Howdy, Stranger!

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

The six seats on the LD by-election watch list – politicalbetting.com

1356

Comments

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,365
    Still, Dynamo has one thing in common with Gorbachev.

    Almost nobody has ever had such a profound impact on an era, while understanding so little about it.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/gorbachev-legacy-russia/671288/
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    The great social historian Joel was singing in 1989 that

    I was born in '49
    A cold war kid in the McCarthy times
    Stop 'em at the 38th parallel
    Blast those yellow reds to hell
    Cold war kids were hard to kill
    Under their desks in an air raid drill
    Haven't they heard we won the war
    What do they keep on fighting for?

    As if it was ancient history. @Dynamo does have at least half a point here.
  • jamesdoylejamesdoyle Posts: 251

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    Nigelb said:

    The world's largest offshore wind farm is now fully operational, 55 miles off the coast of Yorkshire.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62731923.amp

    Around 5% of total UK grid capacity (when it's operating at full chat).
    And when the wind doesn't blow? f8ck all.

    And the costs of that are not zero. Flexing electricity generators to go from renewable to gas when there is no wind costs money.
    Not as much money as buying hydrocarbons like gas costs.

    Wind more than pays for itself now, and is subsidy free. Your objection to it, so wanting our bills to go up as we consume even more gas, is just odd.
    Sometimes the wind doesn't blow and the supply stops. When it stops, we don't get any electricity and we can't store it yet. So that's no power, depending on what the weather is. A bit like it was three hundred year ago,

    When the wind doesn't blow we have to use gas. The cost of the gas is the market price for gas, plus some extra to flex the generators onto gas.

    The extra cost being the result of the intermittency of renewables.

    Don't you get the word intermittency? don't you realise the implications of it?
    I get the word intermittency, its just not that important since as it stands we always consume or export all of the wind energy produced. Whether it's a windy day, or a calm day.

    If we ever reach a point where it's a windy day and we can neither consume nor export the wind electricity generated then we will have a problem, but that has never happened and isn't likely to happen any time soon. Storage is coming in volume, but it's not needed just yet.

    If it wasn't for wind power we'd be burning more gas all of the time. With wind we burn less gas most of the time.

    What's your preferred alternative?
    My preferred alternative is to gather up a huge store of cheap renewable energy in the breezy sunny summer, and use it in the cold dark winter.

    Its a fair way off sadly, but we need to be honest with people about that. There is no point deluding ourselves. Gas is going to be with us for a while, and a hard target for net zero is neither desirable nor achievable. We need to scrap it.

    The point @BartholomewRoberts makes regarding us always using all the wind power that is produced is an interesting one - I am sure it contradicts something somebody else has said @rcs1000? That wind operators switch off when the grid is full, and are still paid for doing so. Can anyone confirm the real situation?
    There have been a handful of occasions when a strong storm has passed through overnight and wet haven't been able to use or export all the wind energy that could be generated.

    These occasions have not yet been frequent enough for it to be economic to store the wind energy during those events for use at other times. We're talking about a few GWh a few times a year, whereas Dinorwig gets to shift energy from night to day every day.

    As we add more wind capacity these events will become more frequent, and so it will become possible to make money by storing the electricity produced that would otherwise be wasted. It will come but we're not there yet.
    There are times when all or part of some wind farms are 'switched off' when they could be generating, because it's easier to fine tune wind farm output than it is to reduce or increase output from a gas power station - when you're dealing with gas turbines the size of houses, you don't want to be stepping on the brakes or accelerator more than is necessary.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,144
    nico679 said:

    The Unions surely would prefer Labour in government . Are they too thick to understand that for Labour they have to be careful to not give no 10 and the right wing press an open goal. Burnham grates on me , he seems to think he’s some Labour messiah . If he wants to go for leader he needs to resign from his job as mayor of Manchester and find a seat .

    Burnham is probably one of the few politicians even more lightweight than Lizzy Lightweight herself.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,497
    HYUFD said:
    He's on manoeuvres.

    God help the Labour party were the discount store Mayor to become leader.
  • In what I'm calling Gordo's Glasnost, we can now talk about Brown's Russian riches

    https://pressgazette.co.uk/gordon-brown-spectator-ipso/
  • eekeek Posts: 21,826

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    Nigelb said:

    The world's largest offshore wind farm is now fully operational, 55 miles off the coast of Yorkshire.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62731923.amp

    Around 5% of total UK grid capacity (when it's operating at full chat).
    And when the wind doesn't blow? f8ck all.

    And the costs of that are not zero. Flexing electricity generators to go from renewable to gas when there is no wind costs money.
    Not as much money as buying hydrocarbons like gas costs.

    Wind more than pays for itself now, and is subsidy free. Your objection to it, so wanting our bills to go up as we consume even more gas, is just odd.
    Sometimes the wind doesn't blow and the supply stops. When it stops, we don't get any electricity and we can't store it yet. So that's no power, depending on what the weather is. A bit like it was three hundred year ago,

    When the wind doesn't blow we have to use gas. The cost of the gas is the market price for gas, plus some extra to flex the generators onto gas.

    The extra cost being the result of the intermittency of renewables.

    Don't you get the word intermittency? don't you realise the implications of it?
    I get the word intermittency, its just not that important since as it stands we always consume or export all of the wind energy produced. Whether it's a windy day, or a calm day.

    If we ever reach a point where it's a windy day and we can neither consume nor export the wind electricity generated then we will have a problem, but that has never happened and isn't likely to happen any time soon. Storage is coming in volume, but it's not needed just yet.

    If it wasn't for wind power we'd be burning more gas all of the time. With wind we burn less gas most of the time.

    What's your preferred alternative?
    My preferred alternative is to gather up a huge store of cheap renewable energy in the breezy sunny summer, and use it in the cold dark winter.

    Its a fair way off sadly, but we need to be honest with people about that. There is no point deluding ourselves. Gas is going to be with us for a while, and a hard target for net zero is neither desirable nor achievable. We need to scrap it.

    The point @BartholomewRoberts makes regarding us always using all the wind power that is produced is an interesting one - I am sure it contradicts something somebody else has said @rcs1000? That wind operators switch off when the grid is full, and are still paid for doing so. Can anyone confirm the real situation?
    The highest cost (and easy to stop) producers will be asked to stop supplying when demand isn't there - but I think you may be confusing that with a separate need to ensures motors don't get burned out when the wind is too strong....
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,938

    kjh said:

    OK I am going to post something that is probably ridiculously stupid so I await the responses ridiculing me (it will be along the lines of one of our more notorious posters in its simplicity, which is usually stupidly impossible). Particularly interested in @Richard_Tyndall's views.

    Firstly to state, as I have done before, I do not believe in windfall taxes or caps for private industries, but we are in exceptional and extraordinary times.

    Ideally we want to keep power supplies for both residents and business around what they were before the big hikes due the large increase in wholesale prices. Not just for hardship purposes, but to control inflation. We are faffing around with all sorts of schemes that will leave holes all over the place (particularly for businesses) and are very complex.

    Why not windfall tax the wholesale supplies equivalent to the difference in current commodity price over the more normal price they would have charged before the commodity price increased and pass that onto the retail suppliers so they are basing their retail prices on the previous normal price rather than the higher wholesale price they are paying.

    Suspect there are all sorts of flaws in that in terms of complexity and also issue with wholesale providers that aren't UK based.

    OK standing by for the flak.

    This is similar to my suggestion the other day. I agree that we are in an extraordinary period equivalent to a war footing. Therefore the normal rules on business do not apply - just as they didn't apply on other such occasions.

    If that premise is accepted then it seems reasonable to me that the Government can take any economic action it deems necessary to protect consumers, both domestic and business. Like you I think windfall taxes are a poor way to do things. at least when operating under normal circumstances and just being used to prop up Government finances due to their own mishandling. But I think it might be reasonable to set a maximum profit that energy companies are allowed to earn for the duration of the crisis - say 5 or 10%. Anything over that is used to support consumers on the basis of preventing businesses shutting down and financial ruin for individuals.

    There is an argument made on here that the only way to properly deal with the crisis is to reduce consumption or increase supply. I agree with this. But the suggestion that this should be done by simply driving people and businesses into bankruptcy and ruin is ludicrous. The damage it will do to the economy and social well being of the country as well as to individuals will be far more damaging than anything that would result from Government intervention. It would be a classic case of 'the operation was a success but the patient died'.
    Ok so I wasn't being completely barmy then, although I want to know why you got 5 likes (admittedly one from me) and I got none? Obviously you put it more eloquently.

    Re your last para this was @Sandpit's point and a very good point that I had overlooked, hence my suggestion of a partial implementation. So take the edge off the problem re hardship and businesses but still let the market play its part to reduce consumption without causing havoc.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,179
    Ryan Giggs jury failed to agree. Discharged.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,921

    Ryan Giggs jury failed to agree. Discharged.

    The Jury not Giggs has discharged? a dramatic inversion of the norm!
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,144

    In what I'm calling Gordo's Glasnost, we can now talk about Brown's Russian riches

    https://pressgazette.co.uk/gordon-brown-spectator-ipso/

    The idea that anyone would pay to listen to Gordon Brown deliver a four hour speech is scandalous in itself.
  • jamesdoylejamesdoyle Posts: 251

    Nigelb said:

    The world's largest offshore wind farm is now fully operational, 55 miles off the coast of Yorkshire.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62731923.amp

    Around 5% of total UK grid capacity (when it's operating at full chat).
    Can any of the wind experts tell me roughly what proportion of the grid capacity can now be provided by wind, given maximum blowiness?
    I am not an expert, and it is really difficult to get the figures on this, but it is worth noting that there is a Government paper (1) that states that in 2019 wind gave us 20% of our requirements, and adds that 2019 was 'suboptimal conditions for wind, with 2019 reporting the lowest average wind speeds since 2012'. So certainly well above 20% - how much above is another matter.

    (1) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/875384/Wind_powered_electricity_in_the_UK.pdf
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    ping said:

    Wholesale gas prices back down to where they were 2 weeks ago.

    Panic over?

    Because there was no hint of a panic 2 weeks ago?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,511
    nico679 said:

    The Unions surely would prefer Labour in government . Are they too thick to understand that for Labour they have to be careful to not give no 10 and the right wing press an open goal. Burnham grates on me , he seems to think he’s some Labour messiah . If he wants to go for leader he needs to resign from his job as mayor of Manchester and find a seat .

    There is a fine balance to tread. Ordinarily most "workers" are not in a union and have been weaponised as not liking unions by the right. But, and I think it is increasingly so, as this winter becomes more desperate, Labour figures standing with unions to represent desperate people will be required for them to be seen as credible.

    This Enough is Enough campaign is run by the usual hard left loons. But its stated objectives will become increasingly relevant to most people:

    1. A Real Pay Rise.
    2. Slash Energy Bills.
    3. End Food Poverty.
    4. Decent Homes for All.
    5. Tax the Rich.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,179
    ydoethur said:

    Ryan Giggs jury failed to agree. Discharged.

    The Jury not Giggs has discharged? a dramatic inversion of the norm!
    LOL
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,144

    nico679 said:

    The Unions surely would prefer Labour in government . Are they too thick to understand that for Labour they have to be careful to not give no 10 and the right wing press an open goal. Burnham grates on me , he seems to think he’s some Labour messiah . If he wants to go for leader he needs to resign from his job as mayor of Manchester and find a seat .

    There is a fine balance to tread. Ordinarily most "workers" are not in a union and have been weaponised as not liking unions by the right. But, and I think it is increasingly so, as this winter becomes more desperate, Labour figures standing with unions to represent desperate people will be required for them to be seen as credible.

    This Enough is Enough campaign is run by the usual hard left loons. But its stated objectives will become increasingly relevant to most people:

    1. A Real Pay Rise.
    2. Slash Energy Bills.
    3. End Food Poverty.
    4. Decent Homes for All.
    5. Tax the Rich.
    Well they have already achieved number 5. I am quite rich and last time I checked I definitely paid some tax.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    And of course 9 out of 10 Englishmen think the 100 years war ended in 1415.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,881

    In what I'm calling Gordo's Glasnost, we can now talk about Brown's Russian riches

    https://pressgazette.co.uk/gordon-brown-spectator-ipso/

    The original article seems to have been substantially amended to remove the nasty implications.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 1,846
    Of course the key fact about the current Cold War is that the line of engagement has shifted 1000km eastwards. This makes the Russians more nervous than they used to be in the good old days.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,881
    HYUFD said:
    It's not in defiance of Starmer. There is no instruction to MPs, let alone Mayors, not to join picket lines - only not to start making policy statements on the hoof.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,365

    Nigelb said:

    The world's largest offshore wind farm is now fully operational, 55 miles off the coast of Yorkshire.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62731923.amp

    Around 5% of total UK grid capacity (when it's operating at full chat).
    Can any of the wind experts tell me roughly what proportion of the grid capacity can now be provided by wind, given maximum blowiness?
    I am not an expert, and it is really difficult to get the figures on this, but it is worth noting that there is a Government paper (1) that states that in 2019 wind gave us 20% of our requirements, and adds that 2019 was 'suboptimal conditions for wind, with 2019 reporting the lowest average wind speeds since 2012'. So certainly well above 20% - how much above is another matter.

    (1) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/875384/Wind_powered_electricity_in_the_UK.pdf
    In the last quarter of 2021, individual renewables contributed the following: Wind power contributed 26.1% of the UK's total electricity generation in Q4 2021, with onshore and offshore wind contributing 12% and 14% respectively...

    And of course the latest phase of Hornsea has just added a couple of percent to that, and there are other developments.

    The 'maximum' might well be significantly higher - but wind very rarely indeed blows at full strength in every location for very long, so each winter's figures (when wind tends to be at its strongest) are probably a fairish benchmark for the top end of UK wind capacity for any given year.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    nico679 said:

    The Unions surely would prefer Labour in government . Are they too thick to understand that for Labour they have to be careful to not give no 10 and the right wing press an open goal. Burnham grates on me , he seems to think he’s some Labour messiah . If he wants to go for leader he needs to resign from his job as mayor of Manchester and find a seat .

    There is a fine balance to tread. Ordinarily most "workers" are not in a union and have been weaponised as not liking unions by the right. But, and I think it is increasingly so, as this winter becomes more desperate, Labour figures standing with unions to represent desperate people will be required for them to be seen as credible.

    This Enough is Enough campaign is run by the usual hard left loons. But its stated objectives will become increasingly relevant to most people:

    1. A Real Pay Rise.
    2. Slash Energy Bills.
    3. End Food Poverty.
    4. Decent Homes for All.
    5. Tax the Rich.
    There's two ways we can go. One is the USA with the uberrich living in gated colonies and the rest on the streets, and the other is Scandi prosperous socialism. it is blindingly obvious that Scandi is the better bet, but actually we will go USA.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,497
    edited August 31
    ...

    Ryan Giggs jury failed to agree. Discharged.

    I believe another criminal trial should not be held on account of public funds being squandered once already. Giggs has come across as an appalling man. Let any gold diggers (whoever they may be) dig gold in the public money free civil courts. If the evidence is with you, bleed him dry ladies (whoever you may be)!
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,931
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    OK I am going to post something that is probably ridiculously stupid so I await the responses ridiculing me (it will be along the lines of one of our more notorious posters in its simplicity, which is usually stupidly impossible). Particularly interested in @Richard_Tyndall's views.

    Firstly to state, as I have done before, I do not believe in windfall taxes or caps for private industries, but we are in exceptional and extraordinary times.

    Ideally we want to keep power supplies for both residents and business around what they were before the big hikes due the large increase in wholesale prices. Not just for hardship purposes, but to control inflation. We are faffing around with all sorts of schemes that will leave holes all over the place (particularly for businesses) and are very complex.

    Why not windfall tax the wholesale supplies equivalent to the difference in current commodity price over the more normal price they would have charged before the commodity price increased and pass that onto the retail suppliers so they are basing their retail prices on the previous normal price rather than the higher wholesale price they are paying.

    Suspect there are all sorts of flaws in that in terms of complexity and also issue with wholesale providers that aren't UK based.

    OK standing by for the flak.

    This is similar to my suggestion the other day. I agree that we are in an extraordinary period equivalent to a war footing. Therefore the normal rules on business do not apply - just as they didn't apply on other such occasions.

    If that premise is accepted then it seems reasonable to me that the Government can take any economic action it deems necessary to protect consumers, both domestic and business. Like you I think windfall taxes are a poor way to do things. at least when operating under normal circumstances and just being used to prop up Government finances due to their own mishandling. But I think it might be reasonable to set a maximum profit that energy companies are allowed to earn for the duration of the crisis - say 5 or 10%. Anything over that is used to support consumers on the basis of preventing businesses shutting down and financial ruin for individuals.

    There is an argument made on here that the only way to properly deal with the crisis is to reduce consumption or increase supply. I agree with this. But the suggestion that this should be done by simply driving people and businesses into bankruptcy and ruin is ludicrous. The damage it will do to the economy and social well being of the country as well as to individuals will be far more damaging than anything that would result from Government intervention. It would be a classic case of 'the operation was a success but the patient died'.
    Ok so I wasn't being completely barmy then, although I want to know why you got 5 likes (admittedly one from me) and I got none? Obviously you put it more eloquently.

    Re your last para this was @Sandpit's point and a very good point that I had overlooked, hence my suggestion of a partial implementation. So take the edge off the problem re hardship and businesses but still let the market play its part to reduce consumption without causing havoc.
    On Sandpit's point it seems to ignore that energy prices to households have already doubled compared to last winter before Octobers increase, and the proposals being put forward are not to go back to last winters prices but to the current already higher prices. We don't know if that will reduce consumption over the winter by 1%, 5%, 10% or the required about 15% but doubling surely reduces demand significantly especially given other inflation outstripping wages too.

    So prices may already have risen enough for the drop in demand. Prices rising fivefold without govt intervention will almost certainly overshoot the required demand reduction, or at least demand that would actually be paid for rather than inevitably written off as bad debt.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,555

    Nigelb said:

    The world's largest offshore wind farm is now fully operational, 55 miles off the coast of Yorkshire.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62731923.amp

    Around 5% of total UK grid capacity (when it's operating at full chat).
    Can any of the wind experts tell me roughly what proportion of the grid capacity can now be provided by wind, given maximum blowiness?
    The record amount of wind energy supplied to the grid was 19.9GW in May, earlier this year.

    Given the new wind farms hooked up to the grid since then we should easily breeze past 20GW during periods of maximum blowiness this winter.

    The average cold spell peak electricity demand for this winter is forecast to be 59.5GW. So we have a fair way to go, but we will have long periods where wind is delivering more than 10GW, which is a lot of gas that doesn't need to be burnt.
  • jamesdoylejamesdoyle Posts: 251
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    The world's largest offshore wind farm is now fully operational, 55 miles off the coast of Yorkshire.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62731923.amp

    Around 5% of total UK grid capacity (when it's operating at full chat).
    Can any of the wind experts tell me roughly what proportion of the grid capacity can now be provided by wind, given maximum blowiness?
    I am not an expert, and it is really difficult to get the figures on this, but it is worth noting that there is a Government paper (1) that states that in 2019 wind gave us 20% of our requirements, and adds that 2019 was 'suboptimal conditions for wind, with 2019 reporting the lowest average wind speeds since 2012'. So certainly well above 20% - how much above is another matter.

    (1) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/875384/Wind_powered_electricity_in_the_UK.pdf
    In the last quarter of 2021, individual renewables contributed the following: Wind power contributed 26.1% of the UK's total electricity generation in Q4 2021, with onshore and offshore wind contributing 12% and 14% respectively...

    And of course the latest phase of Hornsea has just added a couple of percent to that, and there are other developments.

    The 'maximum' might well be significantly higher - but wind very rarely indeed blows at full strength in every location for very long, so each winter's figures (when wind tends to be at its strongest) are probably a fairish benchmark for the top end of UK wind capacity for any given year.
    It's a bit of a fallacy to say wind has to blow at full strength - the Rampion wind farm off the Sussex Coast where I live can generate up to max capacity even in a fresh breeze, 20ish mph. Max wind speed of operation is 50mph. It takes longer to get the turbines up to speed in lighter winds, but they don't take much wind to keep them there once they're generating.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 1,846

    HYUFD said:
    It's not in defiance of Starmer. There is no instruction to MPs, let alone Mayors, not to join picket lines - only not to start making policy statements on the hoof.
    I do wonder about the economics of striking. There was a six-month all-out bin strike in Coventry this year. Whatever the final settlement the workers must surely be much worse off after six months with no pay, and 1% or 2% extra is hardly going to compensate. Rather than just cheering on strikers shouldn't Labour politicians be offering more realistic advice? Liam Byrne's valedictory memo springs to mind.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,311

    Ryan Giggs jury failed to agree. Discharged.

    We need VAR.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,931

    HYUFD said:
    It's not in defiance of Starmer. There is no instruction to MPs, let alone Mayors, not to join picket lines - only not to start making policy statements on the hoof.
    I do wonder about the economics of striking. There was a six-month all-out bin strike in Coventry this year. Whatever the final settlement the workers must surely be much worse off after six months with no pay, and 1% or 2% extra is hardly going to compensate. Rather than just cheering on strikers shouldn't Labour politicians be offering more realistic advice? Liam Byrne's valedictory memo springs to mind.
    It feels like the deals that they end up with after striking are fairly predictable to outsiders, and both parties would have been better off agreeing to it from the start. So I think generally strikes are a failure of both management and unions, and only occasionally a failure of just one of either management or unions.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,311

    Burn.

    Rachel Wearmouth
    @REWearmouth
    ·
    4h
    👀Starmer faces down Owen Jones: "The Labour Party has lost four elections in a row. Owen was a cheerleader at the last attempt and we failed."

    I'm not sure that's a zinger because Jones has always supported Labour in elections.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,511
    kinabalu said:

    Burn.

    Rachel Wearmouth
    @REWearmouth
    ·
    4h
    👀Starmer faces down Owen Jones: "The Labour Party has lost four elections in a row. Owen was a cheerleader at the last attempt and we failed."

    I'm not sure that's a zinger because Jones has always supported Labour in elections.
    Jones no longer supports Labour. He is an embittered Starmer Out heckler.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,864

    ...

    Ryan Giggs jury failed to agree. Discharged.

    I believe another criminal trial should not be held on account of public funds being squandered once already. Giggs has come across as an appalling man. Let any gold diggers (whoever they may be) dig gold in the public money free civil courts. If the evidence is with you, bleed him dry ladies (whoever you may be)!
    Giggs is an appalling man, and it is not against the law to be appalling.

    But, domestic violence is a serious crime, too often taken rather jokingly. Giggs should be re-tried.

    I think it is wrong to imply his victims are gold-diggers. It is slurring the victims.

    The jury was 7 females, 4 males -- we'll never know, but it would be fascinating to see how the jury split.

    I would not be surprised if it was 7-4.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,162
    kinabalu said:

    Burn.

    Rachel Wearmouth
    @REWearmouth
    ·
    4h
    👀Starmer faces down Owen Jones: "The Labour Party has lost four elections in a row. Owen was a cheerleader at the last attempt and we failed."

    I'm not sure that's a zinger because Jones has always supported Labour in elections.
    And Starmer was a cheerleader at the last election…
  • This seems an interesting approach to Ukraine

    https://en.mehrnews.com/news/190878/Macron-reportedly-asks-Iran-to-mediate-in-Ukraine-war

    Can't be true though, can it?
  • kinabalu said:

    Burn.

    Rachel Wearmouth
    @REWearmouth
    ·
    4h
    👀Starmer faces down Owen Jones: "The Labour Party has lost four elections in a row. Owen was a cheerleader at the last attempt and we failed."

    I'm not sure that's a zinger because Jones has always supported Labour in elections.
    And Starmer was a cheerleader at the last election…
    Starmer was one of the main players that Jones was cheerleading for
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,497
    IshmaelZ said:

    nico679 said:

    The Unions surely would prefer Labour in government . Are they too thick to understand that for Labour they have to be careful to not give no 10 and the right wing press an open goal. Burnham grates on me , he seems to think he’s some Labour messiah . If he wants to go for leader he needs to resign from his job as mayor of Manchester and find a seat .

    There is a fine balance to tread. Ordinarily most "workers" are not in a union and have been weaponised as not liking unions by the right. But, and I think it is increasingly so, as this winter becomes more desperate, Labour figures standing with unions to represent desperate people will be required for them to be seen as credible.

    This Enough is Enough campaign is run by the usual hard left loons. But its stated objectives will become increasingly relevant to most people:

    1. A Real Pay Rise.
    2. Slash Energy Bills.
    3. End Food Poverty.
    4. Decent Homes for All.
    5. Tax the Rich.
    There's two ways we can go. One is the USA with the uberrich living in gated colonies and the rest on the streets, and the other is Scandi prosperous socialism. it is blindingly obvious that Scandi is the better bet, but actually we will go USA.
    In many respects the fault lies with the ideological left. Their hatred and demonising of a social democracy compromise leaves us with 23 years of non- Conservative Governments over the last seventy.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,162
    Helpful fudge:

    the most important decision among EU for mins today is this: "given the challenging implications for the bordering countries, we acknowledge that measures can be taken at national level, to restrict entry into the EU in conformity with the EU Schengen border code" why? 1/2

    it gives EU endorsement to #Estonia, #Finland, #Lithuania, #Poland, #Latvia to come up with a "regional solution" to the issue of Russian citizens crossing their borders. possibly already next week. Full scrutiny of visas & border bottlenecks expected. 2/2

    https://twitter.com/rikardjozwiak/status/1564983325038706696?

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,497
    edited August 31

    ...

    Ryan Giggs jury failed to agree. Discharged.

    I believe another criminal trial should not be held on account of public funds being squandered once already. Giggs has come across as an appalling man. Let any gold diggers (whoever they may be) dig gold in the public money free civil courts. If the evidence is with you, bleed him dry ladies (whoever you may be)!
    Giggs is an appalling man, and it is not against the law to be appalling.

    But, domestic violence is a serious crime, too often taken rather jokingly. Giggs should be re-tried.

    I think it is wrong to imply his victims are gold-diggers. It is slurring the victims.

    The jury was 7 females, 4 males -- we'll never know, but it would be fascinating to see how the jury split.

    I would not be surprised if it was 7-4.
    I was not demeaning victims or condoning domestic violence. I suspect the case will always be difficult to prosecute because of his celebrity. If we do have a retrial, have it as far away from Manchester and Wales as you can, maybe Norwich, Brighton or Canterbury. I cite another celebrity trial of a former RT presenter, I can't recall the name or what they were alleged to have done.

    It would be some justice if the dreary little man was divested of his fortune if it is proven in a civil court that he was not only unpleasant but excessively so.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,698
    I might pop up Lochnagar on Tuesday. Any PBers fancy it?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,270
    IshmaelZ said:

    nico679 said:

    The Unions surely would prefer Labour in government . Are they too thick to understand that for Labour they have to be careful to not give no 10 and the right wing press an open goal. Burnham grates on me , he seems to think he’s some Labour messiah . If he wants to go for leader he needs to resign from his job as mayor of Manchester and find a seat .

    There is a fine balance to tread. Ordinarily most "workers" are not in a union and have been weaponised as not liking unions by the right. But, and I think it is increasingly so, as this winter becomes more desperate, Labour figures standing with unions to represent desperate people will be required for them to be seen as credible.

    This Enough is Enough campaign is run by the usual hard left loons. But its stated objectives will become increasingly relevant to most people:

    1. A Real Pay Rise.
    2. Slash Energy Bills.
    3. End Food Poverty.
    4. Decent Homes for All.
    5. Tax the Rich.
    There's two ways we can go. One is the USA with the uberrich living in gated colonies and the rest on the streets, and the other is Scandi prosperous socialism. it is blindingly obvious that Scandi is the better bet, but actually we will go USA.
    We will go neither, we will largely stay as we are, in between.

    Though even the US is moving a bit left under Biden who had increased taxes on the rich and spending
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,365

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    The world's largest offshore wind farm is now fully operational, 55 miles off the coast of Yorkshire.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62731923.amp

    Around 5% of total UK grid capacity (when it's operating at full chat).
    Can any of the wind experts tell me roughly what proportion of the grid capacity can now be provided by wind, given maximum blowiness?
    I am not an expert, and it is really difficult to get the figures on this, but it is worth noting that there is a Government paper (1) that states that in 2019 wind gave us 20% of our requirements, and adds that 2019 was 'suboptimal conditions for wind, with 2019 reporting the lowest average wind speeds since 2012'. So certainly well above 20% - how much above is another matter.

    (1) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/875384/Wind_powered_electricity_in_the_UK.pdf
    In the last quarter of 2021, individual renewables contributed the following: Wind power contributed 26.1% of the UK's total electricity generation in Q4 2021, with onshore and offshore wind contributing 12% and 14% respectively...

    And of course the latest phase of Hornsea has just added a couple of percent to that, and there are other developments.

    The 'maximum' might well be significantly higher - but wind very rarely indeed blows at full strength in every location for very long, so each winter's figures (when wind tends to be at its strongest) are probably a fairish benchmark for the top end of UK wind capacity for any given year.
    It's a bit of a fallacy to say wind has to blow at full strength - the Rampion wind farm off the Sussex Coast where I live can generate up to max capacity even in a fresh breeze, 20ish mph. Max wind speed of operation is 50mph. It takes longer to get the turbines up to speed in lighter winds, but they don't take much wind to keep them there once they're generating.
    Sure, but none of that invalidates the back of fag packet estimate.
    Average wind energy production drops considerably during the summer months, so what we actually generated during the winter is a very good proxy for wind capacity.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,270

    ...

    Ryan Giggs jury failed to agree. Discharged.

    I believe another criminal trial should not be held on account of public funds being squandered once already. Giggs has come across as an appalling man. Let any gold diggers (whoever they may be) dig gold in the public money free civil courts. If the evidence is with you, bleed him dry ladies (whoever you may be)!
    Giggs is an appalling man, and it is not against the law to be appalling.

    But, domestic violence is a serious crime, too often taken rather jokingly. Giggs should be re-tried.

    I think it is wrong to imply his victims are gold-diggers. It is slurring the victims.

    The jury was 7 females, 4 males -- we'll never know, but it would be fascinating to see how the jury split.

    I would not be surprised if it was 7-4.
    Retrial would not take place until June 2023

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62645830
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,698

    The only interesting things about the PMs having to go to Balmoral to do the job handover are:

    1. Whether Truss waits in London for HMQ to invite her to Balmoral after Johnson has seen her to resign, or if she travels up to Scotland on the presumption that HMQ will invite her to be PM, and whether that means we have an unusually long periods without a PM.

    2. What photos/media access will be provided of the process to stand in for the usual backdrop of government cars traveling between Downing Street and Buckingham Palace, and any clues that might provide for treasonous topics of speculation.

    I didn't say they were very interesting, but I don't think there's any interest in anything else about it.

    Interesting to see if the Generals are there to sort out the letter of last resort. A shorter hop over to Faslane than usual.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,365

    This seems an interesting approach to Ukraine

    https://en.mehrnews.com/news/190878/Macron-reportedly-asks-Iran-to-mediate-in-Ukraine-war

    Can't be true though, can it?

    If they can persuade Putin to give up, it's worth a try ?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,497
    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    nico679 said:

    The Unions surely would prefer Labour in government . Are they too thick to understand that for Labour they have to be careful to not give no 10 and the right wing press an open goal. Burnham grates on me , he seems to think he’s some Labour messiah . If he wants to go for leader he needs to resign from his job as mayor of Manchester and find a seat .

    There is a fine balance to tread. Ordinarily most "workers" are not in a union and have been weaponised as not liking unions by the right. But, and I think it is increasingly so, as this winter becomes more desperate, Labour figures standing with unions to represent desperate people will be required for them to be seen as credible.

    This Enough is Enough campaign is run by the usual hard left loons. But its stated objectives will become increasingly relevant to most people:

    1. A Real Pay Rise.
    2. Slash Energy Bills.
    3. End Food Poverty.
    4. Decent Homes for All.
    5. Tax the Rich.
    There's two ways we can go. One is the USA with the uberrich living in gated colonies and the rest on the streets, and the other is Scandi prosperous socialism. it is blindingly obvious that Scandi is the better bet, but actually we will go USA.
    We will go neither, we will largely stay as we are, in between.

    Though even the US is moving a bit left under Biden who had increased taxes on the rich and spending
    Whoosh, @IshmaelZ 's post went straight over your head.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,511
    edited August 31
    Eabhal said:

    I might pop up Lochnagar on Tuesday. Any PBers fancy it?

    I'm certainly considering it... EDIT - though what are the chances of the PM and then the PM being whisked in and out by helichopper and not via the road entrance?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Eabhal said:

    I might pop up Lochnagar on Tuesday. Any PBers fancy it?

    Just think who you might meet only half way up...
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,627
    edited August 31

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    Nigelb said:

    The world's largest offshore wind farm is now fully operational, 55 miles off the coast of Yorkshire.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62731923.amp

    Around 5% of total UK grid capacity (when it's operating at full chat).
    And when the wind doesn't blow? f8ck all.

    And the costs of that are not zero. Flexing electricity generators to go from renewable to gas when there is no wind costs money.
    Not as much money as buying hydrocarbons like gas costs.

    Wind more than pays for itself now, and is subsidy free. Your objection to it, so wanting our bills to go up as we consume even more gas, is just odd.
    Sometimes the wind doesn't blow and the supply stops. When it stops, we don't get any electricity and we can't store it yet. So that's no power, depending on what the weather is. A bit like it was three hundred year ago,

    When the wind doesn't blow we have to use gas. The cost of the gas is the market price for gas, plus some extra to flex the generators onto gas.

    The extra cost being the result of the intermittency of renewables.

    Don't you get the word intermittency? don't you realise the implications of it?
    I get the word intermittency, its just not that important since as it stands we always consume or export all of the wind energy produced. Whether it's a windy day, or a calm day.

    If we ever reach a point where it's a windy day and we can neither consume nor export the wind electricity generated then we will have a problem, but that has never happened and isn't likely to happen any time soon. Storage is coming in volume, but it's not needed just yet.

    If it wasn't for wind power we'd be burning more gas all of the time. With wind we burn less gas most of the time.

    What's your preferred alternative?
    My preferred alternative is to gather up a huge store of cheap renewable energy in the breezy sunny summer, and use it in the cold dark winter.

    Its a fair way off sadly, but we need to be honest with people about that. There is no point deluding ourselves. Gas is going to be with us for a while, and a hard target for net zero is neither desirable nor achievable. We need to scrap it.

    The point @BartholomewRoberts makes regarding us always using all the wind power that is produced is an interesting one - I am sure it contradicts something somebody else has said @rcs1000? That wind operators switch off when the grid is full, and are still paid for doing so. Can anyone confirm the real situation?
    There have been a handful of occasions when a strong storm has passed through overnight and wet haven't been able to use or export all the wind energy that could be generated.

    These occasions have not yet been frequent enough for it to be economic to store the wind energy during those events for use at other times. We're talking about a few GWh a few times a year, whereas Dinorwig gets to shift energy from night to day every day.

    As we add more wind capacity these events will become more frequent, and so it will become possible to make money by storing the electricity produced that would otherwise be wasted. It will come but we're not there yet.
    There are times when all or part of some wind farms are 'switched off' when they could be generating, because it's easier to fine tune wind farm output than it is to reduce or increase output from a gas power station - when you're dealing with gas turbines the size of houses, you don't want to be stepping on the brakes or accelerator more than is necessary.
    This 2020 article is interesting on this subject:

    https://www.power-technology.com/analysis/constraint-payments-rewarding-wind-farms-for-switching-off/

    "In some cases, wind farm operators have been paid more to switch off than produce power."

    "As the Scottish planning regime is not as restrictive for wind developments as England, operators are more likely to have their projects approved.

    In addition, according to the REF, the growing desire for more renewable energy and the encouragement of wind production has led to less scrutiny for wind operators in Scotland, as well as lower charges for the electricity grid connection needed for their development."

    "Could companies be targeting constraint payments?

    The spokesperson for the REF believes that this practise can provide “a perverse incentive to seek out areas with low demand and weak grid connectivity,” therefore it can encourage more operators to take advantage of constraint payments by constructing more farms in such areas.

    Furthermore, REF perceives wind farms as a foreseeable market risk which should not be eligible for financial compensations when they have to be restricted in order to prevent grid overloading.

    The company does not see such compensations as justifiable, especially as they provide higher income for a restricted period of time compared to when wind farms are actually working."

    So perhaps Scotland isn't the land of renewable milk and honey, given that it would appear that the grid (= the bill payer) is paying a great deal for non-delivery of power, from facilities where there's a reasonable suspicion that the owners built them in the least connected places precisely to benefit from such payments.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,497
    HYUFD said:

    ...

    Ryan Giggs jury failed to agree. Discharged.

    I believe another criminal trial should not be held on account of public funds being squandered once already. Giggs has come across as an appalling man. Let any gold diggers (whoever they may be) dig gold in the public money free civil courts. If the evidence is with you, bleed him dry ladies (whoever you may be)!
    Giggs is an appalling man, and it is not against the law to be appalling.

    But, domestic violence is a serious crime, too often taken rather jokingly. Giggs should be re-tried.

    I think it is wrong to imply his victims are gold-diggers. It is slurring the victims.

    The jury was 7 females, 4 males -- we'll never know, but it would be fascinating to see how the jury split.

    I would not be surprised if it was 7-4.
    Retrial would not take place until June 2023

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62645830
    Injustice under your Tory Government!
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    nico679 said:

    The Unions surely would prefer Labour in government . Are they too thick to understand that for Labour they have to be careful to not give no 10 and the right wing press an open goal. Burnham grates on me , he seems to think he’s some Labour messiah . If he wants to go for leader he needs to resign from his job as mayor of Manchester and find a seat .

    There is a fine balance to tread. Ordinarily most "workers" are not in a union and have been weaponised as not liking unions by the right. But, and I think it is increasingly so, as this winter becomes more desperate, Labour figures standing with unions to represent desperate people will be required for them to be seen as credible.

    This Enough is Enough campaign is run by the usual hard left loons. But its stated objectives will become increasingly relevant to most people:

    1. A Real Pay Rise.
    2. Slash Energy Bills.
    3. End Food Poverty.
    4. Decent Homes for All.
    5. Tax the Rich.
    There's two ways we can go. One is the USA with the uberrich living in gated colonies and the rest on the streets, and the other is Scandi prosperous socialism. it is blindingly obvious that Scandi is the better bet, but actually we will go USA.
    We will go neither, we will largely stay as we are, in between.

    Though even the US is moving a bit left under Biden who had increased taxes on the rich and spending
    If we stay in between we default to USA. Every single bit of the system requires taxpayers money
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,627
    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    I might pop up Lochnagar on Tuesday. Any PBers fancy it?

    Just think who you might meet only half way up...
    The Grand Old Duke of York?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,555
    edited August 31
    The Met Office seasonal forecast for September to November was published on Monday. While a cold autumn is much less likely than normal, it's not generally expected to be as windy as normal.

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/services/government/contingency-planners/index
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,248
    algarkirk said:

    Dynamo said:

    Gotta love this from Vernon Bogdanor CBE:

    "There is no constitutional reason why the new PM should not be appointed in Balmoral. Indeed, some might think it pointless for the Queen at her age to travel to London for a purely formal ceremony."

    And some don't even question whether it's pointful or not for the person supposedly appointed to run the government to fly 1000 miles to see the monarch in whichever castle happens to be most convenient for her.

    No flies on you, Vern.

    If there were a president, it could be done by phone.

    Reminds me of the 1951 general election - supposedly called because if it had had to be called a few months later there would have been difficulties because a member of the royal family ("king") would have been on holiday abroad ("visiting his Commonwealth realms").

    Is this Blackadder or is this reality?

    I don't think they're trying to inconvenience Truss particularly. They're trying to poke Johnson in the eye.

    But we are not a presidency, a system which has its own costs too. We are a constitutional parliamentary democratic monarchy state in the UK. As this has been continuously evolving for 1200 years + and serves us overall quite well, and has huge popular support too, a few extra journeys to and from Scotland from London, adding to the tens of millions done annually, are worth it.

    People make that journey to go to a wedding. Isn't it worth it to make a constitutional PM? And why shouldn't a direct descendent of Mary Queen of Scots perform this act in Scotland?

    NB That is not to support Mrs T who I fear will be terrible.

    UK 1200+ years? Daftie.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,774
    edited August 31
    Eabhal said:

    I might pop up Lochnagar on Tuesday. Any PBers fancy it?

    I would, but it isn't happening, sadly.

    My last trip to the Balmoral estate was to ski (xc) from Crathie to Brig o' Dee via Albert's pyramid. I don't imagine you'd get very far on that route at the moment given some of the viewpoints along the way...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,996

    In what I'm calling Gordo's Glasnost, we can now talk about Brown's Russian riches

    https://pressgazette.co.uk/gordon-brown-spectator-ipso/

    The idea that anyone would pay to listen to Gordon Brown deliver a four hour speech is scandalous in itself.
    It might have been good value to pay him to deliver four hour speeches while he was in office because it would keep him occupied.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,365

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    Nigelb said:

    The world's largest offshore wind farm is now fully operational, 55 miles off the coast of Yorkshire.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62731923.amp

    Around 5% of total UK grid capacity (when it's operating at full chat).
    And when the wind doesn't blow? f8ck all.

    And the costs of that are not zero. Flexing electricity generators to go from renewable to gas when there is no wind costs money.
    Not as much money as buying hydrocarbons like gas costs.

    Wind more than pays for itself now, and is subsidy free. Your objection to it, so wanting our bills to go up as we consume even more gas, is just odd.
    Sometimes the wind doesn't blow and the supply stops. When it stops, we don't get any electricity and we can't store it yet. So that's no power, depending on what the weather is. A bit like it was three hundred year ago,

    When the wind doesn't blow we have to use gas. The cost of the gas is the market price for gas, plus some extra to flex the generators onto gas.

    The extra cost being the result of the intermittency of renewables.

    Don't you get the word intermittency? don't you realise the implications of it?
    I get the word intermittency, its just not that important since as it stands we always consume or export all of the wind energy produced. Whether it's a windy day, or a calm day.

    If we ever reach a point where it's a windy day and we can neither consume nor export the wind electricity generated then we will have a problem, but that has never happened and isn't likely to happen any time soon. Storage is coming in volume, but it's not needed just yet.

    If it wasn't for wind power we'd be burning more gas all of the time. With wind we burn less gas most of the time.

    What's your preferred alternative?
    My preferred alternative is to gather up a huge store of cheap renewable energy in the breezy sunny summer, and use it in the cold dark winter.

    Its a fair way off sadly, but we need to be honest with people about that. There is no point deluding ourselves. Gas is going to be with us for a while, and a hard target for net zero is neither desirable nor achievable. We need to scrap it.

    The point @BartholomewRoberts makes regarding us always using all the wind power that is produced is an interesting one - I am sure it contradicts something somebody else has said @rcs1000? That wind operators switch off when the grid is full, and are still paid for doing so. Can anyone confirm the real situation?
    There have been a handful of occasions when a strong storm has passed through overnight and wet haven't been able to use or export all the wind energy that could be generated.

    These occasions have not yet been frequent enough for it to be economic to store the wind energy during those events for use at other times. We're talking about a few GWh a few times a year, whereas Dinorwig gets to shift energy from night to day every day.

    As we add more wind capacity these events will become more frequent, and so it will become possible to make money by storing the electricity produced that would otherwise be wasted. It will come but we're not there yet.
    There are times when all or part of some wind farms are 'switched off' when they could be generating, because it's easier to fine tune wind farm output than it is to reduce or increase output from a gas power station - when you're dealing with gas turbines the size of houses, you don't want to be stepping on the brakes or accelerator more than is necessary.
    This 2020 article is interesting on this subject:

    https://www.power-technology.com/analysis/constraint-payments-rewarding-wind-farms-for-switching-off/

    "In some cases, wind farm operators have been paid more to switch off than produce power."

    "As the Scottish planning regime is not as restrictive for wind developments as England, operators are more likely to have their projects approved.

    In addition, according to the REF, the growing desire for more renewable energy and the encouragement of wind production has led to less scrutiny for wind operators in Scotland, as well as lower charges for the electricity grid connection needed for their development."

    "Could companies be targeting constraint payments?

    The spokesperson for the REF believes that this practise can provide “a perverse incentive to seek out areas with low demand and weak grid connectivity,” therefore it can encourage more operators to take advantage of constraint payments by constructing more farms in such areas.

    Furthermore, REF perceives wind farms as a foreseeable market risk which should not be eligible for financial compensations when they have to be restricted in order to prevent grid overloading.

    The company does not see such compensations as justifiable, especially as they provide higher income for a restricted period of time compared to when wind farms are actually working."

    So perhaps Scotland isn't the land of renewable milk and honey, given that it would appear that the grid (= the bill payer) is paying a great deal for non-delivery of power, from facilities where there's a reasonable suspicion that the owners built them in the least connected places precisely to benefit from such payments.
    As connectivity has improved (eg the HVDC interconnect between England and Scotland), it's a declining issue.
    ...In 2020 constraint payments to onshore wind in Scotland amounted to 3,460 GWh (at a cost of £243m), whereas in 2021 this was 1,783 GWh (at a cost of £107m), a reduction of 48% by volume of energy...
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,627
    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    nico679 said:

    The Unions surely would prefer Labour in government . Are they too thick to understand that for Labour they have to be careful to not give no 10 and the right wing press an open goal. Burnham grates on me , he seems to think he’s some Labour messiah . If he wants to go for leader he needs to resign from his job as mayor of Manchester and find a seat .

    There is a fine balance to tread. Ordinarily most "workers" are not in a union and have been weaponised as not liking unions by the right. But, and I think it is increasingly so, as this winter becomes more desperate, Labour figures standing with unions to represent desperate people will be required for them to be seen as credible.

    This Enough is Enough campaign is run by the usual hard left loons. But its stated objectives will become increasingly relevant to most people:

    1. A Real Pay Rise.
    2. Slash Energy Bills.
    3. End Food Poverty.
    4. Decent Homes for All.
    5. Tax the Rich.
    There's two ways we can go. One is the USA with the uberrich living in gated colonies and the rest on the streets, and the other is Scandi prosperous socialism. it is blindingly obvious that Scandi is the better bet, but actually we will go USA.
    We will go neither, we will largely stay as we are, in between.

    Though even the US is moving a bit left under Biden who had increased taxes on the rich and spending
    If we stay in between we default to USA. Every single bit of the system requires taxpayers money
    Afaicr, 'Prosperous Scandi Socialism' is founded on moneys earned before the socialism was added. The addition of socialism is always directly inversely proportional to prosperity.
  • pingping Posts: 3,214
    edited August 31
    In the last couple weeks, I’ve suddenly started seeing new car lease/purchase deals appearing, at much more reasonable prices, with shorter wait times.

    I suspect this is evidence of people cancelling/deferring new car purchases/leases and/or families going down to 1 car, reducing demand in the new car market.

    There are figures suggesting supply bottlenecks are easing, but I suspect the bigger explanation is people really starting to feel the pinch re: CoL.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,698
    edited August 31

    Eabhal said:

    I might pop up Lochnagar on Tuesday. Any PBers fancy it?

    I would, but it isn't happening, sadly.

    My last trip to the Balmoral estate was to ski (xc) from Crathie to Brig o' Dee via Albert's pyramid. I don't imagine you'd get very far on that route at the moment given some of the viewpoints along the way...
    I walked right through even when the Queen was in residence. Very helpful armed police, filled up my water bottles and sorted out the gates for me!

    Amazing ornamental trees. Well worth it.

    #righttoroam
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,365
    A thread eviscerating team Trump's arguments over his illegal retention of classified documents and presidential records.
    https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1564817161528692737
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,511
    Nigelb said:

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    Nigelb said:

    The world's largest offshore wind farm is now fully operational, 55 miles off the coast of Yorkshire.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62731923.amp

    Around 5% of total UK grid capacity (when it's operating at full chat).
    And when the wind doesn't blow? f8ck all.

    And the costs of that are not zero. Flexing electricity generators to go from renewable to gas when there is no wind costs money.
    Not as much money as buying hydrocarbons like gas costs.

    Wind more than pays for itself now, and is subsidy free. Your objection to it, so wanting our bills to go up as we consume even more gas, is just odd.
    Sometimes the wind doesn't blow and the supply stops. When it stops, we don't get any electricity and we can't store it yet. So that's no power, depending on what the weather is. A bit like it was three hundred year ago,

    When the wind doesn't blow we have to use gas. The cost of the gas is the market price for gas, plus some extra to flex the generators onto gas.

    The extra cost being the result of the intermittency of renewables.

    Don't you get the word intermittency? don't you realise the implications of it?
    I get the word intermittency, its just not that important since as it stands we always consume or export all of the wind energy produced. Whether it's a windy day, or a calm day.

    If we ever reach a point where it's a windy day and we can neither consume nor export the wind electricity generated then we will have a problem, but that has never happened and isn't likely to happen any time soon. Storage is coming in volume, but it's not needed just yet.

    If it wasn't for wind power we'd be burning more gas all of the time. With wind we burn less gas most of the time.

    What's your preferred alternative?
    My preferred alternative is to gather up a huge store of cheap renewable energy in the breezy sunny summer, and use it in the cold dark winter.

    Its a fair way off sadly, but we need to be honest with people about that. There is no point deluding ourselves. Gas is going to be with us for a while, and a hard target for net zero is neither desirable nor achievable. We need to scrap it.

    The point @BartholomewRoberts makes regarding us always using all the wind power that is produced is an interesting one - I am sure it contradicts something somebody else has said @rcs1000? That wind operators switch off when the grid is full, and are still paid for doing so. Can anyone confirm the real situation?
    There have been a handful of occasions when a strong storm has passed through overnight and wet haven't been able to use or export all the wind energy that could be generated.

    These occasions have not yet been frequent enough for it to be economic to store the wind energy during those events for use at other times. We're talking about a few GWh a few times a year, whereas Dinorwig gets to shift energy from night to day every day.

    As we add more wind capacity these events will become more frequent, and so it will become possible to make money by storing the electricity produced that would otherwise be wasted. It will come but we're not there yet.
    There are times when all or part of some wind farms are 'switched off' when they could be generating, because it's easier to fine tune wind farm output than it is to reduce or increase output from a gas power station - when you're dealing with gas turbines the size of houses, you don't want to be stepping on the brakes or accelerator more than is necessary.
    This 2020 article is interesting on this subject:

    https://www.power-technology.com/analysis/constraint-payments-rewarding-wind-farms-for-switching-off/

    "In some cases, wind farm operators have been paid more to switch off than produce power."

    "As the Scottish planning regime is not as restrictive for wind developments as England, operators are more likely to have their projects approved.

    In addition, according to the REF, the growing desire for more renewable energy and the encouragement of wind production has led to less scrutiny for wind operators in Scotland, as well as lower charges for the electricity grid connection needed for their development."

    "Could companies be targeting constraint payments?

    The spokesperson for the REF believes that this practise can provide “a perverse incentive to seek out areas with low demand and weak grid connectivity,” therefore it can encourage more operators to take advantage of constraint payments by constructing more farms in such areas.

    Furthermore, REF perceives wind farms as a foreseeable market risk which should not be eligible for financial compensations when they have to be restricted in order to prevent grid overloading.

    The company does not see such compensations as justifiable, especially as they provide higher income for a restricted period of time compared to when wind farms are actually working."

    So perhaps Scotland isn't the land of renewable milk and honey, given that it would appear that the grid (= the bill payer) is paying a great deal for non-delivery of power, from facilities where there's a reasonable suspicion that the owners built them in the least connected places precisely to benefit from such payments.
    As connectivity has improved (eg the HVDC interconnect between England and Scotland), it's a declining issue.
    ...In 2020 constraint payments to onshore wind in Scotland amounted to 3,460 GWh (at a cost of £243m), whereas in 2021 this was 1,783 GWh (at a cost of £107m), a reduction of 48% by volume of energy...
    The elephant in the room with Scottish renewables remains the transmission costs. If the grid didn't charge so many multiples the cost of more southerly sources, there would be more incentive to generate more power.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,497

    Eabhal said:

    I might pop up Lochnagar on Tuesday. Any PBers fancy it?

    I'm certainly considering it... EDIT - though what are the chances of the PM and then the PM being whisked in and out by helichopper and not via the road entrance?
    Helicopters are inherently dangerous. In the unlikely event of a tragedy does Bozza remain PM?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,365
    What is possibly the longest tank-to-tank kill ever - a Ukrainian T-64BV tank crew reportedly managed to destroy a Russian tank from a distance of 10600 meters in indirect fire mode using 125mm HE-FRAG projectiles. As claimed, it took 20 projectiles to finish the tank.
    https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1564983903475175424
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,497
    Nigelb said:

    What is possibly the longest tank-to-tank kill ever - a Ukrainian T-64BV tank crew reportedly managed to destroy a Russian tank from a distance of 10600 meters in indirect fire mode using 125mm HE-FRAG projectiles. As claimed, it took 20 projectiles to finish the tank.
    https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1564983903475175424

    Nice shootin' Tex!
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,591

    algarkirk said:

    Dynamo said:

    Gotta love this from Vernon Bogdanor CBE:

    "There is no constitutional reason why the new PM should not be appointed in Balmoral. Indeed, some might think it pointless for the Queen at her age to travel to London for a purely formal ceremony."

    And some don't even question whether it's pointful or not for the person supposedly appointed to run the government to fly 1000 miles to see the monarch in whichever castle happens to be most convenient for her.

    No flies on you, Vern.

    If there were a president, it could be done by phone.

    Reminds me of the 1951 general election - supposedly called because if it had had to be called a few months later there would have been difficulties because a member of the royal family ("king") would have been on holiday abroad ("visiting his Commonwealth realms").

    Is this Blackadder or is this reality?

    I don't think they're trying to inconvenience Truss particularly. They're trying to poke Johnson in the eye.

    But we are not a presidency, a system which has its own costs too. We are a constitutional parliamentary democratic monarchy state in the UK. As this has been continuously evolving for 1200 years + and serves us overall quite well, and has huge popular support too, a few extra journeys to and from Scotland from London, adding to the tens of millions done annually, are worth it.

    People make that journey to go to a wedding. Isn't it worth it to make a constitutional PM? And why shouldn't a direct descendent of Mary Queen of Scots perform this act in Scotland?

    NB That is not to support Mrs T who I fear will be terrible.

    UK 1200+ years? Daftie.
    Thanks. There is of course a book in expanding what I said to cover the bases of the history of leadership in each part of the British Isles since CE 43.

    Perhaps you should read what I wrote more carefully. I didn't of course say what you imply.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,331
    German food inflation at 16.6%:




    (UK is 5% as of today, but the graph above shows how quickly it can rise…)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,365
    The Applebaum Atlantic article I linked to upthread is a pretty goof appraisal of Gorbachev, and worth a read.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/gorbachev-legacy-russia/671288/
    ...Still, the language of “reformed communism” continued to appeal to Gorbachev, who revived it when he became leader of the Soviet Communist Party in March 1985. But although he knew that Soviet society was stagnant and Soviet workers were unproductive, he had no idea why. In fact, his first instinct was not that the system needed democracy, or even free markets. Instead, he thought: Russians drink too much. Just two months after taking power, he restricted the sale of vodka, raised the drinking age, and started digging up vineyards. By some accounts, the resulting loss of tax income to the Soviet budget, plus the dramatic shortages—people were buying sugar and other products in bulk to make moonshine at home—were the tipping point that sent the Soviet economy into its final death spiral.

    Real change had to wait until the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe of April 1986. News of the accident was initially hushed up, just as bad news was always hushed up in the U.S.S.R. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians were allowed to march in the Kyiv May Day parade even as radioactivity spread silently across the city. But the scale of the disaster finally convinced Gorbachev that the real problem with his country was not alcohol, but its obsession with secrecy...
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,627
    Nigelb said:

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    Nigelb said:

    The world's largest offshore wind farm is now fully operational, 55 miles off the coast of Yorkshire.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62731923.amp

    Around 5% of total UK grid capacity (when it's operating at full chat).
    And when the wind doesn't blow? f8ck all.

    And the costs of that are not zero. Flexing electricity generators to go from renewable to gas when there is no wind costs money.
    Not as much money as buying hydrocarbons like gas costs.

    Wind more than pays for itself now, and is subsidy free. Your objection to it, so wanting our bills to go up as we consume even more gas, is just odd.
    Sometimes the wind doesn't blow and the supply stops. When it stops, we don't get any electricity and we can't store it yet. So that's no power, depending on what the weather is. A bit like it was three hundred year ago,

    When the wind doesn't blow we have to use gas. The cost of the gas is the market price for gas, plus some extra to flex the generators onto gas.

    The extra cost being the result of the intermittency of renewables.

    Don't you get the word intermittency? don't you realise the implications of it?
    I get the word intermittency, its just not that important since as it stands we always consume or export all of the wind energy produced. Whether it's a windy day, or a calm day.

    If we ever reach a point where it's a windy day and we can neither consume nor export the wind electricity generated then we will have a problem, but that has never happened and isn't likely to happen any time soon. Storage is coming in volume, but it's not needed just yet.

    If it wasn't for wind power we'd be burning more gas all of the time. With wind we burn less gas most of the time.

    What's your preferred alternative?
    My preferred alternative is to gather up a huge store of cheap renewable energy in the breezy sunny summer, and use it in the cold dark winter.

    Its a fair way off sadly, but we need to be honest with people about that. There is no point deluding ourselves. Gas is going to be with us for a while, and a hard target for net zero is neither desirable nor achievable. We need to scrap it.

    The point @BartholomewRoberts makes regarding us always using all the wind power that is produced is an interesting one - I am sure it contradicts something somebody else has said @rcs1000? That wind operators switch off when the grid is full, and are still paid for doing so. Can anyone confirm the real situation?
    There have been a handful of occasions when a strong storm has passed through overnight and wet haven't been able to use or export all the wind energy that could be generated.

    These occasions have not yet been frequent enough for it to be economic to store the wind energy during those events for use at other times. We're talking about a few GWh a few times a year, whereas Dinorwig gets to shift energy from night to day every day.

    As we add more wind capacity these events will become more frequent, and so it will become possible to make money by storing the electricity produced that would otherwise be wasted. It will come but we're not there yet.
    There are times when all or part of some wind farms are 'switched off' when they could be generating, because it's easier to fine tune wind farm output than it is to reduce or increase output from a gas power station - when you're dealing with gas turbines the size of houses, you don't want to be stepping on the brakes or accelerator more than is necessary.
    This 2020 article is interesting on this subject:

    https://www.power-technology.com/analysis/constraint-payments-rewarding-wind-farms-for-switching-off/

    "In some cases, wind farm operators have been paid more to switch off than produce power."

    "As the Scottish planning regime is not as restrictive for wind developments as England, operators are more likely to have their projects approved.

    In addition, according to the REF, the growing desire for more renewable energy and the encouragement of wind production has led to less scrutiny for wind operators in Scotland, as well as lower charges for the electricity grid connection needed for their development."

    "Could companies be targeting constraint payments?

    The spokesperson for the REF believes that this practise can provide “a perverse incentive to seek out areas with low demand and weak grid connectivity,” therefore it can encourage more operators to take advantage of constraint payments by constructing more farms in such areas.

    Furthermore, REF perceives wind farms as a foreseeable market risk which should not be eligible for financial compensations when they have to be restricted in order to prevent grid overloading.

    The company does not see such compensations as justifiable, especially as they provide higher income for a restricted period of time compared to when wind farms are actually working."

    So perhaps Scotland isn't the land of renewable milk and honey, given that it would appear that the grid (= the bill payer) is paying a great deal for non-delivery of power, from facilities where there's a reasonable suspicion that the owners built them in the least connected places precisely to benefit from such payments.
    As connectivity has improved (eg the HVDC interconnect between England and Scotland), it's a declining issue.
    ...In 2020 constraint payments to onshore wind in Scotland amounted to 3,460 GWh (at a cost of £243m), whereas in 2021 this was 1,783 GWh (at a cost of £107m), a reduction of 48% by volume of energy...
    Ok, I believe you - and that is an impressive reduction, though £107m for doing jack s**t seems like a fair bit to me. But the fact that these posting exchanges have ignored this issue doesn't reflect well on PB's wind proponents. We should have an open discussion of the pros and cons - not doing so previously is why we're in the current situation.

    If the issue is in decline and the payments are diminishing, why continue with them at all? Not doing so incentives providers to support improvements in grid connectivity, build in areas with good connectivity, and potentially even to look for storage solutions, which at the moment they're actively disincentivised to do, because the constraint payments are worth more to them than providing power.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,248
    IshmaelZ said:

    And of course 9 out of 10 Englishmen think the 100 years war ended in 1415.

    Then 9 out of 10 Englishmen are retards.

    Hundred Years' War:
    24 May 1337 – 19 October 1453
    (116 years, 4 months, 3 weeks and 4 days)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,916
    Nigelb said:

    What is possibly the longest tank-to-tank kill ever - a Ukrainian T-64BV tank crew reportedly managed to destroy a Russian tank from a distance of 10600 meters in indirect fire mode using 125mm HE-FRAG projectiles. As claimed, it took 20 projectiles to finish the tank.
    https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1564983903475175424

    Nice one! Another dead Russian tank, they’re getting taken out at an astonishing rate these days.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,720
    carnforth said:

    German food inflation at 16.6%:




    (UK is 5% as of today, but the graph above shows how quickly it can rise…)

    I have met two people recently who are giving land over to rewilding. One with 30 acres (fair enough a fun project) and the other with two and a half thousand acres (blimmin' heck will no one think of the veg).
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,303
    ping said:

    In the last couple weeks, I’ve suddenly started seeing new car lease/purchase deals appearing, at much more reasonable prices, with shorter wait times.

    I suspect this is evidence of people cancelling/deferring new car purchases/leases and/or families going down to 1 car, reducing demand in the new car market.

    There are figures suggesting supply bottlenecks are easing, but I suspect the bigger explanation is people really starting to feel the pinch re: CoL.

    Biggest sign for me was the last time I was in Sainsburys, they had several end of aisle displays dedicated to their "hubbards" (cheap/basics) own store brand stuff, the 26p bags of pasta etc. That's the absolute prime real estate in any supermarket. Usually that stuff gets tucked far away on bottom shelves and you have to go looking for it, but now they're actively promoting it.

    I don't recall seeing heavy promotion of a basics line in the supermarkets even in the depths of 2008.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,286

    nico679 said:

    The Unions surely would prefer Labour in government . Are they too thick to understand that for Labour they have to be careful to not give no 10 and the right wing press an open goal. Burnham grates on me , he seems to think he’s some Labour messiah . If he wants to go for leader he needs to resign from his job as mayor of Manchester and find a seat .

    There is a fine balance to tread. Ordinarily most "workers" are not in a union and have been weaponised as not liking unions by the right. But, and I think it is increasingly so, as this winter becomes more desperate, Labour figures standing with unions to represent desperate people will be required for them to be seen as credible.

    This Enough is Enough campaign is run by the usual hard left loons. But its stated objectives will become increasingly relevant to most people:

    1. A Real Pay Rise.
    2. Slash Energy Bills.
    3. End Food Poverty.
    4. Decent Homes for All.
    5. Tax the Rich.
    "And then I go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like "Tax the Rich""...
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,774
    edited August 31
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I might pop up Lochnagar on Tuesday. Any PBers fancy it?

    I would, but it isn't happening, sadly.

    My last trip to the Balmoral estate was to ski (xc) from Crathie to Brig o' Dee via Albert's pyramid. I don't imagine you'd get very far on that route at the moment given some of the viewpoints along the way...
    I walked right through even when the Queen was in residence. Very helpful armed police, filled up my water bottles and sorted out the gates for me!

    Amazing ornamental trees. Well worth it.

    #righttoroam
    Lol, fair enough! I assumed they'd lock it down.

    I've only been there in the middle of winter when the big place would probably be a bit chilly, although of course there are a few hideaways that might be a bit warmer.

    I find it quite reassuring that you can wander around the Monarch's property pretty much at will.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,286
    IshmaelZ said:

    nico679 said:

    The Unions surely would prefer Labour in government . Are they too thick to understand that for Labour they have to be careful to not give no 10 and the right wing press an open goal. Burnham grates on me , he seems to think he’s some Labour messiah . If he wants to go for leader he needs to resign from his job as mayor of Manchester and find a seat .

    There is a fine balance to tread. Ordinarily most "workers" are not in a union and have been weaponised as not liking unions by the right. But, and I think it is increasingly so, as this winter becomes more desperate, Labour figures standing with unions to represent desperate people will be required for them to be seen as credible.

    This Enough is Enough campaign is run by the usual hard left loons. But its stated objectives will become increasingly relevant to most people:

    1. A Real Pay Rise.
    2. Slash Energy Bills.
    3. End Food Poverty.
    4. Decent Homes for All.
    5. Tax the Rich.
    There's two ways we can go. One is the USA with the uberrich living in gated colonies and the rest on the streets, and the other is Scandi prosperous socialism. it is blindingly obvious that Scandi is the better bet, but actually we will go USA.
    Ah, the "health systems" fallacy transferred to a larger canvas.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    Bloomberg reporting that Lizz is mulling cutting business rates for small and medium sized firms.

    Ooh-er

  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    Nigelb said:

    A thread eviscerating team Trump's arguments over his illegal retention of classified documents and presidential records.
    https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1564817161528692737

    Kyle Cheney....

    Any relation...??
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,627
    TOPPING said:

    carnforth said:

    German food inflation at 16.6%:




    (UK is 5% as of today, but the graph above shows how quickly it can rise…)

    I have met two people recently who are giving land over to rewilding. One with 30 acres (fair enough a fun project) and the other with two and a half thousand acres (blimmin' heck will no one think of the veg).
    No offense to your acquaintances, but I really hope Truss bends them over and royally rogers them (financially), till they're out there themselves hacking down undergrowth and desperately planting seed potatoes.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,489
    carnforth said:

    German food inflation at 16.6%:




    (UK is 5% as of today, but the graph above shows how quickly it can rise…)

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Dynamo said:

    Find me ONE respected author, academic, or politician writing in the mid-1980s who thought the "Cold War" was still going on.

    When "Détente" was the thing in the early 1970s, do you think everyone thought it was a stage in the Cold War?

    These are words, by the way. I'm talking about how words have been used, and how a word use has changed completely, with the previous use being squashed down the memory hole. And I'm totally right about this.

    Google takes about 5 seconds.
    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/096701068301400203
    Which shows you're lazy as well as ignorant.
    Given that the first paragraph says "Since the middle of 1979, east-west relations have been in a period of cold war, a new or second cold war comparable to the first cold war of the late 1940s and early 1950s", I wouldn't be quite so quick to hurl insults.
    Alistair said:


    A number of years ago, I heard a young father, a very prominent young man in the entertainment world, addressing a tremendous gathering in California. It was during the time of the Cold War, and communism and our own way of life were very much on people’s minds. And he was speaking to that subject. Ronald Reagan, 8 March 1983

    In the context of Reagan's speech he's more saying "during that specific period of the Cold War".
    No, he's clearly talking about the Cold War as if it was something that he viewed as being over when he was speaking in 1983. There's tension with Russia, but it's not the "Cold War".
    Alistair said:

    I think What's happening here is that Dyanmo is considering the begining of Détente as the "end" of the Cold War period.

    It seems more like Dynamo is correct in that people in the late 1970s and early 1980s also saw the beginning of détente as ending the "Cold War", and them being in a new phase. Look how Thatcher's 1976 "Britain Awake" speech calls it the "Third World War" and not the "Cold War," for instance. That everybody elides the two phases later on, with the benefit of hindsight doesn't disguise that all the quotes people have found from the actual period Dynamo is talking about (i.e. not 1988 or 1991) support his argument - even those found by people who call him lazy and ignorant without actually taking the time to read what they're posting.
    The article I cited was from 1983.
    Took me five seconds.
    It says: "Since 1979 east-west relations have been in a period of cold war..."
    ..."a new or second cold war comparable to the first cold war of the late 1940s and early 1950s" If it's a new or second cold war, does the writer think that the "Cold War" is still going on? Or does he see it as two separate periods of east-west tension with détente in the middle, which we have subseqently elided into one?

    The main burden of the Foreign Secretary's speech was naturally and rightly about the consequences, either foreseen or expected or hoped for, or feared perhaps by some, of the Nixon-Brezhnev meeting. The cold war is dead, it is said. We all hope so. It will take me a little time to adjust to that thought after 25 years of listening to the cold war being preached. When we think back through all those long periods—the blockade of Berlin, the Cuban missile crisis, the Berlin Wall, they are all engraved on the minds of all of us who have lived through this period—the cold war was a fact. It is a period through which we lived and the NATO and Warsaw pacts were a response to it. (James Callahagn, 28 June 1973)
    Here's the original statement we're all taking issue with:

    In the 1980s, absolutely nobody said the cold war was still going on. Students of international relations mostly said it had ended long before, in the 1960s. A small minority said it had continued at a lower level until the early 1970s.

    Now, whether it was 'the Cold War' or 'a cold war' 'the New Cold War' is I would suggest, irrelevant. The issue is the poster claimed it wasn't happening at all and that everyone thought it had ended. Which is clearly nonsensical as has been repeatedly demonstrated.

    There were some people in the 70s who thought the Cold War had ended, and I think that's what's causing the confusion here. Because they may have been sincere, but they were also wrong. It kept going, just in a slightly different form, and flared up again after 1979.
    Given the ongoing war in Afghanistan, US troops deployments in Germany, the US boycott of the Moscow Olympics, and then the Soviet boycott of the Los Angeles, it's a pretty stupid claim that the Cold War had ended in the 70s.

    One might argue that it was less fraught than before, but - to anyone around at the time - there were two nuclear armed superpowers with massive conventional armies on the brink of war.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,938
    Nigelb said:

    A thread eviscerating team Trump's arguments over his illegal retention of classified documents and presidential records.
    https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1564817161528692737

    He should be jailed for simply owning that ghastly carpet.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,857
    Driver said:

    nico679 said:

    The Unions surely would prefer Labour in government . Are they too thick to understand that for Labour they have to be careful to not give no 10 and the right wing press an open goal. Burnham grates on me , he seems to think he’s some Labour messiah . If he wants to go for leader he needs to resign from his job as mayor of Manchester and find a seat .

    There is a fine balance to tread. Ordinarily most "workers" are not in a union and have been weaponised as not liking unions by the right. But, and I think it is increasingly so, as this winter becomes more desperate, Labour figures standing with unions to represent desperate people will be required for them to be seen as credible.

    This Enough is Enough campaign is run by the usual hard left loons. But its stated objectives will become increasingly relevant to most people:

    1. A Real Pay Rise.
    2. Slash Energy Bills.
    3. End Food Poverty.
    4. Decent Homes for All.
    5. Tax the Rich.
    "And then I go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like "Tax the Rich""...
    Yes, this is always presented as a desirable outcome in itself, rather than the means by which other desirable outcomes might be achieved.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,465
    IshmaelZ said:

    nico679 said:

    The Unions surely would prefer Labour in government . Are they too thick to understand that for Labour they have to be careful to not give no 10 and the right wing press an open goal. Burnham grates on me , he seems to think he’s some Labour messiah . If he wants to go for leader he needs to resign from his job as mayor of Manchester and find a seat .

    There is a fine balance to tread. Ordinarily most "workers" are not in a union and have been weaponised as not liking unions by the right. But, and I think it is increasingly so, as this winter becomes more desperate, Labour figures standing with unions to represent desperate people will be required for them to be seen as credible.

    This Enough is Enough campaign is run by the usual hard left loons. But its stated objectives will become increasingly relevant to most people:

    1. A Real Pay Rise.
    2. Slash Energy Bills.
    3. End Food Poverty.
    4. Decent Homes for All.
    5. Tax the Rich.
    There's two ways we can go. One is the USA with the uberrich living in gated colonies and the rest on the streets, and the other is Scandi prosperous socialism. it is blindingly obvious that Scandi is the better bet, but actually we will go USA.
    How about we compromise and go for Argentina?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,627
    dixiedean said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    nico679 said:

    The Unions surely would prefer Labour in government . Are they too thick to understand that for Labour they have to be careful to not give no 10 and the right wing press an open goal. Burnham grates on me , he seems to think he’s some Labour messiah . If he wants to go for leader he needs to resign from his job as mayor of Manchester and find a seat .

    There is a fine balance to tread. Ordinarily most "workers" are not in a union and have been weaponised as not liking unions by the right. But, and I think it is increasingly so, as this winter becomes more desperate, Labour figures standing with unions to represent desperate people will be required for them to be seen as credible.

    This Enough is Enough campaign is run by the usual hard left loons. But its stated objectives will become increasingly relevant to most people:

    1. A Real Pay Rise.
    2. Slash Energy Bills.
    3. End Food Poverty.
    4. Decent Homes for All.
    5. Tax the Rich.
    There's two ways we can go. One is the USA with the uberrich living in gated colonies and the rest on the streets, and the other is Scandi prosperous socialism. it is blindingly obvious that Scandi is the better bet, but actually we will go USA.
    How about we compromise and go for Argentina?
    Switzerland please.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    MISTY said:

    Bloomberg reporting that Lizz is mulling cutting business rates for small and medium sized firms.

    Ooh-er

    To zero hopefully given the scale of the disaster coming.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,161
    edited August 31

    Dynamo said:

    glw said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dynamo said:

    Gotta love this from Vernon Bogdanor CBE:

    "There is no constitutional reason why the new PM should not be appointed in Balmoral. Indeed, some might think it pointless for the Queen at her age to travel to London for a purely formal ceremony."

    And some don't even question whether it's pointful or not for the person supposedly appointed to run the government to fly 1000 miles to see the monarch in whichever castle happens to be most convenient for her?

    If there were a president, it could be done by phone.

    Reminds me of the 1951 general election - supposedly called because if it had had to be called a few months later there would have been difficulties because a member of the royal family ("king") would have been on holiday abroad ("visiting his Commonwealth realms").

    Is this Blackadder or is this reality?

    It's like that reality where this didn't happen:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007 *

    So the Cold War in the 1980s was Not A Thing.

    *what an unfortunate name for a mass killing involving international diplomacy, by the way.
    I've read some odd opinions on here over the years, but the idea that the Cold War was over before the 1980s may take the biscuit.
    You're just ignorant.

    Read some books about it.

    Find me ONE respected author, academic, or politician writing in the mid-1980s who thought the "Cold War" was still going on.

    When "Détente" was the thing in the early 1970s, do you think everyone thought it was a stage in the Cold War?

    These are words, by the way. I'm talking about how words have been used, and how a word use has changed completely, with the previous use being squashed down the memory hole. And I'm totally right about this.
    Hahahaha.

    What utter garbage. Everyone thought the Cold War was still going on in the 80s. Why do you think programmes like Threads or When The Wind Blows were made? Of course you won't remember Protect and Survive because you were probably in a school somewhere outside Moscow.

    Both Reagan and Thatcher referred to the Cold War as being ongoing regularly during the 80s. I would consider them both to be respected.

    Historians at the time including John Lewis-Gaddis made regular reference to the Cold War as an ongoing event.

    And, moving beyond the 1980s, Robert Service, one of the foremost British historians on the Cold War and Soviet Russia has written extensively about it including a book entitled, unsurprisingly, The End of the Cold War: 1985–1991.
    I was at secondary school in the 80s and we definitely thought the Cold War was a real thing. We were all terrified we would be vaporised before we were allowed to lose our virginity. To now discover that there really wasn't such a thing is a bit of a surprise to say the least. Someone should have told those Greenham Common women too!
    Memories too. Got into an argument or two with the CND lot in the late 70s when I was a student, and some of my female colleagues were definitely actual Greenham expeditionaries.

    But I do remember visiting the old airfield near Edinburgh where they were then setting up an air museum. Looked at the planes, had some time before Mum came to pick me up. So I had a wander around the rest of the airfield. Discovered it was a post-Bomb food store. Their idea of this was old WW2 Nissen huts full of Tupperware plastic boxes of dry biscuits (sort of between doggies' biscuits and Bath Olivers). (THis was a very long time ago, and the biscuits had long gone when I revisited some years later ...)

    Now: leave it to Sainsburys and cross fingers.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,921

    MISTY said:

    Bloomberg reporting that Lizz is mulling cutting business rates for small and medium sized firms.

    Ooh-er

    To zero hopefully given the scale of the disaster coming.
    Well, that's what she'll be getting if they all fold.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,555

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I might pop up Lochnagar on Tuesday. Any PBers fancy it?

    I would, but it isn't happening, sadly.

    My last trip to the Balmoral estate was to ski (xc) from Crathie to Brig o' Dee via Albert's pyramid. I don't imagine you'd get very far on that route at the moment given some of the viewpoints along the way...
    I walked right through even when the Queen was in residence. Very helpful armed police, filled up my water bottles and sorted out the gates for me!

    Amazing ornamental trees. Well worth it.

    #righttoroam
    Lol, fair enough! I assumed they'd lock it down.

    I've only been there in the middle of winter when the big place would probably be a bit chilly, although of course there are a few hideaways that might be a bit warmer.

    I find it quite reassuring that you can wander around the Monarch's property pretty much at will.
    There's a public footpath through the Chequers estate as well. Public rights of way are one of the things that are generally much better in Britain than most other countries.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Driver said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    nico679 said:

    The Unions surely would prefer Labour in government . Are they too thick to understand that for Labour they have to be careful to not give no 10 and the right wing press an open goal. Burnham grates on me , he seems to think he’s some Labour messiah . If he wants to go for leader he needs to resign from his job as mayor of Manchester and find a seat .

    There is a fine balance to tread. Ordinarily most "workers" are not in a union and have been weaponised as not liking unions by the right. But, and I think it is increasingly so, as this winter becomes more desperate, Labour figures standing with unions to represent desperate people will be required for them to be seen as credible.

    This Enough is Enough campaign is run by the usual hard left loons. But its stated objectives will become increasingly relevant to most people:

    1. A Real Pay Rise.
    2. Slash Energy Bills.
    3. End Food Poverty.
    4. Decent Homes for All.
    5. Tax the Rich.
    There's two ways we can go. One is the USA with the uberrich living in gated colonies and the rest on the streets, and the other is Scandi prosperous socialism. it is blindingly obvious that Scandi is the better bet, but actually we will go USA.
    Ah, the "health systems" fallacy transferred to a larger canvas.
    Ah, the bizarre phenomenon of the low to middle income tory pleading to be more completely shafted by his insect overlords than he already is. As English as pints of warm spinster penny farthinging their way across the cricket pitch to evensong.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594

    MISTY said:

    Bloomberg reporting that Lizz is mulling cutting business rates for small and medium sized firms.

    Ooh-er

    To zero hopefully given the scale of the disaster coming.
    I wonder....would that be enough?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,996
    IshmaelZ said:

    There's two ways we can go. One is the USA with the uberrich living in gated colonies and the rest on the streets, and the other is Scandi prosperous socialism. it is blindingly obvious that Scandi is the better bet, but actually we will go USA.

    The USA isn't really like that, yet. Most of the rich still live on streets you'd recognise as normal.
  • Burn.

    Rachel Wearmouth
    @REWearmouth
    ·
    4h
    👀Starmer faces down Owen Jones: "The Labour Party has lost four elections in a row. Owen was a cheerleader at the last attempt and we failed."

    Odd burn.

    "The Labour Party has lost four elections in a row. Starmer was in the Shadow Cabinet at the last attempt and we failed."

    Does Starmer feel he has less accountability for the last failure than a cheerleader?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,286
    IshmaelZ said:

    Driver said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    nico679 said:

    The Unions surely would prefer Labour in government . Are they too thick to understand that for Labour they have to be careful to not give no 10 and the right wing press an open goal. Burnham grates on me , he seems to think he’s some Labour messiah . If he wants to go for leader he needs to resign from his job as mayor of Manchester and find a seat .

    There is a fine balance to tread. Ordinarily most "workers" are not in a union and have been weaponised as not liking unions by the right. But, and I think it is increasingly so, as this winter becomes more desperate, Labour figures standing with unions to represent desperate people will be required for them to be seen as credible.

    This Enough is Enough campaign is run by the usual hard left loons. But its stated objectives will become increasingly relevant to most people:

    1. A Real Pay Rise.
    2. Slash Energy Bills.
    3. End Food Poverty.
    4. Decent Homes for All.
    5. Tax the Rich.
    There's two ways we can go. One is the USA with the uberrich living in gated colonies and the rest on the streets, and the other is Scandi prosperous socialism. it is blindingly obvious that Scandi is the better bet, but actually we will go USA.
    Ah, the "health systems" fallacy transferred to a larger canvas.
    Ah, the bizarre phenomenon of the low to middle income tory
    Dunno who that is, but it isn't me.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,675

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I might pop up Lochnagar on Tuesday. Any PBers fancy it?

    I would, but it isn't happening, sadly.

    My last trip to the Balmoral estate was to ski (xc) from Crathie to Brig o' Dee via Albert's pyramid. I don't imagine you'd get very far on that route at the moment given some of the viewpoints along the way...
    I walked right through even when the Queen was in residence. Very helpful armed police, filled up my water bottles and sorted out the gates for me!

    Amazing ornamental trees. Well worth it.

    #righttoroam
    Lol, fair enough! I assumed they'd lock it down.

    I've only been there in the middle of winter when the big place would probably be a bit chilly, although of course there are a few hideaways that might be a bit warmer.

    I find it quite reassuring that you can wander around the Monarch's property pretty much at will.
    There's a public footpath through the Chequers estate as well. Public rights of way are one of the things that are generally much better in Britain than most other countries.
    I remember Madonna not liking one.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/jun/19/ruralaffairs.arts
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,591
    On a cultural/catastrophe note, we have spent several decades being told that as long as we act NOW, (now being ever shifting from moment to moment as it does from about 1990-2021/2) then it isn't too late to save the planet.

    The evidence is mounting that the long delayed "Now is too late, and has been for some time" is gaining traction. For example:

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/aug/31/an-inconvenient-apocalypse-climate-crisis-book

    I have no idea where the truth lies, but accept the precautionary principle.

    But I do note that the behaviour (not words of course, words being cheap) of elites continues to indicate that they do not believe a single word of the climate change analysis.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,473
    glw said:

    ydoethur said:

    Here's the original statement we're all taking issue with:

    In the 1980s, absolutely nobody said the cold war was still going on. Students of international relations mostly said it had ended long before, in the 1960s. A small minority said it had continued at a lower level until the early 1970s.

    Now, whether it was 'the Cold War' or 'a cold war' 'the New Cold War' is I would suggest, irrelevant. The issue is the poster claimed it wasn't happening at all and that everyone thought it had ended. Which is clearly nonsensical as has been repeatedly demonstrated.

    There were some people in the 70s who thought the Cold War had ended, and I think that's what's causing the confusion here. Because they may have been sincere, but they were also wrong. It kept going, just in a slightly different form, and flared up again after 1979.

    Of course it also raises the question of what do these people who say the Cold War ended in the early 60s call the thirty years of super power rivalry that followed? Everybody else seems to call it the Cold War. If everyone is wrong, what should we be calling it?
    Vividly remember being in Hungary - onboard a hydrofoil zipping up the Danube from Budapest to Vienna - the day in 1984 that Ronald Reagan "joked" about "we begin bombing [USSR] in five minutes".

    Notion that the Cold War was over by the 1980s is total bullshit. And notion that "absolutely nobody said the cold war was still going on" in that decade is even more BS and also speaks volumes about whomever is pumping out such bilge.

    Sad if they actually believe it - and unbelievably ignorant.
  • carnforth said:

    German food inflation at 16.6%:




    (UK is 5% as of today, but the graph above shows how quickly it can rise…)

    5% seems artificially low for food and drink.

    Though it does seem to vary wildly. Coffee beans seem to cost the same today as they did a year ago. Milk on the other hand seems to have gone up even more than Unleaded has. Paid £1.80 for a 4 pint bottle recently.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,270
    edited August 31
    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    nico679 said:

    The Unions surely would prefer Labour in government . Are they too thick to understand that for Labour they have to be careful to not give no 10 and the right wing press an open goal. Burnham grates on me , he seems to think he’s some Labour messiah . If he wants to go for leader he needs to resign from his job as mayor of Manchester and find a seat .

    There is a fine balance to tread. Ordinarily most "workers" are not in a union and have been weaponised as not liking unions by the right. But, and I think it is increasingly so, as this winter becomes more desperate, Labour figures standing with unions to represent desperate people will be required for them to be seen as credible.

    This Enough is Enough campaign is run by the usual hard left loons. But its stated objectives will become increasingly relevant to most people:

    1. A Real Pay Rise.
    2. Slash Energy Bills.
    3. End Food Poverty.
    4. Decent Homes for All.
    5. Tax the Rich.
    There's two ways we can go. One is the USA with the uberrich living in gated colonies and the rest on the streets, and the other is Scandi prosperous socialism. it is blindingly obvious that Scandi is the better bet, but actually we will go USA.
    We will go neither, we will largely stay as we are, in between.

    Though even the US is moving a bit left under Biden who had increased taxes on the rich and spending
    If we stay in between we default to USA. Every single bit of the system requires taxpayers money
    Biden has raised tax.

    The choice between tax rises and spending cuts only comes if eliminating the deficit is the top priority. Though of course tax cuts could boost growth and in turn raise revenues
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,599
    Forget gas prices, this is more important when it comes to the cost of living crisis.

    World Cup 2022: Completing Panini sticker book could cost £883

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-62724334
  • IshmaelZ said:

    There's two ways we can go. One is the USA with the uberrich living in gated colonies and the rest on the streets, and the other is Scandi prosperous socialism. it is blindingly obvious that Scandi is the better bet, but actually we will go USA.

    The USA isn't really like that, yet. Most of the rich still live on streets you'd recognise as normal.
    Lots of poor people live on streets too ...
This discussion has been closed.