Unless the pay figure the militant rail union leaders accept is soon selling their membership up the swanee
“7% Mick? Is that all? We’ll round it up to 10% to show what a caring employer we are.” 😈
I don’t understand why the unions aren’t going all out for “no real-terms pay cut, nothing more, nothing less” right across the board.
The govt are basically using inflation to impose real terms pay cuts. That simply shouldn’t be acceptable - and the unions, from what I can see - are letting them get away with it.
I think both the government and the unions have misjudged the general public’s sense of what is fair and what isn’t.
I don’t have a dog in the fight, personally. Never been a member of any union.
That will probably be the position come winter, when the bills start to hit home. I expect a general strike isn't out of the question.
The Don't Pay UK and the Enough is Enough campaigns seem to be getting a lot of traction among my friends.
I think the government have badly misjudged the sense of anger building and if we get out of this winter with just a general strike / three day week etc and not actual riots on the streets, we'll have gotten off lightly.
People are angry and looking for someone to blame, whether that's the government, the utilities companies, the "fat cat bosses" etc - anyone perceived to be profiting out of the current misery needs to expect pitchforks.
from your surreal fantasy depiction of the coming months, back to reality, and I can’t wait for Truss to slash VAT so I can go down the high street merching on lower prices for luxury goods.
There’s no point telling me 8K tv is not a priority right now, strongly desiring it has already begun 😇
But will you be able to afford to plug it in ?
Lots of people can. Lots of people arn’t remotely worried is my point. My Dad owns this Chelsea flat. My Dear GF has a good paying job now she can boss men about and make their lives hell 😄 because we have no mortgage or rent we feel we will have no problem with the sort of bills being banded about, even if we do have to pay them without getting hand outs (Starmer just freezes it for us) it’s just less going into saving accounts for a period of time.
So the next part of the equation is Liz and Kwarzy (what a 💖 couple they make) with Apartheid Of The Pocket policy’s presenting opportunities for those of us with spending power. Slash those consumption taxes - I want to behave irresponsibly 😈
What are we missing? Do tell.
I hope Liz don’t change her mind again.
And that's why this problem is going to be such a bugger to fix by targetted help.
The difference between the mortgages and the rents some people are paying for basically identical houses in my neck of the woods is over a thousand pounds a month. That's twelve thousand pounds a year. Make the comparison with those who are fully paid off and it becomes even more absurd.
What should probably happen is some sort of taxing of windfall gains on house prices over the last couple of decades. Partly because that is the only place where there is spare money and partly because... it shouldn't really have happened, should it? But the chances of any Conservative government doing that are next to zero.
The problem with taxing windfall gains, is the same problem with stamp duty - that it gives the government a large incentive to keep property prices high, and do nothing about the shortage of supply.
They're massively incentivised anyway- as long as enough people are homeowners, there are a lot of votes in keeping house prices rising, and falling house prices is electoral hemlock.
But (and I speak as someone on the lucky side of this)... it's not right, and might have more to do with the gentle genteel decline of the UK than Europe, Immigrants or Greenery.
Unless the pay figure the militant rail union leaders accept is soon selling their membership up the swanee
“7% Mick? Is that all? We’ll round it up to 10% to show what a caring employer we are.” 😈
I don’t understand why the unions aren’t going all out for “no real-terms pay cut, nothing more, nothing less” right across the board.
The govt are basically using inflation to impose real terms pay cuts. That simply shouldn’t be acceptable - and the unions, from what I can see - are letting them get away with it.
I think both the government and the unions have misjudged the general public’s sense of what is fair and what isn’t.
I don’t have a dog in the fight, personally. Never been a member of any union.
That will probably be the position come winter, when the bills start to hit home. I expect a general strike isn't out of the question.
The Don't Pay UK and the Enough is Enough campaigns seem to be getting a lot of traction among my friends.
I think the government have badly misjudged the sense of anger building and if we get out of this winter with just a general strike / three day week etc and not actual riots on the streets, we'll have gotten off lightly.
People are angry and looking for someone to blame, whether that's the government, the utilities companies, the "fat cat bosses" etc - anyone perceived to be profiting out of the current misery needs to expect pitchforks.
from your surreal fantasy depiction of the coming months, back to reality, and I can’t wait for Truss to slash VAT so I can go down the high street merching on lower prices for luxury goods.
There’s no point telling me 8K tv is not a priority right now, strongly desiring it has already begun 😇
But will you be able to afford to plug it in ?
Lots of people can. Lots of people arn’t remotely worried is my point. My Dad owns this Chelsea flat. My Dear GF has a good paying job now she can boss men about and make their lives hell 😄 because we have no mortgage or rent we feel we will have no problem with the sort of bills being banded about, even if we do have to pay them without getting hand outs (Starmer just freezes it for us) it’s just less going into saving accounts for a period of time.
So the next part of the equation is Liz and Kwarzy (what a 💖 couple they make) with Apartheid Of The Pocket policy’s presenting opportunities for those of us with spending power. Slash those consumption taxes - I want to behave irresponsibly 😈
What are we missing? Do tell.
I hope Liz don’t change her mind again.
And that's why this problem is going to be such a bugger to fix by targetted help.
The difference between the mortgages and the rents some people are paying for basically identical houses in my neck of the woods is over a thousand pounds a month. That's twelve thousand pounds a year. Make the comparison with those who are fully paid off and it becomes even more absurd.
What should probably happen is some sort of taxing of windfall gains on house prices over the last couple of decades. Partly because that is the only place where there is spare money and partly because... it shouldn't really have happened, should it? But the chances of any Conservative government doing that are next to zero.
The problem with taxing windfall gains, is the same problem with stamp duty - that it gives the government a large incentive to keep property prices high, and do nothing about the shortage of supply.
...and also while it looks good on paper, having your house price grow doesn't do most people much good.
House price increases are terrible if you don't own a house, bad if you own exactly one house and might at some stage want a bigger one, good if you are looking to downsize, and brilliant if you own many houses. I would argue that groups one and two are considerably bigger than groups three and four.
I'm in group two. My house has doubled in value in the past decade. Hooray, I guess. But I don't have that money. If you windfall taxed me, I couldn't give it to you unless I sold my house and moved to a smaller house.
Many of the group who own a house also have dependents who they might one day like to move out and own their own houses. Not looking too promising there...
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
Unless the pay figure the militant rail union leaders accept is soon selling their membership up the swanee
“7% Mick? Is that all? We’ll round it up to 10% to show what a caring employer we are.” 😈
I don’t understand why the unions aren’t going all out for “no real-terms pay cut, nothing more, nothing less” right across the board.
The govt are basically using inflation to impose real terms pay cuts. That simply shouldn’t be acceptable - and the unions, from what I can see - are letting them get away with it.
I think both the government and the unions have misjudged the general public’s sense of what is fair and what isn’t.
I don’t have a dog in the fight, personally. Never been a member of any union.
That will probably be the position come winter, when the bills start to hit home. I expect a general strike isn't out of the question.
The Don't Pay UK and the Enough is Enough campaigns seem to be getting a lot of traction among my friends.
I think the government have badly misjudged the sense of anger building and if we get out of this winter with just a general strike / three day week etc and not actual riots on the streets, we'll have gotten off lightly.
People are angry and looking for someone to blame, whether that's the government, the utilities companies, the "fat cat bosses" etc - anyone perceived to be profiting out of the current misery needs to expect pitchforks.
from your surreal fantasy depiction of the coming months, back to reality, and I can’t wait for Truss to slash VAT so I can go down the high street merching on lower prices for luxury goods.
There’s no point telling me 8K tv is not a priority right now, strongly desiring it has already begun 😇
But will you be able to afford to plug it in ?
Lots of people can. Lots of people arn’t remotely worried is my point. My Dad owns this Chelsea flat. My Dear GF has a good paying job now she can boss men about and make their lives hell 😄 because we have no mortgage or rent we feel we will have no problem with the sort of bills being banded about, even if we do have to pay them without getting hand outs (Starmer just freezes it for us) it’s just less going into saving accounts for a period of time.
So the next part of the equation is Liz and Kwarzy (what a 💖 couple they make) with Apartheid Of The Pocket policy’s presenting opportunities for those of us with spending power. Slash those consumption taxes - I want to behave irresponsibly 😈
What are we missing? Do tell.
I hope Liz don’t change her mind again.
And that's why this problem is going to be such a bugger to fix by targetted help.
The difference between the mortgages and the rents some people are paying for basically identical houses in my neck of the woods is over a thousand pounds a month. That's twelve thousand pounds a year. Make the comparison with those who are fully paid off and it becomes even more absurd.
What should probably happen is some sort of taxing of windfall gains on house prices over the last couple of decades. Partly because that is the only place where there is spare money and partly because... it shouldn't really have happened, should it? But the chances of any Conservative government doing that are next to zero.
You are spot on with what I was trying to get at - it’s not just about incomes but outgoings play a HUGE part in what’s disposable income and isn’t, in other words lifestyle. Think of me as Primeminister starting a new minister for The Nations Lifestyle. The role of that minister is to say, this policy allows all this group to buy a lot of luxury goods, these living in greater hardship won’t be able to afford, and that’s not very good at all for our society - in fact the queen would actually rule over two nations, the rich and the poor.
I don’t know if it’s passed you by, but seems to me current chancellor and PM don’t agree with incoming chancellor and PM how far into middle incomes people should get help and handouts and what kind of measures to take. There is a huge policy split at the top of the Tory’s.
What is their answer? One consideration is just doing the right thing… for the votes! Another is already being the party of high taxation, so if tax rise is the right thing the right thing can’t be done.
Just like Mick and his militant crew meeting in the back room of the Hammer and Sickle tonight, we started by asking for 7% that seems long time ago now - what should we be asking for? What is their answer? They are similarly just reactive to the situation with their short term looking out for themselves, not the interests of their nation.
First inflation bout for 50 years, seems to me like a country all over the place by its first snowfall for 50 years - if we had this often we would be more agile, probably already have answers in place due to some sort of ongoing discipline and understanding we don’t have today.
Just found out our business gas and leccy are fixed till December 2023. Happy days (For now !)..
Might be worth asking the supplier for a termination quote. Could be more profitable selling the contract back to them at current rates, without the faff of running the actual business.
Panels are a possibility in 2023 if 2024 still looks dire, but we need a roof repair to go with it...
Boris's lap of honour will only remind the tories why they ditched him.
I think he’ll remain popular with the members, but tory MPs will do the necessary to keep Truss from being challenged, pre-election. The More Boris openly challenges, the more tory MP’s will rally around Truss, no matter how unpopular. [snip!]
Unless polls show that Boris is a winner, in which case they will ditch Truss in a heartbeat and have a coronation to put Boris back in.
Remember, to an MP, the ultimate horror is losing their seat.
Unless the pay figure the militant rail union leaders accept is soon selling their membership up the swanee
“7% Mick? Is that all? We’ll round it up to 10% to show what a caring employer we are.” 😈
I don’t understand why the unions aren’t going all out for “no real-terms pay cut, nothing more, nothing less” right across the board.
The govt are basically using inflation to impose real terms pay cuts. That simply shouldn’t be acceptable - and the unions, from what I can see - are letting them get away with it.
I think both the government and the unions have misjudged the general public’s sense of what is fair and what isn’t.
I don’t have a dog in the fight, personally. Never been a member of any union.
That will probably be the position come winter, when the bills start to hit home. I expect a general strike isn't out of the question.
The Don't Pay UK and the Enough is Enough campaigns seem to be getting a lot of traction among my friends.
I think the government have badly misjudged the sense of anger building and if we get out of this winter with just a general strike / three day week etc and not actual riots on the streets, we'll have gotten off lightly.
People are angry and looking for someone to blame, whether that's the government, the utilities companies, the "fat cat bosses" etc - anyone perceived to be profiting out of the current misery needs to expect pitchforks.
from your surreal fantasy depiction of the coming months, back to reality, and I can’t wait for Truss to slash VAT so I can go down the high street merching on lower prices for luxury goods.
There’s no point telling me 8K tv is not a priority right now, strongly desiring it has already begun 😇
But will you be able to afford to plug it in ?
Lots of people can. Lots of people arn’t remotely worried is my point. My Dad owns this Chelsea flat. My Dear GF has a good paying job now she can boss men about and make their lives hell 😄 because we have no mortgage or rent we feel we will have no problem with the sort of bills being banded about, even if we do have to pay them without getting hand outs (Starmer just freezes it for us) it’s just less going into saving accounts for a period of time.
So the next part of the equation is Liz and Kwarzy (what a 💖 couple they make) with Apartheid Of The Pocket policy’s presenting opportunities for those of us with spending power. Slash those consumption taxes - I want to behave irresponsibly 😈
What are we missing? Do tell.
I hope Liz don’t change her mind again.
And that's why this problem is going to be such a bugger to fix by targetted help.
The difference between the mortgages and the rents some people are paying for basically identical houses in my neck of the woods is over a thousand pounds a month. That's twelve thousand pounds a year. Make the comparison with those who are fully paid off and it becomes even more absurd.
What should probably happen is some sort of taxing of windfall gains on house prices over the last couple of decades. Partly because that is the only place where there is spare money and partly because... it shouldn't really have happened, should it? But the chances of any Conservative government doing that are next to zero.
The problem with taxing windfall gains, is the same problem with stamp duty - that it gives the government a large incentive to keep property prices high, and do nothing about the shortage of supply.
...and also while it looks good on paper, having your house price grow doesn't do most people much good.
House price increases are terrible if you don't own a house, bad if you own exactly one house and might at some stage want a bigger one, good if you are looking to downsize, and brilliant if you own many houses. I would argue that groups one and two are considerably bigger than groups three and four.
I'm in group two. My house has doubled in value in the past decade. Hooray, I guess. But I don't have that money. If you windfall taxed me, I couldn't give it to you unless I sold my house and moved to a smaller house.
Many of the group who own a house also have dependents who they might one day like to move out and own their own houses. Not looking too promising there...
Indeed.
Ideally, a good dose of general inflation, while keeping house prices constant or slowly falling in money terms (to avoid negative equity), is the easiest way forward here.
I’m in a wierd group, I have one house in UK and rent where I’m living, an accidental landlord. I’m about to sell in UK and buy where I live, as the rent here is a lot higher than my profit on the UK house as interest rates keep rising.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
I’m still having enormous fun with Stable Diffusion. It gets better the more you play with it. You learn how to manipulate and provoke it. Indeed this now has a name. “Promptcraft” and “promptsmithing”
These terms will be big over the next few years
Just one well chosen word can send it into a dreamy haunted state
I’ll spare you the creepy images. For now
You should get yourself down to the railings on the Bayswater Road - there is some extraordinary groundbreaking avant garde art there. It will change your life forever.
Those guys are fucked for a start. Why buy shitty amateur art when you can make your own amazing images, in a few seconds? Print them out and frame them and bingo. Your own fabulous art
Unless the pay figure the militant rail union leaders accept is soon selling their membership up the swanee
“7% Mick? Is that all? We’ll round it up to 10% to show what a caring employer we are.” 😈
I don’t understand why the unions aren’t going all out for “no real-terms pay cut, nothing more, nothing less” right across the board.
The govt are basically using inflation to impose real terms pay cuts. That simply shouldn’t be acceptable - and the unions, from what I can see - are letting them get away with it.
I think both the government and the unions have misjudged the general public’s sense of what is fair and what isn’t.
I don’t have a dog in the fight, personally. Never been a member of any union.
That will probably be the position come winter, when the bills start to hit home. I expect a general strike isn't out of the question.
The Don't Pay UK and the Enough is Enough campaigns seem to be getting a lot of traction among my friends.
I think the government have badly misjudged the sense of anger building and if we get out of this winter with just a general strike / three day week etc and not actual riots on the streets, we'll have gotten off lightly.
People are angry and looking for someone to blame, whether that's the government, the utilities companies, the "fat cat bosses" etc - anyone perceived to be profiting out of the current misery needs to expect pitchforks.
from your surreal fantasy depiction of the coming months, back to reality, and I can’t wait for Truss to slash VAT so I can go down the high street merching on lower prices for luxury goods.
There’s no point telling me 8K tv is not a priority right now, strongly desiring it has already begun 😇
But will you be able to afford to plug it in ?
Lots of people can. Lots of people arn’t remotely worried is my point. My Dad owns this Chelsea flat. My Dear GF has a good paying job now she can boss men about and make their lives hell 😄 because we have no mortgage or rent we feel we will have no problem with the sort of bills being banded about, even if we do have to pay them without getting hand outs (Starmer just freezes it for us) it’s just less going into saving accounts for a period of time.
So the next part of the equation is Liz and Kwarzy (what a 💖 couple they make) with Apartheid Of The Pocket policy’s presenting opportunities for those of us with spending power. Slash those consumption taxes - I want to behave irresponsibly 😈
What are we missing? Do tell.
I hope Liz don’t change her mind again.
And that's why this problem is going to be such a bugger to fix by targetted help.
The difference between the mortgages and the rents some people are paying for basically identical houses in my neck of the woods is over a thousand pounds a month. That's twelve thousand pounds a year. Make the comparison with those who are fully paid off and it becomes even more absurd.
What should probably happen is some sort of taxing of windfall gains on house prices over the last couple of decades. Partly because that is the only place where there is spare money and partly because... it shouldn't really have happened, should it? But the chances of any Conservative government doing that are next to zero.
The problem with taxing windfall gains, is the same problem with stamp duty - that it gives the government a large incentive to keep property prices high, and do nothing about the shortage of supply.
...and also while it looks good on paper, having your house price grow doesn't do most people much good.
House price increases are terrible if you don't own a house, bad if you own exactly one house and might at some stage want a bigger one, good if you are looking to downsize, and brilliant if you own many houses. I would argue that groups one and two are considerably bigger than groups three and four.
I'm in group two. My house has doubled in value in the past decade. Hooray, I guess. But I don't have that money. If you windfall taxed me, I couldn't give it to you unless I sold my house and moved to a smaller house.
Many of the group who own a house also have dependents who they might one day like to move out and own their own houses. Not looking too promising there...
Yes and no.
What we (you and I) probably do have is neighbours who are paying twice as much for houses identical to ours, and that's where we're relatively benefiting.
The best answer is to not let house prices get out of hand in the first place. But that ship sailed a long long time ago.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Boris's lap of honour will only remind the tories why they ditched him.
I think he’ll remain popular with the members, but tory MPs will do the necessary to keep Truss from being challenged, pre-election. The More Boris openly challenges, the more tory MP’s will rally around Truss, no matter how unpopular. If she loses, Boris stands a decent chance of reclaiming the crown if he’s still an MP and still wants it. The prospect of 5 years of opposition may not appeal to him, though.
Anyway, I anticipated this speculation and took advantage of @shadsy ‘s offer of 16/1 on Boris as next con leader after Sunak/Truss. He allowed me £45. Now down to 11/1. Opened at 33/1, which someone sharp hoovered up before I got a chance. A rare error from Shadsy, I recon.
When the bookies/betfair markets open, I expect Boris to initially trade around ~4/1, unless he steps down as MP, obviously. I generally dislike these kind of bets which rely on second-guessing politicians motives. Still, 16/1 odds were too good to miss, imo.
Economically Real Boris seems quite a way to the left of what is being called Continuity Boris? There may be many ways Tory MPs soon start to miss Boris.
Amazing though that these stores of gas are being filled at absolute peak prices… ordinarily you’d hope to have filled them when the price is very low. In Germany, was driven by Government backed loans to utilities essentially buying at any price.
Have the Germans basically provided a fraudulent furlough loan bung to Putin ?
I’m still having enormous fun with Stable Diffusion. It gets better the more you play with it. You learn how to manipulate and provoke it. Indeed this now has a name. “Promptcraft” and “promptsmithing”
These terms will be big over the next few years
Just one well chosen word can send it into a dreamy haunted state
I’ll spare you the creepy images. For now
You should get yourself down to the railings on the Bayswater Road - there is some extraordinary groundbreaking avant garde art there. It will change your life forever.
Those guys are fucked for a start. Why buy shitty amateur art when you can make your own amazing images, in a few seconds? Print them out and frame them and bingo. Your own fabulous art
It could certainly be amusing for people to fill their houses with such art. But I just don't see it as the threat to every living artist (and eventually writer) that you think it is. I could use photoshop or one of several existing apps or programs, or a set of watercolours to create art right this minute and I don't. I doubt many people will have some such art hanging over their mantelpiece in the drawing room. It will likely be on their phone, perhaps a screensaver, and that's it.
But yes, if widely available people will of course investigate it to see what they can create.
Plus you either wilfully or incidentally misunderstood my masterfully amusing post last night and you will take some forgiving as a result.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You seem to be doing ok given it's not allowed.
Unlike you I am less worried about what people think of me.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat.
You see this is exactly the suspension of critical faculties that I find so interesting about otherwise rigorously logical PB posters such as yourself.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
People have only been banned on PB (or had posts deleted) for
1) A small list of swear words 2) Repeating stuff that could get the site in legal trouble 3) Posting from IP addresses on Troll/Malware site lists.
The reactor design that BIll Gates and the US Energy Department are backing in Wyoming is able to store energy. (It can heat up the liquid sodium several hundred degrees above its normal operating temperature, and then use that excess heat to generate electricity later.)
It might be an especially good fit for Wyoming, where there is, to say the least, an abundance of wind power, but a lack of storage for tiems when the wind dies down. (I'd have to see a lot of numbers before I was sure about the design and Wyoming, but the idea does seem plausible.)
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
People have only been banned on PB (or had posts deleted) for
1) A small list of swear words 2) Repeating stuff that could get the site in legal trouble 3) Posting from IP addresses on Troll/Malware site lists.
But if you really want to feel the ban hammer, just say the wrong thing about pizza toppings or Radiohead.
This really is the end of art as we know it. Turns out DALLE-2 was just a vague premonition
I see you've managed to buck the system by posting a troubling Dalle image as your avatar.
I couldn’t resist. Because it really looks like me. I was quite a rambunctious child
I met Ted Hughes In his later years and, flatteringly, he remembered me as a child because - as he put it - you ‘were a very noisy boy’
Actually, that avatar reminds me of the baby buried alive in the clay pot, in The Genesis Secret.
Wait.
You read a Tom Knox book?
They aren't for reading. Good god. I don't believe the author even made it all the way through.
You’re suggesting the remainder was written by a (very) rudimentary AI ?
Humanity itself is, of course, a rudimentary form of AI, or, indeed, I
It is amazing how many people who are firmly atheistic believe there is, nonetheless, something sacred about human intelligence than cannot be mimicked and bettered by a bunch of electronics. They are all molecules. They were all brought together by the "artifice" of evolution, and mutation, and random change. This time intelligence has evolved via another intelligence. So be it. Shit happens
Wrong! Neither a human being's mind nor a dog's mind can be replicated, let alone "bettered", by a bunch of electronics, by which I assume you mean a program, which basically means a large integer. (A long string of 0s and 1s is a large integer.) Neither you nor the collection of everything you've done and felt and dreamed in your life can be expressed as an integer. I know AI heads think otherwise, but they are fools who don't begin to understand.
You need to read Alan Turing's 1950 article "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" that started this whole idiocy off, paying special attention to what he listed as possible objection Number 9. He knew it blew his approach completely out of the water. That's why he said fine, let's assume we're running the experiment in a "telepathy-proof room".
It's an interesting question what had convinced Turing that "the statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, is overwhelming". It may have been the card-guessing experiments of J. B. Rhine at Duke University, which are still well known. But another possibility is the experiments of S. G. Soal in the UK. These had produced apparently overwhelming evidence, but it's now known that this was the result of fraud. Perhaps if he hadn't died prematurely Turing would have revised his opinion about telepathy in the course of time, or perhaps not.
I remember reading that Turing was familiar with Rhine's Zener card work at Duke. His use of the term ESP, which he says is broken into telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, and PK, sounds Rhinean, or at least for 1950 it does. Soal is known to have been a fraudster, as you say - interestingly one of the figures who backed him was his fellow fraudster Burt - and Rhine's experimental design has been criticised too although there's no good case for calling him dishonest. Turing knew you had to rule out telepathy, or in fact psi in general, to run with the Cartesian idea of people as machines. You have to be certain that psi, which is to say non-physical psychic functioning, does not exist, has never existed, and could not possibly exist. You cannot rightly make that conclusion on the basis of a belief that statistical analysis doesn't give you any reason to accept a psi hypothesis. The whole idea of man as a machine depends on ruling out a priori what human beings have believed and lived for countless thousands of years, in the name of "science", an approach that arrived on the scene only very recently and isn't even a proper religion, being based on a collection of ideas about how to do research, ideas which if they were kept inside their narrow home field wouldn't be objectionable to those of us who know psi is a reality. Believers in "strong AI" need either to believe in the "telepathy-proof" room or to say (as Turing did) "let's assume for the sake of argument that there is such a thing"..... But there isn't....and I cannot prove that statement scientifically.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
People have only been banned on PB (or had posts deleted) for
1) A small list of swear words 2) Repeating stuff that could get the site in legal trouble 3) Posting from IP addresses on Troll/Malware site lists.
But if you really want to feel the ban hammer, just say the wrong thing about pizza toppings or Radiohead.
Unless the pay figure the militant rail union leaders accept is soon selling their membership up the swanee
“7% Mick? Is that all? We’ll round it up to 10% to show what a caring employer we are.” 😈
I don’t understand why the unions aren’t going all out for “no real-terms pay cut, nothing more, nothing less” right across the board.
The govt are basically using inflation to impose real terms pay cuts. That simply shouldn’t be acceptable - and the unions, from what I can see - are letting them get away with it.
I think both the government and the unions have misjudged the general public’s sense of what is fair and what isn’t.
I don’t have a dog in the fight, personally. Never been a member of any union.
That will probably be the position come winter, when the bills start to hit home. I expect a general strike isn't out of the question.
The Don't Pay UK and the Enough is Enough campaigns seem to be getting a lot of traction among my friends.
I think the government have badly misjudged the sense of anger building and if we get out of this winter with just a general strike / three day week etc and not actual riots on the streets, we'll have gotten off lightly.
People are angry and looking for someone to blame, whether that's the government, the utilities companies, the "fat cat bosses" etc - anyone perceived to be profiting out of the current misery needs to expect pitchforks.
from your surreal fantasy depiction of the coming months, back to reality, and I can’t wait for Truss to slash VAT so I can go down the high street merching on lower prices for luxury goods.
There’s no point telling me 8K tv is not a priority right now, strongly desiring it has already begun 😇
But will you be able to afford to plug it in ?
Lots of people can. Lots of people arn’t remotely worried is my point. My Dad owns this Chelsea flat. My Dear GF has a good paying job now she can boss men about and make their lives hell 😄 because we have no mortgage or rent we feel we will have no problem with the sort of bills being banded about, even if we do have to pay them without getting hand outs (Starmer just freezes it for us) it’s just less going into saving accounts for a period of time.
So the next part of the equation is Liz and Kwarzy (what a 💖 couple they make) with Apartheid Of The Pocket policy’s presenting opportunities for those of us with spending power. Slash those consumption taxes - I want to behave irresponsibly 😈
What are we missing? Do tell....
You're the people that can afford to pay for the nosebleed taxes to pay for all this ?
The low tax party owning this highest taxation since end of Second World War is just NOT putting up taxes anytime soon, even if it is very sensible to do so! In fact they are floating the idea of VAT slash that suits “us people” as you call us very well. 😇
As Mike Smithson urged us to keep an open mind, not just think it’s continuity Boris, continuity Tories, I propose we could be changing from a One Nation Tory approach on economics to something very much drier.
Quiet a big and historic change to UK government, if so.
Amazing though that these stores of gas are being filled at absolute peak prices… ordinarily you’d hope to have filled them when the price is very low. In Germany, was driven by Government backed loans to utilities essentially buying at any price.
Have the Germans basically provided a fraudulent furlough loan bung to Putin ?
No, I think it's more the gaseous equivalent of getting their towels on the deckchairs first.
And if they have filled their reserves ahead of their original end September target, it ought slightly to ease pressure on the market.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat.
You see this is exactly the suspension of critical faculties that I find so interesting about otherwise rigorously logical PB posters such as yourself.
One can certainly say that Putin has reasons for his actions. He's not someone who twirls his moustache each morning, while working out how evil he can be.
But, they are poor reasons. This is not really a conflict in which there are shades of grey, or moral equivalence between the two sides.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat.
You see this is exactly the suspension of critical faculties that I find so interesting about otherwise rigorously logical PB posters such as yourself.
You seem to regard people disagreeing with you as an attempt to censor you. Debate on PB has always been robust, so if people disagree with you they will let you know it. That's not an attempt to stifle your free speech rights.
If you don't like people disagreeing with you then you've come to the wrong place.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
People have only been banned on PB (or had posts deleted) for
1) A small list of swear words 2) Repeating stuff that could get the site in legal trouble 3) Posting from IP addresses on Troll/Malware site lists.
4) Being rude to Mike and Robert.
They both put in a lot of time and money to ensure we can all post on this site instantly and free, don't abuse that privilege by insulting them, it is ok to disagree with them, just don't be rude about it.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
People have only been banned on PB (or had posts deleted) for
1) A small list of swear words 2) Repeating stuff that could get the site in legal trouble 3) Posting from IP addresses on Troll/Malware site lists.
But if you really want to feel the ban hammer, just say the wrong thing about pizza toppings or Radiohead.
The reactor design that BIll Gates and the US Energy Department are backing in Wyoming is able to store energy. (It can heat up the liquid sodium several hundred degrees above its normal operating temperature, and then use that excess heat to generate electricity later.)
It might be an especially good fit for Wyoming, where there is, to say the least, an abundance of wind power, but a lack of storage for tiems when the wind dies down. (I'd have to see a lot of numbers before I was sure about the design and Wyoming, but the idea does seem plausible.)
One solution that appears to be gaining traction in the UK for ironing out intermittency of renewable energy is compressed air battery storage. There are a couple of companies offering this now.
Its very reliable but the downside is its not that efficient, apparently.
Amazing though that these stores of gas are being filled at absolute peak prices… ordinarily you’d hope to have filled them when the price is very low. In Germany, was driven by Government backed loans to utilities essentially buying at any price.
Have the Germans basically provided a fraudulent furlough loan bung to Putin ?
No, I think it's more the gaseous equivalent of getting their towels on the deckchairs first.
And if they have filled their reserves ahead of their original end September target, it ought slightly to ease pressure on the market.
It certainly does look as though people are playing the market. I'm not quite ready to panic yet.
Tracking rare vertebrates by DNA sequencing fly poo.
iDNA from roadside flies detects rare mammals, birds, and reptiles. New and simple protocol: dissolve fly poop in water, metabarcode with MinION or Illumina. >400 flies belonging to 25 species ==> 294 identifications ==> 20 vertebrate species. https://twitter.com/asrivath/status/1564278635456086016
Illustrates how cheap and simple to use the technology has become.
Yup.
Can't be long before it is all handheld and sequencing can be done in the field.
A student was sequencing Nightjar droppings in the Flatlands to work out which moths they were eating, but unfortunately the whole UK moth population isn't in the database yet so they had to add a few themselves.
The project to sequence every UK species by 2030 will make a big difference.
Have done some pond sampling for eDNA to see if there are newts. Much quicker and more accurate than setting out bottle traps.
And less intrusive!
I’m sure the newts are relieved.
Indeed. Though the poor things have to be trapped out if they are found and the planners decide that development should go ahead anyway.
Someone must make a killing on newt fencing.
Seems a bit of a nonsense really. Either they are a protected species or they are not.
It's a ****ing nightmare. A friend wants to put up a menage in a field next door to a pond where there are newts. The admin hoops they have to jump through are extraordinary, including having to have a daily consultant from some environmental company or other to check the progress of the project vs the newts' wellbeing.
Yes, there's a specified distance from a known newt pond where the hoops start.
Great Crested Newts aren't even that rare round here and it would all be best dealt with by looking at overall habitat loss than individual animals.
I think it is a European hangover, as they are rare in a EU wide context. Similar applies to upland heather moorland, which is quite a poor habitat but is SSSI'd to death as there is almost none on the continent.
The 'biodiversity net gain' thing being brought into the planning process is an attempt to go down the habitat route but as it involves DEFRA it is a total mess that nobody really understands (and can be gamed in several undesirable ways).
Newts is the transposition of habitats regs - but biodiversity net gain was made up by our current government, post Brexit.
The tories believe they are this free market, deregulatory government. But in the end, politicians just can't help themselves. They always try and solve problems by regulation, and as life gets more complex, regulation also gets more and more complicated - with increasingly absurd and expensive outcomes. Biodiversity net gain, along with the building safety act, are particularly good examples of regulatory excess.
When they started out in office the Conservatives set up ways of trying to prevent this, ie through creating things like the better regulation executive, the 'one in, two out' approach to new laws etc... but inevitably they find that these mechanisms are just an unreasonable barrier to 'getting things done', and once they are out the way, the amount of crazy new regulation goes in to overdrive.
The only consolation is that it would probably be much worse if Labour were in power. But at then at least we would have some kind of functioning scrutiny of this phenomenon.
Yes, quite.
The worst thing about biodiversity net gain is that they keep moving the goalposts. The calculations change frequently so everyone is just running to keep up.
There's almost no thought as to the costs this behaviour imposes on everyone - it all seems to be done to keep those making them up in a job.
We asked the local planners whether we had to apply the same version of the calculations throughout the (30 year) life of a project, as being the ones in force at the time the cost calculation was made. They had no idea, and basically said 'make it up, you know more than we do'. I do hope DEFRA's Excel sheet works in 2052.
This really is the end of art as we know it. Turns out DALLE-2 was just a vague premonition
I see you've managed to buck the system by posting a troubling Dalle image as your avatar.
I couldn’t resist. Because it really looks like me. I was quite a rambunctious child
I met Ted Hughes In his later years and, flatteringly, he remembered me as a child because - as he put it - you ‘were a very noisy boy’
Actually, that avatar reminds me of the baby buried alive in the clay pot, in The Genesis Secret.
Wait.
You read a Tom Knox book?
They aren't for reading. Good god. I don't believe the author even made it all the way through.
You’re suggesting the remainder was written by a (very) rudimentary AI ?
Humanity itself is, of course, a rudimentary form of AI, or, indeed, I
It is amazing how many people who are firmly atheistic believe there is, nonetheless, something sacred about human intelligence than cannot be mimicked and bettered by a bunch of electronics. They are all molecules. They were all brought together by the "artifice" of evolution, and mutation, and random change. This time intelligence has evolved via another intelligence. So be it. Shit happens
Wrong! Neither a human being's mind nor a dog's mind can be replicated, let alone "bettered", by a bunch of electronics, by which I assume you mean a program, which basically means a large integer. (A long string of 0s and 1s is a large integer.) Neither you nor the collection of everything you've done and felt and dreamed in your life can be expressed as an integer. I know AI heads think otherwise, but they are fools who don't begin to understand.
You need to read Alan Turing's 1950 article "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" that started this whole idiocy off, paying special attention to what he listed as possible objection Number 9. He knew it blew his approach completely out of the water. That's why he said fine, let's assume we're running the experiment in a "telepathy-proof room".
It's an interesting question what had convinced Turing that "the statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, is overwhelming". It may have been the card-guessing experiments of J. B. Rhine at Duke University, which are still well known. But another possibility is the experiments of S. G. Soal in the UK. These had produced apparently overwhelming evidence, but it's now known that this was the result of fraud. Perhaps if he hadn't died prematurely Turing would have revised his opinion about telepathy in the course of time, or perhaps not.
I remember reading that Turing was familiar with Rhine's Zener card work at Duke. His use of the term ESP, which he says is broken into telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, and PK, sounds Rhinean, or at least for 1950 it does. Soal is known to have been a fraudster, as you say - interestingly one of the figures who backed him was his fellow fraudster Burt - and Rhine's experimental design has been criticised too although there's no good case for calling him dishonest. Turing knew you had to rule out telepathy, or in fact psi in general, to run with the Cartesian idea of people as machines. You have to be certain that psi, which is to say non-physical psychic functioning, does not exist, has never existed, and could not possibly exist. You cannot rightly make that conclusion on the basis of a belief that statistical analysis doesn't give you any reason to accept a psi hypothesis. The whole idea of man as a machine depends on ruling out a priori what human beings have believed and lived for countless thousands of years, in the name of "science", an approach that arrived on the scene only very recently and isn't even a proper religion, being based on a collection of ideas about how to do research, ideas which if they were kept inside their narrow home field wouldn't be objectionable to those of us who know psi is a reality. Believers in "strong AI" need either to believe in the "telepathy-proof" room or to say (as Turing did) "let's assume for the sake of argument that there is such a thing"..... But there isn't....and I cannot prove that statement scientifically.
If the "Hail AI - the replacement of humanity is inevitable" tendency doesn't get stopped, the future will make Hitler and Stalin seem like a pair of relatively small-fry criminals - and not the far distant future, but the fairly near future, of the order of years or decades.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
People have only been banned on PB (or had posts deleted) for
1) A small list of swear words 2) Repeating stuff that could get the site in legal trouble 3) Posting from IP addresses on Troll/Malware site lists.
4) Being rude to Mike and Robert.
They both put in a lot of time and money to ensure we can all post on this site instantly and free, don't abuse that privilege by insulting them, it is ok to disagree with them, just don't be rude about it.
True. Forgot Rule 0.
The point stands - you're free to discuss a wide range of opinions. The responses may be as robust as your opinions, though. Free(ish) speech is a two way street.
Amazing though that these stores of gas are being filled at absolute peak prices… ordinarily you’d hope to have filled them when the price is very low. In Germany, was driven by Government backed loans to utilities essentially buying at any price.
Have the Germans basically provided a fraudulent furlough loan bung to Putin ?
No, I think it's more the gaseous equivalent of getting their towels on the deckchairs first.
And if they have filled their reserves ahead of their original end September target, it ought slightly to ease pressure on the market.
It certainly does look as though people are playing the market. I'm not quite ready to panic yet.
A smart and brave market participant might indeed wait until the major economies have filled up their storage at bubble prices, watch the market crash then fill up with forwards at dirt cheap prices when it overshoots the other way.
Amazing though that these stores of gas are being filled at absolute peak prices… ordinarily you’d hope to have filled them when the price is very low. In Germany, was driven by Government backed loans to utilities essentially buying at any price.
Have the Germans basically provided a fraudulent furlough loan bung to Putin ?
Faisal Islam is an idiot. Does he not understand that gas prices are on the floor at the moment, compared to where they are predicted to be in the winter, when the stored gas will be used?
He’s supposed to be an intelligent fellow, with a degree in economics.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat.
You see this is exactly the suspension of critical faculties that I find so interesting about otherwise rigorously logical PB posters such as yourself.
One can certainly say that Putin has reasons for his actions. He's not someone who twirls his moustache each morning, while working out how evil he can be.
But, they are poor reasons. This is not really a conflict in which there are shades of grey, or moral equivalence between the two sides.
No one is commenting on the morality. I am commenting on the context and motivations, such latter that I am aware of. I am trying to place it into the context of 21st century conflicts.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat....
No, but it would still be wrong.
It is not particularly controversial, and is probably a sizeable majority view in western democracies, that the invasion was both of dubious legality (at best), and a huge mistake. As was the view of a very large number of people at the time.
And indeed the US has paid a very large price both in the cost of the war, and the loss of influence in the region as a result of it.
And further, to argue that it sets a precedent in favour of invading a sovereign democracy whose borders you have guaranteed by treaty is even less defensible.
The reactor design that BIll Gates and the US Energy Department are backing in Wyoming is able to store energy. (It can heat up the liquid sodium several hundred degrees above its normal operating temperature, and then use that excess heat to generate electricity later.)
It might be an especially good fit for Wyoming, where there is, to say the least, an abundance of wind power, but a lack of storage for tiems when the wind dies down. (I'd have to see a lot of numbers before I was sure about the design and Wyoming, but the idea does seem plausible.)
One solution that appears to be gaining traction in the UK for ironing out intermittency of renewable energy is compressed air battery storage. There are a couple of companies offering this now.
Its very reliable but the downside is its not that efficient, apparently.
Compressing air is a terrible solution - some quite basic physics mean that losses from heating/cooling will be a major problem.
The liquid sodium one (above) is a bit fun for my tastes.
I mentioned liquid tin earlier - because there is a robust, long running technology for keeping large quantities of molten tin around. See the glass industry. In theory, it would give you a reasonable energy density - and would be good for generating steam - see the whole steam turbine/power station industry.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat.
You see this is exactly the suspension of critical faculties that I find so interesting about otherwise rigorously logical PB posters such as yourself.
You seem to regard people disagreeing with you as an attempt to censor you. Debate on PB has always been robust, so if people disagree with you they will let you know it. That's not an attempt to stifle your free speech rights.
If you don't like people disagreeing with you then you've come to the wrong place.
I don't think anyone is trying to censor me and I am happy for people to disagree with me. What I find interesting is the responses to an attempted analysis of the conflict and how, if such analysis does not conform to a general "war aims" view then the person putting forward such analysis is deemed to be a "red under the bed" or one of "Putin's little helpers".
It is bizarre and I explain it as being evidence of a deep insecurity or confusion or perhaps fear on the part of those responding in such a way.
We were earlier discussing energy policy and the mere discussion of it invited charges of aiding Putin.
Doesn't bother me in the slightest, but I am intrigued.
Right now, I am having trouble with too much heat, here in the Seattle area. And so I am using my microwave for cooking more than usual, because it produces far less excess heat than a stove (or, I suppose, an electric kettle). So, those wishing to reduce electricity use there in Britain this winter might want to consider using their microwaves more often.
(I don't know enough about the costs of either electricity or microwaves there, but it might make sense for some of you to buy one now, if you don't already have one.)
The downside, of course, is that the microwave doesn't warm your home as much as a stove, but that might not matter to you.
I’m still having enormous fun with Stable Diffusion. It gets better the more you play with it. You learn how to manipulate and provoke it. Indeed this now has a name. “Promptcraft” and “promptsmithing”
These terms will be big over the next few years
Just one well chosen word can send it into a dreamy haunted state
I’ll spare you the creepy images. For now
You should get yourself down to the railings on the Bayswater Road - there is some extraordinary groundbreaking avant garde art there. It will change your life forever.
Those guys are fucked for a start. Why buy shitty amateur art when you can make your own amazing images, in a few seconds? Print them out and frame them and bingo. Your own fabulous art
It could certainly be amusing for people to fill their houses with such art. But I just don't see it as the threat to every living artist (and eventually writer) that you think it is. I could use photoshop or one of several existing apps or programs, or a set of watercolours to create art right this minute and I don't. I doubt many people will have some such art hanging over their mantelpiece in the drawing room. It will likely be on their phone, perhaps a screensaver, and that's it.
But yes, if widely available people will of course investigate it to see what they can create.
Plus you either wilfully or incidentally misunderstood my masterfully amusing post last night and you will take some forgiving as a result.
The software is free to everyone. The images cost £10 for a THOUSAND. People will use this
Today I’ve been making more soulful images. After going for horror yesterday
I’ve had some success. I would definitely frame some of these and put them on less important walls
This really is the end of art as we know it. Turns out DALLE-2 was just a vague premonition
I see you've managed to buck the system by posting a troubling Dalle image as your avatar.
I couldn’t resist. Because it really looks like me. I was quite a rambunctious child
I met Ted Hughes In his later years and, flatteringly, he remembered me as a child because - as he put it - you ‘were a very noisy boy’
Actually, that avatar reminds me of the baby buried alive in the clay pot, in The Genesis Secret.
Wait.
You read a Tom Knox book?
They aren't for reading. Good god. I don't believe the author even made it all the way through.
You’re suggesting the remainder was written by a (very) rudimentary AI ?
Humanity itself is, of course, a rudimentary form of AI, or, indeed, I
It is amazing how many people who are firmly atheistic believe there is, nonetheless, something sacred about human intelligence than cannot be mimicked and bettered by a bunch of electronics. They are all molecules. They were all brought together by the "artifice" of evolution, and mutation, and random change. This time intelligence has evolved via another intelligence. So be it. Shit happens
Wrong! Neither a human being's mind nor a dog's mind can be replicated, let alone "bettered", by a bunch of electronics, by which I assume you mean a program, which basically means a large integer. (A long string of 0s and 1s is a large integer.) Neither you nor the collection of everything you've done and felt and dreamed in your life can be expressed as an integer. I know AI heads think otherwise, but they are fools who don't begin to understand.
You need to read Alan Turing's 1950 article "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" that started this whole idiocy off, paying special attention to what he listed as possible objection Number 9. He knew it blew his approach completely out of the water. That's why he said fine, let's assume we're running the experiment in a "telepathy-proof room".
It's an interesting question what had convinced Turing that "the statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, is overwhelming". It may have been the card-guessing experiments of J. B. Rhine at Duke University, which are still well known. But another possibility is the experiments of S. G. Soal in the UK. These had produced apparently overwhelming evidence, but it's now known that this was the result of fraud. Perhaps if he hadn't died prematurely Turing would have revised his opinion about telepathy in the course of time, or perhaps not.
I remember reading that Turing was familiar with Rhine's Zener card work at Duke. His use of the term ESP, which he says is broken into telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, and PK, sounds Rhinean, or at least for 1950 it does. Soal is known to have been a fraudster, as you say - interestingly one of the figures who backed him was his fellow fraudster Burt - and Rhine's experimental design has been criticised too although there's no good case for calling him dishonest. Turing knew you had to rule out telepathy, or in fact psi in general, to run with the Cartesian idea of people as machines. You have to be certain that psi, which is to say non-physical psychic functioning, does not exist, has never existed, and could not possibly exist. You cannot rightly make that conclusion on the basis of a belief that statistical analysis doesn't give you any reason to accept a psi hypothesis. The whole idea of man as a machine depends on ruling out a priori what human beings have believed and lived for countless thousands of years, in the name of "science", an approach that arrived on the scene only very recently and isn't even a proper religion, being based on a collection of ideas about how to do research, ideas which if they were kept inside their narrow home field wouldn't be objectionable to those of us who know psi is a reality. Believers in "strong AI" need either to believe in the "telepathy-proof" room or to say (as Turing did) "let's assume for the sake of argument that there is such a thing"..... But there isn't....and I cannot prove that statement scientifically.
You don't know what a priori means, and you really really don't want to base a theory of cognition on the evidence of telepathy experiments. You have also misunderstood Descartes who emphatically did NOT believe in people as machines, but as ghosts in machines (interfacing at the pineal gland). The interface is neither more nor less mysterious than what you call psi, but anyway why does psi have to be psychic? Because I bet you a million dollars that IF telepathy is a thing THEN it is a manifestation of one sort of law of physics or another, why on earth would it not be?
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
People have only been banned on PB (or had posts deleted) for
1) A small list of swear words 2) Repeating stuff that could get the site in legal trouble 3) Posting from IP addresses on Troll/Malware site lists.
4) Being rude to Mike and Robert.
They both put in a lot of time and money to ensure we can all post on this site instantly and free, don't abuse that privilege by insulting them, it is ok to disagree with them, just don't be rude about it.
You mean it is a love me love my musical tastes kind of thing?
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
People have only been banned on PB (or had posts deleted) for
1) A small list of swear words 2) Repeating stuff that could get the site in legal trouble 3) Posting from IP addresses on Troll/Malware site lists.
4) Being rude to Mike and Robert.
They both put in a lot of time and money to ensure we can all post on this site instantly and free, don't abuse that privilege by insulting them, it is ok to disagree with them, just don't be rude about it.
Any bans handed out for people who like one of the greatest stadium bands of all time. R E O....no, not them, Radiohead.
Is he chucking Mad Nad down it? Or the other way round?
Hiding, like the Auxiliary Units of his hero's time. Till he comes back from the grave when the Tories want full fat Johnson, not the slimline soya milk version.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat.
You see this is exactly the suspension of critical faculties that I find so interesting about otherwise rigorously logical PB posters such as yourself.
One can certainly say that Putin has reasons for his actions. He's not someone who twirls his moustache each morning, while working out how evil he can be.
But, they are poor reasons. This is not really a conflict in which there are shades of grey, or moral equivalence between the two sides.
No one is commenting on the morality. I am commenting on the context and motivations, such latter that I am aware of. I am trying to place it into the context of 21st century conflicts.
Which one would you say it is to be compared with in terms of motivation ? (Given that Iraq was not a war of territorial conquest.)
The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent ⚡️ Washington Post: Ukraine ‘lures’ Russian missiles with wooden decoys resembling HIMARS.
Ukrainian troops have “tricked Russian forces into wasting expensive long-range cruise missiles” on the wooden decoys resembling advanced U.S. rocket systems, the Washington Post reported.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat....
No, but it would still be wrong.
It is not particularly controversial, and is probably a sizeable majority view in western democracies, that the invasion was both of dubious legality (at best), and a huge mistake. As was the view of a very large number of people at the time.
And indeed the US has paid a very large price both in the cost of the war, and the loss of influence in the region as a result of it.
And further, to argue that it sets a precedent in favour of invading a sovereign democracy whose borders you have guaranteed by treaty is even less defensible.
You see it's this line of argument that I don't get.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was as you say on balance "illegal" (meaningless term in such a context but let's go with it). It was condemned widely but there were no sanctions or really any consequences as far as anyone could see.
I noted that Putin will likely have learned from this and it will have been a factor in his deliberations as to what and whether to take any action in Ukraine.
And to note this is to give succour to Putin, apparently.
The reactor design that BIll Gates and the US Energy Department are backing in Wyoming is able to store energy. (It can heat up the liquid sodium several hundred degrees above its normal operating temperature, and then use that excess heat to generate electricity later.)
It might be an especially good fit for Wyoming, where there is, to say the least, an abundance of wind power, but a lack of storage for tiems when the wind dies down. (I'd have to see a lot of numbers before I was sure about the design and Wyoming, but the idea does seem plausible.)
One solution that appears to be gaining traction in the UK for ironing out intermittency of renewable energy is compressed air battery storage. There are a couple of companies offering this now.
Its very reliable but the downside is its not that efficient, apparently.
Compressing air is a terrible solution - some quite basic physics mean that losses from heating/cooling will be a major problem.
The liquid sodium one (above) is a bit fun for my tastes.
I mentioned liquid tin earlier - because there is a robust, long running technology for keeping large quantities of molten tin around. See the glass industry. In theory, it would give you a reasonable energy density - and would be good for generating steam - see the whole steam turbine/power station industry.
Isn't tin way too expensive to use as a storage medium at scale ?
I’m still having enormous fun with Stable Diffusion. It gets better the more you play with it. You learn how to manipulate and provoke it. Indeed this now has a name. “Promptcraft” and “promptsmithing”
These terms will be big over the next few years
Just one well chosen word can send it into a dreamy haunted state
I’ll spare you the creepy images. For now
You should get yourself down to the railings on the Bayswater Road - there is some extraordinary groundbreaking avant garde art there. It will change your life forever.
Those guys are fucked for a start. Why buy shitty amateur art when you can make your own amazing images, in a few seconds? Print them out and frame them and bingo. Your own fabulous art
It could certainly be amusing for people to fill their houses with such art. But I just don't see it as the threat to every living artist (and eventually writer) that you think it is. I could use photoshop or one of several existing apps or programs, or a set of watercolours to create art right this minute and I don't. I doubt many people will have some such art hanging over their mantelpiece in the drawing room. It will likely be on their phone, perhaps a screensaver, and that's it.
But yes, if widely available people will of course investigate it to see what they can create.
Plus you either wilfully or incidentally misunderstood my masterfully amusing post last night and you will take some forgiving as a result.
The software is free to everyone. The images cost £10 for a THOUSAND. People will use this
Today I’ve been making more soulful images. After going for horror yesterday
I’ve had some success. I would definitely frame some of these and put them on less important walls
Go for it. A bit like self-publishing but if you like the images good luck to you.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat.
You see this is exactly the suspension of critical faculties that I find so interesting about otherwise rigorously logical PB posters such as yourself.
One can certainly say that Putin has reasons for his actions. He's not someone who twirls his moustache each morning, while working out how evil he can be.
But, they are poor reasons. This is not really a conflict in which there are shades of grey, or moral equivalence between the two sides.
No one is commenting on the morality. I am commenting on the context and motivations, such latter that I am aware of. I am trying to place it into the context of 21st century conflicts.
Which one would you say it is to be compared with in terms of motivation ? (Given that Iraq was not a war of territorial conquest.)
Yes very true. It was a war which involved territorial transgression though. I'm not sure whether the allies dropped leaflets on the villages they were about to obliterate making this distinction clear, that said.
The reactor design that BIll Gates and the US Energy Department are backing in Wyoming is able to store energy. (It can heat up the liquid sodium several hundred degrees above its normal operating temperature, and then use that excess heat to generate electricity later.)
It might be an especially good fit for Wyoming, where there is, to say the least, an abundance of wind power, but a lack of storage for tiems when the wind dies down. (I'd have to see a lot of numbers before I was sure about the design and Wyoming, but the idea does seem plausible.)
One solution that appears to be gaining traction in the UK for ironing out intermittency of renewable energy is compressed air battery storage. There are a couple of companies offering this now.
Its very reliable but the downside is its not that efficient, apparently.
Compressing air is a terrible solution - some quite basic physics mean that losses from heating/cooling will be a major problem.
The liquid sodium one (above) is a bit fun for my tastes.
I mentioned liquid tin earlier - because there is a robust, long running technology for keeping large quantities of molten tin around. See the glass industry. In theory, it would give you a reasonable energy density - and would be good for generating steam - see the whole steam turbine/power station industry.
Isn't tin way too expensive to use as a storage medium at scale ?
I thought salts were the usual method of storing a lot of heat?
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat.
You see this is exactly the suspension of critical faculties that I find so interesting about otherwise rigorously logical PB posters such as yourself.
One can certainly say that Putin has reasons for his actions. He's not someone who twirls his moustache each morning, while working out how evil he can be.
But, they are poor reasons. This is not really a conflict in which there are shades of grey, or moral equivalence between the two sides.
No one is commenting on the morality. I am commenting on the context and motivations, such latter that I am aware of. I am trying to place it into the context of 21st century conflicts.
Which one would you say it is to be compared with in terms of motivation ? (Given that Iraq was not a war of territorial conquest.)
Yes very true. It was a war which involved territorial transgression though. I'm not sure whether the allies dropped leaflets on the villages they were about to obliterate making this distinction clear, that said.
You're confusing justification with motivation there.
I thought you were wanting to explore the two things rather than make rhetorical points ?
Compressed Air Energy Storage, when combined with CCGTs has some really good metrics, not least because you don't recover the air directly, but use it to significantly increase the efficiency of the gas plant.
The reactor design that BIll Gates and the US Energy Department are backing in Wyoming is able to store energy. (It can heat up the liquid sodium several hundred degrees above its normal operating temperature, and then use that excess heat to generate electricity later.)
It might be an especially good fit for Wyoming, where there is, to say the least, an abundance of wind power, but a lack of storage for tiems when the wind dies down. (I'd have to see a lot of numbers before I was sure about the design and Wyoming, but the idea does seem plausible.)
One solution that appears to be gaining traction in the UK for ironing out intermittency of renewable energy is compressed air battery storage. There are a couple of companies offering this now.
Its very reliable but the downside is its not that efficient, apparently.
Compressing air is a terrible solution - some quite basic physics mean that losses from heating/cooling will be a major problem.
The liquid sodium one (above) is a bit fun for my tastes.
I mentioned liquid tin earlier - because there is a robust, long running technology for keeping large quantities of molten tin around. See the glass industry. In theory, it would give you a reasonable energy density - and would be good for generating steam - see the whole steam turbine/power station industry.
Isn't tin way too expensive to use as a storage medium at scale ?
I thought salts were the usual method of storing a lot of heat?
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat.
You see this is exactly the suspension of critical faculties that I find so interesting about otherwise rigorously logical PB posters such as yourself.
One can certainly say that Putin has reasons for his actions. He's not someone who twirls his moustache each morning, while working out how evil he can be.
But, they are poor reasons. This is not really a conflict in which there are shades of grey, or moral equivalence between the two sides.
No one is commenting on the morality. I am commenting on the context and motivations, such latter that I am aware of. I am trying to place it into the context of 21st century conflicts.
Which one would you say it is to be compared with in terms of motivation ? (Given that Iraq was not a war of territorial conquest.)
Yes very true. It was a war which involved territorial transgression though. I'm not sure whether the allies dropped leaflets on the villages they were about to obliterate making this distinction clear, that said.
You're confusing justification with motivation there.
I thought you were wanting to explore the two things rather than make rhetorical points ?
You have, in trying to identify a distinction, illustrated the misapprehension that you and others are labouring under.
I have never discussed justification in the sense of "Putin is justified in doing XYZ because[, say,] Iraq."
I have always been very interested in understanding the context of his actions and what might have been factors in his calculus.
Someone can say in any number of situations "I understand why she killed him" without justifying her killing him. You and others are misunderstanding the difference.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You seem to be doing ok given it's not allowed.
Unlike you I am less worried about what people think of me.
Unless of course you are straining to project a 'not bothered' identity because you are, in fact, bothered.
But seriously, I don't know what you're moaning about on this one. We're not short of 'it's complicated' and 'a settlement is preferable to war' sentiment on here viz Russia v Ukraine.
There's several posters who regularly make points along those lines.
I remember reading that Turing was familiar with Rhine's Zener card work at Duke. His use of the term ESP, which he says is broken into telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, and PK, sounds Rhinean, or at least for 1950 it does. Soal is known to have been a fraudster, as you say - interestingly one of the figures who backed him was his fellow fraudster Burt - and Rhine's experimental design has been criticised too although there's no good case for calling him dishonest. Turing knew you had to rule out telepathy, or in fact psi in general, to run with the Cartesian idea of people as machines. You have to be certain that psi, which is to say non-physical psychic functioning, does not exist, has never existed, and could not possibly exist. You cannot rightly make that conclusion on the basis of a belief that statistical analysis doesn't give you any reason to accept a psi hypothesis. The whole idea of man as a machine depends on ruling out a priori what human beings have believed and lived for countless thousands of years, in the name of "science", an approach that arrived on the scene only very recently and isn't even a proper religion, being based on a collection of ideas about how to do research, ideas which if they were kept inside their narrow home field wouldn't be objectionable to those of us who know psi is a reality. Believers in "strong AI" need either to believe in the "telepathy-proof" room or to say (as Turing did) "let's assume for the sake of argument that there is such a thing"..... But there isn't....and I cannot prove that statement scientifically.
Sorry to be trivial, but could you break up your paragraphs a bit?
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat....
No, but it would still be wrong.
It is not particularly controversial, and is probably a sizeable majority view in western democracies, that the invasion was both of dubious legality (at best), and a huge mistake. As was the view of a very large number of people at the time.
And indeed the US has paid a very large price both in the cost of the war, and the loss of influence in the region as a result of it.
And further, to argue that it sets a precedent in favour of invading a sovereign democracy whose borders you have guaranteed by treaty is even less defensible.
You see it's this line of argument that I don't get.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was as you say on balance "illegal" (meaningless term in such a context but let's go with it). It was condemned widely but there were no sanctions or really any consequences as far as anyone could see.
I noted that Putin will likely have learned from this and it will have been a factor in his deliberations as to what and whether to take any action in Ukraine.
And to note this is to give succour to Putin, apparently.
People said at the time it was wrong for the US and the UK to undermine the rules-based order by invading Iraq in 2003, and that it risked weakening efforts to restrain others. That's my thoughts.
So I would agree that the invasion of Iraq was self-defeating for that reason, and we should learn the lesson that we need to voluntarily abide by international rules if we want to encourage others to do likewise, or seek to force them to do so.
But there are some who want to extend that argument to say that this means the Russo-Ukraine War is the fault of the US and the UK, and we should therefore stop making things worse by interfering and keep out of it.
I disagree with that. I think it's a relatively minor aspect that doesn't change the essential characteristic of the war - that it is an attempted war of conquest by a dictatorship against a democracy, and it is therefore a vital national interest of all democracies to stand together in defence of Ukraine.
The basic advantage of the liquid sodium storage in the reactor is that you don't have to build a separate facility for storage. It's 2-in-1 design. (Again, I will say that I would have to see lots of numbers to see whether it makes economic sense, compared to alternatives. But Bill Gates is pretty good with numbers.)
Is that progress to date on his tunnel to Northern Ireland after £300m of taxpayer funds go to a shell company owned by a Tory donor who has never dug anything or managed an infrastructure project, but did once employ a builder to do some home renovations?
I’m still having enormous fun with Stable Diffusion. It gets better the more you play with it. You learn how to manipulate and provoke it. Indeed this now has a name. “Promptcraft” and “promptsmithing”
These terms will be big over the next few years
Just one well chosen word can send it into a dreamy haunted state
I’ll spare you the creepy images. For now
You should get yourself down to the railings on the Bayswater Road - there is some extraordinary groundbreaking avant garde art there. It will change your life forever.
Those guys are fucked for a start. Why buy shitty amateur art when you can make your own amazing images, in a few seconds? Print them out and frame them and bingo. Your own fabulous art
It could certainly be amusing for people to fill their houses with such art. But I just don't see it as the threat to every living artist (and eventually writer) that you think it is. I could use photoshop or one of several existing apps or programs, or a set of watercolours to create art right this minute and I don't. I doubt many people will have some such art hanging over their mantelpiece in the drawing room. It will likely be on their phone, perhaps a screensaver, and that's it.
But yes, if widely available people will of course investigate it to see what they can create.
Plus you either wilfully or incidentally misunderstood my masterfully amusing post last night and you will take some forgiving as a result.
The software is free to everyone. The images cost £10 for a THOUSAND. People will use this
Today I’ve been making more soulful images. After going for horror yesterday
I’ve had some success. I would definitely frame some of these and put them on less important walls
It's like other forms of "craft" though, including cooking, hot drinks, pottery etc.
People like to by from artists/artisans because of the experience and the personal story. Many will have hand thrown pottery at home that they bought on holiday once or from a local craft fair at prices way above those they would pay for similarly nice objects from a shop. Same with cushions, throws, photos, wicker baskets.
Likewise millions go to cafes to get a flat white that they can easily make to a similar standard in their home coffee machines, or buy chutneys at £5 a pop from a farmer's market where you could get something tasting the same from Lidl for £1.50.
I’m still having enormous fun with Stable Diffusion. It gets better the more you play with it. You learn how to manipulate and provoke it. Indeed this now has a name. “Promptcraft” and “promptsmithing”
These terms will be big over the next few years
Just one well chosen word can send it into a dreamy haunted state
I’ll spare you the creepy images. For now
Can anyone use it or do you have to register/pay for it.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You seem to be doing ok given it's not allowed.
Unlike you I am less worried about what people think of me.
Unless of course you are straining to project a 'not bothered' identity because you are, in fact, bothered.
But seriously, I don't know what you're moaning about on this one. We're not short of 'it's complicated' and 'a settlement is preferable to war' sentiment on here viz Russia v Ukraine.
There's several posters who regularly make points along those lines.
And there are several posters on here who are quick to make charges of being a Putin apologist during such discussions is what interests me.
Compressed Air Energy Storage, when combined with CCGTs has some really good metrics, not least because you don't recover the air directly, but use it to significantly increase the efficiency of the gas plant.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You seem to be doing ok given it's not allowed.
Unlike you I am less worried about what people think of me.
Unless of course you are straining to project a 'not bothered' identity because you are, in fact, bothered.
But seriously, I don't know what you're moaning about on this one. We're not short of 'it's complicated' and 'a settlement is preferable to war' sentiment on here viz Russia v Ukraine.
There's several posters who regularly make points along those lines.
And there are several posters on here who are quick to make charges of being a Putin apologist during such discussions is what interests me.
When 22nd century historians examine the moment when the scales tipped against Putin and he eventually lost power I am thinking posts on pb.com will not get much of a mention, either way.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat.
You see this is exactly the suspension of critical faculties that I find so interesting about otherwise rigorously logical PB posters such as yourself.
One can certainly say that Putin has reasons for his actions. He's not someone who twirls his moustache each morning, while working out how evil he can be.
But, they are poor reasons. This is not really a conflict in which there are shades of grey, or moral equivalence between the two sides.
No one is commenting on the morality. I am commenting on the context and motivations, such latter that I am aware of. I am trying to place it into the context of 21st century conflicts.
Which one would you say it is to be compared with in terms of motivation ? (Given that Iraq was not a war of territorial conquest.)
Yes very true. It was a war which involved territorial transgression though. I'm not sure whether the allies dropped leaflets on the villages they were about to obliterate making this distinction clear, that said.
You're confusing justification with motivation there.
I thought you were wanting to explore the two things rather than make rhetorical points ?
You have, in trying to identify a distinction, illustrated the misapprehension that you and others are labouring under.
I have never discussed justification in the sense of "Putin is justified in doing XYZ because[, say,] Iraq."
I have always been very interested in understanding the context of his actions and what might have been factors in his calculus.
Someone can say in any number of situations "I understand why she killed him" without justifying her killing him. You and others are misunderstanding the difference.
Again, you're misinterpreting my point. All of the last century or so of history is the 'context' of his actions; Iraq included. But so what ?
What it is about Iraq, in your view, that was a factor in his 'calculus' ? If you're arguing that it set a precedent that it's OK for major powers to get their way militarily, I disagree. I think Iraq, if anything, demonstrated the opposite.
And I don't see how he could imagine it set a precedent for making it internationally acceptable for annexing a neighbouring state.
The basic advantage of the liquid sodium storage in the reactor is that you don't have to build a separate facility for storage. It's 2-in-1 design. (Again, I will say that I would have to see lots of numbers to see whether it makes economic sense, compared to alternatives. But Bill Gates is pretty good with numbers.)
Liquid sodium in reactors has a complicated history.
A coolant that likes to burn really, really well when exposed to air has it's... charms....
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat....
No, but it would still be wrong.
It is not particularly controversial, and is probably a sizeable majority view in western democracies, that the invasion was both of dubious legality (at best), and a huge mistake. As was the view of a very large number of people at the time.
And indeed the US has paid a very large price both in the cost of the war, and the loss of influence in the region as a result of it.
And further, to argue that it sets a precedent in favour of invading a sovereign democracy whose borders you have guaranteed by treaty is even less defensible.
You see it's this line of argument that I don't get.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was as you say on balance "illegal" (meaningless term in such a context but let's go with it). It was condemned widely but there were no sanctions or really any consequences as far as anyone could see.
I noted that Putin will likely have learned from this and it will have been a factor in his deliberations as to what and whether to take any action in Ukraine.
And to note this is to give succour to Putin, apparently.
People said at the time it was wrong for the US and the UK to undermine the rules-based order by invading Iraq in 2003, and that it risked weakening efforts to restrain others. That's my thoughts.
So I would agree that the invasion of Iraq was self-defeating for that reason, and we should learn the lesson that we need to voluntarily abide by international rules if we want to encourage others to do likewise, or seek to force them to do so.
But there are some who want to extend that argument to say that this means the Russo-Ukraine War is the fault of the US and the UK, and we should therefore stop making things worse by interfering and keep out of it.
I disagree with that. I think it's a relatively minor aspect that doesn't change the essential characteristic of the war - that it is an attempted war of conquest by a dictatorship against a democracy, and it is therefore a vital national interest of all democracies to stand together in defence of Ukraine.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is the fault of Vladimir Putin. It is however legitimate to discuss what chain of events lead him to make the decision to invade and I believe that as one example, the US invasion of Iraq was somewhere a factor. It taught Vlad that might is right, and that global, meaningful sanction is unlikely.
The interesting thing now is to see how much the West can arm Ukraine without Putin thinking it is a casus belli and if he does come to that point, what happens next.
I’m still having enormous fun with Stable Diffusion. It gets better the more you play with it. You learn how to manipulate and provoke it. Indeed this now has a name. “Promptcraft” and “promptsmithing”
These terms will be big over the next few years
Just one well chosen word can send it into a dreamy haunted state
I’ll spare you the creepy images. For now
You should get yourself down to the railings on the Bayswater Road - there is some extraordinary groundbreaking avant garde art there. It will change your life forever.
Those guys are fucked for a start. Why buy shitty amateur art when you can make your own amazing images, in a few seconds? Print them out and frame them and bingo. Your own fabulous art
It could certainly be amusing for people to fill their houses with such art. But I just don't see it as the threat to every living artist (and eventually writer) that you think it is. I could use photoshop or one of several existing apps or programs, or a set of watercolours to create art right this minute and I don't. I doubt many people will have some such art hanging over their mantelpiece in the drawing room. It will likely be on their phone, perhaps a screensaver, and that's it.
But yes, if widely available people will of course investigate it to see what they can create.
Plus you either wilfully or incidentally misunderstood my masterfully amusing post last night and you will take some forgiving as a result.
The software is free to everyone. The images cost £10 for a THOUSAND. People will use this
Today I’ve been making more soulful images. After going for horror yesterday
I’ve had some success. I would definitely frame some of these and put them on less important walls
Go for it. A bit like self-publishing but if you like the images good luck to you.
What is the point of this laboured sneering? You’re mocking a computer?!
I’m still having enormous fun with Stable Diffusion. It gets better the more you play with it. You learn how to manipulate and provoke it. Indeed this now has a name. “Promptcraft” and “promptsmithing”
These terms will be big over the next few years
Just one well chosen word can send it into a dreamy haunted state
I’ll spare you the creepy images. For now
You should get yourself down to the railings on the Bayswater Road - there is some extraordinary groundbreaking avant garde art there. It will change your life forever.
Those guys are fucked for a start. Why buy shitty amateur art when you can make your own amazing images, in a few seconds? Print them out and frame them and bingo. Your own fabulous art
It could certainly be amusing for people to fill their houses with such art. But I just don't see it as the threat to every living artist (and eventually writer) that you think it is. I could use photoshop or one of several existing apps or programs, or a set of watercolours to create art right this minute and I don't. I doubt many people will have some such art hanging over their mantelpiece in the drawing room. It will likely be on their phone, perhaps a screensaver, and that's it.
But yes, if widely available people will of course investigate it to see what they can create.
Plus you either wilfully or incidentally misunderstood my masterfully amusing post last night and you will take some forgiving as a result.
The software is free to everyone. The images cost £10 for a THOUSAND. People will use this
Today I’ve been making more soulful images. After going for horror yesterday
I’ve had some success. I would definitely frame some of these and put them on less important walls
It's like other forms of "craft" though, including cooking, hot drinks, pottery etc.
People like to by from artists/artisans because of the experience and the personal story. Many will have hand thrown pottery at home that they bought on holiday once or from a local craft fair at prices way above those they would pay for similarly nice objects from a shop. Same with cushions, throws, photos, wicker baskets.
Likewise millions go to cafes to get a flat white that they can easily make to a similar standard in their home coffee machines, or buy chutneys at £5 a pop from a farmer's market where you could get something tasting the same from Lidl for £1.50.
Yes that’s a more intelligent response. And yes much of that is true. I will buy something if I know there is human workmanship involved. They are the best souvenirs
So that kind of humble art/craft will survive
Paradoxically it’s the more professional art which is first threatened. Illustrators and graphic designers and pro photographers. The stuff this machine makes is so brilliant (and cheap) publishers etc will choose the machine
But I’ve been reading about the coming plans for Stable Diffusion: audio, 3D, animation, and lots more. It is already being incorporated into apps
You don’t have to be a genius extrapolater to see what this implies
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You seem to be doing ok given it's not allowed.
Unlike you I am less worried about what people think of me.
Unless of course you are straining to project a 'not bothered' identity because you are, in fact, bothered.
But seriously, I don't know what you're moaning about on this one. We're not short of 'it's complicated' and 'a settlement is preferable to war' sentiment on here viz Russia v Ukraine.
There's several posters who regularly make points along those lines.
And there are several posters on here who are quick to make charges of being a Putin apologist during such discussions is what interests me.
When 22nd century historians examine the moment when the scales tipped against Putin and he eventually lost power I am thinking posts on pb.com will not get much of a mention, either way.
Devastated.
But I think you're right. Which is why I was intrigued by your, I think, and @Sean_F's comments that the discussion was playing into Putin's hands.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat.
You see this is exactly the suspension of critical faculties that I find so interesting about otherwise rigorously logical PB posters such as yourself.
One can certainly say that Putin has reasons for his actions. He's not someone who twirls his moustache each morning, while working out how evil he can be.
But, they are poor reasons. This is not really a conflict in which there are shades of grey, or moral equivalence between the two sides.
No one is commenting on the morality. I am commenting on the context and motivations, such latter that I am aware of. I am trying to place it into the context of 21st century conflicts.
Which one would you say it is to be compared with in terms of motivation ? (Given that Iraq was not a war of territorial conquest.)
Yes very true. It was a war which involved territorial transgression though. I'm not sure whether the allies dropped leaflets on the villages they were about to obliterate making this distinction clear, that said.
You're confusing justification with motivation there.
I thought you were wanting to explore the two things rather than make rhetorical points ?
You have, in trying to identify a distinction, illustrated the misapprehension that you and others are labouring under.
I have never discussed justification in the sense of "Putin is justified in doing XYZ because[, say,] Iraq."
I have always been very interested in understanding the context of his actions and what might have been factors in his calculus.
Someone can say in any number of situations "I understand why she killed him" without justifying her killing him. You and others are misunderstanding the difference.
Again, you're misinterpreting my point. All of the last century or so of history is the 'context' of his actions; Iraq included. But so what ?
What it is about Iraq, in your view, that was a factor in his 'calculus' ? If you're arguing that it set a precedent that it's OK for major powers to get their way militarily, I disagree. I think Iraq, if anything, demonstrated the opposite.
And I don't see how he could imagine it set a precedent for making it internationally acceptable for annexing a neighbouring state.
I think I have spelled out several times what it was about Iraq, most recently just now to @LostPassword.
I’m still having enormous fun with Stable Diffusion. It gets better the more you play with it. You learn how to manipulate and provoke it. Indeed this now has a name. “Promptcraft” and “promptsmithing”
These terms will be big over the next few years
Just one well chosen word can send it into a dreamy haunted state
I’ll spare you the creepy images. For now
Can anyone use it or do you have to register/pay for it.
I’m still having enormous fun with Stable Diffusion. It gets better the more you play with it. You learn how to manipulate and provoke it. Indeed this now has a name. “Promptcraft” and “promptsmithing”
These terms will be big over the next few years
Just one well chosen word can send it into a dreamy haunted state
I’ll spare you the creepy images. For now
Can anyone use it or do you have to register/pay for it.
Anyone can use it. You get some free goes. Then you have to pay. £10 for 1000 images
I’m still having enormous fun with Stable Diffusion. It gets better the more you play with it. You learn how to manipulate and provoke it. Indeed this now has a name. “Promptcraft” and “promptsmithing”
These terms will be big over the next few years
Just one well chosen word can send it into a dreamy haunted state
I’ll spare you the creepy images. For now
Can anyone use it or do you have to register/pay for it.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat.
You see this is exactly the suspension of critical faculties that I find so interesting about otherwise rigorously logical PB posters such as yourself.
One can certainly say that Putin has reasons for his actions. He's not someone who twirls his moustache each morning, while working out how evil he can be.
But, they are poor reasons. This is not really a conflict in which there are shades of grey, or moral equivalence between the two sides.
No one is commenting on the morality. I am commenting on the context and motivations, such latter that I am aware of. I am trying to place it into the context of 21st century conflicts.
Which one would you say it is to be compared with in terms of motivation ? (Given that Iraq was not a war of territorial conquest.)
It seems to me closest to the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.
This has a similar backstory of a country emerging from an empire.
Cyprus emerged from the Ottoman empire, established itself as an independent state but always with a sizeable minority that saw themselves as Turkish.
There were pressures among some in the Greek Cypriot majority to forge closer ties with Greece (Enosis), whereas in practice the only way to maintain peace was for Cyprus to maintain its distance from both Greece and Turkey (essentially Makarios' position).
The Turkish invasion was driven by the threat of reunion of Cyprus with Greece by forces loyal to the Greek junta.
Pro-Enosis is roughly equivalent to pro-EU in the Ukrainian context.
Although the Turks invaded, they were not wholly responsible for the situation in Cyprus.
Although the Russian invaded, they are not wholly responsible for the situation in Ukraine.
I think it is not a bad parallel, and I expect the conflict will end the same way with a de facto partitioned country.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You seem to be doing ok given it's not allowed.
Unlike you I am less worried about what people think of me.
Unless of course you are straining to project a 'not bothered' identity because you are, in fact, bothered.
But seriously, I don't know what you're moaning about on this one. We're not short of 'it's complicated' and 'a settlement is preferable to war' sentiment on here viz Russia v Ukraine.
There's several posters who regularly make points along those lines.
And there are several posters on here who are quick to make charges of being a Putin apologist during such discussions is what interests me.
When 22nd century historians examine the moment when the scales tipped against Putin and he eventually lost power I am thinking posts on pb.com will not get much of a mention, either way.
Devastated.
But I think you're right. Which is why I was intrigued by your, I think, and @Sean_F's comments that the discussion was playing into Putin's hands.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat....
No, but it would still be wrong.
It is not particularly controversial, and is probably a sizeable majority view in western democracies, that the invasion was both of dubious legality (at best), and a huge mistake. As was the view of a very large number of people at the time.
And indeed the US has paid a very large price both in the cost of the war, and the loss of influence in the region as a result of it.
And further, to argue that it sets a precedent in favour of invading a sovereign democracy whose borders you have guaranteed by treaty is even less defensible.
You see it's this line of argument that I don't get.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was as you say on balance "illegal" (meaningless term in such a context but let's go with it). It was condemned widely but there were no sanctions or really any consequences as far as anyone could see.
I noted that Putin will likely have learned from this and it will have been a factor in his deliberations as to what and whether to take any action in Ukraine.
And to note this is to give succour to Putin, apparently.
People said at the time it was wrong for the US and the UK to undermine the rules-based order by invading Iraq in 2003, and that it risked weakening efforts to restrain others. That's my thoughts.
So I would agree that the invasion of Iraq was self-defeating for that reason, and we should learn the lesson that we need to voluntarily abide by international rules if we want to encourage others to do likewise, or seek to force them to do so.
But there are some who want to extend that argument to say that this means the Russo-Ukraine War is the fault of the US and the UK, and we should therefore stop making things worse by interfering and keep out of it.
I disagree with that. I think it's a relatively minor aspect that doesn't change the essential characteristic of the war - that it is an attempted war of conquest by a dictatorship against a democracy, and it is therefore a vital national interest of all democracies to stand together in defence of Ukraine.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is the fault of Vladimir Putin. It is however legitimate to discuss what chain of events lead him to make the decision to invade and I believe that as one example, the US invasion of Iraq was somewhere a factor. It taught Vlad that might is right, and that global, meaningful sanction is unlikely.
The interesting thing now is to see how much the West can arm Ukraine without Putin thinking it is a casus belli and if he does come to that point, what happens next.
I think it's important to avoid complete equivalence between Putin's invasion and Iraq 2003. The latter was probably illegal, caused huge amounts of suffering and was a geopolitical failure by the West. I was against it from the off. But it wasn't a war of conquest on a democratic state launched with the express intention of wiping out the invaded country's nationhood and accompanied by mass rape, deliberate targeting of civilians and the complete destruction of entire cities. There are degrees of outrageousness in international affairs and the Ukraine invasion is a notch or two beyond even Iraq.
My problem with Putin and his acolytes is that they lie too much. By that I mean it's a reflex, not a considered response. While their UN man is claiming that black is white, Labrov is claiming that's it's orange.
Labrov claimed at the beginning that only the Russian public's reaction counted, but they've been trying to win some of the world over to their views. Come on, lads, try to keep your lies consistent - that would help. Obviously they are paranoid, but that's not a reason to accommodate them. If Belgium became paranoid, and decide to annexe Holland in self-defence, we wouldn't go along with it. "You can see their point of view." No, we can't, they're barmy and untrustworthy as a result.
As for "We have no intention of invading Ukraine," twenty four hours before they did. Hmm ... did they think we'd believe anything they said?
What is the point of this laboured sneering? You’re mocking a computer?!
I specifically wasn't sneering. I said if you like it go for it. I think it is a novelty (as you - and PB - are finding out) and that as @TimS says, it is like other activities. Will it change art for good? It will take its place in the lexicon. I don't think it will displace the entire body of art as you seem to be saying, albeit you do have a penchant for hyperbole.
It might be like any other sub-genre. Bill Viola's work comes to mind. He is a master of video art although video art is accessible to any- and everyone.
Bill Viola - masterful at new mode of art You - likely crap at new mode of art
Again, not a criticism but you are playing at it and are not an artist. There will likely be proper artists in this stuff.
EXCLUSIVE: UK gas producers and electricity generators may make excess profits totalling as much as £170 billion over the next two years, according to Treasury estimates that will be handed to the next prime minister when they take office.
The basic advantage of the liquid sodium storage in the reactor is that you don't have to build a separate facility for storage. It's 2-in-1 design. (Again, I will say that I would have to see lots of numbers to see whether it makes economic sense, compared to alternatives. But Bill Gates is pretty good with numbers.)
Liquid sodium in reactors has a complicated history.
A coolant that likes to burn really, really well when exposed to air has it's... charms....
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You seem to be doing ok given it's not allowed.
Unlike you I am less worried about what people think of me.
Unless of course you are straining to project a 'not bothered' identity because you are, in fact, bothered.
But seriously, I don't know what you're moaning about on this one. We're not short of 'it's complicated' and 'a settlement is preferable to war' sentiment on here viz Russia v Ukraine.
There's several posters who regularly make points along those lines.
And there are several posters on here who are quick to make charges of being a Putin apologist during such discussions is what interests me.
When 22nd century historians examine the moment when the scales tipped against Putin and he eventually lost power I am thinking posts on pb.com will not get much of a mention, either way.
Devastated.
But I think you're right. Which is why I was intrigued by your, I think, and @Sean_F's comments that the discussion was playing into Putin's hands.
Most of my posts are silly. Some by design.
Yes I'm sorry I read it first as an intended joke but then someone else quoted Chamberlain and I thought oh god these are very serious points. Which it turns out the other posters post was.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You're entitled to say any of that, just as you're entitled to argue that the world is flat and that Manchester United are England's best football club at the minute.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Understand. So saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, set a precedent for global power behaviour is akin to saying that the world is flat....
No, but it would still be wrong.
It is not particularly controversial, and is probably a sizeable majority view in western democracies, that the invasion was both of dubious legality (at best), and a huge mistake. As was the view of a very large number of people at the time.
And indeed the US has paid a very large price both in the cost of the war, and the loss of influence in the region as a result of it.
And further, to argue that it sets a precedent in favour of invading a sovereign democracy whose borders you have guaranteed by treaty is even less defensible.
You see it's this line of argument that I don't get.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was as you say on balance "illegal" (meaningless term in such a context but let's go with it). It was condemned widely but there were no sanctions or really any consequences as far as anyone could see.
I noted that Putin will likely have learned from this and it will have been a factor in his deliberations as to what and whether to take any action in Ukraine.
And to note this is to give succour to Putin, apparently.
People said at the time it was wrong for the US and the UK to undermine the rules-based order by invading Iraq in 2003, and that it risked weakening efforts to restrain others. That's my thoughts.
So I would agree that the invasion of Iraq was self-defeating for that reason, and we should learn the lesson that we need to voluntarily abide by international rules if we want to encourage others to do likewise, or seek to force them to do so.
But there are some who want to extend that argument to say that this means the Russo-Ukraine War is the fault of the US and the UK, and we should therefore stop making things worse by interfering and keep out of it.
I disagree with that. I think it's a relatively minor aspect that doesn't change the essential characteristic of the war - that it is an attempted war of conquest by a dictatorship against a democracy, and it is therefore a vital national interest of all democracies to stand together in defence of Ukraine.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is the fault of Vladimir Putin. It is however legitimate to discuss what chain of events lead him to make the decision to invade and I believe that as one example, the US invasion of Iraq was somewhere a factor. It taught Vlad that might is right, and that global, meaningful sanction is unlikely.
The interesting thing now is to see how much the West can arm Ukraine without Putin thinking it is a casus belli and if he does come to that point, what happens next.
I think it's important to avoid complete equivalence between Putin's invasion and Iraq 2003. The latter was probably illegal, caused huge amounts of suffering and was a geopolitical failure by the West. I was against it from the off. But it wasn't a war of conquest on a democratic state launched with the express intention of wiping out the invaded country's nationhood and accompanied by mass rape, deliberate targeting of civilians and the complete destruction of entire cities. There are degrees of outrageousness in international affairs and the Ukraine invasion is a notch or two beyond even Iraq.
Yeah as I said I'm sure the likely hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis appreciate the distinction. It was a war of aggression for which there were no consequences.
The massacre of small business is one thing that is coming across very clearly, and will be a significant part of the economic rout that the UK is going to be facing over the course of the next few quarters. Truss has maybe only weeks to establish a clear and stable policy direction (spoiler alert: none of her currently declared economic policies will work). The choices she makes next week for her cabinet will determine the tone, direction and success of her administration. If Redwood and Duncan Smith (and Rees Mogg) really have been raised from the crypt in order to play major roles, then by Halloween the Truss government will already be in a death spiral.
There is also the question of "events", and as this site knows, there is a major scandal already out there. So, I guess I need to order more popcorn (Microwave, obviously, the energy costs of using the stove versus the microwave are too large),
Truss needs to face up to reality, and hiding from the media will just infuriate them.
I do not see this massacre of small businesses at all. Yes, their costs are going to rise significantly so their prices will do likewise. That will effect businesses differentially depending on how important energy is for their business, as a generality manufacturing will be hit worse than services.
But we have more more than 10% inflation already. No one is going to be shocked by rising prices. Given wages are not rising as fast there may be some reduction in demand but so far that has not manifested itself.
We need to adjust to this exogenous price shock. Cheap gas and relatively cheap fuel are not coming back anytime soon, if ever. We need to accept as a nation that more of our money will be spent that way and less on other things. We did this with the oil shock in the 1970s. It was deeply unpleasant but we survived. Expecting governments to somehow magic this change away is every bit as fairy tale as the idea that the producers, who are in general well beyond the reach of the Treasury, will somehow be paying a windfall tax to pay for it all.
I find this a jaw-droppingly stupid pronouncement from such a sensible poster.
We already face massive economical disadvantages compared to other parts of the world in terms of labour market inflexibility, an aging population, a generous system of benefits and entitlements, and now you think that we must accept long term that we're also screwed on energy costs (whilst our competitors in India and China guzzle cut-price Russian gas) - this is throwing in the towel of the whole future of our economy.
When Ukraine was kicking off, I was assured that Ukraine would be 'buying' weapons from us; if we donated anything, the costs would be sunk anyway. Several billion pounds, vast amounts of military ordnance, a severely faltering economy, and Grannies threatening with frostbite in, we must now apparently accept permanent impoverishment as a cost of 'winning' this utterly absurd foreign war.
That said, the political realities being as they are currently, we must get what positives we can from this, and the positive is that finally, Government will be forced to confront our appalling lack of a coherent energy strategy beyond pathetic virtue signalling, and find sources of inexpensive and reliable energy to power our economic growth. It is vitally important that we all encourage this process, and hold their feet to the fire, not droopingly accept our fate in the way that you have done.
Blue on blue action.
I’m getting excited. Am I kinky?
(That was your cue Sean.)
You think Putinguy is blue?
Strikes me as far more red under the bed.
How about the points he makes.
We are being told (including today by ex-Exeter Uni student Sir Alex Younger) that we must suck it up because of Ukraine.
Now that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take over a foreign war and we had no choice in 1973 when there was a foreign war then. Not everyone will agree but that's democracy for you. Perhaps some, more pertinently, can't afford to agree.
But why do you take against the suggestion that the government should have a coherent energy policy?
Bart's perfectly entitled to argue for any old energy policy, and indeed any policy on any war. But his relentless attempt to label other posters as whatever-under-the-bed and make up names for them is just tiresome, and distracts from whatever points he makes.
Comments like that will be seen as a big win for Putin back home in Moscow. You should think hard about that.
Essentially, it's the Hitchens view. "A small faraway country of which we know little or nothing."
I'm not understanding this pls elaborate.
It is the official Conservative position when Hitler was threatening Czecoslovakia. And then , a year later....
Ah I see so we must suspend discussion on this matter because it gives succour to Putin.
How absurd.
Go and have a word with yourselves.
I think it is best to be careful about how to discuss the war in Ukraine in public. I had a discussion with my neighbour and was accused of being a Putin stooge because I was mentioning causes of the war (ie NATO expansion, Russians in Eastern Europe after the fall of the soviet union). The only narrative that seems to be acceptable is that 'Putin is a psycho and needs to be taken out'.
In the end, I would rather go with that than the alternative of having 'free debate' which is easily infiltrated by Russia, but it is quite amazing how we have got to this level of public compliance, when compared with past conflicts. The propoganda is very good, unusually so; almost too good.
You do wonder, however, what happens next if we don't "take Putin out".
Well indeed.
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
You seem to be doing ok given it's not allowed.
Unlike you I am less worried about what people think of me.
Unless of course you are straining to project a 'not bothered' identity because you are, in fact, bothered.
But seriously, I don't know what you're moaning about on this one. We're not short of 'it's complicated' and 'a settlement is preferable to war' sentiment on here viz Russia v Ukraine.
There's several posters who regularly make points along those lines.
And there are several posters on here who are quick to make charges of being a Putin apologist during such discussions is what interests me.
Ah ok, well it is indeed pathetic if that happens when all someone is wanting to do is drill a bit deeper into the causes of the conflict than 'Mad Bad Vlad Putin' - although this does explain much of it imo.
But anyway I see you're having a nice little debate with Nigel now, with none of that going on, so all good.
Your point on Iraq btw? I don't like 'set a precedent' - that's not quite it imo - but what I'd definitely say is it cost lots of moral capital which, if we had it back, would come in very useful right now.
Comments
But (and I speak as someone on the lucky side of this)... it's not right, and might have more to do with the gentle genteel decline of the UK than Europe, Immigrants or Greenery.
House price increases are terrible if you don't own a house, bad if you own exactly one house and might at some stage want a bigger one, good if you are looking to downsize, and brilliant if you own many houses.
I would argue that groups one and two are considerably bigger than groups three and four.
I'm in group two. My house has doubled in value in the past decade. Hooray, I guess. But I don't have that money. If you windfall taxed me, I couldn't give it to you unless I sold my house and moved to a smaller house.
Many of the group who own a house also have dependents who they might one day like to move out and own their own houses. Not looking too promising there...
Putin is a baddy (hear that Moscow!!??) and we hope he loses this war as he has "illegally" transgressed a sovereign nation.
However, what some numpties on here seem to be saying is that we can't discuss the context of the war. We can't point out that Putin learned from the best/West that might can be right; that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, didn't in any way help to shape his thinking as to what large powers could get away with. And that territorial disputes are always messy (Israel/Palestine; Cyprus; ahem, North America; why even Scotland; and certainly Northern Ireland) where one side believes legitimately that they have right on their side.
The mere discussion of the war is not allowed unless it includes the prediction of a likely and total defeat for Putin.
On PB of all places.
I don’t know if it’s passed you by, but seems to me current chancellor and PM don’t agree with incoming chancellor and PM how far into middle incomes people should get help and handouts and what kind of measures to take. There is a huge policy split at the top of the Tory’s.
What is their answer? One consideration is just doing the right thing… for the votes! Another is already being the party of high taxation, so if tax rise is the right thing the right thing can’t be done.
Just like Mick and his militant crew meeting in the back room of the Hammer and Sickle tonight, we started by asking for 7% that seems long time ago now - what should we be asking for? What is their answer? They are similarly just reactive to the situation with their short term looking out for themselves, not the interests of their nation.
First inflation bout for 50 years, seems to me like a country all over the place by its first snowfall for 50 years - if we had this often we would be more agile, probably already have answers in place due to some sort of ongoing discipline and understanding we don’t have today.
Remember, to an MP, the ultimate horror is losing their seat.
Ideally, a good dose of general inflation, while keeping house prices constant or slowly falling in money terms (to avoid negative equity), is the easiest way forward here.
I’m in a wierd group, I have one house in UK and rent where I’m living, an accidental landlord. I’m about to sell in UK and buy where I live, as the rent here is a lot higher than my profit on the UK house as interest rates keep rising.
Those guys are fucked for a start. Why buy shitty amateur art when you can make your own amazing images, in a few seconds? Print them out and frame them and bingo. Your own fabulous art
What we (you and I) probably do have is neighbours who are paying twice as much for houses identical to ours, and that's where we're relatively benefiting.
The best answer is to not let house prices get out of hand in the first place. But that ship sailed a long long time ago.
You'd be wrong and opening yourself up to deserved ridicule for doing so, but you're entitled to be wrong and say wrong things.
Amazing though that these stores of gas are being filled at absolute peak prices… ordinarily you’d hope to have filled them when the price is very low. In Germany, was driven by Government backed loans to utilities essentially buying at any price.
Have the Germans basically provided a fraudulent furlough loan bung to Putin ?
But yes, if widely available people will of course investigate it to see what they can create.
Plus you either wilfully or incidentally misunderstood my masterfully amusing post last night and you will take some forgiving as a result.
You see this is exactly the suspension of critical faculties that I find so interesting about otherwise rigorously logical PB posters such as yourself.
1) A small list of swear words
2) Repeating stuff that could get the site in legal trouble
3) Posting from IP addresses on Troll/Malware site lists.
It might be an especially good fit for Wyoming, where there is, to say the least, an abundance of wind power, but a lack of storage for tiems when the wind dies down. (I'd have to see a lot of numbers before I was sure about the design and Wyoming, but the idea does seem plausible.)
Here's the company's site: https://www.terrapower.com/
As Mike Smithson urged us to keep an open mind, not just think it’s continuity Boris, continuity Tories, I propose we could be changing from a One Nation Tory approach on economics to something very much drier.
Quiet a big and historic change to UK government, if so.
And if they have filled their reserves ahead of their original end September target, it ought slightly to ease pressure on the market.
But, they are poor reasons. This is not really a conflict in which there are shades of grey, or moral equivalence between the two sides.
If you don't like people disagreeing with you then you've come to the wrong place.
They both put in a lot of time and money to ensure we can all post on this site instantly and free, don't abuse that privilege by insulting them, it is ok to disagree with them, just don't be rude about it.
Its very reliable but the downside is its not that efficient, apparently.
The worst thing about biodiversity net gain is that they keep moving the goalposts. The calculations change frequently so everyone is just running to keep up.
There's almost no thought as to the costs this behaviour imposes on everyone - it all seems to be done to keep those making them up in a job.
We asked the local planners whether we had to apply the same version of the calculations throughout the (30 year) life of a project, as being the ones in force at the time the cost calculation was made. They had no idea, and basically said 'make it up, you know more than we do'. I do hope DEFRA's Excel sheet works in 2052.
The point stands - you're free to discuss a wide range of opinions. The responses may be as robust as your opinions, though. Free(ish) speech is a two way street.
He’s supposed to be an intelligent fellow, with a degree in economics.
It is not particularly controversial, and is probably a sizeable majority view in western democracies, that the invasion was both of dubious legality (at best), and a huge mistake.
As was the view of a very large number of people at the time.
And indeed the US has paid a very large price both in the cost of the war, and the loss of influence in the region as a result of it.
And further, to argue that it sets a precedent in favour of invading a sovereign democracy whose borders you have guaranteed by treaty is even less defensible.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/british-battery-plant-delays-production-again-as-energy-costs-soar/ar-AA11eAMX?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=8840b0b9078117d6f692661d912d1b1c
Is this plant really going to happen ? I know @dixiedean was sceptical in the past.
The liquid sodium one (above) is a bit fun for my tastes.
I mentioned liquid tin earlier - because there is a robust, long running technology for keeping large quantities of molten tin around. See the glass industry. In theory, it would give you a reasonable energy density - and would be good for generating steam - see the whole steam turbine/power station industry.
It is bizarre and I explain it as being evidence of a deep insecurity or confusion or perhaps fear on the part of those responding in such a way.
We were earlier discussing energy policy and the mere discussion of it invited charges of aiding Putin.
Doesn't bother me in the slightest, but I am intrigued.
(I don't know enough about the costs of either electricity or microwaves there, but it might make sense for some of you to buy one now, if you don't already have one.)
The downside, of course, is that the microwave doesn't warm your home as much as a stove, but that might not matter to you.
Today I’ve been making more soulful images. After going for horror yesterday
I’ve had some success. I would definitely frame some of these and put them on less important walls
Man on left saying - still seems a bit small, I think Rishi is maybe 5-10 centimetres bigger.
(Given that Iraq was not a war of territorial conquest.)
The Kyiv Independent
@KyivIndependent
⚡️ Washington Post: Ukraine ‘lures’ Russian missiles with wooden decoys resembling HIMARS.
Ukrainian troops have “tricked Russian forces into wasting expensive long-range cruise missiles” on the wooden decoys resembling advanced U.S. rocket systems, the Washington Post reported.
https://mobile.twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1564620701939769349
Might explain why the Russians keep on claiming to have destroyed so many of the HIMARS launchers.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was as you say on balance "illegal" (meaningless term in such a context but let's go with it). It was condemned widely but there were no sanctions or really any consequences as far as anyone could see.
I noted that Putin will likely have learned from this and it will have been a factor in his deliberations as to what and whether to take any action in Ukraine.
And to note this is to give succour to Putin, apparently.
Sodium nitrate / Potassium nitrate or the like.
I thought you were wanting to explore the two things rather than make rhetorical points ?
Compressed Air Energy Storage, when combined with CCGTs has some really good metrics, not least because you don't recover the air directly, but use it to significantly increase the efficiency of the gas plant.
See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261918304288#:~:text=A hybrid CCGT-ACAES plant,process during low load demand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy_storage
Also explored for nuclear reactors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
I think the UK's Moltex is building a pilot project in Canada.
I have never discussed justification in the sense of "Putin is justified in doing XYZ because[, say,] Iraq."
I have always been very interested in understanding the context of his actions and what might have been factors in his calculus.
Someone can say in any number of situations "I understand why she killed him" without justifying her killing him. You and others are misunderstanding the difference.
But seriously, I don't know what you're moaning about on this one. We're not short of 'it's complicated' and 'a settlement is preferable to war' sentiment on here viz Russia v Ukraine.
There's several posters who regularly make points along those lines.
So I would agree that the invasion of Iraq was self-defeating for that reason, and we should learn the lesson that we need to voluntarily abide by international rules if we want to encourage others to do likewise, or seek to force them to do so.
But there are some who want to extend that argument to say that this means the Russo-Ukraine War is the fault of the US and the UK, and we should therefore stop making things worse by interfering and keep out of it.
I disagree with that. I think it's a relatively minor aspect that doesn't change the essential characteristic of the war - that it is an attempted war of conquest by a dictatorship against a democracy, and it is therefore a vital national interest of all democracies to stand together in defence of Ukraine.
People like to by from artists/artisans because of the experience and the personal story. Many will have hand thrown pottery at home that they bought on holiday once or from a local craft fair at prices way above those they would pay for similarly nice objects from a shop. Same with cushions, throws, photos, wicker baskets.
Likewise millions go to cafes to get a flat white that they can easily make to a similar standard in their home coffee machines, or buy chutneys at £5 a pop from a farmer's market where you could get something tasting the same from Lidl for £1.50.
Right 63%
Wrong 25%
Don’t know 13%
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/08/30/66ff7/1
All of the last century or so of history is the 'context' of his actions; Iraq included. But so what ?
What it is about Iraq, in your view, that was a factor in his 'calculus' ?
If you're arguing that it set a precedent that it's OK for major powers to get their way militarily, I disagree. I think Iraq, if anything, demonstrated the opposite.
And I don't see how he could imagine it set a precedent for making it internationally acceptable for annexing a neighbouring state.
A coolant that likes to burn really, really well when exposed to air has it's... charms....
The interesting thing now is to see how much the West can arm Ukraine without Putin thinking it is a casus belli and if he does come to that point, what happens next.
So that kind of humble art/craft will survive
Paradoxically it’s the more professional art which is first threatened. Illustrators and graphic designers and pro photographers. The stuff this machine makes is so brilliant (and cheap) publishers etc will choose the machine
But I’ve been reading about the coming plans for Stable Diffusion: audio, 3D, animation, and lots more. It is already being incorporated into apps
You don’t have to be a genius extrapolater to see what this implies
But I think you're right. Which is why I was intrigued by your, I think, and @Sean_F's comments that the discussion was playing into Putin's hands.
Anyone can use it. You get some free goes. Then you have to pay. £10 for 1000 images
https://huggingface.co/spaces/stabilityai/stable-diffusion
Paid with credits (instant, and you get a few credits free)
https://beta.dreamstudio.ai/home
I've been playing with both all afternoon and have barely got anything coherent, let alone anything chuckleworthty.
This has a similar backstory of a country emerging from an empire.
Cyprus emerged from the Ottoman empire, established itself as an independent state but always with a sizeable minority that saw themselves as Turkish.
There were pressures among some in the Greek Cypriot majority to forge closer ties with Greece (Enosis), whereas in practice the only way to maintain peace was for Cyprus to maintain its distance from both Greece and Turkey (essentially Makarios' position).
The Turkish invasion was driven by the threat of reunion of Cyprus with Greece by forces loyal to the Greek junta.
Pro-Enosis is roughly equivalent to pro-EU in the Ukrainian context.
Although the Turks invaded, they were not wholly responsible for the situation in Cyprus.
Although the Russian invaded, they are not wholly responsible for the situation in Ukraine.
I think it is not a bad parallel, and I expect the conflict will end the same way with a de facto partitioned country.
Labrov claimed at the beginning that only the Russian public's reaction counted, but they've been trying to win some of the world over to their views. Come on, lads, try to keep your lies consistent - that would help. Obviously they are paranoid, but that's not a reason to accommodate them. If Belgium became paranoid, and decide to annexe Holland in self-defence, we wouldn't go along with it. "You can see their point of view." No, we can't, they're barmy and untrustworthy as a result.
As for "We have no intention of invading Ukraine," twenty four hours before they did. Hmm ... did they think we'd believe anything they said?
It might be like any other sub-genre. Bill Viola's work comes to mind. He is a master of video art although video art is accessible to any- and everyone.
Bill Viola - masterful at new mode of art
You - likely crap at new mode of art
Again, not a criticism but you are playing at it and are not an artist. There will likely be proper artists in this stuff.
Was my point.
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1564635417969917959?s=21&t=pK5_pwRLV5YZC9_7v6hoFQ
Right: 38%
Wrong: 53%
Don’t know: 9%
Liz either crushes him, or he will destroy his third Tory PM running (fourth, if you include hisself).
Was the big takeaway.
But anyway I see you're having a nice little debate with Nigel now, with none of that going on, so all good.
Your point on Iraq btw? I don't like 'set a precedent' - that's not quite it imo - but what I'd definitely say is it cost lots of moral capital which, if we had it back, would come in very useful right now.