provocation to get the new thread off to a cracking start

    I'd not be - shall we say - *overly unhappy* if Trump dropped dead tomorrow. I'd mourn the passing of a human soul for a nanosecond then crack open several bottles of English fizz

    My ideal is for a non-religious-freak Republican to get the nomination, and thrash the Woke Dems
    Okay but you did say Trump 24 . Anyway good luck trying to find a non-religious -freak Republican.
    Yes, that is an issue

    De Santis is probably the best bet for Reps. Not obviously insane, and not entirely crazed about abortion

    https://eu.tallahassee.com/story/news/local/state/2022/07/02/florida-governor-desantis-post-roe-abortion-debate-roe-v-wade/7770054001/
    He's an absolute lunatic. Punished businesses for exercising free speech, banning books in schools, twisting the law to ignore the results of a referendum to disenfranchise voters.

    Absolute roaster.
    I like him. Takes on The Woke

    If the GOP choose him he could slaughter the Dems in 2024, esp if they are mad enough to go for Biden or Harris
    I thought you were against people who try and undermine the results of referendums?
    Has he done that? Oh well. That's really not good


    But again, we must play the hand we are dealt. What are the realistic prospects for both parties? I don't care about the Dems, they are evil and Woke so fuck em. Hope they pick Biden or Harris for the lolz

    I DO care about the GOP, they need to win to save America and make it great again, but Trump is a fucking maniac who needs to go away, and of the rest De Santis seems the likeliest to win in 24, and win well
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,506
    IshmaelZ said:

    TimT said:

    Leon said:

    TimT said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    The Woke Dems need to be destroyed. Trump for '24

    But they're not Woke, they're led by Sleepy Joe.
    OMG they really are Woke, and even when they are not they are like @kinabalu or @Foxy - they are too myopic and complacent to stop Wokeness, because they still naively think it is the same game of social justice that was played in the 80 and 90s, it just occasionally goes "a bit far into silliness"

    Woke is really not silly. It is cultural Marxism turned into an eerie new religion. It is powerful and growing. It is destroying America from the inside out, beginning with the universities but now infesting everything over time. It is a species of rot. It will be the end of the West and the Enlightenment if it is not checked

    I get that most people on here completely disagree with me, but this is my honest appraisal. I fear for us all
    There is something destroying America from the inside out:
    Guns having more rights than women
    Cletus the Fetus having more rights than the mother. Until its born. Then it has no rights
    Women heading towards a travel ban in case they are trying to obtain an out-of-Gilead abortion
    Elections still legal for Demtards and non-American races but with only one polling both for half a million people who cares as their votes either won't be cast or counted
    Etc etc etc.

    Shitkicker states in America are turning into Gilead right before our eyes. And seemingly you'd rather have that than north of the Mason-Dixon-Sanity line because "woke".

    You really need to drink more.
    As I said the other day, America faces a truly terrible choice between the religious freaks on the right, and the Cultural Marxists on the left

    I'D RATHER NOT HAVE THAT CHOICE, PERSONALLY

    But if forced, I'd go for the freaks as I think there is a better chance of a potent, credible, coherent America emerging from the inevitable rubble. It's a bit like Chile probably benefiting from Pinochet if the alternative is/was a form of Chavez

    The most rightwing people I know are Venezuelans
    Since you're a heterosexual white man you have little to fear from Gilead, unless they do prohibition again in which case you would be fucked. There are plenty of people for whom rule by Christian nationalist fascists would literally be a death sentence. The worst the woke would do to you would be to make you do an implicit bias course or become a vegan.
    Again, a total inability to grasp what I'm on about

    Have you read that article about Wokeness in US medicine? I'll link it one more time

    https://www.city-journal.org/the-corruption-of-medicine

    it's long, detailed, brilliant, and terrifying, and gives the lie to any trivial bullshit that Wokeness is merely about "pronouns". And this is just one area of American life

    I want my kids to live in a western world that is free, prosperous, dynamic, liberal and Enlightened (in the 18th century sense). All that is, I believe, threatened by this
    There are so many things wrong with this article that I can barely be bothered to dismantle it. The biggest thing is the assumption that there is a thing called 'merit' that we can accurately measure which itself has universal 'merit' in predicting future success in medicine.

    While the attempt to overcome the inherit biases in the archaic approach to developing good doctors inherently espoused by the article does include a whole bunch of gobbledegook, that does not invalidate the criticisms of the old merit by test approach, nor indeed the need to seek better ways to develop doctors. To read this article, you'd believe that cramming the latin names of tiny bones was considerably more important than being able to speak to a patient with empathy and LISTEN to them.
    Ah yes

    So you mean they assess the students to see how "likeable" they are? How friendly and smiley? Coz that's quite important in a doctor

    Also it's quite handy if you want to drive down the awkwardly large number of bright Asian students. Fuck them. Stupid Chinese geeks. No one likes them anyway


    "Harvard’s method for tamping down its Asian American applicants to an acceptable level has controversially involved using a subjective “personal” score, gauging qualities such as “likability, courage, kindness and being ‘widely respected.’” According to Harvard, Asian Americans systematically score worse by these measures than any other racial group, weighing down their admittance rate despite higher academic scores."

    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/02/the-left-is-gaslighting-asian-americans-on-school-admissions.html


    If you're asking me if I'd prefer a Harvard Medical School graduate to a graduate from a second-tier medical school, where the emphasis is on holistic medicine and working with the patient to find the treatments they want, I'd take the latter any day of the week.
    Shit, really? The two serious demands I have made of doctors in the past decade have been to cause me not to have cancer any more, and to pop a couple of titanium hip joints in. I gave as much of a fuck about holisticism as I care whether my truck gets holistically serviced.
    Holisticism is pretty important in both cases imo - though I'd want anyone replacing my bones to have a pretty thorough grasp of anatomy obvs.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,876
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Woke Dems need to be destroyed. Trump for '24

    Who cares about people committing Treason or seeking to overturn democracy, there's people out there that use the third person singular pronoun as their personal pronouns and that needs to be destroyed!
    I was being provocative, I thought that was clear

    However I genuinely don't know which is worse for America. That Wokeness proceeds untrammelled, or that the horrible Trump wins in 2024. To my mind Wokery is that pernicious, and that menacing: it is possibly worse than Trump

    Ideally the GOP will find a different candidate - and canter home

    Leon to post a dick pic on here before 01/01/23 odds on.
    Subsequent shows cancelled I imagine.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    TimT said:

    Leon said:

    TimT said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    The Woke Dems need to be destroyed. Trump for '24

    But they're not Woke, they're led by Sleepy Joe.
    OMG they really are Woke, and even when they are not they are like @kinabalu or @Foxy - they are too myopic and complacent to stop Wokeness, because they still naively think it is the same game of social justice that was played in the 80 and 90s, it just occasionally goes "a bit far into silliness"

    Woke is really not silly. It is cultural Marxism turned into an eerie new religion. It is powerful and growing. It is destroying America from the inside out, beginning with the universities but now infesting everything over time. It is a species of rot. It will be the end of the West and the Enlightenment if it is not checked

    I get that most people on here completely disagree with me, but this is my honest appraisal. I fear for us all
    There is something destroying America from the inside out:
    Guns having more rights than women
    Cletus the Fetus having more rights than the mother. Until its born. Then it has no rights
    Women heading towards a travel ban in case they are trying to obtain an out-of-Gilead abortion
    Elections still legal for Demtards and non-American races but with only one polling both for half a million people who cares as their votes either won't be cast or counted
    Etc etc etc.

    Shitkicker states in America are turning into Gilead right before our eyes. And seemingly you'd rather have that than north of the Mason-Dixon-Sanity line because "woke".

    You really need to drink more.
    As I said the other day, America faces a truly terrible choice between the religious freaks on the right, and the Cultural Marxists on the left

    I'D RATHER NOT HAVE THAT CHOICE, PERSONALLY

    But if forced, I'd go for the freaks as I think there is a better chance of a potent, credible, coherent America emerging from the inevitable rubble. It's a bit like Chile probably benefiting from Pinochet if the alternative is/was a form of Chavez

    The most rightwing people I know are Venezuelans
    Since you're a heterosexual white man you have little to fear from Gilead, unless they do prohibition again in which case you would be fucked. There are plenty of people for whom rule by Christian nationalist fascists would literally be a death sentence. The worst the woke would do to you would be to make you do an implicit bias course or become a vegan.
    Again, a total inability to grasp what I'm on about

    Have you read that article about Wokeness in US medicine? I'll link it one more time

    https://www.city-journal.org/the-corruption-of-medicine

    it's long, detailed, brilliant, and terrifying, and gives the lie to any trivial bullshit that Wokeness is merely about "pronouns". And this is just one area of American life

    I want my kids to live in a western world that is free, prosperous, dynamic, liberal and Enlightened (in the 18th century sense). All that is, I believe, threatened by this
    There are so many things wrong with this article that I can barely be bothered to dismantle it. The biggest thing is the assumption that there is a thing called 'merit' that we can accurately measure which itself has universal 'merit' in predicting future success in medicine.

    While the attempt to overcome the inherit biases in the archaic approach to developing good doctors inherently espoused by the article does include a whole bunch of gobbledegook, that does not invalidate the criticisms of the old merit by test approach, nor indeed the need to seek better ways to develop doctors. To read this article, you'd believe that cramming the latin names of tiny bones was considerably more important than being able to speak to a patient with empathy and LISTEN to them.
    Ah yes

    So you mean they assess the students to see how "likeable" they are? How friendly and smiley? Coz that's quite important in a doctor

    Also it's quite handy if you want to drive down the awkwardly large number of bright Asian students. Fuck them. Stupid Chinese geeks. No one likes them anyway


    "Harvard’s method for tamping down its Asian American applicants to an acceptable level has controversially involved using a subjective “personal” score, gauging qualities such as “likability, courage, kindness and being ‘widely respected.’” According to Harvard, Asian Americans systematically score worse by these measures than any other racial group, weighing down their admittance rate despite higher academic scores."

    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/02/the-left-is-gaslighting-asian-americans-on-school-admissions.html


    If you're asking me if I'd prefer a Harvard Medical School graduate to a graduate from a second-tier medical school, where the emphasis is on holistic medicine and working with the patient to find the treatments they want, I'd take the latter any day of the week.
    Shit, really? The two serious demands I have made of doctors in the past decade have been to cause me not to have cancer any more, and to pop a couple of titanium hip joints in. I gave as much of a fuck about holisticism as I care whether my truck gets holistically serviced.
    Holisticism is pretty important in both cases imo - though I'd want anyone replacing my bones to have a pretty thorough grasp of anatomy obvs.
    Why? If you are out of it on competently administered anaesthetic, who would trade a pound of holisticism for an ounce of nerdish technical dexterity?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    edited August 2022

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Woke Dems need to be destroyed. Trump for '24

    Who cares about people committing Treason or seeking to overturn democracy, there's people out there that use the third person singular pronoun as their personal pronouns and that needs to be destroyed!
    I was being provocative, I thought that was clear

    However I genuinely don't know which is worse for America. That Wokeness proceeds untrammelled, or that the horrible Trump wins in 2024. To my mind Wokery is that pernicious, and that menacing: it is possibly worse than Trump

    Ideally the GOP will find a different candidate - and canter home

    Leon to post a dick pic on here before 01/01/23 odds on.
    Subsequent shows cancelled I imagine.
    He hasn't already? Not one of his sculptures?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756

    Nigelb said:

    Is there any possibility of the Truss thing making any difference at all to the result ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/16/leaked-audio-reveals-liz-truss-said-british-workers-needed-more-graft
    …Liz Truss, now the Tory leadership frontrunner, launched an astonishing broadside against British workers, saying they needed “more graft” and suggesting they lacked the “skill and application” of foreign rivals, the Guardian can reveal.

    In a leaked recording, the then No 2 at the Treasury also risked pitting Londoners against the rest of the country by attempting to explain the difference between the capital and other regions in the UK.

    Truss, who has put patriotism at the heart of her leadership campaign, suggested the disparity was “partly a mindset or attitude thing”.…


    Or was she just thinking of Boris ?

    'She's right' is what most will think. Especially Tory members.
    For the people she has to appeal to now, most of whom stopped having to work some time ago, it will be fine-to-appealing.

    In a general election, perhaps less so.
    Do you think Truss has ever shown any adaptability of thinking and willingness to appeal to the next election rather than the last one?

    The moment she's in Downing Street she'll be inevitably thinking about what does she need to do to win the next election, not what did she need to do to win her last one. She's a politician, and an agile and adaptable one at that. 👍
    Yes and no. In some ways she has proved to be remarkably agile, but other bits of her thinking are positively scleroic. There are several examples of bees taking residence in her bonnet and proving to be hard to shift, even after being taken through the "this is why it won't work" bit. The most obvious one being the "solar farms mean farmers can't grow food" thing, which you'd hope that a DEFRA minister would have realised is tosh. The same surely has to be true of her stated tax plan, which is the opposite of targeted on the needy.

    Maybe she is a political genius who is about to betray those who want a proper economic libertarian in charge. But I'm not convinced; mostly what you see in leadership campaigns is roughly what you get.

    Or, the fact that she was a DEFRA Minister means her view may have validity, and your view might be tosh. Or have you had enough of experts?
    There has never been a DEFRA minister who was an expert on agriculture since the days of Lord Onslow under Balfour.

    She knows no more about agriculture than she does about education, where she was a train crash.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    The Woke Dems need to be destroyed. Trump for '24

    Silly boy.
    Remember Leon droning on about Remainers trying to overturn the EU ref result but in vomit inducing hypocrisy is backing Trump who sent a mob to storm Congress and who wanted to overturn the US election .
    I'm not backing Trump. My comment was a Situationist provocation to get the new thread off to a cracking start

    I'd not be - shall we say - *overly unhappy* if Trump dropped dead tomorrow. I'd mourn the passing of a human soul for a nanosecond then crack open several bottles of English fizz

    My ideal is for a non-religious-freak Republican to get the nomination, and thrash the Woke Dems
    From a British perspective, Trump was the most benign President since Reagan, if not before.
    Where British = Russian.

    Trump undermined Britain's alliances like NATO, friends like Ukraine whom he tried to shaft by tying aid to digging up dirt on his opponents etc.

    I can see why your mate Vlad likes Trump. Britain, not so much. Worst President of my life by far from a British perspective.
    I don't think there's any empirical measure by which your argument stacks up. Trump did not oblige Britain to enter any conflicts to shed treasure (or worse, blood) in so doing. He didn't seek to chide us or interfere with our domestic politics. He didn't oblige us to sanction anyone and force our biggest companies to divest their assets. He didn't sanction the pillage our companies in the manner of Standard Chartered or BP. He even made positive noises about a trade deal. I happen to think his proposed trade deal would have been bad for us and good for America, but I can't add that to the negative pile because it never happened. It was a brief, peaceful interregnum.
    "Peace" isn't a good thing if that peace is achieved by surrender.

    Your argument is no different to the argument of Ishmael that we shouldn't have women wearing short skirts as it might provoke rape, we shouldn't publish literature as it might provoke torture etc

    You want "peace" by surrendering to Putin etc. No thank you.
    Don't be such an utterly insufferable fucking prick. Nothing I said is analogous or reduces to the short skirt point, and your utterly moronic position is that the right to free speech always and everywhere overrides the right of Jews not to be tortured to death. If you don't understand that ask a grown up to read the previous thread and confirm it to you.
    Plenty of grown ups read the previous thread and they almost all confirmed that your moral compass is broken.

    Jews should not be tortured to death and if any are that is the responsibility of the torturers and those who aid and abet them, not those who sell short skirts or publish novels.
    You are a twat. You really are. It is like dealing with self righteous, very small children. You tell them that global warming is Very Bad, and then you ask them stuff like, would it be OK for ed the eskimo to burn some coal if his solar panels had broken down and his six children would be frozen to death. Oh no, miss, they say, global warming is Really Bad. You are the same: too irretrievaby dim to recognise competing rights and competing goods, including the right not to be tortured to death.

    Really stupid. I am not saying that to goad or insult, but because it is true. Taz level stupid.

    And I can't help noticing both the Bataclan and anne Frank examples, the ethnicity of the people about whom you self rghteously give not a fuck.
    I never said to say where Anne Frank is, indeed I made a point about not abetting crimes, so the problem isn't that I'm missing the competing rights its that you're too irredeemably thick that you think you've got a good point even after its been answered.

    Abetting a crime = bad.
    Publishing a novel/cartoon etc = not bad.

    Not a single person has died due to a cartoon or novel. If they've died, they've died due to the actions of criminals, criminals who quite probably could and would have found something else objectionable if not a particular novel or cartoon. Your surrender view doesn't work until we've surrendered everything so that we're like the Taliban, and probably not even then either.
  • Carnyx said:

    Graun feed:

    'We move on to questions from the Conservative members in the room.

    Truss is asked what the pension increase will be, with the man asking the question citing that Sunak backed down from an 8% increase and opting for 3.5% instead. He asks if she will “just fudge the figures again”?

    She says she is fully committed to the triple lock and the highest rate.'

    Sure knows which side her bread is buttered.

    Point of order - it was 3.1% not 3.5%

    It seems it will be all benefits including pensions which is going to be a lot of money
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836

    IshmaelZ said:

    TimT said:

    Leon said:

    TimT said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    The Woke Dems need to be destroyed. Trump for '24

    But they're not Woke, they're led by Sleepy Joe.
    OMG they really are Woke, and even when they are not they are like @kinabalu or @Foxy - they are too myopic and complacent to stop Wokeness, because they still naively think it is the same game of social justice that was played in the 80 and 90s, it just occasionally goes "a bit far into silliness"

    Woke is really not silly. It is cultural Marxism turned into an eerie new religion. It is powerful and growing. It is destroying America from the inside out, beginning with the universities but now infesting everything over time. It is a species of rot. It will be the end of the West and the Enlightenment if it is not checked

    I get that most people on here completely disagree with me, but this is my honest appraisal. I fear for us all
    There is something destroying America from the inside out:
    Guns having more rights than women
    Cletus the Fetus having more rights than the mother. Until its born. Then it has no rights
    Women heading towards a travel ban in case they are trying to obtain an out-of-Gilead abortion
    Elections still legal for Demtards and non-American races but with only one polling both for half a million people who cares as their votes either won't be cast or counted
    Etc etc etc.

    Shitkicker states in America are turning into Gilead right before our eyes. And seemingly you'd rather have that than north of the Mason-Dixon-Sanity line because "woke".

    You really need to drink more.
    As I said the other day, America faces a truly terrible choice between the religious freaks on the right, and the Cultural Marxists on the left

    I'D RATHER NOT HAVE THAT CHOICE, PERSONALLY

    But if forced, I'd go for the freaks as I think there is a better chance of a potent, credible, coherent America emerging from the inevitable rubble. It's a bit like Chile probably benefiting from Pinochet if the alternative is/was a form of Chavez

    The most rightwing people I know are Venezuelans
    Since you're a heterosexual white man you have little to fear from Gilead, unless they do prohibition again in which case you would be fucked. There are plenty of people for whom rule by Christian nationalist fascists would literally be a death sentence. The worst the woke would do to you would be to make you do an implicit bias course or become a vegan.
    Again, a total inability to grasp what I'm on about

    Have you read that article about Wokeness in US medicine? I'll link it one more time

    https://www.city-journal.org/the-corruption-of-medicine

    it's long, detailed, brilliant, and terrifying, and gives the lie to any trivial bullshit that Wokeness is merely about "pronouns". And this is just one area of American life

    I want my kids to live in a western world that is free, prosperous, dynamic, liberal and Enlightened (in the 18th century sense). All that is, I believe, threatened by this
    There are so many things wrong with this article that I can barely be bothered to dismantle it. The biggest thing is the assumption that there is a thing called 'merit' that we can accurately measure which itself has universal 'merit' in predicting future success in medicine.

    While the attempt to overcome the inherit biases in the archaic approach to developing good doctors inherently espoused by the article does include a whole bunch of gobbledegook, that does not invalidate the criticisms of the old merit by test approach, nor indeed the need to seek better ways to develop doctors. To read this article, you'd believe that cramming the latin names of tiny bones was considerably more important than being able to speak to a patient with empathy and LISTEN to them.
    Ah yes

    So you mean they assess the students to see how "likeable" they are? How friendly and smiley? Coz that's quite important in a doctor

    Also it's quite handy if you want to drive down the awkwardly large number of bright Asian students. Fuck them. Stupid Chinese geeks. No one likes them anyway


    "Harvard’s method for tamping down its Asian American applicants to an acceptable level has controversially involved using a subjective “personal” score, gauging qualities such as “likability, courage, kindness and being ‘widely respected.’” According to Harvard, Asian Americans systematically score worse by these measures than any other racial group, weighing down their admittance rate despite higher academic scores."

    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/02/the-left-is-gaslighting-asian-americans-on-school-admissions.html


    If you're asking me if I'd prefer a Harvard Medical School graduate to a graduate from a second-tier medical school, where the emphasis is on holistic medicine and working with the patient to find the treatments they want, I'd take the latter any day of the week.
    Shit, really? The two serious demands I have made of doctors in the past decade have been to cause me not to have cancer any more, and to pop a couple of titanium hip joints in. I gave as much of a fuck about holisticism as I care whether my truck gets holistically serviced.
    Holisticism is pretty important in both cases imo - though I'd want anyone replacing my bones to have a pretty thorough grasp of anatomy obvs.
    Hmm, an old friend of mine is a very eminent surgeon in a major London institution. He once admitted to me that he was a glorified technician by comparison with his wife who was a GP and a real doctor. Though he was being somewhat tongue in cheek; he always wore Doctor in the House black jacket and pinstripe trousers because the patients expected it - he evidently knew the power of placebo.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,506
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    TimT said:

    Leon said:

    TimT said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    The Woke Dems need to be destroyed. Trump for '24

    But they're not Woke, they're led by Sleepy Joe.
    OMG they really are Woke, and even when they are not they are like @kinabalu or @Foxy - they are too myopic and complacent to stop Wokeness, because they still naively think it is the same game of social justice that was played in the 80 and 90s, it just occasionally goes "a bit far into silliness"

    Woke is really not silly. It is cultural Marxism turned into an eerie new religion. It is powerful and growing. It is destroying America from the inside out, beginning with the universities but now infesting everything over time. It is a species of rot. It will be the end of the West and the Enlightenment if it is not checked

    I get that most people on here completely disagree with me, but this is my honest appraisal. I fear for us all
    There is something destroying America from the inside out:
    Guns having more rights than women
    Cletus the Fetus having more rights than the mother. Until its born. Then it has no rights
    Women heading towards a travel ban in case they are trying to obtain an out-of-Gilead abortion
    Elections still legal for Demtards and non-American races but with only one polling both for half a million people who cares as their votes either won't be cast or counted
    Etc etc etc.

    Shitkicker states in America are turning into Gilead right before our eyes. And seemingly you'd rather have that than north of the Mason-Dixon-Sanity line because "woke".

    You really need to drink more.
    As I said the other day, America faces a truly terrible choice between the religious freaks on the right, and the Cultural Marxists on the left

    I'D RATHER NOT HAVE THAT CHOICE, PERSONALLY

    But if forced, I'd go for the freaks as I think there is a better chance of a potent, credible, coherent America emerging from the inevitable rubble. It's a bit like Chile probably benefiting from Pinochet if the alternative is/was a form of Chavez

    The most rightwing people I know are Venezuelans
    Since you're a heterosexual white man you have little to fear from Gilead, unless they do prohibition again in which case you would be fucked. There are plenty of people for whom rule by Christian nationalist fascists would literally be a death sentence. The worst the woke would do to you would be to make you do an implicit bias course or become a vegan.
    Again, a total inability to grasp what I'm on about

    Have you read that article about Wokeness in US medicine? I'll link it one more time

    https://www.city-journal.org/the-corruption-of-medicine

    it's long, detailed, brilliant, and terrifying, and gives the lie to any trivial bullshit that Wokeness is merely about "pronouns". And this is just one area of American life

    I want my kids to live in a western world that is free, prosperous, dynamic, liberal and Enlightened (in the 18th century sense). All that is, I believe, threatened by this
    There are so many things wrong with this article that I can barely be bothered to dismantle it. The biggest thing is the assumption that there is a thing called 'merit' that we can accurately measure which itself has universal 'merit' in predicting future success in medicine.

    While the attempt to overcome the inherit biases in the archaic approach to developing good doctors inherently espoused by the article does include a whole bunch of gobbledegook, that does not invalidate the criticisms of the old merit by test approach, nor indeed the need to seek better ways to develop doctors. To read this article, you'd believe that cramming the latin names of tiny bones was considerably more important than being able to speak to a patient with empathy and LISTEN to them.
    Ah yes

    So you mean they assess the students to see how "likeable" they are? How friendly and smiley? Coz that's quite important in a doctor

    Also it's quite handy if you want to drive down the awkwardly large number of bright Asian students. Fuck them. Stupid Chinese geeks. No one likes them anyway


    "Harvard’s method for tamping down its Asian American applicants to an acceptable level has controversially involved using a subjective “personal” score, gauging qualities such as “likability, courage, kindness and being ‘widely respected.’” According to Harvard, Asian Americans systematically score worse by these measures than any other racial group, weighing down their admittance rate despite higher academic scores."

    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/02/the-left-is-gaslighting-asian-americans-on-school-admissions.html


    If you're asking me if I'd prefer a Harvard Medical School graduate to a graduate from a second-tier medical school, where the emphasis is on holistic medicine and working with the patient to find the treatments they want, I'd take the latter any day of the week.
    Shit, really? The two serious demands I have made of doctors in the past decade have been to cause me not to have cancer any more, and to pop a couple of titanium hip joints in. I gave as much of a fuck about holisticism as I care whether my truck gets holistically serviced.
    Holisticism is pretty important in both cases imo - though I'd want anyone replacing my bones to have a pretty thorough grasp of anatomy obvs.
    Why? If you are out of it on competently administered anaesthetic, who would trade a pound of holisticism for an ounce of nerdish technical dexterity?
    No, as I said, surgery is certainly an arena where you want technical proficiency above all else, but it's only one area of medicine. Your recovery from your operation will require you to look at the whole body, as everything has a knock on effect.
  • Nigelb said:

    Is there any possibility of the Truss thing making any difference at all to the result ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/16/leaked-audio-reveals-liz-truss-said-british-workers-needed-more-graft
    …Liz Truss, now the Tory leadership frontrunner, launched an astonishing broadside against British workers, saying they needed “more graft” and suggesting they lacked the “skill and application” of foreign rivals, the Guardian can reveal.

    In a leaked recording, the then No 2 at the Treasury also risked pitting Londoners against the rest of the country by attempting to explain the difference between the capital and other regions in the UK.

    Truss, who has put patriotism at the heart of her leadership campaign, suggested the disparity was “partly a mindset or attitude thing”.…


    Or was she just thinking of Boris ?

    'She's right' is what most will think. Especially Tory members.
    For the people she has to appeal to now, most of whom stopped having to work some time ago, it will be fine-to-appealing.

    In a general election, perhaps less so.
    Do you think Truss has ever shown any adaptability of thinking and willingness to appeal to the next election rather than the last one?

    The moment she's in Downing Street she'll be inevitably thinking about what does she need to do to win the next election, not what did she need to do to win her last one. She's a politician, and an agile and adaptable one at that. 👍
    Yes and no. In some ways she has proved to be remarkably agile, but other bits of her thinking are positively scleroic. There are several examples of bees taking residence in her bonnet and proving to be hard to shift, even after being taken through the "this is why it won't work" bit. The most obvious one being the "solar farms mean farmers can't grow food" thing, which you'd hope that a DEFRA minister would have realised is tosh. The same surely has to be true of her stated tax plan, which is the opposite of targeted on the needy.

    Maybe she is a political genius who is about to betray those who want a proper economic libertarian in charge. But I'm not convinced; mostly what you see in leadership campaigns is roughly what you get.

    Or, the fact that she was a DEFRA Minister means her view may have validity, and your view might be tosh. Or have you had enough of experts?
    We went through all of this last week. The grass grows fine, the sheep are happy, some crops grow better if anything, because the light/temperature/water combination is in a better place. That's why the farmers, who are the actual experts, are happy.

    (The shading thing makes sense, really. If you put the panels too close together, they cast shadows on each other, which is not what you want at all. The necessary gaps mean that enough light gets to ground level.)

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    The Woke Dems need to be destroyed. Trump for '24

    Silly boy.
    Remember Leon droning on about Remainers trying to overturn the EU ref result but in vomit inducing hypocrisy is backing Trump who sent a mob to storm Congress and who wanted to overturn the US election .
    I'm not backing Trump. My comment was a Situationist provocation to get the new thread off to a cracking start

    I'd not be - shall we say - *overly unhappy* if Trump dropped dead tomorrow. I'd mourn the passing of a human soul for a nanosecond then crack open several bottles of English fizz

    My ideal is for a non-religious-freak Republican to get the nomination, and thrash the Woke Dems
    From a British perspective, Trump was the most benign President since Reagan, if not before.
    Where British = Russian.

    Trump undermined Britain's alliances like NATO, friends like Ukraine whom he tried to shaft by tying aid to digging up dirt on his opponents etc.

    I can see why your mate Vlad likes Trump. Britain, not so much. Worst President of my life by far from a British perspective.
    I don't think there's any empirical measure by which your argument stacks up. Trump did not oblige Britain to enter any conflicts to shed treasure (or worse, blood) in so doing. He didn't seek to chide us or interfere with our domestic politics. He didn't oblige us to sanction anyone and force our biggest companies to divest their assets. He didn't sanction the pillage our companies in the manner of Standard Chartered or BP. He even made positive noises about a trade deal. I happen to think his proposed trade deal would have been bad for us and good for America, but I can't add that to the negative pile because it never happened. It was a brief, peaceful interregnum.
    "Peace" isn't a good thing if that peace is achieved by surrender.

    Your argument is no different to the argument of Ishmael that we shouldn't have women wearing short skirts as it might provoke rape, we shouldn't publish literature as it might provoke torture etc

    You want "peace" by surrendering to Putin etc. No thank you.
    Don't be such an utterly insufferable fucking prick. Nothing I said is analogous or reduces to the short skirt point, and your utterly moronic position is that the right to free speech always and everywhere overrides the right of Jews not to be tortured to death. If you don't understand that ask a grown up to read the previous thread and confirm it to you.
    Plenty of grown ups read the previous thread and they almost all confirmed that your moral compass is broken.

    Jews should not be tortured to death and if any are that is the responsibility of the torturers and those who aid and abet them, not those who sell short skirts or publish novels.
    You are a twat. You really are. It is like dealing with self righteous, very small children. You tell them that global warming is Very Bad, and then you ask them stuff like, would it be OK for ed the eskimo to burn some coal if his solar panels had broken down and his six children would be frozen to death. Oh no, miss, they say, global warming is Really Bad. You are the same: too irretrievaby dim to recognise competing rights and competing goods, including the right not to be tortured to death.

    Really stupid. I am not saying that to goad or insult, but because it is true. Taz level stupid.

    And I can't help noticing both the Bataclan and anne Frank examples, the ethnicity of the people about whom you self rghteously give not a fuck.
    I never said to say where Anne Frank is, indeed I made a point about not abetting crimes, so the problem isn't that I'm missing the competing rights its that you're too irredeemably thick that you think you've got a good point even after its been answered.

    Abetting a crime = bad.
    Publishing a novel/cartoon etc = not bad.

    Not a single person has died due to a cartoon or novel. If they've died, they've died due to the actions of criminals, criminals who quite probably could and would have found something else objectionable if not a particular novel or cartoon. Your surrender view doesn't work until we've surrendered everything so that we're like the Taliban, and probably not even then either.
    Dem 4 by 2s, eh?

    Idiot cunnig at work: you think your chat about "abetting a crime" obscures the question of whether something causes something to happen vs not happen. You are thick first for thinking that is an argument, secondly because a reasonably bright cockroach would see what you are up to, and thirdly because you think legal technicalities are a good area for a fuckwitted layman to try to get the better of an actual lawyer.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,506
    edited August 2022
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Is there any possibility of the Truss thing making any difference at all to the result ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/16/leaked-audio-reveals-liz-truss-said-british-workers-needed-more-graft
    …Liz Truss, now the Tory leadership frontrunner, launched an astonishing broadside against British workers, saying they needed “more graft” and suggesting they lacked the “skill and application” of foreign rivals, the Guardian can reveal.

    In a leaked recording, the then No 2 at the Treasury also risked pitting Londoners against the rest of the country by attempting to explain the difference between the capital and other regions in the UK.

    Truss, who has put patriotism at the heart of her leadership campaign, suggested the disparity was “partly a mindset or attitude thing”.…


    Or was she just thinking of Boris ?

    'She's right' is what most will think. Especially Tory members.
    For the people she has to appeal to now, most of whom stopped having to work some time ago, it will be fine-to-appealing.

    In a general election, perhaps less so.
    Do you think Truss has ever shown any adaptability of thinking and willingness to appeal to the next election rather than the last one?

    The moment she's in Downing Street she'll be inevitably thinking about what does she need to do to win the next election, not what did she need to do to win her last one. She's a politician, and an agile and adaptable one at that. 👍
    Yes and no. In some ways she has proved to be remarkably agile, but other bits of her thinking are positively scleroic. There are several examples of bees taking residence in her bonnet and proving to be hard to shift, even after being taken through the "this is why it won't work" bit. The most obvious one being the "solar farms mean farmers can't grow food" thing, which you'd hope that a DEFRA minister would have realised is tosh. The same surely has to be true of her stated tax plan, which is the opposite of targeted on the needy.

    Maybe she is a political genius who is about to betray those who want a proper economic libertarian in charge. But I'm not convinced; mostly what you see in leadership campaigns is roughly what you get.

    Or, the fact that she was a DEFRA Minister means her view may have validity, and your view might be tosh. Or have you had enough of experts?
    There has never been a DEFRA minister who was an expert on agriculture since the days of Lord Onslow under Balfour.

    She knows no more about agriculture than she does about education, where she was a train crash.
    And we haven't had an Education Secretary that teachers haven't confidently declared to be worse than incurable anal warts since...
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    TimT said:

    Leon said:

    TimT said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    The Woke Dems need to be destroyed. Trump for '24

    But they're not Woke, they're led by Sleepy Joe.
    OMG they really are Woke, and even when they are not they are like @kinabalu or @Foxy - they are too myopic and complacent to stop Wokeness, because they still naively think it is the same game of social justice that was played in the 80 and 90s, it just occasionally goes "a bit far into silliness"

    Woke is really not silly. It is cultural Marxism turned into an eerie new religion. It is powerful and growing. It is destroying America from the inside out, beginning with the universities but now infesting everything over time. It is a species of rot. It will be the end of the West and the Enlightenment if it is not checked

    I get that most people on here completely disagree with me, but this is my honest appraisal. I fear for us all
    There is something destroying America from the inside out:
    Guns having more rights than women
    Cletus the Fetus having more rights than the mother. Until its born. Then it has no rights
    Women heading towards a travel ban in case they are trying to obtain an out-of-Gilead abortion
    Elections still legal for Demtards and non-American races but with only one polling both for half a million people who cares as their votes either won't be cast or counted
    Etc etc etc.

    Shitkicker states in America are turning into Gilead right before our eyes. And seemingly you'd rather have that than north of the Mason-Dixon-Sanity line because "woke".

    You really need to drink more.
    As I said the other day, America faces a truly terrible choice between the religious freaks on the right, and the Cultural Marxists on the left

    I'D RATHER NOT HAVE THAT CHOICE, PERSONALLY

    But if forced, I'd go for the freaks as I think there is a better chance of a potent, credible, coherent America emerging from the inevitable rubble. It's a bit like Chile probably benefiting from Pinochet if the alternative is/was a form of Chavez

    The most rightwing people I know are Venezuelans
    Since you're a heterosexual white man you have little to fear from Gilead, unless they do prohibition again in which case you would be fucked. There are plenty of people for whom rule by Christian nationalist fascists would literally be a death sentence. The worst the woke would do to you would be to make you do an implicit bias course or become a vegan.
    Again, a total inability to grasp what I'm on about

    Have you read that article about Wokeness in US medicine? I'll link it one more time

    https://www.city-journal.org/the-corruption-of-medicine

    it's long, detailed, brilliant, and terrifying, and gives the lie to any trivial bullshit that Wokeness is merely about "pronouns". And this is just one area of American life

    I want my kids to live in a western world that is free, prosperous, dynamic, liberal and Enlightened (in the 18th century sense). All that is, I believe, threatened by this
    There are so many things wrong with this article that I can barely be bothered to dismantle it. The biggest thing is the assumption that there is a thing called 'merit' that we can accurately measure which itself has universal 'merit' in predicting future success in medicine.

    While the attempt to overcome the inherit biases in the archaic approach to developing good doctors inherently espoused by the article does include a whole bunch of gobbledegook, that does not invalidate the criticisms of the old merit by test approach, nor indeed the need to seek better ways to develop doctors. To read this article, you'd believe that cramming the latin names of tiny bones was considerably more important than being able to speak to a patient with empathy and LISTEN to them.
    Ah yes

    So you mean they assess the students to see how "likeable" they are? How friendly and smiley? Coz that's quite important in a doctor

    Also it's quite handy if you want to drive down the awkwardly large number of bright Asian students. Fuck them. Stupid Chinese geeks. No one likes them anyway


    "Harvard’s method for tamping down its Asian American applicants to an acceptable level has controversially involved using a subjective “personal” score, gauging qualities such as “likability, courage, kindness and being ‘widely respected.’” According to Harvard, Asian Americans systematically score worse by these measures than any other racial group, weighing down their admittance rate despite higher academic scores."

    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/02/the-left-is-gaslighting-asian-americans-on-school-admissions.html


    If you're asking me if I'd prefer a Harvard Medical School graduate to a graduate from a second-tier medical school, where the emphasis is on holistic medicine and working with the patient to find the treatments they want, I'd take the latter any day of the week.
    Shit, really? The two serious demands I have made of doctors in the past decade have been to cause me not to have cancer any more, and to pop a couple of titanium hip joints in. I gave as much of a fuck about holisticism as I care whether my truck gets holistically serviced.
    Holisticism is pretty important in both cases imo - though I'd want anyone replacing my bones to have a pretty thorough grasp of anatomy obvs.
    Why? If you are out of it on competently administered anaesthetic, who would trade a pound of holisticism for an ounce of nerdish technical dexterity?
    No, as I said, surgery is certainly an arena where you want technical proficiency above all else, but it's only one area of medicine. Your recovery from your operation will require you to look at the whole body, as everything has a knock on effect.
    Yeah sure, but that is a nurse and physio thing.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    The Woke Dems need to be destroyed. Trump for '24

    Silly boy.
    Remember Leon droning on about Remainers trying to overturn the EU ref result but in vomit inducing hypocrisy is backing Trump who sent a mob to storm Congress and who wanted to overturn the US election .
    I'm not backing Trump. My comment was a Situationist provocation to get the new thread off to a cracking start

    I'd not be - shall we say - *overly unhappy* if Trump dropped dead tomorrow. I'd mourn the passing of a human soul for a nanosecond then crack open several bottles of English fizz

    My ideal is for a non-religious-freak Republican to get the nomination, and thrash the Woke Dems
    From a British perspective, Trump was the most benign President since Reagan, if not before.
    Where British = Russian.

    Trump undermined Britain's alliances like NATO, friends like Ukraine whom he tried to shaft by tying aid to digging up dirt on his opponents etc.

    I can see why your mate Vlad likes Trump. Britain, not so much. Worst President of my life by far from a British perspective.
    I don't think there's any empirical measure by which your argument stacks up. Trump did not oblige Britain to enter any conflicts to shed treasure (or worse, blood) in so doing. He didn't seek to chide us or interfere with our domestic politics. He didn't oblige us to sanction anyone and force our biggest companies to divest their assets. He didn't sanction the pillage our companies in the manner of Standard Chartered or BP. He even made positive noises about a trade deal. I happen to think his proposed trade deal would have been bad for us and good for America, but I can't add that to the negative pile because it never happened. It was a brief, peaceful interregnum.
    "Peace" isn't a good thing if that peace is achieved by surrender.

    Your argument is no different to the argument of Ishmael that we shouldn't have women wearing short skirts as it might provoke rape, we shouldn't publish literature as it might provoke torture etc

    You want "peace" by surrendering to Putin etc. No thank you.
    Don't be such an utterly insufferable fucking prick. Nothing I said is analogous or reduces to the short skirt point, and your utterly moronic position is that the right to free speech always and everywhere overrides the right of Jews not to be tortured to death. If you don't understand that ask a grown up to read the previous thread and confirm it to you.
    Plenty of grown ups read the previous thread and they almost all confirmed that your moral compass is broken.

    Jews should not be tortured to death and if any are that is the responsibility of the torturers and those who aid and abet them, not those who sell short skirts or publish novels.
    You are a twat. You really are. It is like dealing with self righteous, very small children. You tell them that global warming is Very Bad, and then you ask them stuff like, would it be OK for ed the eskimo to burn some coal if his solar panels had broken down and his six children would be frozen to death. Oh no, miss, they say, global warming is Really Bad. You are the same: too irretrievaby dim to recognise competing rights and competing goods, including the right not to be tortured to death.

    Really stupid. I am not saying that to goad or insult, but because it is true. Taz level stupid.

    And I can't help noticing both the Bataclan and anne Frank examples, the ethnicity of the people about whom you self rghteously give not a fuck.
    I never said to say where Anne Frank is, indeed I made a point about not abetting crimes, so the problem isn't that I'm missing the competing rights its that you're too irredeemably thick that you think you've got a good point even after its been answered.

    Abetting a crime = bad.
    Publishing a novel/cartoon etc = not bad.

    Not a single person has died due to a cartoon or novel. If they've died, they've died due to the actions of criminals, criminals who quite probably could and would have found something else objectionable if not a particular novel or cartoon. Your surrender view doesn't work until we've surrendered everything so that we're like the Taliban, and probably not even then either.
    Dem 4 by 2s, eh?

    Idiot cunnig at work: you think your chat about "abetting a crime" obscures the question of whether something causes something to happen vs not happen. You are thick first for thinking that is an argument, secondly because a reasonably bright cockroach would see what you are up to, and thirdly because you think legal technicalities are a good area for a fuckwitted layman to try to get the better of an actual lawyer.
    Publishing the Satanic Verses or the Charlie Hebdo cartoons has not caused a single person to be killed.

    What has caused people to be killed is evil people with a Medieval religion who will find slight at a billion different things in our hedonistic, modern society. If it wasn't Hebdo, or the Verses or anything else it would be something else instead. Women wearing skirts, not wearing burqas, the provision of alcohol.

    Deaths aren't caused by literature or cartoons any more than rapes are caused by short skirts. Not a single one is.
  • ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/1goodtern/status/1559519407742885890?s=21&t=uPXQpSpBFEv1ODJGoJO6Nw

    I'm a trustee of a charity whose electricity bill will rise from
    £8k in 2019
    to
    £50k in 2023.

    We're screwed.
    This country, I mean.

    You know what this means for businesses, charities, homeowners, industry, hospitals, schools?

    Everything will *collapse*.

    Whose idiotic idea was the 'dash for gas?'
    If we were self-sufficient or a net exporter of gas as we were until 2003 we'd be in a fantastic position right now.

    Whose idiotic idea was it to stop dashing for gas before we had alternatives in place?
    1. We burnt the easy to extract North Sea Reserves
    2. We didn't really profit as a nation as the Norwegians did because a big capitalist Investment Fund is obvious communism vs giving the rights away for a quick profit now
    3. We had alternatives in place. Pipe it from the middle east (sodding Taliban turncoats screwed that up), or from Russia (sodding Putin), or from dunno
    1 - Immaterial. There is still plenty of gas out there except we have put in place rules that make it largely uneconomic to extract it. All in the name of Net Zero. Now you may reasonably say that is a good thing but what you cannot deny is that it has seriously affected our own gas supply and made us dependent on other countries for energy.

    2 - We profited hugely. The money allowed the transformation of e British economy away from the failing heavy industry models which were never going to be economic in the face of globalisation and the challenge from the Far East. The Norwegian model was based upon being a hugely energy rich country with a small population which had little or no need of the hydrocarbon reserves their were exploiting and so were able to export almost the whole lot.

    3 - Irrelevant. We took very little gas from either the Middle East or Russia. We had no need to as we had our own. We still would have if we were willing to exploit it.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    edited August 2022

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Is there any possibility of the Truss thing making any difference at all to the result ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/16/leaked-audio-reveals-liz-truss-said-british-workers-needed-more-graft
    …Liz Truss, now the Tory leadership frontrunner, launched an astonishing broadside against British workers, saying they needed “more graft” and suggesting they lacked the “skill and application” of foreign rivals, the Guardian can reveal.

    In a leaked recording, the then No 2 at the Treasury also risked pitting Londoners against the rest of the country by attempting to explain the difference between the capital and other regions in the UK.

    Truss, who has put patriotism at the heart of her leadership campaign, suggested the disparity was “partly a mindset or attitude thing”.…


    Or was she just thinking of Boris ?

    'She's right' is what most will think. Especially Tory members.
    For the people she has to appeal to now, most of whom stopped having to work some time ago, it will be fine-to-appealing.

    In a general election, perhaps less so.
    Do you think Truss has ever shown any adaptability of thinking and willingness to appeal to the next election rather than the last one?

    The moment she's in Downing Street she'll be inevitably thinking about what does she need to do to win the next election, not what did she need to do to win her last one. She's a politician, and an agile and adaptable one at that. 👍
    Yes and no. In some ways she has proved to be remarkably agile, but other bits of her thinking are positively scleroic. There are several examples of bees taking residence in her bonnet and proving to be hard to shift, even after being taken through the "this is why it won't work" bit. The most obvious one being the "solar farms mean farmers can't grow food" thing, which you'd hope that a DEFRA minister would have realised is tosh. The same surely has to be true of her stated tax plan, which is the opposite of targeted on the needy.

    Maybe she is a political genius who is about to betray those who want a proper economic libertarian in charge. But I'm not convinced; mostly what you see in leadership campaigns is roughly what you get.

    Or, the fact that she was a DEFRA Minister means her view may have validity, and your view might be tosh. Or have you had enough of experts?
    There has never been a DEFRA minister who was an expert on agriculture since the days of Lord Onslow under Balfour.

    She knows no more about agriculture than she does about education, where she was a train crash.
    And we haven't had an Education Secretary that teachers haven't confidently declared to be worse than incurable anal warts since...
    Well, no, because with rare exceptions they all have been useless.

    Notable exceptions were John MacGregor (sacked after about six months) and Justine Greening (sacked after twelve months) who took the trouble to learn and understand the issues.

    It is interesting that the one real expert on education who held the brief since Fisher in 1918 - Estelle Morris - couldn't handle promotion to the top job, but she was a highly effective junior minister, probably the best in Tony Blair's government. And her civil servants hated her for it.

    However, to suggest Truss is an expert on agriculture because she was an undistinguished minister in DEFRA for a few months is nonsensical. I'd remind you that she's currently Foreign Secretary but has displayed no talent for geography.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    The Woke Dems need to be destroyed. Trump for '24

    Silly boy.
    Remember Leon droning on about Remainers trying to overturn the EU ref result but in vomit inducing hypocrisy is backing Trump who sent a mob to storm Congress and who wanted to overturn the US election .
    I'm not backing Trump. My comment was a Situationist provocation to get the new thread off to a cracking start

    I'd not be - shall we say - *overly unhappy* if Trump dropped dead tomorrow. I'd mourn the passing of a human soul for a nanosecond then crack open several bottles of English fizz

    My ideal is for a non-religious-freak Republican to get the nomination, and thrash the Woke Dems
    From a British perspective, Trump was the most benign President since Reagan, if not before.
    Where British = Russian.

    Trump undermined Britain's alliances like NATO, friends like Ukraine whom he tried to shaft by tying aid to digging up dirt on his opponents etc.

    I can see why your mate Vlad likes Trump. Britain, not so much. Worst President of my life by far from a British perspective.
    I don't think there's any empirical measure by which your argument stacks up. Trump did not oblige Britain to enter any conflicts to shed treasure (or worse, blood) in so doing. He didn't seek to chide us or interfere with our domestic politics. He didn't oblige us to sanction anyone and force our biggest companies to divest their assets. He didn't sanction the pillage our companies in the manner of Standard Chartered or BP. He even made positive noises about a trade deal. I happen to think his proposed trade deal would have been bad for us and good for America, but I can't add that to the negative pile because it never happened. It was a brief, peaceful interregnum.
    "Peace" isn't a good thing if that peace is achieved by surrender.

    Your argument is no different to the argument of Ishmael that we shouldn't have women wearing short skirts as it might provoke rape, we shouldn't publish literature as it might provoke torture etc

    You want "peace" by surrendering to Putin etc. No thank you.
    Don't be such an utterly insufferable fucking prick. Nothing I said is analogous or reduces to the short skirt point, and your utterly moronic position is that the right to free speech always and everywhere overrides the right of Jews not to be tortured to death. If you don't understand that ask a grown up to read the previous thread and confirm it to you.
    Plenty of grown ups read the previous thread and they almost all confirmed that your moral compass is broken.

    Jews should not be tortured to death and if any are that is the responsibility of the torturers and those who aid and abet them, not those who sell short skirts or publish novels.
    You are a twat. You really are. It is like dealing with self righteous, very small children. You tell them that global warming is Very Bad, and then you ask them stuff like, would it be OK for ed the eskimo to burn some coal if his solar panels had broken down and his six children would be frozen to death. Oh no, miss, they say, global warming is Really Bad. You are the same: too irretrievaby dim to recognise competing rights and competing goods, including the right not to be tortured to death.

    Really stupid. I am not saying that to goad or insult, but because it is true. Taz level stupid.

    And I can't help noticing both the Bataclan and anne Frank examples, the ethnicity of the people about whom you self rghteously give not a fuck.
    I never said to say where Anne Frank is, indeed I made a point about not abetting crimes, so the problem isn't that I'm missing the competing rights its that you're too irredeemably thick that you think you've got a good point even after its been answered.

    Abetting a crime = bad.
    Publishing a novel/cartoon etc = not bad.

    Not a single person has died due to a cartoon or novel. If they've died, they've died due to the actions of criminals, criminals who quite probably could and would have found something else objectionable if not a particular novel or cartoon. Your surrender view doesn't work until we've surrendered everything so that we're like the Taliban, and probably not even then either.
    Dem 4 by 2s, eh?

    Idiot cunnig at work: you think your chat about "abetting a crime" obscures the question of whether something causes something to happen vs not happen. You are thick first for thinking that is an argument, secondly because a reasonably bright cockroach would see what you are up to, and thirdly because you think legal technicalities are a good area for a fuckwitted layman to try to get the better of an actual lawyer.
    Publishing the Satanic Verses or the Charlie Hebdo cartoons has not caused a single person to be killed.

    What has caused people to be killed is evil people with a Medieval religion who will find slight at a billion different things in our hedonistic, modern society. If it wasn't Hebdo, or the Verses or anything else it would be something else instead. Women wearing skirts, not wearing burqas, the provision of alcohol.

    Deaths aren't caused by literature or cartoons any more than rapes are caused by short skirts. Not a single one is.
    You genuinely don't understand what "cause" means. Not to an averagely bright 7 year old level. it terrifies me to think that you are probably alllowed to vote, or sit on a jury.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    The Woke Dems need to be destroyed. Trump for '24

    Silly boy.
    Remember Leon droning on about Remainers trying to overturn the EU ref result but in vomit inducing hypocrisy is backing Trump who sent a mob to storm Congress and who wanted to overturn the US election .
    I'm not backing Trump. My comment was a Situationist provocation to get the new thread off to a cracking start

    I'd not be - shall we say - *overly unhappy* if Trump dropped dead tomorrow. I'd mourn the passing of a human soul for a nanosecond then crack open several bottles of English fizz

    My ideal is for a non-religious-freak Republican to get the nomination, and thrash the Woke Dems
    From a British perspective, Trump was the most benign President since Reagan, if not before.
    Where British = Russian.

    Trump undermined Britain's alliances like NATO, friends like Ukraine whom he tried to shaft by tying aid to digging up dirt on his opponents etc.

    I can see why your mate Vlad likes Trump. Britain, not so much. Worst President of my life by far from a British perspective.
    I don't think there's any empirical measure by which your argument stacks up. Trump did not oblige Britain to enter any conflicts to shed treasure (or worse, blood) in so doing. He didn't seek to chide us or interfere with our domestic politics. He didn't oblige us to sanction anyone and force our biggest companies to divest their assets. He didn't sanction the pillage our companies in the manner of Standard Chartered or BP. He even made positive noises about a trade deal. I happen to think his proposed trade deal would have been bad for us and good for America, but I can't add that to the negative pile because it never happened. It was a brief, peaceful interregnum.
    "Peace" isn't a good thing if that peace is achieved by surrender.

    Your argument is no different to the argument of Ishmael that we shouldn't have women wearing short skirts as it might provoke rape, we shouldn't publish literature as it might provoke torture etc

    You want "peace" by surrendering to Putin etc. No thank you.
    Don't be such an utterly insufferable fucking prick. Nothing I said is analogous or reduces to the short skirt point, and your utterly moronic position is that the right to free speech always and everywhere overrides the right of Jews not to be tortured to death. If you don't understand that ask a grown up to read the previous thread and confirm it to you.
    Plenty of grown ups read the previous thread and they almost all confirmed that your moral compass is broken.

    Jews should not be tortured to death and if any are that is the responsibility of the torturers and those who aid and abet them, not those who sell short skirts or publish novels.
    You are a twat. You really are. It is like dealing with self righteous, very small children. You tell them that global warming is Very Bad, and then you ask them stuff like, would it be OK for ed the eskimo to burn some coal if his solar panels had broken down and his six children would be frozen to death. Oh no, miss, they say, global warming is Really Bad. You are the same: too irretrievaby dim to recognise competing rights and competing goods, including the right not to be tortured to death.

    Really stupid. I am not saying that to goad or insult, but because it is true. Taz level stupid.

    And I can't help noticing both the Bataclan and anne Frank examples, the ethnicity of the people about whom you self rghteously give not a fuck.
    I never said to say where Anne Frank is, indeed I made a point about not abetting crimes, so the problem isn't that I'm missing the competing rights its that you're too irredeemably thick that you think you've got a good point even after its been answered.

    Abetting a crime = bad.
    Publishing a novel/cartoon etc = not bad.

    Not a single person has died due to a cartoon or novel. If they've died, they've died due to the actions of criminals, criminals who quite probably could and would have found something else objectionable if not a particular novel or cartoon. Your surrender view doesn't work until we've surrendered everything so that we're like the Taliban, and probably not even then either.
    Dem 4 by 2s, eh?

    Idiot cunnig at work: you think your chat about "abetting a crime" obscures the question of whether something causes something to happen vs not happen. You are thick first for thinking that is an argument, secondly because a reasonably bright cockroach would see what you are up to, and thirdly because you think legal technicalities are a good area for a fuckwitted layman to try to get the better of an actual lawyer.
    Publishing the Satanic Verses or the Charlie Hebdo cartoons has not caused a single person to be killed.

    What has caused people to be killed is evil people with a Medieval religion who will find slight at a billion different things in our hedonistic, modern society. If it wasn't Hebdo, or the Verses or anything else it would be something else instead. Women wearing skirts, not wearing burqas, the provision of alcohol.

    Deaths aren't caused by literature or cartoons any more than rapes are caused by short skirts. Not a single one is.
    Yes. What was the provocative crime committed at the Manchester Arena on 22nd May 2017?

    As far as I can see, young people, especially girls, were having a nice time, and probably some of them drank alcohol and wore short skirts

    22 died
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    edited August 2022

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/1goodtern/status/1559519407742885890?s=21&t=uPXQpSpBFEv1ODJGoJO6Nw

    I'm a trustee of a charity whose electricity bill will rise from
    £8k in 2019
    to
    £50k in 2023.

    We're screwed.
    This country, I mean.

    You know what this means for businesses, charities, homeowners, industry, hospitals, schools?

    Everything will *collapse*.

    Whose idiotic idea was the 'dash for gas?'
    If we were self-sufficient or a net exporter of gas as we were until 2003 we'd be in a fantastic position right now.

    Whose idiotic idea was it to stop dashing for gas before we had alternatives in place?
    1. We burnt the easy to extract North Sea Reserves
    2. We didn't really profit as a nation as the Norwegians did because a big capitalist Investment Fund is obvious communism vs giving the rights away for a quick profit now
    3. We had alternatives in place. Pipe it from the middle east (sodding Taliban turncoats screwed that up), or from Russia (sodding Putin), or from dunno
    1 - Immaterial. There is still plenty of gas out there except we have put in place rules that make it largely uneconomic to extract it. All in the name of Net Zero. Now you may reasonably say that is a good thing but what you cannot deny is that it has seriously affected our own gas supply and made us dependent on other countries for energy.

    2 - We profited hugely. The money allowed the transformation of e British economy away from the failing heavy industry models which were never going to be economic in the face of globalisation and the challenge from the Far East. The Norwegian model was based upon being a hugely energy rich country with a small population which had little or no need of the hydrocarbon reserves their were exploiting and so were able to export almost the whole lot.

    3 - Irrelevant. We took very little gas from either the Middle East or Russia. We had no need to as we had our own. We still would have if we were willing to exploit it.

    If a decision was made to reverse the barriers and extract the gas beneath the North Sea, how long would it take to action it? Months? Years? Decades?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Ramsden solar farm plan pulled for changes

    Council planning officers said the plan, which was opposed by 167 people, could be "uncharacteristic and distracting". Another 12 people registered their support.

    The authority's conservation officer objected to the scheme and said Akeman Street's historical significance would be damaged by the project.

    Akeman Street is an "important" Roman road on a east-west route, linking Watling Street to Fosse Way and is "a fascinating survival of part of an impressive network", they said.

    Others opposed to the scheme have said it could damage the village's character, close to the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-62493219

    for anyone who was wondering why liz is on about sheepies vs panels
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    The Woke Dems need to be destroyed. Trump for '24

    Silly boy.
    Remember Leon droning on about Remainers trying to overturn the EU ref result but in vomit inducing hypocrisy is backing Trump who sent a mob to storm Congress and who wanted to overturn the US election .
    I'm not backing Trump. My comment was a Situationist provocation to get the new thread off to a cracking start

    I'd not be - shall we say - *overly unhappy* if Trump dropped dead tomorrow. I'd mourn the passing of a human soul for a nanosecond then crack open several bottles of English fizz

    My ideal is for a non-religious-freak Republican to get the nomination, and thrash the Woke Dems
    From a British perspective, Trump was the most benign President since Reagan, if not before.
    Where British = Russian.

    Trump undermined Britain's alliances like NATO, friends like Ukraine whom he tried to shaft by tying aid to digging up dirt on his opponents etc.

    I can see why your mate Vlad likes Trump. Britain, not so much. Worst President of my life by far from a British perspective.
    I don't think there's any empirical measure by which your argument stacks up. Trump did not oblige Britain to enter any conflicts to shed treasure (or worse, blood) in so doing. He didn't seek to chide us or interfere with our domestic politics. He didn't oblige us to sanction anyone and force our biggest companies to divest their assets. He didn't sanction the pillage our companies in the manner of Standard Chartered or BP. He even made positive noises about a trade deal. I happen to think his proposed trade deal would have been bad for us and good for America, but I can't add that to the negative pile because it never happened. It was a brief, peaceful interregnum.
    "Peace" isn't a good thing if that peace is achieved by surrender.

    Your argument is no different to the argument of Ishmael that we shouldn't have women wearing short skirts as it might provoke rape, we shouldn't publish literature as it might provoke torture etc

    You want "peace" by surrendering to Putin etc. No thank you.
    Don't be such an utterly insufferable fucking prick. Nothing I said is analogous or reduces to the short skirt point, and your utterly moronic position is that the right to free speech always and everywhere overrides the right of Jews not to be tortured to death. If you don't understand that ask a grown up to read the previous thread and confirm it to you.
    Plenty of grown ups read the previous thread and they almost all confirmed that your moral compass is broken.

    Jews should not be tortured to death and if any are that is the responsibility of the torturers and those who aid and abet them, not those who sell short skirts or publish novels.
    You are a twat. You really are. It is like dealing with self righteous, very small children. You tell them that global warming is Very Bad, and then you ask them stuff like, would it be OK for ed the eskimo to burn some coal if his solar panels had broken down and his six children would be frozen to death. Oh no, miss, they say, global warming is Really Bad. You are the same: too irretrievaby dim to recognise competing rights and competing goods, including the right not to be tortured to death.

    Really stupid. I am not saying that to goad or insult, but because it is true. Taz level stupid.

    And I can't help noticing both the Bataclan and anne Frank examples, the ethnicity of the people about whom you self rghteously give not a fuck.
    I never said to say where Anne Frank is, indeed I made a point about not abetting crimes, so the problem isn't that I'm missing the competing rights its that you're too irredeemably thick that you think you've got a good point even after its been answered.

    Abetting a crime = bad.
    Publishing a novel/cartoon etc = not bad.

    Not a single person has died due to a cartoon or novel. If they've died, they've died due to the actions of criminals, criminals who quite probably could and would have found something else objectionable if not a particular novel or cartoon. Your surrender view doesn't work until we've surrendered everything so that we're like the Taliban, and probably not even then either.
    Dem 4 by 2s, eh?

    Idiot cunnig at work: you think your chat about "abetting a crime" obscures the question of whether something causes something to happen vs not happen. You are thick first for thinking that is an argument, secondly because a reasonably bright cockroach would see what you are up to, and thirdly because you think legal technicalities are a good area for a fuckwitted layman to try to get the better of an actual lawyer.
    Publishing the Satanic Verses or the Charlie Hebdo cartoons has not caused a single person to be killed.

    What has caused people to be killed is evil people with a Medieval religion who will find slight at a billion different things in our hedonistic, modern society. If it wasn't Hebdo, or the Verses or anything else it would be something else instead. Women wearing skirts, not wearing burqas, the provision of alcohol.

    Deaths aren't caused by literature or cartoons any more than rapes are caused by short skirts. Not a single one is.
    You genuinely don't understand what "cause" means. Not to an averagely bright 7 year old level. it terrifies me to think that you are probably alllowed to vote, or sit on a jury.
    I do know what "cause" means.

    The number of deaths "caused" by cartoons is the same as number of rapes "caused" by short skirts: Zero.
  • ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/1goodtern/status/1559519407742885890?s=21&t=uPXQpSpBFEv1ODJGoJO6Nw

    I'm a trustee of a charity whose electricity bill will rise from
    £8k in 2019
    to
    £50k in 2023.

    We're screwed.
    This country, I mean.

    You know what this means for businesses, charities, homeowners, industry, hospitals, schools?

    Everything will *collapse*.

    Whose idiotic idea was the 'dash for gas?'
    If we were self-sufficient or a net exporter of gas as we were until 2003 we'd be in a fantastic position right now.

    Whose idiotic idea was it to stop dashing for gas before we had alternatives in place?
    1. We burnt the easy to extract North Sea Reserves
    2. We didn't really profit as a nation as the Norwegians did because a big capitalist Investment Fund is obvious communism vs giving the rights away for a quick profit now
    3. We had alternatives in place. Pipe it from the middle east (sodding Taliban turncoats screwed that up), or from Russia (sodding Putin), or from dunno
    1 - Immaterial. There is still plenty of gas out there except we have put in place rules that make it largely uneconomic to extract it. All in the name of Net Zero. Now you may reasonably say that is a good thing but what you cannot deny is that it has seriously affected our own gas supply and made us dependent on other countries for energy.

    2 - We profited hugely. The money allowed the transformation of e British economy away from the failing heavy industry models which were never going to be economic in the face of globalisation and the challenge from the Far East. The Norwegian model was based upon being a hugely energy rich country with a small population which had little or no need of the hydrocarbon reserves their were exploiting and so were able to export almost the whole lot.

    3 - Irrelevant. We took very little gas from either the Middle East or Russia. We had no need to as we had our own. We still would have if we were willing to exploit it.

    Some big words in there which utterly miss the point. You say us taking supply from elsewhere is "irrelevant - we took [past tense] very little from elsewhere. Sure, when our gas was plentiful. But now it isn't? An endless procession of LNG tankers docking and unloading.

    We didn't need to generate so much power from gas. We did, its largely gone, now we are on the tit of imports.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,506
    edited August 2022
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Is there any possibility of the Truss thing making any difference at all to the result ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/16/leaked-audio-reveals-liz-truss-said-british-workers-needed-more-graft
    …Liz Truss, now the Tory leadership frontrunner, launched an astonishing broadside against British workers, saying they needed “more graft” and suggesting they lacked the “skill and application” of foreign rivals, the Guardian can reveal.

    In a leaked recording, the then No 2 at the Treasury also risked pitting Londoners against the rest of the country by attempting to explain the difference between the capital and other regions in the UK.

    Truss, who has put patriotism at the heart of her leadership campaign, suggested the disparity was “partly a mindset or attitude thing”.…


    Or was she just thinking of Boris ?

    'She's right' is what most will think. Especially Tory members.
    For the people she has to appeal to now, most of whom stopped having to work some time ago, it will be fine-to-appealing.

    In a general election, perhaps less so.
    Do you think Truss has ever shown any adaptability of thinking and willingness to appeal to the next election rather than the last one?

    The moment she's in Downing Street she'll be inevitably thinking about what does she need to do to win the next election, not what did she need to do to win her last one. She's a politician, and an agile and adaptable one at that. 👍
    Yes and no. In some ways she has proved to be remarkably agile, but other bits of her thinking are positively scleroic. There are several examples of bees taking residence in her bonnet and proving to be hard to shift, even after being taken through the "this is why it won't work" bit. The most obvious one being the "solar farms mean farmers can't grow food" thing, which you'd hope that a DEFRA minister would have realised is tosh. The same surely has to be true of her stated tax plan, which is the opposite of targeted on the needy.

    Maybe she is a political genius who is about to betray those who want a proper economic libertarian in charge. But I'm not convinced; mostly what you see in leadership campaigns is roughly what you get.

    Or, the fact that she was a DEFRA Minister means her view may have validity, and your view might be tosh. Or have you had enough of experts?
    There has never been a DEFRA minister who was an expert on agriculture since the days of Lord Onslow under Balfour.

    She knows no more about agriculture than she does about education, where she was a train crash.
    And we haven't had an Education Secretary that teachers haven't confidently declared to be worse than incurable anal warts since...
    Well, no, because with rare exceptions they all have been useless.

    Notable exceptions were John MacGregor (sacked after about six months) and Justine Greening (sacked after twelve months) who took the trouble to learn and understand the issues.

    It is interesting that the one real expert on education who held the brief since Fisher in 1918 - Estelle Morris - couldn't handle promotion to the top job, but she was a highly effective junior minister, probably the best in Tony Blair's government. And her civil servants hated her for it.

    However, to suggest Truss is an expert on agriculture because she was an undistinguished minister in DEFRA for a few months is nonsensical. I'd remind you that she's currently Foreign Secretary but has displayed no talent for geography.
    If she doesn't have a good grasp of the issues after that experience, she's either unintelligent, or has been briefed badly.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Is there any possibility of the Truss thing making any difference at all to the result ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/16/leaked-audio-reveals-liz-truss-said-british-workers-needed-more-graft
    …Liz Truss, now the Tory leadership frontrunner, launched an astonishing broadside against British workers, saying they needed “more graft” and suggesting they lacked the “skill and application” of foreign rivals, the Guardian can reveal.

    In a leaked recording, the then No 2 at the Treasury also risked pitting Londoners against the rest of the country by attempting to explain the difference between the capital and other regions in the UK.

    Truss, who has put patriotism at the heart of her leadership campaign, suggested the disparity was “partly a mindset or attitude thing”.…


    Or was she just thinking of Boris ?

    'She's right' is what most will think. Especially Tory members.
    For the people she has to appeal to now, most of whom stopped having to work some time ago, it will be fine-to-appealing.

    In a general election, perhaps less so.
    Do you think Truss has ever shown any adaptability of thinking and willingness to appeal to the next election rather than the last one?

    The moment she's in Downing Street she'll be inevitably thinking about what does she need to do to win the next election, not what did she need to do to win her last one. She's a politician, and an agile and adaptable one at that. 👍
    Yes and no. In some ways she has proved to be remarkably agile, but other bits of her thinking are positively scleroic. There are several examples of bees taking residence in her bonnet and proving to be hard to shift, even after being taken through the "this is why it won't work" bit. The most obvious one being the "solar farms mean farmers can't grow food" thing, which you'd hope that a DEFRA minister would have realised is tosh. The same surely has to be true of her stated tax plan, which is the opposite of targeted on the needy.

    Maybe she is a political genius who is about to betray those who want a proper economic libertarian in charge. But I'm not convinced; mostly what you see in leadership campaigns is roughly what you get.

    Or, the fact that she was a DEFRA Minister means her view may have validity, and your view might be tosh. Or have you had enough of experts?
    There has never been a DEFRA minister who was an expert on agriculture since the days of Lord Onslow under Balfour.

    She knows no more about agriculture than she does about education, where she was a train crash.
    And we haven't had an Education Secretary that teachers haven't confidently declared to be worse than incurable anal warts since...
    Well, no, because with rare exceptions they all have been useless.

    Notable exceptions were John MacGregor (sacked after about six months) and Justine Greening (sacked after twelve months) who took the trouble to learn and understand the issues.

    It is interesting that the one real expert on education who held the brief since Fisher in 1918 - Estelle Morris - couldn't handle promotion to the top job, but she was a highly effective junior minister, probably the best in Tony Blair's government. And her civil servants hated her for it.

    However, to suggest Truss is an expert on agriculture because she was an undistinguished minister in DEFRA for a few months is nonsensical. I'd remind you that she's currently Foreign Secretary but has displayed no talent for geography.
    If she doesn't have a good grasp of the issues after that experience, she's either unintelligent, or has been briefed badly.
    False dichotomy. Could easily be both.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Is there any possibility of the Truss thing making any difference at all to the result ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/16/leaked-audio-reveals-liz-truss-said-british-workers-needed-more-graft
    …Liz Truss, now the Tory leadership frontrunner, launched an astonishing broadside against British workers, saying they needed “more graft” and suggesting they lacked the “skill and application” of foreign rivals, the Guardian can reveal.

    In a leaked recording, the then No 2 at the Treasury also risked pitting Londoners against the rest of the country by attempting to explain the difference between the capital and other regions in the UK.

    Truss, who has put patriotism at the heart of her leadership campaign, suggested the disparity was “partly a mindset or attitude thing”.…


    Or was she just thinking of Boris ?

    'She's right' is what most will think. Especially Tory members.
    For the people she has to appeal to now, most of whom stopped having to work some time ago, it will be fine-to-appealing.

    In a general election, perhaps less so.
    Do you think Truss has ever shown any adaptability of thinking and willingness to appeal to the next election rather than the last one?

    The moment she's in Downing Street she'll be inevitably thinking about what does she need to do to win the next election, not what did she need to do to win her last one. She's a politician, and an agile and adaptable one at that. 👍
    Yes and no. In some ways she has proved to be remarkably agile, but other bits of her thinking are positively scleroic. There are several examples of bees taking residence in her bonnet and proving to be hard to shift, even after being taken through the "this is why it won't work" bit. The most obvious one being the "solar farms mean farmers can't grow food" thing, which you'd hope that a DEFRA minister would have realised is tosh. The same surely has to be true of her stated tax plan, which is the opposite of targeted on the needy.

    Maybe she is a political genius who is about to betray those who want a proper economic libertarian in charge. But I'm not convinced; mostly what you see in leadership campaigns is roughly what you get.

    Or, the fact that she was a DEFRA Minister means her view may have validity, and your view might be tosh. Or have you had enough of experts?
    There has never been a DEFRA minister who was an expert on agriculture since the days of Lord Onslow under Balfour.

    She knows no more about agriculture than she does about education, where she was a train crash.
    And we haven't had an Education Secretary that teachers haven't confidently declared to be worse than incurable anal warts since...
    Well, no, because with rare exceptions they all have been useless.

    Notable exceptions were John MacGregor (sacked after about six months) and Justine Greening (sacked after twelve months) who took the trouble to learn and understand the issues.

    It is interesting that the one real expert on education who held the brief since Fisher in 1918 - Estelle Morris - couldn't handle promotion to the top job, but she was a highly effective junior minister, probably the best in Tony Blair's government. And her civil servants hated her for it.

    However, to suggest Truss is an expert on agriculture because she was an undistinguished minister in DEFRA for a few months is nonsensical. I'd remind you that she's currently Foreign Secretary but has displayed no talent for geography.
    If she doesn't have a good grasp of the issues after that experience, she's either unintelligent, or has been briefed badly.
    False dichotomy. Could easily be both.
    I less and less think she is stupid, actually. She has had a good war.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    More from the Graun feed re the Perth hustings:

    'Mackay says the Scottish Tory leader, Douglas Ross, said Boris Johnson misled parliament over Partygate. Does Truss agree?

    She replies:

    I don’t agree that Boris Johnson misled parliament. He did a great job as prime minister. He delivered Brexit, the election result, the vaccines. He’s the only world leader with a street named after him in Kyiv.

    Mackay says Johnson is also the only prime minister to have received a fixed penalty notice for breaking Covid rules, to which Truss says: “I think he was the only prime minister that’s actually been prime minister during Covid”. Things are getting silly now as the crowd continues to bray at Mackay for daring to mention Johnson’s law-breaking.'
  • ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/1goodtern/status/1559519407742885890?s=21&t=uPXQpSpBFEv1ODJGoJO6Nw

    I'm a trustee of a charity whose electricity bill will rise from
    £8k in 2019
    to
    £50k in 2023.

    We're screwed.
    This country, I mean.

    You know what this means for businesses, charities, homeowners, industry, hospitals, schools?

    Everything will *collapse*.

    Whose idiotic idea was the 'dash for gas?'
    If we were self-sufficient or a net exporter of gas as we were until 2003 we'd be in a fantastic position right now.

    Whose idiotic idea was it to stop dashing for gas before we had alternatives in place?
    1. We burnt the easy to extract North Sea Reserves
    2. We didn't really profit as a nation as the Norwegians did because a big capitalist Investment Fund is obvious communism vs giving the rights away for a quick profit now
    3. We had alternatives in place. Pipe it from the middle east (sodding Taliban turncoats screwed that up), or from Russia (sodding Putin), or from dunno
    1 - Immaterial. There is still plenty of gas out there except we have put in place rules that make it largely uneconomic to extract it. All in the name of Net Zero. Now you may reasonably say that is a good thing but what you cannot deny is that it has seriously affected our own gas supply and made us dependent on other countries for energy.

    2 - We profited hugely. The money allowed the transformation of e British economy away from the failing heavy industry models which were never going to be economic in the face of globalisation and the challenge from the Far East. The Norwegian model was based upon being a hugely energy rich country with a small population which had little or no need of the hydrocarbon reserves their were exploiting and so were able to export almost the whole lot.

    3 - Irrelevant. We took very little gas from either the Middle East or Russia. We had no need to as we had our own. We still would have if we were willing to exploit it.

    Some big words in there which utterly miss the point. You say us taking supply from elsewhere is "irrelevant - we took [past tense] very little from elsewhere. Sure, when our gas was plentiful. But now it isn't? An endless procession of LNG tankers docking and unloading.

    We didn't need to generate so much power from gas. We did, its largely gone, now we are on the tit of imports.
    Gas is plentiful but places like Cambo have been deliberately stalled and blocked due to eco-lunacy and politics, not physics or chemistry.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/1goodtern/status/1559519407742885890?s=21&t=uPXQpSpBFEv1ODJGoJO6Nw

    I'm a trustee of a charity whose electricity bill will rise from
    £8k in 2019
    to
    £50k in 2023.

    We're screwed.
    This country, I mean.

    You know what this means for businesses, charities, homeowners, industry, hospitals, schools?

    Everything will *collapse*.

    Whose idiotic idea was the 'dash for gas?'
    If we were self-sufficient or a net exporter of gas as we were until 2003 we'd be in a fantastic position right now.

    Whose idiotic idea was it to stop dashing for gas before we had alternatives in place?
    1. We burnt the easy to extract North Sea Reserves
    2. We didn't really profit as a nation as the Norwegians did because a big capitalist Investment Fund is obvious communism vs giving the rights away for a quick profit now
    3. We had alternatives in place. Pipe it from the middle east (sodding Taliban turncoats screwed that up), or from Russia (sodding Putin), or from dunno
    1 - Immaterial. There is still plenty of gas out there except we have put in place rules that make it largely uneconomic to extract it. All in the name of Net Zero. Now you may reasonably say that is a good thing but what you cannot deny is that it has seriously affected our own gas supply and made us dependent on other countries for energy.

    2 - We profited hugely. The money allowed the transformation of e British economy away from the failing heavy industry models which were never going to be economic in the face of globalisation and the challenge from the Far East. The Norwegian model was based upon being a hugely energy rich country with a small population which had little or no need of the hydrocarbon reserves their were exploiting and so were able to export almost the whole lot.

    3 - Irrelevant. We took very little gas from either the Middle East or Russia. We had no need to as we had our own. We still would have if we were willing to exploit it.

    Some big words in there which utterly miss the point. You say us taking supply from elsewhere is "irrelevant - we took [past tense] very little from elsewhere. Sure, when our gas was plentiful. But now it isn't? An endless procession of LNG tankers docking and unloading.

    We didn't need to generate so much power from gas. We did, its largely gone, now we are on the tit of imports.
    Gas is plentiful but places like Cambo have been deliberately stalled and blocked due to eco-lunacy and politics, not physics or chemistry.
    You mean the kind of physics and chemistry that demonstrated the ozone zone and anthropogenic climate change? You'll need to find something else to excuse your logic.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Is there any possibility of the Truss thing making any difference at all to the result ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/16/leaked-audio-reveals-liz-truss-said-british-workers-needed-more-graft
    …Liz Truss, now the Tory leadership frontrunner, launched an astonishing broadside against British workers, saying they needed “more graft” and suggesting they lacked the “skill and application” of foreign rivals, the Guardian can reveal.

    In a leaked recording, the then No 2 at the Treasury also risked pitting Londoners against the rest of the country by attempting to explain the difference between the capital and other regions in the UK.

    Truss, who has put patriotism at the heart of her leadership campaign, suggested the disparity was “partly a mindset or attitude thing”.…


    Or was she just thinking of Boris ?

    'She's right' is what most will think. Especially Tory members.
    For the people she has to appeal to now, most of whom stopped having to work some time ago, it will be fine-to-appealing.

    In a general election, perhaps less so.
    Do you think Truss has ever shown any adaptability of thinking and willingness to appeal to the next election rather than the last one?

    The moment she's in Downing Street she'll be inevitably thinking about what does she need to do to win the next election, not what did she need to do to win her last one. She's a politician, and an agile and adaptable one at that. 👍
    Yes and no. In some ways she has proved to be remarkably agile, but other bits of her thinking are positively scleroic. There are several examples of bees taking residence in her bonnet and proving to be hard to shift, even after being taken through the "this is why it won't work" bit. The most obvious one being the "solar farms mean farmers can't grow food" thing, which you'd hope that a DEFRA minister would have realised is tosh. The same surely has to be true of her stated tax plan, which is the opposite of targeted on the needy.

    Maybe she is a political genius who is about to betray those who want a proper economic libertarian in charge. But I'm not convinced; mostly what you see in leadership campaigns is roughly what you get.

    Or, the fact that she was a DEFRA Minister means her view may have validity, and your view might be tosh. Or have you had enough of experts?
    There has never been a DEFRA minister who was an expert on agriculture since the days of Lord Onslow under Balfour.

    She knows no more about agriculture than she does about education, where she was a train crash.
    And we haven't had an Education Secretary that teachers haven't confidently declared to be worse than incurable anal warts since...
    Well, no, because with rare exceptions they all have been useless.

    Notable exceptions were John MacGregor (sacked after about six months) and Justine Greening (sacked after twelve months) who took the trouble to learn and understand the issues.

    It is interesting that the one real expert on education who held the brief since Fisher in 1918 - Estelle Morris - couldn't handle promotion to the top job, but she was a highly effective junior minister, probably the best in Tony Blair's government. And her civil servants hated her for it.

    However, to suggest Truss is an expert on agriculture because she was an undistinguished minister in DEFRA for a few months is nonsensical. I'd remind you that she's currently Foreign Secretary but has displayed no talent for geography.
    If she doesn't have a good grasp of the issues after that experience, she's either unintelligent, or has been briefed badly.
    False dichotomy. Could easily be both.
    I less and less think she is stupid, actually. She has had a good war.
    Then when she's talking nonsense she's presumably being badly briefed and is too intellectually lazy to go out and find stuff out for herself.

    Which may actually not matter so much in a PM, as long as their cabinet don't suffer from the same flaw.

    So it's a good job there's no talk of appointing the likes of Cleverly, Braverman, Mogg to senior positions.
  • Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/1goodtern/status/1559519407742885890?s=21&t=uPXQpSpBFEv1ODJGoJO6Nw

    I'm a trustee of a charity whose electricity bill will rise from
    £8k in 2019
    to
    £50k in 2023.

    We're screwed.
    This country, I mean.

    You know what this means for businesses, charities, homeowners, industry, hospitals, schools?

    Everything will *collapse*.

    Whose idiotic idea was the 'dash for gas?'
    If we were self-sufficient or a net exporter of gas as we were until 2003 we'd be in a fantastic position right now.

    Whose idiotic idea was it to stop dashing for gas before we had alternatives in place?
    1. We burnt the easy to extract North Sea Reserves
    2. We didn't really profit as a nation as the Norwegians did because a big capitalist Investment Fund is obvious communism vs giving the rights away for a quick profit now
    3. We had alternatives in place. Pipe it from the middle east (sodding Taliban turncoats screwed that up), or from Russia (sodding Putin), or from dunno
    1 - Immaterial. There is still plenty of gas out there except we have put in place rules that make it largely uneconomic to extract it. All in the name of Net Zero. Now you may reasonably say that is a good thing but what you cannot deny is that it has seriously affected our own gas supply and made us dependent on other countries for energy.

    2 - We profited hugely. The money allowed the transformation of e British economy away from the failing heavy industry models which were never going to be economic in the face of globalisation and the challenge from the Far East. The Norwegian model was based upon being a hugely energy rich country with a small population which had little or no need of the hydrocarbon reserves their were exploiting and so were able to export almost the whole lot.

    3 - Irrelevant. We took very little gas from either the Middle East or Russia. We had no need to as we had our own. We still would have if we were willing to exploit it.

    Some big words in there which utterly miss the point. You say us taking supply from elsewhere is "irrelevant - we took [past tense] very little from elsewhere. Sure, when our gas was plentiful. But now it isn't? An endless procession of LNG tankers docking and unloading.

    We didn't need to generate so much power from gas. We did, its largely gone, now we are on the tit of imports.
    Gas is plentiful but places like Cambo have been deliberately stalled and blocked due to eco-lunacy and politics, not physics or chemistry.
    You mean the kind of physics and chemistry that demonstrated the ozone zone and anthropogenic climate change? You'll need to find something else to excuse your logic.
    Pray tell how the Ozone Hole or Anthropogenic Climate Change issues are better resolved by burning Putin or the Sheikh's oil and gas than using our own as we transition to cleaner sources?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    edited August 2022
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/1goodtern/status/1559519407742885890?s=21&t=uPXQpSpBFEv1ODJGoJO6Nw

    I'm a trustee of a charity whose electricity bill will rise from
    £8k in 2019
    to
    £50k in 2023.

    We're screwed.
    This country, I mean.

    You know what this means for businesses, charities, homeowners, industry, hospitals, schools?

    Everything will *collapse*.

    Whose idiotic idea was the 'dash for gas?'
    If we were self-sufficient or a net exporter of gas as we were until 2003 we'd be in a fantastic position right now.

    Whose idiotic idea was it to stop dashing for gas before we had alternatives in place?
    1. We burnt the easy to extract North Sea Reserves
    2. We didn't really profit as a nation as the Norwegians did because a big capitalist Investment Fund is obvious communism vs giving the rights away for a quick profit now
    3. We had alternatives in place. Pipe it from the middle east (sodding Taliban turncoats screwed that up), or from Russia (sodding Putin), or from dunno
    1 - Immaterial. There is still plenty of gas out there except we have put in place rules that make it largely uneconomic to extract it. All in the name of Net Zero. Now you may reasonably say that is a good thing but what you cannot deny is that it has seriously affected our own gas supply and made us dependent on other countries for energy.

    2 - We profited hugely. The money allowed the transformation of e British economy away from the failing heavy industry models which were never going to be economic in the face of globalisation and the challenge from the Far East. The Norwegian model was based upon being a hugely energy rich country with a small population which had little or no need of the hydrocarbon reserves their were exploiting and so were able to export almost the whole lot.

    3 - Irrelevant. We took very little gas from either the Middle East or Russia. We had no need to as we had our own. We still would have if we were willing to exploit it.

    Some big words in there which utterly miss the point. You say us taking supply from elsewhere is "irrelevant - we took [past tense] very little from elsewhere. Sure, when our gas was plentiful. But now it isn't? An endless procession of LNG tankers docking and unloading.

    We didn't need to generate so much power from gas. We did, its largely gone, now we are on the tit of imports.
    Gas is plentiful but places like Cambo have been deliberately stalled and blocked due to eco-lunacy and politics, not physics or chemistry.
    You mean the kind of physics and chemistry that demonstrated the ozone zone and anthropogenic climate change? You'll need to find something else to excuse your logic.
    Barty doesn't admit the possibility of causation, so your obsolete nonsense about the "effects" of burning fossil fuel is unlikely to have much sway here.
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651
    edited August 2022
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    The Woke Dems need to be destroyed. Trump for '24

    Silly boy.
    Remember Leon droning on about Remainers trying to overturn the EU ref result but in vomit inducing hypocrisy is backing Trump who sent a mob to storm Congress and who wanted to overturn the US election .
    I'm not backing Trump. My comment was a Situationist provocation to get the new thread off to a cracking start

    I'd not be - shall we say - *overly unhappy* if Trump dropped dead tomorrow. I'd mourn the passing of a human soul for a nanosecond then crack open several bottles of English fizz

    My ideal is for a non-religious-freak Republican to get the nomination, and thrash the Woke Dems
    From a British perspective, Trump was the most benign President since Reagan, if not before.
    Where British = Russian.

    Trump undermined Britain's alliances like NATO, friends like Ukraine whom he tried to shaft by tying aid to digging up dirt on his opponents etc.

    I can see why your mate Vlad likes Trump. Britain, not so much. Worst President of my life by far from a British perspective.
    I don't think there's any empirical measure by which your argument stacks up. Trump did not oblige Britain to enter any conflicts to shed treasure (or worse, blood) in so doing. He didn't seek to chide us or interfere with our domestic politics. He didn't oblige us to sanction anyone and force our biggest companies to divest their assets. He didn't sanction the pillage our companies in the manner of Standard Chartered or BP. He even made positive noises about a trade deal. I happen to think his proposed trade deal would have been bad for us and good for America, but I can't add that to the negative pile because it never happened. It was a brief, peaceful interregnum.
    "Peace" isn't a good thing if that peace is achieved by surrender.

    Your argument is no different to the argument of Ishmael that we shouldn't have women wearing short skirts as it might provoke rape, we shouldn't publish literature as it might provoke torture etc

    You want "peace" by surrendering to Putin etc. No thank you.
    Don't be such an utterly insufferable fucking prick. Nothing I said is analogous or reduces to the short skirt point, and your utterly moronic position is that the right to free speech always and everywhere overrides the right of Jews not to be tortured to death. If you don't understand that ask a grown up to read the previous thread and confirm it to you.
    Plenty of grown ups read the previous thread and they almost all confirmed that your moral compass is broken.

    Jews should not be tortured to death and if any are that is the responsibility of the torturers and those who aid and abet them, not those who sell short skirts or publish novels.
    You are a twat. You really are. It is like dealing with self righteous, very small children. You tell them that global warming is Very Bad, and then you ask them stuff like, would it be OK for ed the eskimo to burn some coal if his solar panels had broken down and his six children would be frozen to death. Oh no, miss, they say, global warming is Really Bad. You are the same: too irretrievaby dim to recognise competing rights and competing goods, including the right not to be tortured to death.

    Really stupid. I am not saying that to goad or insult, but because it is true. Taz level stupid.

    And I can't help noticing both the Bataclan and anne Frank examples, the ethnicity of the people about whom you self rghteously give not a fuck.
    I never said to say where Anne Frank is, indeed I made a point about not abetting crimes, so the problem isn't that I'm missing the competing rights its that you're too irredeemably thick that you think you've got a good point even after its been answered.

    Abetting a crime = bad.
    Publishing a novel/cartoon etc = not bad.

    Not a single person has died due to a cartoon or novel. If they've died, they've died due to the actions of criminals, criminals who quite probably could and would have found something else objectionable if not a particular novel or cartoon. Your surrender view doesn't work until we've surrendered everything so that we're like the Taliban, and probably not even then either.
    Dem 4 by 2s, eh?

    Idiot cunnig at work: you think your chat about "abetting a crime" obscures the question of whether something causes something to happen vs not happen. You are thick first for thinking that is an argument, secondly because a reasonably bright cockroach would see what you are up to, and thirdly because you think legal technicalities are a good area for a fuckwitted layman to try to get the better of an actual lawyer.
    Publishing the Satanic Verses or the Charlie Hebdo cartoons has not caused a single person to be killed.

    What has caused people to be killed is evil people with a Medieval religion who will find slight at a billion different things in our hedonistic, modern society. If it wasn't Hebdo, or the Verses or anything else it would be something else instead. Women wearing skirts, not wearing burqas, the provision of alcohol.

    Deaths aren't caused by literature or cartoons any more than rapes are caused by short skirts. Not a single one is.
    You genuinely don't understand what "cause" means. Not to an averagely bright 7 year old level. it terrifies me to think that you are probably alllowed to vote, or sit on a jury.
    The funny thing is, @IshmaelZ, you are absolutely right in this instance. Barty f***ing doesn't understand what "cause" means.

    ...bring about, compel, force, initiate, set off, trigger, determine, necessitate, affect, have an effect on, make a difference to, influence, lead to, stimulate, evoke, elicit, contribute to, have a hand in...

    ...distal, proximal...

    ...Mill's methods -

    Oh f**it...why bother? Let's not split hairs. "It was the open window that caused the petrol bomb I threw to land in his room, Your Honour."
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/1goodtern/status/1559519407742885890?s=21&t=uPXQpSpBFEv1ODJGoJO6Nw

    I'm a trustee of a charity whose electricity bill will rise from
    £8k in 2019
    to
    £50k in 2023.

    We're screwed.
    This country, I mean.

    You know what this means for businesses, charities, homeowners, industry, hospitals, schools?

    Everything will *collapse*.

    Whose idiotic idea was the 'dash for gas?'
    If we were self-sufficient or a net exporter of gas as we were until 2003 we'd be in a fantastic position right now.

    Whose idiotic idea was it to stop dashing for gas before we had alternatives in place?
    1. We burnt the easy to extract North Sea Reserves
    2. We didn't really profit as a nation as the Norwegians did because a big capitalist Investment Fund is obvious communism vs giving the rights away for a quick profit now
    3. We had alternatives in place. Pipe it from the middle east (sodding Taliban turncoats screwed that up), or from Russia (sodding Putin), or from dunno
    1 - Immaterial. There is still plenty of gas out there except we have put in place rules that make it largely uneconomic to extract it. All in the name of Net Zero. Now you may reasonably say that is a good thing but what you cannot deny is that it has seriously affected our own gas supply and made us dependent on other countries for energy.

    2 - We profited hugely. The money allowed the transformation of e British economy away from the failing heavy industry models which were never going to be economic in the face of globalisation and the challenge from the Far East. The Norwegian model was based upon being a hugely energy rich country with a small population which had little or no need of the hydrocarbon reserves their were exploiting and so were able to export almost the whole lot.

    3 - Irrelevant. We took very little gas from either the Middle East or Russia. We had no need to as we had our own. We still would have if we were willing to exploit it.

    Some big words in there which utterly miss the point. You say us taking supply from elsewhere is "irrelevant - we took [past tense] very little from elsewhere. Sure, when our gas was plentiful. But now it isn't? An endless procession of LNG tankers docking and unloading.

    We didn't need to generate so much power from gas. We did, its largely gone, now we are on the tit of imports.
    Gas is plentiful but places like Cambo have been deliberately stalled and blocked due to eco-lunacy and politics, not physics or chemistry.
    You mean the kind of physics and chemistry that demonstrated the ozone zone and anthropogenic climate change? You'll need to find something else to excuse your logic.
    Barty doesn't admit the possibility of causation, so your obsolete nonsense about the "effects" of burning fossil fuel is unlikely to have much sway here.
    Barty does believe in causation but causation actually has to exist.

    Burning British oil and gas does not cause more CO2 emissions than burning imported Saudi, Qatari or Russian oil and gas. So there is no causative link between approving plans like Cambo while we transition to clean sources and climate change. All blocking plans like Cambo achieves is leaving us hooked on imported fossil fuels which actually release more CO2 than domestic extraction causes, so you've made the CO2 problem worse not better. Well done, take a slow hand clap.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/1goodtern/status/1559519407742885890?s=21&t=uPXQpSpBFEv1ODJGoJO6Nw

    I'm a trustee of a charity whose electricity bill will rise from
    £8k in 2019
    to
    £50k in 2023.

    We're screwed.
    This country, I mean.

    You know what this means for businesses, charities, homeowners, industry, hospitals, schools?

    Everything will *collapse*.

    Whose idiotic idea was the 'dash for gas?'
    If we were self-sufficient or a net exporter of gas as we were until 2003 we'd be in a fantastic position right now.

    Whose idiotic idea was it to stop dashing for gas before we had alternatives in place?
    1. We burnt the easy to extract North Sea Reserves
    2. We didn't really profit as a nation as the Norwegians did because a big capitalist Investment Fund is obvious communism vs giving the rights away for a quick profit now
    3. We had alternatives in place. Pipe it from the middle east (sodding Taliban turncoats screwed that up), or from Russia (sodding Putin), or from dunno
    1 - Immaterial. There is still plenty of gas out there except we have put in place rules that make it largely uneconomic to extract it. All in the name of Net Zero. Now you may reasonably say that is a good thing but what you cannot deny is that it has seriously affected our own gas supply and made us dependent on other countries for energy.

    2 - We profited hugely. The money allowed the transformation of e British economy away from the failing heavy industry models which were never going to be economic in the face of globalisation and the challenge from the Far East. The Norwegian model was based upon being a hugely energy rich country with a small population which had little or no need of the hydrocarbon reserves their were exploiting and so were able to export almost the whole lot.

    3 - Irrelevant. We took very little gas from either the Middle East or Russia. We had no need to as we had our own. We still would have if we were willing to exploit it.

    Some big words in there which utterly miss the point. You say us taking supply from elsewhere is "irrelevant - we took [past tense] very little from elsewhere. Sure, when our gas was plentiful. But now it isn't? An endless procession of LNG tankers docking and unloading.

    We didn't need to generate so much power from gas. We did, its largely gone, now we are on the tit of imports.
    Gas is plentiful but places like Cambo have been deliberately stalled and blocked due to eco-lunacy and politics, not physics or chemistry.
    You mean the kind of physics and chemistry that demonstrated the ozone zone and anthropogenic climate change? You'll need to find something else to excuse your logic.
    Pray tell how the Ozone Hole or Anthropogenic Climate Change issues are better resolved by burning Putin or the Sheikh's oil and gas than using our own as we transition to cleaner sources?
    Of course they are not. Kindly don't try to pin false arguments on others. It was the correct decision at thje time, in viuew of the long term development issues. The party which you support did nothing about storage of gas which would have been infinitely more useful.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Dynamo said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    The Woke Dems need to be destroyed. Trump for '24

    Silly boy.
    Remember Leon droning on about Remainers trying to overturn the EU ref result but in vomit inducing hypocrisy is backing Trump who sent a mob to storm Congress and who wanted to overturn the US election .
    I'm not backing Trump. My comment was a Situationist provocation to get the new thread off to a cracking start

    I'd not be - shall we say - *overly unhappy* if Trump dropped dead tomorrow. I'd mourn the passing of a human soul for a nanosecond then crack open several bottles of English fizz

    My ideal is for a non-religious-freak Republican to get the nomination, and thrash the Woke Dems
    From a British perspective, Trump was the most benign President since Reagan, if not before.
    Where British = Russian.

    Trump undermined Britain's alliances like NATO, friends like Ukraine whom he tried to shaft by tying aid to digging up dirt on his opponents etc.

    I can see why your mate Vlad likes Trump. Britain, not so much. Worst President of my life by far from a British perspective.
    I don't think there's any empirical measure by which your argument stacks up. Trump did not oblige Britain to enter any conflicts to shed treasure (or worse, blood) in so doing. He didn't seek to chide us or interfere with our domestic politics. He didn't oblige us to sanction anyone and force our biggest companies to divest their assets. He didn't sanction the pillage our companies in the manner of Standard Chartered or BP. He even made positive noises about a trade deal. I happen to think his proposed trade deal would have been bad for us and good for America, but I can't add that to the negative pile because it never happened. It was a brief, peaceful interregnum.
    "Peace" isn't a good thing if that peace is achieved by surrender.

    Your argument is no different to the argument of Ishmael that we shouldn't have women wearing short skirts as it might provoke rape, we shouldn't publish literature as it might provoke torture etc

    You want "peace" by surrendering to Putin etc. No thank you.
    Don't be such an utterly insufferable fucking prick. Nothing I said is analogous or reduces to the short skirt point, and your utterly moronic position is that the right to free speech always and everywhere overrides the right of Jews not to be tortured to death. If you don't understand that ask a grown up to read the previous thread and confirm it to you.
    Plenty of grown ups read the previous thread and they almost all confirmed that your moral compass is broken.

    Jews should not be tortured to death and if any are that is the responsibility of the torturers and those who aid and abet them, not those who sell short skirts or publish novels.
    You are a twat. You really are. It is like dealing with self righteous, very small children. You tell them that global warming is Very Bad, and then you ask them stuff like, would it be OK for ed the eskimo to burn some coal if his solar panels had broken down and his six children would be frozen to death. Oh no, miss, they say, global warming is Really Bad. You are the same: too irretrievaby dim to recognise competing rights and competing goods, including the right not to be tortured to death.

    Really stupid. I am not saying that to goad or insult, but because it is true. Taz level stupid.

    And I can't help noticing both the Bataclan and anne Frank examples, the ethnicity of the people about whom you self rghteously give not a fuck.
    I never said to say where Anne Frank is, indeed I made a point about not abetting crimes, so the problem isn't that I'm missing the competing rights its that you're too irredeemably thick that you think you've got a good point even after its been answered.

    Abetting a crime = bad.
    Publishing a novel/cartoon etc = not bad.

    Not a single person has died due to a cartoon or novel. If they've died, they've died due to the actions of criminals, criminals who quite probably could and would have found something else objectionable if not a particular novel or cartoon. Your surrender view doesn't work until we've surrendered everything so that we're like the Taliban, and probably not even then either.
    Dem 4 by 2s, eh?

    Idiot cunnig at work: you think your chat about "abetting a crime" obscures the question of whether something causes something to happen vs not happen. You are thick first for thinking that is an argument, secondly because a reasonably bright cockroach would see what you are up to, and thirdly because you think legal technicalities are a good area for a fuckwitted layman to try to get the better of an actual lawyer.
    Publishing the Satanic Verses or the Charlie Hebdo cartoons has not caused a single person to be killed.

    What has caused people to be killed is evil people with a Medieval religion who will find slight at a billion different things in our hedonistic, modern society. If it wasn't Hebdo, or the Verses or anything else it would be something else instead. Women wearing skirts, not wearing burqas, the provision of alcohol.

    Deaths aren't caused by literature or cartoons any more than rapes are caused by short skirts. Not a single one is.
    You genuinely don't understand what "cause" means. Not to an averagely bright 7 year old level. it terrifies me to think that you are probably alllowed to vote, or sit on a jury.
    The funny thing is, @IshmaelZ, you are absolutely right in this instance. Barty f***ing doesn't understand what "cause" means.

    ...bring about, compel, force, initiate, set off, trigger, determine, necessitate, affect, have an effect on, make a difference to, influence, lead to, stimulate, evoke, elicit, contribute to, have a hand in...

    ...distal, proximal...

    ...Mill's methods - oh f**it...why bother?

    "It was the open window that caused the petrol bomb I threw to land in his room, Your Honour".
    Yeah it's infuriating. And inexplicable. With me it's the drink, your honour, but bart is this way 24/7. from a couple of things he has said I suspect he drinks an espresso every 10 minutes. Could be coke but I don't know how he finds the time to make the money for that.
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/1goodtern/status/1559519407742885890?s=21&t=uPXQpSpBFEv1ODJGoJO6Nw

    I'm a trustee of a charity whose electricity bill will rise from
    £8k in 2019
    to
    £50k in 2023.

    We're screwed.
    This country, I mean.

    You know what this means for businesses, charities, homeowners, industry, hospitals, schools?

    Everything will *collapse*.

    Whose idiotic idea was the 'dash for gas?'
    If we were self-sufficient or a net exporter of gas as we were until 2003 we'd be in a fantastic position right now.

    Whose idiotic idea was it to stop dashing for gas before we had alternatives in place?
    1. We burnt the easy to extract North Sea Reserves
    2. We didn't really profit as a nation as the Norwegians did because a big capitalist Investment Fund is obvious communism vs giving the rights away for a quick profit now
    3. We had alternatives in place. Pipe it from the middle east (sodding Taliban turncoats screwed that up), or from Russia (sodding Putin), or from dunno
    1 - Immaterial. There is still plenty of gas out there except we have put in place rules that make it largely uneconomic to extract it. All in the name of Net Zero. Now you may reasonably say that is a good thing but what you cannot deny is that it has seriously affected our own gas supply and made us dependent on other countries for energy.

    2 - We profited hugely. The money allowed the transformation of e British economy away from the failing heavy industry models which were never going to be economic in the face of globalisation and the challenge from the Far East. The Norwegian model was based upon being a hugely energy rich country with a small population which had little or no need of the hydrocarbon reserves their were exploiting and so were able to export almost the whole lot.

    3 - Irrelevant. We took very little gas from either the Middle East or Russia. We had no need to as we had our own. We still would have if we were willing to exploit it.

    Some big words in there which utterly miss the point. You say us taking supply from elsewhere is "irrelevant - we took [past tense] very little from elsewhere. Sure, when our gas was plentiful. But now it isn't? An endless procession of LNG tankers docking and unloading.

    We didn't need to generate so much power from gas. We did, its largely gone, now we are on the tit of imports.
    Gas is plentiful but places like Cambo have been deliberately stalled and blocked due to eco-lunacy and politics, not physics or chemistry.
    You mean the kind of physics and chemistry that demonstrated the ozone zone and anthropogenic climate change? You'll need to find something else to excuse your logic.
    Pray tell how the Ozone Hole or Anthropogenic Climate Change issues are better resolved by burning Putin or the Sheikh's oil and gas than using our own as we transition to cleaner sources?
    Of course they are not. Kindly don't try to pin false arguments on others. It was the correct decision at thje time, in viuew of the long term development issues. The party which you support did nothing about storage of gas which would have been infinitely more useful.
    Storing gas is a transitory solution that while it would help only matters if the gas supply is disrupted for a few weeks not for years, since we never had years worth of storage.

    Having sufficient extraction to power ourselves and not be at the whims of foreign, potentially hostile, powers would be infinitely more useful and many of us have said so for years before this crisis even while insisting that tackling climate change is the right thing to do but it should be done smartly and not by cutting off our nose to spite our face.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,522
    IshmaelZ said:

    Ramsden solar farm plan pulled for changes

    Council planning officers said the plan, which was opposed by 167 people, could be "uncharacteristic and distracting". Another 12 people registered their support.

    The authority's conservation officer objected to the scheme and said Akeman Street's historical significance would be damaged by the project.

    Akeman Street is an "important" Roman road on a east-west route, linking Watling Street to Fosse Way and is "a fascinating survival of part of an impressive network", they said.

    Others opposed to the scheme have said it could damage the village's character, close to the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-62493219

    for anyone who was wondering why liz is on about sheepies vs panels

    I wonder if this kind of thing happened in WW2 as well.
  • ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/1goodtern/status/1559519407742885890?s=21&t=uPXQpSpBFEv1ODJGoJO6Nw

    I'm a trustee of a charity whose electricity bill will rise from
    £8k in 2019
    to
    £50k in 2023.

    We're screwed.
    This country, I mean.

    You know what this means for businesses, charities, homeowners, industry, hospitals, schools?

    Everything will *collapse*.

    Whose idiotic idea was the 'dash for gas?'
    If we were self-sufficient or a net exporter of gas as we were until 2003 we'd be in a fantastic position right now.

    Whose idiotic idea was it to stop dashing for gas before we had alternatives in place?
    1. We burnt the easy to extract North Sea Reserves
    2. We didn't really profit as a nation as the Norwegians did because a big capitalist Investment Fund is obvious communism vs giving the rights away for a quick profit now
    3. We had alternatives in place. Pipe it from the middle east (sodding Taliban turncoats screwed that up), or from Russia (sodding Putin), or from dunno
    1 - Immaterial. There is still plenty of gas out there except we have put in place rules that make it largely uneconomic to extract it. All in the name of Net Zero. Now you may reasonably say that is a good thing but what you cannot deny is that it has seriously affected our own gas supply and made us dependent on other countries for energy.

    2 - We profited hugely. The money allowed the transformation of e British economy away from the failing heavy industry models which were never going to be economic in the face of globalisation and the challenge from the Far East. The Norwegian model was based upon being a hugely energy rich country with a small population which had little or no need of the hydrocarbon reserves their were exploiting and so were able to export almost the whole lot.

    3 - Irrelevant. We took very little gas from either the Middle East or Russia. We had no need to as we had our own. We still would have if we were willing to exploit it.

    Some big words in there which utterly miss the point. You say us taking supply from elsewhere is "irrelevant - we took [past tense] very little from elsewhere. Sure, when our gas was plentiful. But now it isn't? An endless procession of LNG tankers docking and unloading.

    We didn't need to generate so much power from gas. We did, its largely gone, now we are on the tit of imports.
    Gas is plentiful but places like Cambo have been deliberately stalled and blocked due to eco-lunacy and politics, not physics or chemistry.
    You have missed the word economics out. Again. If it was commercial for various fields to produce oil and gas the companies finding them would have found funding / a purchaser and they gas would have been flowing.

    As we're going back the best part of a decade on the non-commercial viability stakes it long pre-dates "net zero" and "eco-lunacy". Its just too bloody expensive.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    Oddly, the nearest thing we've had to an expert on agriculture at DEFRA in that hundred or so years probably is George Eustice. He was at least a farmer. However, as a fruit farmer he was in rather a niche part of the industry!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/1goodtern/status/1559519407742885890?s=21&t=uPXQpSpBFEv1ODJGoJO6Nw

    I'm a trustee of a charity whose electricity bill will rise from
    £8k in 2019
    to
    £50k in 2023.

    We're screwed.
    This country, I mean.

    You know what this means for businesses, charities, homeowners, industry, hospitals, schools?

    Everything will *collapse*.

    Whose idiotic idea was the 'dash for gas?'
    If we were self-sufficient or a net exporter of gas as we were until 2003 we'd be in a fantastic position right now.

    Whose idiotic idea was it to stop dashing for gas before we had alternatives in place?
    1. We burnt the easy to extract North Sea Reserves
    2. We didn't really profit as a nation as the Norwegians did because a big capitalist Investment Fund is obvious communism vs giving the rights away for a quick profit now
    3. We had alternatives in place. Pipe it from the middle east (sodding Taliban turncoats screwed that up), or from Russia (sodding Putin), or from dunno
    1 - Immaterial. There is still plenty of gas out there except we have put in place rules that make it largely uneconomic to extract it. All in the name of Net Zero. Now you may reasonably say that is a good thing but what you cannot deny is that it has seriously affected our own gas supply and made us dependent on other countries for energy.

    2 - We profited hugely. The money allowed the transformation of e British economy away from the failing heavy industry models which were never going to be economic in the face of globalisation and the challenge from the Far East. The Norwegian model was based upon being a hugely energy rich country with a small population which had little or no need of the hydrocarbon reserves their were exploiting and so were able to export almost the whole lot.

    3 - Irrelevant. We took very little gas from either the Middle East or Russia. We had no need to as we had our own. We still would have if we were willing to exploit it.

    Some big words in there which utterly miss the point. You say us taking supply from elsewhere is "irrelevant - we took [past tense] very little from elsewhere. Sure, when our gas was plentiful. But now it isn't? An endless procession of LNG tankers docking and unloading.

    We didn't need to generate so much power from gas. We did, its largely gone, now we are on the tit of imports.
    Gas is plentiful but places like Cambo have been deliberately stalled and blocked due to eco-lunacy and politics, not physics or chemistry.
    You mean the kind of physics and chemistry that demonstrated the ozone zone and anthropogenic climate change? You'll need to find something else to excuse your logic.
    Pray tell how the Ozone Hole or Anthropogenic Climate Change issues are better resolved by burning Putin or the Sheikh's oil and gas than using our own as we transition to cleaner sources?
    Of course they are not. Kindly don't try to pin false arguments on others. It was the correct decision at thje time, in viuew of the long term development issues. The party which you support did nothing about storage of gas which would have been infinitely more useful.
    Storing gas is a transitory solution that while it would help only matters if the gas supply is disrupted for a few weeks not for years, since we never had years worth of storage.

    Having sufficient extraction to power ourselves and not be at the whims of foreign, potentially hostile, powers would be infinitely more useful and many of us have said so for years before this crisis even while insisting that tackling climate change is the right thing to do but it should be done smartly and not by cutting off our nose to spite our face.
    I'm not the idiot you take me for. The storage works on an annual cycle, of course.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,506
    Carnyx said:

    More from the Graun feed re the Perth hustings:

    'Mackay says the Scottish Tory leader, Douglas Ross, said Boris Johnson misled parliament over Partygate. Does Truss agree?

    She replies:

    I don’t agree that Boris Johnson misled parliament. He did a great job as prime minister. He delivered Brexit, the election result, the vaccines. He’s the only world leader with a street named after him in Kyiv.

    Mackay says Johnson is also the only prime minister to have received a fixed penalty notice for breaking Covid rules, to which Truss says: “I think he was the only prime minister that’s actually been prime minister during Covid”. Things are getting silly now as the crowd continues to bray at Mackay for daring to mention Johnson’s law-breaking.'

    Her answer on him being the only one who was PM is undeniable though. It's a classic Trussism.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    ydoethur said:

    Oddly, the nearest thing we've had to an expert on agriculture at DEFRA in that hundred or so years probably is George Eustice. He was at least a farmer. However, as a fruit farmer he was in rather a niche part of the industry!

    Oh, perhaps it was a shame Pmt got rid of tractor guy. His expertise with farm machinery could have been useful.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ramsden solar farm plan pulled for changes

    Council planning officers said the plan, which was opposed by 167 people, could be "uncharacteristic and distracting". Another 12 people registered their support.

    The authority's conservation officer objected to the scheme and said Akeman Street's historical significance would be damaged by the project.

    Akeman Street is an "important" Roman road on a east-west route, linking Watling Street to Fosse Way and is "a fascinating survival of part of an impressive network", they said.

    Others opposed to the scheme have said it could damage the village's character, close to the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-62493219

    for anyone who was wondering why liz is on about sheepies vs panels

    I wonder if this kind of thing happened in WW2 as well.
    Well quite. In particular, Akeman Street is not that seriously affected if they aren't shutting it off (they aren't). And you are in a AONB or not, if you are close to it you weren't thought to have enough NB to be in it.
  • ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/1goodtern/status/1559519407742885890?s=21&t=uPXQpSpBFEv1ODJGoJO6Nw

    I'm a trustee of a charity whose electricity bill will rise from
    £8k in 2019
    to
    £50k in 2023.

    We're screwed.
    This country, I mean.

    You know what this means for businesses, charities, homeowners, industry, hospitals, schools?

    Everything will *collapse*.

    Whose idiotic idea was the 'dash for gas?'
    If we were self-sufficient or a net exporter of gas as we were until 2003 we'd be in a fantastic position right now.

    Whose idiotic idea was it to stop dashing for gas before we had alternatives in place?
    1. We burnt the easy to extract North Sea Reserves
    2. We didn't really profit as a nation as the Norwegians did because a big capitalist Investment Fund is obvious communism vs giving the rights away for a quick profit now
    3. We had alternatives in place. Pipe it from the middle east (sodding Taliban turncoats screwed that up), or from Russia (sodding Putin), or from dunno
    1 - Immaterial. There is still plenty of gas out there except we have put in place rules that make it largely uneconomic to extract it. All in the name of Net Zero. Now you may reasonably say that is a good thing but what you cannot deny is that it has seriously affected our own gas supply and made us dependent on other countries for energy.

    2 - We profited hugely. The money allowed the transformation of e British economy away from the failing heavy industry models which were never going to be economic in the face of globalisation and the challenge from the Far East. The Norwegian model was based upon being a hugely energy rich country with a small population which had little or no need of the hydrocarbon reserves their were exploiting and so were able to export almost the whole lot.

    3 - Irrelevant. We took very little gas from either the Middle East or Russia. We had no need to as we had our own. We still would have if we were willing to exploit it.

    Some big words in there which utterly miss the point. You say us taking supply from elsewhere is "irrelevant - we took [past tense] very little from elsewhere. Sure, when our gas was plentiful. But now it isn't? An endless procession of LNG tankers docking and unloading.

    We didn't need to generate so much power from gas. We did, its largely gone, now we are on the tit of imports.
    Gas is plentiful but places like Cambo have been deliberately stalled and blocked due to eco-lunacy and politics, not physics or chemistry.
    You have missed the word economics out. Again. If it was commercial for various fields to produce oil and gas the companies finding them would have found funding / a purchaser and they gas would have been flowing.

    As we're going back the best part of a decade on the non-commercial viability stakes it long pre-dates "net zero" and "eco-lunacy". Its just too bloody expensive.
    Sorry but as @Richard_Tyndall and others have already confirmed, these places have been economically viable, but people like Sturgeon etc have stood in the way.

    Apparently approving Cambo in the year of COP was a 'wrong signal' and other bollocks like that. Tackling climate change is the right thing to do, absolutely, but we should do that first by eliminating our reliance upon fossil fuels from potentially hostile states before we eliminate our reliance upon our own resources.
  • Has Truss done goofed again?
  • Has Truss done goofed again?

    No.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    edited August 2022

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/1goodtern/status/1559519407742885890?s=21&t=uPXQpSpBFEv1ODJGoJO6Nw

    I'm a trustee of a charity whose electricity bill will rise from
    £8k in 2019
    to
    £50k in 2023.

    We're screwed.
    This country, I mean.

    You know what this means for businesses, charities, homeowners, industry, hospitals, schools?

    Everything will *collapse*.

    Whose idiotic idea was the 'dash for gas?'
    If we were self-sufficient or a net exporter of gas as we were until 2003 we'd be in a fantastic position right now.

    Whose idiotic idea was it to stop dashing for gas before we had alternatives in place?
    1. We burnt the easy to extract North Sea Reserves
    2. We didn't really profit as a nation as the Norwegians did because a big capitalist Investment Fund is obvious communism vs giving the rights away for a quick profit now
    3. We had alternatives in place. Pipe it from the middle east (sodding Taliban turncoats screwed that up), or from Russia (sodding Putin), or from dunno
    1 - Immaterial. There is still plenty of gas out there except we have put in place rules that make it largely uneconomic to extract it. All in the name of Net Zero. Now you may reasonably say that is a good thing but what you cannot deny is that it has seriously affected our own gas supply and made us dependent on other countries for energy.

    2 - We profited hugely. The money allowed the transformation of e British economy away from the failing heavy industry models which were never going to be economic in the face of globalisation and the challenge from the Far East. The Norwegian model was based upon being a hugely energy rich country with a small population which had little or no need of the hydrocarbon reserves their were exploiting and so were able to export almost the whole lot.

    3 - Irrelevant. We took very little gas from either the Middle East or Russia. We had no need to as we had our own. We still would have if we were willing to exploit it.

    Some big words in there which utterly miss the point. You say us taking supply from elsewhere is "irrelevant - we took [past tense] very little from elsewhere. Sure, when our gas was plentiful. But now it isn't? An endless procession of LNG tankers docking and unloading.

    We didn't need to generate so much power from gas. We did, its largely gone, now we are on the tit of imports.
    Gas is plentiful but places like Cambo have been deliberately stalled and blocked due to eco-lunacy and politics, not physics or chemistry.
    You have missed the word economics out. Again. If it was commercial for various fields to produce oil and gas the companies finding them would have found funding / a purchaser and they gas would have been flowing.

    As we're going back the best part of a decade on the non-commercial viability stakes it long pre-dates "net zero" and "eco-lunacy". Its just too bloody expensive.
    Sorry but as @Richard_Tyndall and others have already confirmed, these places have been economically viable, but people like Sturgeon etc have stood in the way.

    Apparently approving Cambo in the year of COP was a 'wrong signal' and other bollocks like that. Tackling climate change is the right thing to do, absolutely, but we should do that first by eliminating our reliance upon fossil fuels from potentially hostile states before we eliminate our reliance upon our own resources.
    Sturgeon stood in the way? Now you really are fibbing. Licensing oil and gas exploration is solely a HMG prerogative, a reserved matter. It is not devolved.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    Carnyx said:

    More from the Graun feed re the Perth hustings:

    'Mackay says the Scottish Tory leader, Douglas Ross, said Boris Johnson misled parliament over Partygate. Does Truss agree?

    She replies:

    I don’t agree that Boris Johnson misled parliament. He did a great job as prime minister. He delivered Brexit, the election result, the vaccines. He’s the only world leader with a street named after him in Kyiv.

    Mackay says Johnson is also the only prime minister to have received a fixed penalty notice for breaking Covid rules, to which Truss says: “I think he was the only prime minister that’s actually been prime minister during Covid”. Things are getting silly now as the crowd continues to bray at Mackay for daring to mention Johnson’s law-breaking.'

    Christ, why is she not joining the group demanding Boris remain as PM? He sounds like a tremendous and unequalable leader, why set herself up for failure trying to follow this colossus?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Has Truss done goofed again?

    naah, the girl done good. back of the net innit.
  • Bookmark this - Liz Truss on the pensions triple lock: “I won’t fudge the figures, I’m fully committed to the triple lock, which gives the highest rate.” That means of increase in pensions of around 9-10% in March.

    Fuck you Liz
  • ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/1goodtern/status/1559519407742885890?s=21&t=uPXQpSpBFEv1ODJGoJO6Nw

    I'm a trustee of a charity whose electricity bill will rise from
    £8k in 2019
    to
    £50k in 2023.

    We're screwed.
    This country, I mean.

    You know what this means for businesses, charities, homeowners, industry, hospitals, schools?

    Everything will *collapse*.

    Whose idiotic idea was the 'dash for gas?'
    If we were self-sufficient or a net exporter of gas as we were until 2003 we'd be in a fantastic position right now.

    Whose idiotic idea was it to stop dashing for gas before we had alternatives in place?
    1. We burnt the easy to extract North Sea Reserves
    2. We didn't really profit as a nation as the Norwegians did because a big capitalist Investment Fund is obvious communism vs giving the rights away for a quick profit now
    3. We had alternatives in place. Pipe it from the middle east (sodding Taliban turncoats screwed that up), or from Russia (sodding Putin), or from dunno
    1 - Immaterial. There is still plenty of gas out there except we have put in place rules that make it largely uneconomic to extract it. All in the name of Net Zero. Now you may reasonably say that is a good thing but what you cannot deny is that it has seriously affected our own gas supply and made us dependent on other countries for energy.

    2 - We profited hugely. The money allowed the transformation of e British economy away from the failing heavy industry models which were never going to be economic in the face of globalisation and the challenge from the Far East. The Norwegian model was based upon being a hugely energy rich country with a small population which had little or no need of the hydrocarbon reserves their were exploiting and so were able to export almost the whole lot.

    3 - Irrelevant. We took very little gas from either the Middle East or Russia. We had no need to as we had our own. We still would have if we were willing to exploit it.

    Some big words in there which utterly miss the point. You say us taking supply from elsewhere is "irrelevant - we took [past tense] very little from elsewhere. Sure, when our gas was plentiful. But now it isn't? An endless procession of LNG tankers docking and unloading.

    We didn't need to generate so much power from gas. We did, its largely gone, now we are on the tit of imports.
    Gas still is plentiful. That is the point. We are just choosing as a nation not to exploit it. This is a matter of policy not necessity.

    It is difficult these days to get accurate figures for oil and gas reserves if you are not 'on the inside' because in 2000 the Blair Government decided it was no longer necessary for the country to know how much oil and gas they had. So they scrapped the annual 'Brown book' and moved resources away from recording and analysing Oil and Gas development and reserves. But the OGA and its successor the NSTA have started to look again at reserves and produce estimates of how much oil and gas is still in place. In 2018 they calculated there was still 20 billion BOE equivalent left in the UK waters - as compared to a total extraction to that date of 44 billion BOE. And that number has been revised up every year since then. The problem is that at the same time the Government, in pursuit of Net Zero has chosen to make it more and more difficult for companies to actually appraise and develop those resources. In 2018, 53 exploration and appraisal wells were drilled in Norway but only 17 on the UKCS. Since then it has only got worse.

    Now as I said, you can decide that this is a policy worth pursuing because of Net Zero goals but what you can't then do is claim that we are beholden to overseas energy supplies because of a shortage of oil and gas reserves in the UK. We are not. We have just made a conscious decision not to exploit them.

  • Bookmark this - Liz Truss on the pensions triple lock: “I won’t fudge the figures, I’m fully committed to the triple lock, which gives the highest rate.” That means of increase in pensions of around 9-10% in March.

    Fuck you Liz

    Waiting for you to say Fuck you Starmer for the fact he wants the triple lock.

    Won't hold my breath.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    edited August 2022
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ramsden solar farm plan pulled for changes

    Council planning officers said the plan, which was opposed by 167 people, could be "uncharacteristic and distracting". Another 12 people registered their support.

    The authority's conservation officer objected to the scheme and said Akeman Street's historical significance would be damaged by the project.

    Akeman Street is an "important" Roman road on a east-west route, linking Watling Street to Fosse Way and is "a fascinating survival of part of an impressive network", they said.

    Others opposed to the scheme have said it could damage the village's character, close to the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-62493219

    for anyone who was wondering why liz is on about sheepies vs panels

    I wonder if this kind of thing happened in WW2 as well.
    Well quite. In particular, Akeman Street is not that seriously affected if they aren't shutting it off (they aren't). And you are in a AONB or not, if you are close to it you weren't thought to have enough NB to be in it.
    The panels would need quite a bit of digging for foundations and cables. The hjold might make sense if it were Alchester Roman city but there is no mention of it being an archaeologically valuable landscape comparable to say that around Stonehenge or in Silchester. Maybe there is something we are missing.
  • Bookmark this - Liz Truss on the pensions triple lock: “I won’t fudge the figures, I’m fully committed to the triple lock, which gives the highest rate.” That means of increase in pensions of around 9-10% in March.

    Fuck you Liz

    Waiting for you to say Fuck you Starmer for the fact he wants the triple lock.

    Won't hold my breath.
    Fuck you Starmer!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836

    Bookmark this - Liz Truss on the pensions triple lock: “I won’t fudge the figures, I’m fully committed to the triple lock, which gives the highest rate.” That means of increase in pensions of around 9-10% in March.

    Fuck you Liz

    Waiting for you to say Fuck you Starmer for the fact he wants the triple lock.

    Won't hold my breath.
    Slightd difference there. He's not going to be the next PM.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    edited August 2022

    Has Truss done goofed again?

    She's said Boris is great and pensioners deserve all the money - doesn't sound like a goof to me.
  • kle4 said:

    Has Truss done goofed again?

    She's said Boris is great and pensioners deserve all the money - doesn't sound like a good to me.
    Ah just a fucking moron then
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    kle4 said:

    Has Truss done goofed again?

    She's said Boris is great and pensioners deserve all the money - doesn't sound like a good to me.
    Well, quite. It is an audience of Party members.
  • ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/1goodtern/status/1559519407742885890?s=21&t=uPXQpSpBFEv1ODJGoJO6Nw

    I'm a trustee of a charity whose electricity bill will rise from
    £8k in 2019
    to
    £50k in 2023.

    We're screwed.
    This country, I mean.

    You know what this means for businesses, charities, homeowners, industry, hospitals, schools?

    Everything will *collapse*.

    Whose idiotic idea was the 'dash for gas?'
    If we were self-sufficient or a net exporter of gas as we were until 2003 we'd be in a fantastic position right now.

    Whose idiotic idea was it to stop dashing for gas before we had alternatives in place?
    1. We burnt the easy to extract North Sea Reserves
    2. We didn't really profit as a nation as the Norwegians did because a big capitalist Investment Fund is obvious communism vs giving the rights away for a quick profit now
    3. We had alternatives in place. Pipe it from the middle east (sodding Taliban turncoats screwed that up), or from Russia (sodding Putin), or from dunno
    1 - Immaterial. There is still plenty of gas out there except we have put in place rules that make it largely uneconomic to extract it. All in the name of Net Zero. Now you may reasonably say that is a good thing but what you cannot deny is that it has seriously affected our own gas supply and made us dependent on other countries for energy.

    2 - We profited hugely. The money allowed the transformation of e British economy away from the failing heavy industry models which were never going to be economic in the face of globalisation and the challenge from the Far East. The Norwegian model was based upon being a hugely energy rich country with a small population which had little or no need of the hydrocarbon reserves their were exploiting and so were able to export almost the whole lot.

    3 - Irrelevant. We took very little gas from either the Middle East or Russia. We had no need to as we had our own. We still would have if we were willing to exploit it.

    Some big words in there which utterly miss the point. You say us taking supply from elsewhere is "irrelevant - we took [past tense] very little from elsewhere. Sure, when our gas was plentiful. But now it isn't? An endless procession of LNG tankers docking and unloading.

    We didn't need to generate so much power from gas. We did, its largely gone, now we are on the tit of imports.
    Gas is plentiful but places like Cambo have been deliberately stalled and blocked due to eco-lunacy and politics, not physics or chemistry.
    You have missed the word economics out. Again. If it was commercial for various fields to produce oil and gas the companies finding them would have found funding / a purchaser and they gas would have been flowing.

    As we're going back the best part of a decade on the non-commercial viability stakes it long pre-dates "net zero" and "eco-lunacy". Its just too bloody expensive.
    Sorry but as @Richard_Tyndall and others have already confirmed, these places have been economically viable, but people like Sturgeon etc have stood in the way.

    Apparently approving Cambo in the year of COP was a 'wrong signal' and other bollocks like that. Tackling climate change is the right thing to do, absolutely, but we should do that first by eliminating our reliance upon fossil fuels from potentially hostile states before we eliminate our reliance upon our own resources.
    Riiiiight. Set Cambo aside. There have been a *lot* of oil and gas finds over the last decade and few actually progressed to development. If they were economiclly viable they would have happened.

    I agree entirely that we should do Cambo if the companies want to do so. But don't say "they're all viable its just the eco-nazis" because there are plenty of exploration companies who have made Big Finds and then flopped after finding the industry can't make them work for enough profit.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,576

    Bookmark this - Liz Truss on the pensions triple lock: “I won’t fudge the figures, I’m fully committed to the triple lock, which gives the highest rate.” That means of increase in pensions of around 9-10% in March.

    Fuck you Liz

    I assume you would give them much less then? What would Starmer then say about CoL?
  • Bookmark this - Liz Truss on the pensions triple lock: “I won’t fudge the figures, I’m fully committed to the triple lock, which gives the highest rate.” That means of increase in pensions of around 9-10% in March.

    Fuck you Liz

    I assume you would give them much less then? What would Starmer then say about CoL?
    Yes unless they give or a 10% cut in my tuition fee loan they can fuck off
  • ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/1goodtern/status/1559519407742885890?s=21&t=uPXQpSpBFEv1ODJGoJO6Nw

    I'm a trustee of a charity whose electricity bill will rise from
    £8k in 2019
    to
    £50k in 2023.

    We're screwed.
    This country, I mean.

    You know what this means for businesses, charities, homeowners, industry, hospitals, schools?

    Everything will *collapse*.

    Whose idiotic idea was the 'dash for gas?'
    If we were self-sufficient or a net exporter of gas as we were until 2003 we'd be in a fantastic position right now.

    Whose idiotic idea was it to stop dashing for gas before we had alternatives in place?
    1. We burnt the easy to extract North Sea Reserves
    2. We didn't really profit as a nation as the Norwegians did because a big capitalist Investment Fund is obvious communism vs giving the rights away for a quick profit now
    3. We had alternatives in place. Pipe it from the middle east (sodding Taliban turncoats screwed that up), or from Russia (sodding Putin), or from dunno
    1 - Immaterial. There is still plenty of gas out there except we have put in place rules that make it largely uneconomic to extract it. All in the name of Net Zero. Now you may reasonably say that is a good thing but what you cannot deny is that it has seriously affected our own gas supply and made us dependent on other countries for energy.

    2 - We profited hugely. The money allowed the transformation of e British economy away from the failing heavy industry models which were never going to be economic in the face of globalisation and the challenge from the Far East. The Norwegian model was based upon being a hugely energy rich country with a small population which had little or no need of the hydrocarbon reserves their were exploiting and so were able to export almost the whole lot.

    3 - Irrelevant. We took very little gas from either the Middle East or Russia. We had no need to as we had our own. We still would have if we were willing to exploit it.

    Some big words in there which utterly miss the point. You say us taking supply from elsewhere is "irrelevant - we took [past tense] very little from elsewhere. Sure, when our gas was plentiful. But now it isn't? An endless procession of LNG tankers docking and unloading.

    We didn't need to generate so much power from gas. We did, its largely gone, now we are on the tit of imports.
    Gas still is plentiful. That is the point. We are just choosing as a nation not to exploit it. This is a matter of policy not necessity.

    It is difficult these days to get accurate figures for oil and gas reserves if you are not 'on the inside' because in 2000 the Blair Government decided it was no longer necessary for the country to know how much oil and gas they had. So they scrapped the annual 'Brown book' and moved resources away from recording and analysing Oil and Gas development and reserves. But the OGA and its successor the NSTA have started to look again at reserves and produce estimates of how much oil and gas is still in place. In 2018 they calculated there was still 20 billion BOE equivalent left in the UK waters - as compared to a total extraction to that date of 44 billion BOE. And that number has been revised up every year since then. The problem is that at the same time the Government, in pursuit of Net Zero has chosen to make it more and more difficult for companies to actually appraise and develop those resources. In 2018, 53 exploration and appraisal wells were drilled in Norway but only 17 on the UKCS. Since then it has only got worse.

    Now as I said, you can decide that this is a policy worth pursuing because of Net Zero goals but what you can't then do is claim that we are beholden to overseas energy supplies because of a shortage of oil and gas reserves in the UK. We are not. We have just made a conscious decision not to exploit them.

    Sure. But having seen and read enough on the commercial and city aspects of oil and gas - admittedly from the fringes of watching my dad coin it on shares in exploration companies - it hasn't been policy decisions. It has been economic decisions. A shit ton of gas? Within conceivable albeit a bit further out reach? Yep - but then actually converted into an actual production field? Nope. And that has been the change - easier to buy another LNG tanker load for a spot price than invest for a decade and then try and get some return.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    edited August 2022

    Bookmark this - Liz Truss on the pensions triple lock: “I won’t fudge the figures, I’m fully committed to the triple lock, which gives the highest rate.” That means of increase in pensions of around 9-10% in March.

    Fuck you Liz

    I assume you would give them much less then? What would Starmer then say about CoL?
    Yes unless they give or a 10% cut in my tuition fee loan they can fuck off
    Isn't that what you are getting thanks to inflation?

    (Just a shame it is also happening to your income, though.)

    Edit: PS I really, really am not impressed with the interest rates.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,576

    Bookmark this - Liz Truss on the pensions triple lock: “I won’t fudge the figures, I’m fully committed to the triple lock, which gives the highest rate.” That means of increase in pensions of around 9-10% in March.

    Fuck you Liz

    I assume you would give them much less then? What would Starmer then say about CoL?
    Yes unless they give or a 10% cut in my tuition fee loan they can fuck off
    Very self interested of you.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ramsden solar farm plan pulled for changes

    Council planning officers said the plan, which was opposed by 167 people, could be "uncharacteristic and distracting". Another 12 people registered their support.

    The authority's conservation officer objected to the scheme and said Akeman Street's historical significance would be damaged by the project.

    Akeman Street is an "important" Roman road on a east-west route, linking Watling Street to Fosse Way and is "a fascinating survival of part of an impressive network", they said.

    Others opposed to the scheme have said it could damage the village's character, close to the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-62493219

    for anyone who was wondering why liz is on about sheepies vs panels

    I wonder if this kind of thing happened in WW2 as well.
    Well quite. In particular, Akeman Street is not that seriously affected if they aren't shutting it off (they aren't). And you are in a AONB or not, if you are close to it you weren't thought to have enough NB to be in it.
    The panels would need quite a bit of digging for foundations and cables. The hjold might make sense if it were Alchester Roman city but there is no mention of it being an archaeologically valuable landscape comparable to say that around Stonehenge or in Silchester. Maybe there is something we are missing.
    Archaeologically, going ahead is arguably the winning strategy, because the foundation digging might throw up something really interesting and you then get a hold, and a serious incentive for solarpanelco to sponsor the archaeology to get it done asap.
  • ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/1goodtern/status/1559519407742885890?s=21&t=uPXQpSpBFEv1ODJGoJO6Nw

    I'm a trustee of a charity whose electricity bill will rise from
    £8k in 2019
    to
    £50k in 2023.

    We're screwed.
    This country, I mean.

    You know what this means for businesses, charities, homeowners, industry, hospitals, schools?

    Everything will *collapse*.

    Whose idiotic idea was the 'dash for gas?'
    If we were self-sufficient or a net exporter of gas as we were until 2003 we'd be in a fantastic position right now.

    Whose idiotic idea was it to stop dashing for gas before we had alternatives in place?
    1. We burnt the easy to extract North Sea Reserves
    2. We didn't really profit as a nation as the Norwegians did because a big capitalist Investment Fund is obvious communism vs giving the rights away for a quick profit now
    3. We had alternatives in place. Pipe it from the middle east (sodding Taliban turncoats screwed that up), or from Russia (sodding Putin), or from dunno
    1 - Immaterial. There is still plenty of gas out there except we have put in place rules that make it largely uneconomic to extract it. All in the name of Net Zero. Now you may reasonably say that is a good thing but what you cannot deny is that it has seriously affected our own gas supply and made us dependent on other countries for energy.

    2 - We profited hugely. The money allowed the transformation of e British economy away from the failing heavy industry models which were never going to be economic in the face of globalisation and the challenge from the Far East. The Norwegian model was based upon being a hugely energy rich country with a small population which had little or no need of the hydrocarbon reserves their were exploiting and so were able to export almost the whole lot.

    3 - Irrelevant. We took very little gas from either the Middle East or Russia. We had no need to as we had our own. We still would have if we were willing to exploit it.

    Some big words in there which utterly miss the point. You say us taking supply from elsewhere is "irrelevant - we took [past tense] very little from elsewhere. Sure, when our gas was plentiful. But now it isn't? An endless procession of LNG tankers docking and unloading.

    We didn't need to generate so much power from gas. We did, its largely gone, now we are on the tit of imports.
    Gas is plentiful but places like Cambo have been deliberately stalled and blocked due to eco-lunacy and politics, not physics or chemistry.
    You have missed the word economics out. Again. If it was commercial for various fields to produce oil and gas the companies finding them would have found funding / a purchaser and they gas would have been flowing.

    As we're going back the best part of a decade on the non-commercial viability stakes it long pre-dates "net zero" and "eco-lunacy". Its just too bloody expensive.
    Sorry but as @Richard_Tyndall and others have already confirmed, these places have been economically viable, but people like Sturgeon etc have stood in the way.

    Apparently approving Cambo in the year of COP was a 'wrong signal' and other bollocks like that. Tackling climate change is the right thing to do, absolutely, but we should do that first by eliminating our reliance upon fossil fuels from potentially hostile states before we eliminate our reliance upon our own resources.
    Riiiiight. Set Cambo aside. There have been a *lot* of oil and gas finds over the last decade and few actually progressed to development. If they were economiclly viable they would have happened.

    I agree entirely that we should do Cambo if the companies want to do so. But don't say "they're all viable its just the eco-nazis" because there are plenty of exploration companies who have made Big Finds and then flopped after finding the industry can't make them work for enough profit.
    No there really aren't. There has only been one case like that in the last decade or more and that was Hurricane with the Lancaster Field and plenty of people could see that one coming a mile off as it was fractured granite reservoir which is almost always a disappointment.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ramsden solar farm plan pulled for changes

    Council planning officers said the plan, which was opposed by 167 people, could be "uncharacteristic and distracting". Another 12 people registered their support.

    The authority's conservation officer objected to the scheme and said Akeman Street's historical significance would be damaged by the project.

    Akeman Street is an "important" Roman road on a east-west route, linking Watling Street to Fosse Way and is "a fascinating survival of part of an impressive network", they said.

    Others opposed to the scheme have said it could damage the village's character, close to the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-62493219

    for anyone who was wondering why liz is on about sheepies vs panels

    I wonder if this kind of thing happened in WW2 as well.
    Well quite. In particular, Akeman Street is not that seriously affected if they aren't shutting it off (they aren't). And you are in a AONB or not, if you are close to it you weren't thought to have enough NB to be in it.
    The panels would need quite a bit of digging for foundations and cables. The hjold might make sense if it were Alchester Roman city but there is no mention of it being an archaeologically valuable landscape comparable to say that around Stonehenge or in Silchester. Maybe there is something we are missing.
    Archaeologically, going ahead is arguably the winning strategy, because the foundation digging might throw up something really interesting and you then get a hold, and a serious incentive for solarpanelco to sponsor the archaeology to get it done asap.
    Or better still real reasons to cancel it completely if you find the Roman equivalent of Watling Gap Services.
  • ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/1goodtern/status/1559519407742885890?s=21&t=uPXQpSpBFEv1ODJGoJO6Nw

    I'm a trustee of a charity whose electricity bill will rise from
    £8k in 2019
    to
    £50k in 2023.

    We're screwed.
    This country, I mean.

    You know what this means for businesses, charities, homeowners, industry, hospitals, schools?

    Everything will *collapse*.

    Whose idiotic idea was the 'dash for gas?'
    If we were self-sufficient or a net exporter of gas as we were until 2003 we'd be in a fantastic position right now.

    Whose idiotic idea was it to stop dashing for gas before we had alternatives in place?
    1. We burnt the easy to extract North Sea Reserves
    2. We didn't really profit as a nation as the Norwegians did because a big capitalist Investment Fund is obvious communism vs giving the rights away for a quick profit now
    3. We had alternatives in place. Pipe it from the middle east (sodding Taliban turncoats screwed that up), or from Russia (sodding Putin), or from dunno
    1 - Immaterial. There is still plenty of gas out there except we have put in place rules that make it largely uneconomic to extract it. All in the name of Net Zero. Now you may reasonably say that is a good thing but what you cannot deny is that it has seriously affected our own gas supply and made us dependent on other countries for energy.

    2 - We profited hugely. The money allowed the transformation of e British economy away from the failing heavy industry models which were never going to be economic in the face of globalisation and the challenge from the Far East. The Norwegian model was based upon being a hugely energy rich country with a small population which had little or no need of the hydrocarbon reserves their were exploiting and so were able to export almost the whole lot.

    3 - Irrelevant. We took very little gas from either the Middle East or Russia. We had no need to as we had our own. We still would have if we were willing to exploit it.

    Some big words in there which utterly miss the point. You say us taking supply from elsewhere is "irrelevant - we took [past tense] very little from elsewhere. Sure, when our gas was plentiful. But now it isn't? An endless procession of LNG tankers docking and unloading.

    We didn't need to generate so much power from gas. We did, its largely gone, now we are on the tit of imports.
    Gas still is plentiful. That is the point. We are just choosing as a nation not to exploit it. This is a matter of policy not necessity.

    It is difficult these days to get accurate figures for oil and gas reserves if you are not 'on the inside' because in 2000 the Blair Government decided it was no longer necessary for the country to know how much oil and gas they had. So they scrapped the annual 'Brown book' and moved resources away from recording and analysing Oil and Gas development and reserves. But the OGA and its successor the NSTA have started to look again at reserves and produce estimates of how much oil and gas is still in place. In 2018 they calculated there was still 20 billion BOE equivalent left in the UK waters - as compared to a total extraction to that date of 44 billion BOE. And that number has been revised up every year since then. The problem is that at the same time the Government, in pursuit of Net Zero has chosen to make it more and more difficult for companies to actually appraise and develop those resources. In 2018, 53 exploration and appraisal wells were drilled in Norway but only 17 on the UKCS. Since then it has only got worse.

    Now as I said, you can decide that this is a policy worth pursuing because of Net Zero goals but what you can't then do is claim that we are beholden to overseas energy supplies because of a shortage of oil and gas reserves in the UK. We are not. We have just made a conscious decision not to exploit them.

    Sure. But having seen and read enough on the commercial and city aspects of oil and gas - admittedly from the fringes of watching my dad coin it on shares in exploration companies - it hasn't been policy decisions. It has been economic decisions. A shit ton of gas? Within conceivable albeit a bit further out reach? Yep - but then actually converted into an actual production field? Nope. And that has been the change - easier to buy another LNG tanker load for a spot price than invest for a decade and then try and get some return.
    I think what you're missing from what Richard is saying is the economics is shifted based upon the politics.

    The fact the Saudis etc bend over backwards to facilitate extraction which they can then export to us, while we tie up in red and green tape any investments with little security or stability due to eco-political whims that suggest imported Saudi oil is 'greener' than producing it domestically is the problem.

    Exporting our emissions to the rest of the world does nothing for the planet and nothing for our economics, but it sends an economic signal to firms to invest elsewhere.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,576
    IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ramsden solar farm plan pulled for changes

    Council planning officers said the plan, which was opposed by 167 people, could be "uncharacteristic and distracting". Another 12 people registered their support.

    The authority's conservation officer objected to the scheme and said Akeman Street's historical significance would be damaged by the project.

    Akeman Street is an "important" Roman road on a east-west route, linking Watling Street to Fosse Way and is "a fascinating survival of part of an impressive network", they said.

    Others opposed to the scheme have said it could damage the village's character, close to the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-62493219

    for anyone who was wondering why liz is on about sheepies vs panels

    I wonder if this kind of thing happened in WW2 as well.
    Well quite. In particular, Akeman Street is not that seriously affected if they aren't shutting it off (they aren't). And you are in a AONB or not, if you are close to it you weren't thought to have enough NB to be in it.
    The panels would need quite a bit of digging for foundations and cables. The hjold might make sense if it were Alchester Roman city but there is no mention of it being an archaeologically valuable landscape comparable to say that around Stonehenge or in Silchester. Maybe there is something we are missing.
    Archaeologically, going ahead is arguably the winning strategy, because the foundation digging might throw up something really interesting and you then get a hold, and a serious incentive for solarpanelco to sponsor the archaeology to get it done asap.
    I assume an awful lot of decent archaeology only happens because building or other activity is going to happen. Otherwise why bother digging in x field?
  • pingping Posts: 3,297
    Rain, glorious rain!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836

    IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ramsden solar farm plan pulled for changes

    Council planning officers said the plan, which was opposed by 167 people, could be "uncharacteristic and distracting". Another 12 people registered their support.

    The authority's conservation officer objected to the scheme and said Akeman Street's historical significance would be damaged by the project.

    Akeman Street is an "important" Roman road on a east-west route, linking Watling Street to Fosse Way and is "a fascinating survival of part of an impressive network", they said.

    Others opposed to the scheme have said it could damage the village's character, close to the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-62493219

    for anyone who was wondering why liz is on about sheepies vs panels

    I wonder if this kind of thing happened in WW2 as well.
    Well quite. In particular, Akeman Street is not that seriously affected if they aren't shutting it off (they aren't). And you are in a AONB or not, if you are close to it you weren't thought to have enough NB to be in it.
    The panels would need quite a bit of digging for foundations and cables. The hjold might make sense if it were Alchester Roman city but there is no mention of it being an archaeologically valuable landscape comparable to say that around Stonehenge or in Silchester. Maybe there is something we are missing.
    Archaeologically, going ahead is arguably the winning strategy, because the foundation digging might throw up something really interesting and you then get a hold, and a serious incentive for solarpanelco to sponsor the archaeology to get it done asap.
    I assume an awful lot of decent archaeology only happens because building or other activity is going to happen. Otherwise why bother digging in x field?
    IT does. But it has to be done in a hurry and covered over again, to someone else's timetable AIUI. Very different from the lkong term digs such as at Silchester. Pros and cons, horses for courses - a pipeline for instance gives a long swathe of country to sample, as does HS2.
  • ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/1goodtern/status/1559519407742885890?s=21&t=uPXQpSpBFEv1ODJGoJO6Nw

    I'm a trustee of a charity whose electricity bill will rise from
    £8k in 2019
    to
    £50k in 2023.

    We're screwed.
    This country, I mean.

    You know what this means for businesses, charities, homeowners, industry, hospitals, schools?

    Everything will *collapse*.

    Whose idiotic idea was the 'dash for gas?'
    If we were self-sufficient or a net exporter of gas as we were until 2003 we'd be in a fantastic position right now.

    Whose idiotic idea was it to stop dashing for gas before we had alternatives in place?
    1. We burnt the easy to extract North Sea Reserves
    2. We didn't really profit as a nation as the Norwegians did because a big capitalist Investment Fund is obvious communism vs giving the rights away for a quick profit now
    3. We had alternatives in place. Pipe it from the middle east (sodding Taliban turncoats screwed that up), or from Russia (sodding Putin), or from dunno
    1 - Immaterial. There is still plenty of gas out there except we have put in place rules that make it largely uneconomic to extract it. All in the name of Net Zero. Now you may reasonably say that is a good thing but what you cannot deny is that it has seriously affected our own gas supply and made us dependent on other countries for energy.

    2 - We profited hugely. The money allowed the transformation of e British economy away from the failing heavy industry models which were never going to be economic in the face of globalisation and the challenge from the Far East. The Norwegian model was based upon being a hugely energy rich country with a small population which had little or no need of the hydrocarbon reserves their were exploiting and so were able to export almost the whole lot.

    3 - Irrelevant. We took very little gas from either the Middle East or Russia. We had no need to as we had our own. We still would have if we were willing to exploit it.

    Some big words in there which utterly miss the point. You say us taking supply from elsewhere is "irrelevant - we took [past tense] very little from elsewhere. Sure, when our gas was plentiful. But now it isn't? An endless procession of LNG tankers docking and unloading.

    We didn't need to generate so much power from gas. We did, its largely gone, now we are on the tit of imports.
    Gas is plentiful but places like Cambo have been deliberately stalled and blocked due to eco-lunacy and politics, not physics or chemistry.
    You have missed the word economics out. Again. If it was commercial for various fields to produce oil and gas the companies finding them would have found funding / a purchaser and they gas would have been flowing.

    As we're going back the best part of a decade on the non-commercial viability stakes it long pre-dates "net zero" and "eco-lunacy". Its just too bloody expensive.
    LOL. No it really isn't.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 1,059
    The two senators who "who are not members of the [Democratic] party but who caucus with them" are Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont. (In the past, King has said he might switch to the Republicans to keep a balance in the Senate, but I haven't heard him repeat that in recent years.)

    Bernie Sanders describes himself as a "Democratic Socialist". I have thought for years that the second part was more important to him than the first. But now that he is a millionaire with three houses, I'm not so sure.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ramsden solar farm plan pulled for changes

    Council planning officers said the plan, which was opposed by 167 people, could be "uncharacteristic and distracting". Another 12 people registered their support.

    The authority's conservation officer objected to the scheme and said Akeman Street's historical significance would be damaged by the project.

    Akeman Street is an "important" Roman road on a east-west route, linking Watling Street to Fosse Way and is "a fascinating survival of part of an impressive network", they said.

    Others opposed to the scheme have said it could damage the village's character, close to the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-62493219

    for anyone who was wondering why liz is on about sheepies vs panels

    I wonder if this kind of thing happened in WW2 as well.
    Well quite. In particular, Akeman Street is not that seriously affected if they aren't shutting it off (they aren't). And you are in a AONB or not, if you are close to it you weren't thought to have enough NB to be in it.
    The panels would need quite a bit of digging for foundations and cables. The hjold might make sense if it were Alchester Roman city but there is no mention of it being an archaeologically valuable landscape comparable to say that around Stonehenge or in Silchester. Maybe there is something we are missing.
    Archaeologically, going ahead is arguably the winning strategy, because the foundation digging might throw up something really interesting and you then get a hold, and a serious incentive for solarpanelco to sponsor the archaeology to get it done asap.
    I assume an awful lot of decent archaeology only happens because building or other activity is going to happen. Otherwise why bother digging in x field?
    Well exactly, and also, the prevailing orthodoxy among responsible archaeologists is: do not do archaeology (quite seriously). It's destructive even when done right, it is simply not done right by 95% of archaeologists, if we just leave shit undisturbed we'll be much better equipped for non invasive exploration in 100 years time. So a "now or never" situation is a rare opportunity to get stuck in.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,506

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/1goodtern/status/1559519407742885890?s=21&t=uPXQpSpBFEv1ODJGoJO6Nw

    I'm a trustee of a charity whose electricity bill will rise from
    £8k in 2019
    to
    £50k in 2023.

    We're screwed.
    This country, I mean.

    You know what this means for businesses, charities, homeowners, industry, hospitals, schools?

    Everything will *collapse*.

    Whose idiotic idea was the 'dash for gas?'
    If we were self-sufficient or a net exporter of gas as we were until 2003 we'd be in a fantastic position right now.

    Whose idiotic idea was it to stop dashing for gas before we had alternatives in place?
    1. We burnt the easy to extract North Sea Reserves
    2. We didn't really profit as a nation as the Norwegians did because a big capitalist Investment Fund is obvious communism vs giving the rights away for a quick profit now
    3. We had alternatives in place. Pipe it from the middle east (sodding Taliban turncoats screwed that up), or from Russia (sodding Putin), or from dunno
    1 - Immaterial. There is still plenty of gas out there except we have put in place rules that make it largely uneconomic to extract it. All in the name of Net Zero. Now you may reasonably say that is a good thing but what you cannot deny is that it has seriously affected our own gas supply and made us dependent on other countries for energy.

    2 - We profited hugely. The money allowed the transformation of e British economy away from the failing heavy industry models which were never going to be economic in the face of globalisation and the challenge from the Far East. The Norwegian model was based upon being a hugely energy rich country with a small population which had little or no need of the hydrocarbon reserves their were exploiting and so were able to export almost the whole lot.

    3 - Irrelevant. We took very little gas from either the Middle East or Russia. We had no need to as we had our own. We still would have if we were willing to exploit it.

    Some big words in there which utterly miss the point. You say us taking supply from elsewhere is "irrelevant - we took [past tense] very little from elsewhere. Sure, when our gas was plentiful. But now it isn't? An endless procession of LNG tankers docking and unloading.

    We didn't need to generate so much power from gas. We did, its largely gone, now we are on the tit of imports.
    Gas still is plentiful. That is the point. We are just choosing as a nation not to exploit it. This is a matter of policy not necessity.

    It is difficult these days to get accurate figures for oil and gas reserves if you are not 'on the inside' because in 2000 the Blair Government decided it was no longer necessary for the country to know how much oil and gas they had. So they scrapped the annual 'Brown book' and moved resources away from recording and analysing Oil and Gas development and reserves. But the OGA and its successor the NSTA have started to look again at reserves and produce estimates of how much oil and gas is still in place. In 2018 they calculated there was still 20 billion BOE equivalent left in the UK waters - as compared to a total extraction to that date of 44 billion BOE. And that number has been revised up every year since then. The problem is that at the same time the Government, in pursuit of Net Zero has chosen to make it more and more difficult for companies to actually appraise and develop those resources. In 2018, 53 exploration and appraisal wells were drilled in Norway but only 17 on the UKCS. Since then it has only got worse.

    Now as I said, you can decide that this is a policy worth pursuing because of Net Zero goals but what you can't then do is claim that we are beholden to overseas energy supplies because of a shortage of oil and gas reserves in the UK. We are not. We have just made a conscious decision not to exploit them.

    Sure. But having seen and read enough on the commercial and city aspects of oil and gas - admittedly from the fringes of watching my dad coin it on shares in exploration companies - it hasn't been policy decisions. It has been economic decisions. A shit ton of gas? Within conceivable albeit a bit further out reach? Yep - but then actually converted into an actual production field? Nope. And that has been the change - easier to buy another LNG tanker load for a spot price than invest for a decade and then try and get some return.
    I think what you're missing from what Richard is saying is the economics is shifted based upon the politics.

    The fact the Saudis etc bend over backwards to facilitate extraction which they can then export to us, while we tie up in red and green tape any investments with little security or stability due to eco-political whims that suggest imported Saudi oil is 'greener' than producing it domestically is the problem.

    Exporting our emissions to the rest of the world does nothing for the planet and nothing for our economics, but it sends an economic signal to firms to invest elsewhere.
    It also puts more money in the hands of despots and oligarchs. Thanks green bellends.
  • ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/1goodtern/status/1559519407742885890?s=21&t=uPXQpSpBFEv1ODJGoJO6Nw

    I'm a trustee of a charity whose electricity bill will rise from
    £8k in 2019
    to
    £50k in 2023.

    We're screwed.
    This country, I mean.

    You know what this means for businesses, charities, homeowners, industry, hospitals, schools?

    Everything will *collapse*.

    Whose idiotic idea was the 'dash for gas?'
    If we were self-sufficient or a net exporter of gas as we were until 2003 we'd be in a fantastic position right now.

    Whose idiotic idea was it to stop dashing for gas before we had alternatives in place?
    1. We burnt the easy to extract North Sea Reserves
    2. We didn't really profit as a nation as the Norwegians did because a big capitalist Investment Fund is obvious communism vs giving the rights away for a quick profit now
    3. We had alternatives in place. Pipe it from the middle east (sodding Taliban turncoats screwed that up), or from Russia (sodding Putin), or from dunno
    1 - Immaterial. There is still plenty of gas out there except we have put in place rules that make it largely uneconomic to extract it. All in the name of Net Zero. Now you may reasonably say that is a good thing but what you cannot deny is that it has seriously affected our own gas supply and made us dependent on other countries for energy.

    2 - We profited hugely. The money allowed the transformation of e British economy away from the failing heavy industry models which were never going to be economic in the face of globalisation and the challenge from the Far East. The Norwegian model was based upon being a hugely energy rich country with a small population which had little or no need of the hydrocarbon reserves their were exploiting and so were able to export almost the whole lot.

    3 - Irrelevant. We took very little gas from either the Middle East or Russia. We had no need to as we had our own. We still would have if we were willing to exploit it.

    Some big words in there which utterly miss the point. You say us taking supply from elsewhere is "irrelevant - we took [past tense] very little from elsewhere. Sure, when our gas was plentiful. But now it isn't? An endless procession of LNG tankers docking and unloading.

    We didn't need to generate so much power from gas. We did, its largely gone, now we are on the tit of imports.
    Gas still is plentiful. That is the point. We are just choosing as a nation not to exploit it. This is a matter of policy not necessity.

    It is difficult these days to get accurate figures for oil and gas reserves if you are not 'on the inside' because in 2000 the Blair Government decided it was no longer necessary for the country to know how much oil and gas they had. So they scrapped the annual 'Brown book' and moved resources away from recording and analysing Oil and Gas development and reserves. But the OGA and its successor the NSTA have started to look again at reserves and produce estimates of how much oil and gas is still in place. In 2018 they calculated there was still 20 billion BOE equivalent left in the UK waters - as compared to a total extraction to that date of 44 billion BOE. And that number has been revised up every year since then. The problem is that at the same time the Government, in pursuit of Net Zero has chosen to make it more and more difficult for companies to actually appraise and develop those resources. In 2018, 53 exploration and appraisal wells were drilled in Norway but only 17 on the UKCS. Since then it has only got worse.

    Now as I said, you can decide that this is a policy worth pursuing because of Net Zero goals but what you can't then do is claim that we are beholden to overseas energy supplies because of a shortage of oil and gas reserves in the UK. We are not. We have just made a conscious decision not to exploit them.

    Sure. But having seen and read enough on the commercial and city aspects of oil and gas - admittedly from the fringes of watching my dad coin it on shares in exploration companies - it hasn't been policy decisions. It has been economic decisions. A shit ton of gas? Within conceivable albeit a bit further out reach? Yep - but then actually converted into an actual production field? Nope. And that has been the change - easier to buy another LNG tanker load for a spot price than invest for a decade and then try and get some return.
    I think what you're missing from what Richard is saying is the economics is shifted based upon the politics.

    The fact the Saudis etc bend over backwards to facilitate extraction which they can then export to us, while we tie up in red and green tape any investments with little security or stability due to eco-political whims that suggest imported Saudi oil is 'greener' than producing it domestically is the problem.

    Exporting our emissions to the rest of the world does nothing for the planet and nothing for our economics, but it sends an economic signal to firms to invest elsewhere.
    This is the joy of the free market though. We could bias the local market to give preference to using local resources and being self-sufficient. But we do not. We say "free market", do nothing, and then get amazed when someone else's subsidised and meddled with offer is cheaper than our domestic local one.

    I have a Tesla waiting for delivery next month to give us two EVs. But even I know we need oil and gas. So the hand-wringing around Cambo is silly. But even with our net zero aspirations we're still not in control of the market because we don't own it and don't control it. Much easier for the Norwegians - who are far more environmentally biased than we are.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    The two senators who "who are not members of the [Democratic] party but who caucus with them" are Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont. (In the past, King has said he might switch to the Republicans to keep a balance in the Senate, but I haven't heard him repeat that in recent years.)

    Bernie Sanders describes himself as a "Democratic Socialist". I have thought for years that the second part was more important to him than the first. But now that he is a millionaire with three houses, I'm not so sure.

    Is it even possible to be a US Senator and not a millionaire? Or is that just a stereotype?

    Even if they caucaus with the big two I do find it encouraging there are at least nominal independents elected sometimes though.
  • ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/1goodtern/status/1559519407742885890?s=21&t=uPXQpSpBFEv1ODJGoJO6Nw

    I'm a trustee of a charity whose electricity bill will rise from
    £8k in 2019
    to
    £50k in 2023.

    We're screwed.
    This country, I mean.

    You know what this means for businesses, charities, homeowners, industry, hospitals, schools?

    Everything will *collapse*.

    Whose idiotic idea was the 'dash for gas?'
    If we were self-sufficient or a net exporter of gas as we were until 2003 we'd be in a fantastic position right now.

    Whose idiotic idea was it to stop dashing for gas before we had alternatives in place?
    1. We burnt the easy to extract North Sea Reserves
    2. We didn't really profit as a nation as the Norwegians did because a big capitalist Investment Fund is obvious communism vs giving the rights away for a quick profit now
    3. We had alternatives in place. Pipe it from the middle east (sodding Taliban turncoats screwed that up), or from Russia (sodding Putin), or from dunno
    1 - Immaterial. There is still plenty of gas out there except we have put in place rules that make it largely uneconomic to extract it. All in the name of Net Zero. Now you may reasonably say that is a good thing but what you cannot deny is that it has seriously affected our own gas supply and made us dependent on other countries for energy.

    2 - We profited hugely. The money allowed the transformation of e British economy away from the failing heavy industry models which were never going to be economic in the face of globalisation and the challenge from the Far East. The Norwegian model was based upon being a hugely energy rich country with a small population which had little or no need of the hydrocarbon reserves their were exploiting and so were able to export almost the whole lot.

    3 - Irrelevant. We took very little gas from either the Middle East or Russia. We had no need to as we had our own. We still would have if we were willing to exploit it.

    Some big words in there which utterly miss the point. You say us taking supply from elsewhere is "irrelevant - we took [past tense] very little from elsewhere. Sure, when our gas was plentiful. But now it isn't? An endless procession of LNG tankers docking and unloading.

    We didn't need to generate so much power from gas. We did, its largely gone, now we are on the tit of imports.
    Gas still is plentiful. That is the point. We are just choosing as a nation not to exploit it. This is a matter of policy not necessity.

    It is difficult these days to get accurate figures for oil and gas reserves if you are not 'on the inside' because in 2000 the Blair Government decided it was no longer necessary for the country to know how much oil and gas they had. So they scrapped the annual 'Brown book' and moved resources away from recording and analysing Oil and Gas development and reserves. But the OGA and its successor the NSTA have started to look again at reserves and produce estimates of how much oil and gas is still in place. In 2018 they calculated there was still 20 billion BOE equivalent left in the UK waters - as compared to a total extraction to that date of 44 billion BOE. And that number has been revised up every year since then. The problem is that at the same time the Government, in pursuit of Net Zero has chosen to make it more and more difficult for companies to actually appraise and develop those resources. In 2018, 53 exploration and appraisal wells were drilled in Norway but only 17 on the UKCS. Since then it has only got worse.

    Now as I said, you can decide that this is a policy worth pursuing because of Net Zero goals but what you can't then do is claim that we are beholden to overseas energy supplies because of a shortage of oil and gas reserves in the UK. We are not. We have just made a conscious decision not to exploit them.

    Sure. But having seen and read enough on the commercial and city aspects of oil and gas - admittedly from the fringes of watching my dad coin it on shares in exploration companies - it hasn't been policy decisions. It has been economic decisions. A shit ton of gas? Within conceivable albeit a bit further out reach? Yep - but then actually converted into an actual production field? Nope. And that has been the change - easier to buy another LNG tanker load for a spot price than invest for a decade and then try and get some return.
    I think what you're missing from what Richard is saying is the economics is shifted based upon the politics.

    The fact the Saudis etc bend over backwards to facilitate extraction which they can then export to us, while we tie up in red and green tape any investments with little security or stability due to eco-political whims that suggest imported Saudi oil is 'greener' than producing it domestically is the problem.

    Exporting our emissions to the rest of the world does nothing for the planet and nothing for our economics, but it sends an economic signal to firms to invest elsewhere.
    This is the joy of the free market though. We could bias the local market to give preference to using local resources and being self-sufficient. But we do not. We say "free market", do nothing, and then get amazed when someone else's subsidised and meddled with offer is cheaper than our domestic local one.

    I have a Tesla waiting for delivery next month to give us two EVs. But even I know we need oil and gas. So the hand-wringing around Cambo is silly. But even with our net zero aspirations we're still not in control of the market because we don't own it and don't control it. Much easier for the Norwegians - who are far more environmentally biased than we are.
    The problem is not the free market, the problem is having planning restrictions and taxation on domestic fuel but not on imported fuel.

    That is a distortion, not a free market, that provides an economic incentive to import fossil fuels. Which isn't good for us, and it isn't good for the planet. That is politics not economics.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 20,052
    ydoethur said:

    Oddly, the nearest thing we've had to an expert on agriculture at DEFRA in that hundred or so years probably is George Eustice. He was at least a farmer. However, as a fruit farmer he was in rather a niche part of the industry!

    He's the best one there's been for quite a while - will be interesting to see if Truss keeps him on or replaces him with some random character who endorsed her at the right moment.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,357
    I think this is largely right and would match the pattern of the 2010 and 2018 midterms when the President's party lost the House but held the Senate
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ramsden solar farm plan pulled for changes

    Council planning officers said the plan, which was opposed by 167 people, could be "uncharacteristic and distracting". Another 12 people registered their support.

    The authority's conservation officer objected to the scheme and said Akeman Street's historical significance would be damaged by the project.

    Akeman Street is an "important" Roman road on a east-west route, linking Watling Street to Fosse Way and is "a fascinating survival of part of an impressive network", they said.

    Others opposed to the scheme have said it could damage the village's character, close to the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-62493219

    for anyone who was wondering why liz is on about sheepies vs panels

    I wonder if this kind of thing happened in WW2 as well.
    Well quite. In particular, Akeman Street is not that seriously affected if they aren't shutting it off (they aren't). And you are in a AONB or not, if you are close to it you weren't thought to have enough NB to be in it.
    The panels would need quite a bit of digging for foundations and cables. The hjold might make sense if it were Alchester Roman city but there is no mention of it being an archaeologically valuable landscape comparable to say that around Stonehenge or in Silchester. Maybe there is something we are missing.
    Archaeologically, going ahead is arguably the winning strategy, because the foundation digging might throw up something really interesting and you then get a hold, and a serious incentive for solarpanelco to sponsor the archaeology to get it done asap.
    I assume an awful lot of decent archaeology only happens because building or other activity is going to happen. Otherwise why bother digging in x field?
    Sadly what happens in advance of building etc is anything but decent archaeology. The by word for development as far as archaeology is concerned is 'mitigation'. This means the developer brings in a company who will do the absolute legal minimum required to meet planning requirements and for the cheapest price. They will then do their best to circumvent the process and try and get away with doing no investigation at all if possible. Any archaeological consultancy that insists on doing a proper job will soon find itself with an empty order book.

    And if they do get any investigation finished then the developer has the right to refuse to publish results which sit as grey literature for decades.

    Some companies are very good. That has to be acknowledged. But many - easily the majority - are not. Rescue archaeology is just that, rescuing was scraps you can in advance of the bulldozers.
  • ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/1goodtern/status/1559519407742885890?s=21&t=uPXQpSpBFEv1ODJGoJO6Nw

    I'm a trustee of a charity whose electricity bill will rise from
    £8k in 2019
    to
    £50k in 2023.

    We're screwed.
    This country, I mean.

    You know what this means for businesses, charities, homeowners, industry, hospitals, schools?

    Everything will *collapse*.

    Whose idiotic idea was the 'dash for gas?'
    If we were self-sufficient or a net exporter of gas as we were until 2003 we'd be in a fantastic position right now.

    Whose idiotic idea was it to stop dashing for gas before we had alternatives in place?
    1. We burnt the easy to extract North Sea Reserves
    2. We didn't really profit as a nation as the Norwegians did because a big capitalist Investment Fund is obvious communism vs giving the rights away for a quick profit now
    3. We had alternatives in place. Pipe it from the middle east (sodding Taliban turncoats screwed that up), or from Russia (sodding Putin), or from dunno
    1 - Immaterial. There is still plenty of gas out there except we have put in place rules that make it largely uneconomic to extract it. All in the name of Net Zero. Now you may reasonably say that is a good thing but what you cannot deny is that it has seriously affected our own gas supply and made us dependent on other countries for energy.

    2 - We profited hugely. The money allowed the transformation of e British economy away from the failing heavy industry models which were never going to be economic in the face of globalisation and the challenge from the Far East. The Norwegian model was based upon being a hugely energy rich country with a small population which had little or no need of the hydrocarbon reserves their were exploiting and so were able to export almost the whole lot.

    3 - Irrelevant. We took very little gas from either the Middle East or Russia. We had no need to as we had our own. We still would have if we were willing to exploit it.

    Some big words in there which utterly miss the point. You say us taking supply from elsewhere is "irrelevant - we took [past tense] very little from elsewhere. Sure, when our gas was plentiful. But now it isn't? An endless procession of LNG tankers docking and unloading.

    We didn't need to generate so much power from gas. We did, its largely gone, now we are on the tit of imports.
    Gas still is plentiful. That is the point. We are just choosing as a nation not to exploit it. This is a matter of policy not necessity.

    It is difficult these days to get accurate figures for oil and gas reserves if you are not 'on the inside' because in 2000 the Blair Government decided it was no longer necessary for the country to know how much oil and gas they had. So they scrapped the annual 'Brown book' and moved resources away from recording and analysing Oil and Gas development and reserves. But the OGA and its successor the NSTA have started to look again at reserves and produce estimates of how much oil and gas is still in place. In 2018 they calculated there was still 20 billion BOE equivalent left in the UK waters - as compared to a total extraction to that date of 44 billion BOE. And that number has been revised up every year since then. The problem is that at the same time the Government, in pursuit of Net Zero has chosen to make it more and more difficult for companies to actually appraise and develop those resources. In 2018, 53 exploration and appraisal wells were drilled in Norway but only 17 on the UKCS. Since then it has only got worse.

    Now as I said, you can decide that this is a policy worth pursuing because of Net Zero goals but what you can't then do is claim that we are beholden to overseas energy supplies because of a shortage of oil and gas reserves in the UK. We are not. We have just made a conscious decision not to exploit them.

    Sure. But having seen and read enough on the commercial and city aspects of oil and gas - admittedly from the fringes of watching my dad coin it on shares in exploration companies - it hasn't been policy decisions. It has been economic decisions. A shit ton of gas? Within conceivable albeit a bit further out reach? Yep - but then actually converted into an actual production field? Nope. And that has been the change - easier to buy another LNG tanker load for a spot price than invest for a decade and then try and get some return.
    I think what you're missing from what Richard is saying is the economics is shifted based upon the politics.

    The fact the Saudis etc bend over backwards to facilitate extraction which they can then export to us, while we tie up in red and green tape any investments with little security or stability due to eco-political whims that suggest imported Saudi oil is 'greener' than producing it domestically is the problem.

    Exporting our emissions to the rest of the world does nothing for the planet and nothing for our economics, but it sends an economic signal to firms to invest elsewhere.
    This is the joy of the free market though. We could bias the local market to give preference to using local resources and being self-sufficient. But we do not. We say "free market", do nothing, and then get amazed when someone else's subsidised and meddled with offer is cheaper than our domestic local one.

    I have a Tesla waiting for delivery next month to give us two EVs. But even I know we need oil and gas. So the hand-wringing around Cambo is silly. But even with our net zero aspirations we're still not in control of the market because we don't own it and don't control it. Much easier for the Norwegians - who are far more environmentally biased than we are.
    The problem is not the free market, the problem is having planning restrictions and taxation on domestic fuel but not on imported fuel.

    That is a distortion, not a free market, that provides an economic incentive to import fossil fuels. Which isn't good for us, and it isn't good for the planet. That is politics not economics.
    Sure - and that has been our particular stupidity with fossil fuels for decades. Coal being a prime example. Lets make domestic coal unaffordable because digging plentiful and previously profitable coal from local pits to burn a few miles away is clearly less optimal than imports from Brasil.

    We are very good at saying "free market conditions" whilst ignoring that the imports are cheaper thanks to manipulation. The cheapest option now isn't always the best long term option.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,506
    In better news, I read somewhere that the Iran nuclear deal might be back on. A very good time for Iranian oil to come back on to the world market.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,357
    Leon said:

    Alistair said:

    Leon said:

    Alistair said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    The Woke Dems need to be destroyed. Trump for '24

    Silly boy.
    Remember Leon droning on about Remainers trying to overturn the EU ref result but in vomit inducing hypocrisy is backing Trump who sent a mob to storm Congress and who wanted to overturn the US election .
    I'm not backing Trump. My comment was a Situationist provocation to get the new thread off to a cracking start

    I'd not be - shall we say - *overly unhappy* if Trump dropped dead tomorrow. I'd mourn the passing of a human soul for a nanosecond then crack open several bottles of English fizz

    My ideal is for a non-religious-freak Republican to get the nomination, and thrash the Woke Dems
    Okay but you did say Trump 24 . Anyway good luck trying to find a non-religious -freak Republican.
    Yes, that is an issue

    De Santis is probably the best bet for Reps. Not obviously insane, and not entirely crazed about abortion

    https://eu.tallahassee.com/story/news/local/state/2022/07/02/florida-governor-desantis-post-roe-abortion-debate-roe-v-wade/7770054001/
    He's an absolute lunatic. Punished businesses for exercising free speech, banning books in schools, twisting the law to ignore the results of a referendum to disenfranchise voters.

    Absolute roaster.
    I like him. Takes on The Woke

    If the GOP choose him he could slaughter the Dems in 2024, esp if they are mad enough to go for Biden or Harris
    I thought you were against people who try and undermine the results of referendums?
    Has he done that? Oh well. That's really not good


    But again, we must play the hand we are dealt. What are the realistic prospects for both parties? I don't care about the Dems, they are evil and Woke so fuck em. Hope they pick Biden or Harris for the lolz

    I DO care about the GOP, they need to win to save America and make it great again, but Trump is a fucking maniac who needs to go away, and of the rest De Santis seems the likeliest to win in 24, and win well
    DeSantis has to get past Crist in November first
  • In better news, I read somewhere that the Iran nuclear deal might be back on. A very good time for Iranian oil to come back on to the world market.

    As if Iran is the world's Big Bad any more anyway. Why are they being sanctioned still?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,825
    Sean_F said:

    The age of the enlightenment was also a time of some terrible abuses in British working practices. Four and five-year-old children were working in the mills and in the mines; working in conditions which threatened their lives.

    It was. The point is, things gradually got better, both then and subsequently.

    Without the Enlightenment, we'd be living in a world where about 5% of the population could vote, few would see anything problematic with child labour, and where our idea of fun would be popping down to Bedlam to torment the lunatics, visiting the local child brothel, or watching someone getting hanged, drawn and quartered.
    Yes, being Woke is just the Enlightenment continuing.
This discussion has been closed.