IDS says vote Liz or Labour councils will build tower blocks all over London, but isn't one of Liz's policies to relax the planning rules so Labour councils can build tower blocks all over London?
In 2020 Russia’s male population aged 20-39 was 15.4% the national total, or about 22 million, which is an imperfect but reasonable proxy of rough pool for fighting.
Ukraine claims 48k Russian dead and current kill rates of 350 per day. Usual military estimates indicate 2x wounded for each KIA. So using Ukraine’s estimates, we’re looking at almost 150k Russian KIA and wounded. Or about two thirds of a percent of the total male fighting demographic. Which not coincidentally is not much smaller than the working demographic too. And that’s before the Kherson kill zone strategy has really swung into gear.
What’s notable of course is that troops have been raised predominantly from the regions, not the relatively wealthier and internationalised “centre”. One assumes there are towns upon towns where there was little work for young men but the military and where whole local regiments have been wiped out or very shortly will be. Very World War 1 in tone.
It’s my contention that if these losses continue, and it seems highly likely they will, it’s going to be very difficult indeed for Putin’s successor to keep the social fabric of his nation from running away from him (as indeed we saw even in post WW1 Britain).
If the war drags on until next summer, Putin’s successor may come to office finding not only that autonomous regions like Dagestan are in a state of agitation, but importantly that there has been a major degradation in his regional security apparatus, certainly to the extent that fighting multiple “Chechen Wars” simultaneously would beyond the Federal government.
So what does he do? Some people worry about the risk of another nationalist strongman, who would continue to wage war for the glory of Russia but be more competent. Hard to see this in my view. Firstly how would they come to power, secondly what means would they have that are unavailable to Putin?
I think we’re looking at one or both of two paths. A reproachment with the West, and the further Balkanisation of the Russian Federation. The second carries considerable risk for the world and would need a titanic figure to safely see it through. Perhaps this time, that figure would get the state funeral they deserve.
This is spot on:
Russia does not have the manpower or the materiel for a long-conflict, and changing the strongman in the Kremlin doesn't change that. (And, by the way, I don't think they even have the manpower for the slow sapping of resources and morale that come with a long occupation, in the event that they were able to achieve a fragile peace.)
The Russians can probably afford to set up an invading army of imported mercenaries, but I can't see it going well, certainly not for the idea of recapturing the lost Russian lands; ie the whole of Eastern Europe, or all the way to Dublin, as they sometimes fantasise about. I think one of @rcs1000's good insights was that invading a country is not a very smart move, uses up a lot of resources (human, technical etc); and where there is a lack of compliant population, it isn't really possible to create or sustain any authority in land that you have captured. But, I think the broader problem is that there needs to be a strategic end that we are trying to achieve in Ukraine. If it is just weakening the Russians so they can't do any more fighting etc, then the problem is of pushing them in to a Chinese vassal state, so then we have that problem to contend with. I think it is probably a big mistake to be celebrating the prospect of Chinese vassalage for Russia, it would be a cultural tragedy, and also a big military threat.
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:
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.
It is possible to 'go along' with what we are being told to do in relation to climate change on the basis that it reflects scientific consensus whilst disregarding these apocalyptic predictions. That is what I do. Much of the reporting on climate change is pseudo religious propoganda and it has gone in to overdrive since the early 2010's to the point where there is no point even reading it.
Ok, but that presupposes that apocalypses are impossible. Tipping points do exist, we just don't know how near they are so rely on scientific estimates which you call 'pseudo religious propaganda'. We could make things better by moving to renewables even if it's not necessary.
I think UK and EU governments will end up effectively nationalising and rationing gas supplies for the duration of the crisis, taking the liabilities onto the public balance sheet, and outbidding developing nations to do so.
Truss will get there too but, like the ideology of the Whigs during the Irish famine in 1846, it's a question of how long it take her to get there.
JRM for BEIS (if true) is a fucking appalling choice. I'd expect his department or the role to be asset stripped by No.10 on the big stuff if it is.
In 2020 Russia’s male population aged 20-39 was 15.4% the national total, or about 22 million, which is an imperfect but reasonable proxy of rough pool for fighting.
Ukraine claims 48k Russian dead and current kill rates of 350 per day. Usual military estimates indicate 2x wounded for each KIA. So using Ukraine’s estimates, we’re looking at almost 150k Russian KIA and wounded. Or about two thirds of a percent of the total male fighting demographic. Which not coincidentally is not much smaller than the working demographic too. And that’s before the Kherson kill zone strategy has really swung into gear.
What’s notable of course is that troops have been raised predominantly from the regions, not the relatively wealthier and internationalised “centre”. One assumes there are towns upon towns where there was little work for young men but the military and where whole local regiments have been wiped out or very shortly will be. Very World War 1 in tone.
It’s my contention that if these losses continue, and it seems highly likely they will, it’s going to be very difficult indeed for Putin’s successor to keep the social fabric of his nation from running away from him (as indeed we saw even in post WW1 Britain).
If the war drags on until next summer, Putin’s successor may come to office finding not only that autonomous regions like Dagestan are in a state of agitation, but importantly that there has been a major degradation in his regional security apparatus, certainly to the extent that fighting multiple “Chechen Wars” simultaneously would beyond the Federal government.
So what does he do? Some people worry about the risk of another nationalist strongman, who would continue to wage war for the glory of Russia but be more competent. Hard to see this in my view. Firstly how would they come to power, secondly what means would they have that are unavailable to Putin?
I think we’re looking at one or both of two paths. A reproachment with the West, and the further Balkanisation of the Russian Federation. The second carries considerable risk for the world and would need a titanic figure to safely see it through. Perhaps this time, that figure would get the state funeral they deserve.
This is spot on:
Russia does not have the manpower or the materiel for a long-conflict, and changing the strongman in the Kremlin doesn't change that. (And, by the way, I don't think they even have the manpower for the slow sapping of resources and morale that come with a long occupation, in the event that they were able to achieve a fragile peace.)
The end result would be a de facto partition though. The Russian controlled parts would probably repel most of its Ukrainian loyalist population, and likewise, life is unlikely to be made particularly easy in RUKr. for many who bear a Russian identity. It's not the ideal future, but it may be the neatest one now. I don't see a Mandela's rainbow nation future for Ukraine if it regains its borders, do you?
If you anticipate movement of populations then why does it matter where you draw the arbitrary line?
It doesn't really, apart from a bit less displacement.
Based on what? Do you think the people of Kherson are happy under Russian occupation?
I doubt it, but I do think that there are a great many Russia supporters in the "breakaway republics".
In 2020 Russia’s male population aged 20-39 was 15.4% the national total, or about 22 million, which is an imperfect but reasonable proxy of rough pool for fighting.
Ukraine claims 48k Russian dead and current kill rates of 350 per day. Usual military estimates indicate 2x wounded for each KIA. So using Ukraine’s estimates, we’re looking at almost 150k Russian KIA and wounded. Or about two thirds of a percent of the total male fighting demographic. Which not coincidentally is not much smaller than the working demographic too. And that’s before the Kherson kill zone strategy has really swung into gear.
What’s notable of course is that troops have been raised predominantly from the regions, not the relatively wealthier and internationalised “centre”. One assumes there are towns upon towns where there was little work for young men but the military and where whole local regiments have been wiped out or very shortly will be. Very World War 1 in tone.
It’s my contention that if these losses continue, and it seems highly likely they will, it’s going to be very difficult indeed for Putin’s successor to keep the social fabric of his nation from running away from him (as indeed we saw even in post WW1 Britain).
If the war drags on until next summer, Putin’s successor may come to office finding not only that autonomous regions like Dagestan are in a state of agitation, but importantly that there has been a major degradation in his regional security apparatus, certainly to the extent that fighting multiple “Chechen Wars” simultaneously would beyond the Federal government.
So what does he do? Some people worry about the risk of another nationalist strongman, who would continue to wage war for the glory of Russia but be more competent. Hard to see this in my view. Firstly how would they come to power, secondly what means would they have that are unavailable to Putin?
I think we’re looking at one or both of two paths. A reproachment with the West, and the further Balkanisation of the Russian Federation. The second carries considerable risk for the world and would need a titanic figure to safely see it through. Perhaps this time, that figure would get the state funeral they deserve.
This is spot on:
Russia does not have the manpower or the materiel for a long-conflict, and changing the strongman in the Kremlin doesn't change that. (And, by the way, I don't think they even have the manpower for the slow sapping of resources and morale that come with a long occupation, in the event that they were able to achieve a fragile peace.)
The end result would be a de facto partition though. The Russian controlled parts would probably repel most of their Ukrainian loyalist population, and likewise, life is unlikely to be made particularly easy in RUKr. for many who bear a Russian identity. It's not the ideal future, but it may be the neatest one now. I don't see a Mandela's rainbow nation future for Ukraine if it regains its borders, do you?
One of the big unknowns of the war, where it’s hard to find a trustworthy source: what is actual public opinion toward Ukraine and Russia in the Donbass and other Russian controlled areas.
Russian propaganda would have us believe there’s a whole downtrodden people yearning to return to the motherland. Ukrainian propaganda would have you believe the people of Luhansk, Donetsk, Mariupol et al are united in their hatred of the Russian occupier and longing for liberation. I suspect the truth is messier than either narrative. I do think the experience of period from 2014 has turned a lot of erstwhile Russian friendly people in those regions against the former colonial power.
I think UK and EU governments will end up effectively nationalising and rationing gas supplies for the duration of the crisis, taking the liabilities onto the public balance sheet, and outbidding developing nations to do so.
Truss will get there too but, like the ideology of the Whigs during the Irish famine in 1846, it's a question of how long it take her to get there.
JRM for BEIS (if true) is a fucking appalling choice. I'd expect his department or the role to be asset stripped by No.10 on the big stuff if it is.
Dunno. Isn't JRM also rumoured to be ennobled by Boris? I guess there is a window of opportunity between 6th September and whenever the resignation honours list is published.
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.
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.
A "politics of envy" vibe, you mean? Ok, but I'd argue that "tax the rich" IS inherently desirable. The rich are disadvantaged by government tax & spend because they pay more than they get back in public services. Conversely the poor are advantaged because they get back more than they pay. Thus high tax & spend is redistributive. Its impact is to lessen inequality. Or at least it steers that way.
I disagree. Tax the rich is a regrettable way of achieving other aims. It shouldn't be an end in itself. Not least because it makes us all poorer. Ideally we'd get the money to do it from other means, like finding a massive hidden seam of lithium. Absent that, somebody's got to pay to fund the goodies we want. But in no way is it desirable in itself.
Tax doesn't make us all poorer. It's a transfer of resource from private to public. The impact on total wealth depends on lots of other variables.
But that's by the by. Reason we disagree is we place a different value on a more equal wealth distribution compared to other things. Which is fair enough.
It makes us all poorer because a)rich people make other arrangements, including working less, so the tax burden must be spread more widely, but also because we are moving money from a high value to a lower value use (this is broadly true in principle as per Wealth if Nations, but arguable in hundreds of individual cases - the principal argument against it being who values an extra £100 more, a millionaire or a minimum wage earner? So I won't push that line too hard.) I do value a more equal society, but not enough that us all being poorer in absolute terms seems worth it.
Ah no, here you're bending things - or more accurately treating selective theory as objective fact - to avoid what is in fact a value judgement you're making. You can have a cake or eat a cake but not the both. And btw there is no problem at all in my view with people placing a different value on different things. Such is the heart of politics! - or much of it anyway.
Liz Truss is reprising her standard speech but still has a slightly French speaking style so the audience is not quite clear when to clap. Her London-isation of her introduction is to slag off Sadiq Khan (Mayor of London).
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.
It's hilarious when rich people buy a place and try to stop up rights of way and fail, they moan with such entitlement and hysteria.
Particularly funny when it's Madonna coming over all shy - in the 1990's a magazine advertised a fashion spread with her by bragging that they had secured pictures of 'Madonna with her clothes on'.
Why are PBers watching this husting?, so they can laugh and point at Cheezy and Fishy?
Some of us are betting on the outcome; some are interested in politics. The clue is in the name politicalbetting.com. The rest are here for gardening, travelogues and AI art.
Have to say I'm encouraged by the collapse in gas prices since the weekend - perhaps that bubble has burst for now - unfortunately the reduced price is still three times where it was this time last year.
Oil has also fallen back to around $90 a barrel so down 25% from its June highs but still ahead of this time last year when it was trading at around $70 a barrel.
Presumably this is all based on the belief the Ukrainian offensive at Kherson will be the pivotal event of the war and will lead in short order to a ceasefire. I'm less convinced - I'm reminded of the old truism "the first casualty of war is truth" and I'm pretty certain Kyiv is as capable of misinformation and disinformation as Moscow if it so chooses.
I suspect the truth is slow progress, heavy casualties and the ruination of another Ukrainian city but I hope I'm wrong.
Adam Payne @adampayne26 As per reports, figures in BEIS are currently preparing for Secretary of State Rees Mogg
===
I presume he is totally against renewables or climate change action? I guess that is why he is being put there?
Truss is in favour of renewables and Net Zero by 2050.
She was in favour of the economic policies of the Boris Johnson government too, until it turned out she has thought they were disastrous this whole time.
Regardless of what she claims to be in favour of today, you can tell a lot about a leader by who they appoint. Boris appointing Truss? Made sense, no real enemies or obvious unsuitability. Truss appointing JRM...
His legendary good judgement and perception at play.
Considering he was assigned as Boris's deputy it is a little odd he didn't fall in behind the candidate who was the most loyal to Boris of all the candidates.
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've got a funny story about walking that path through the Chequers estate one Saturday morning ...
Eh? I'm seeing Iain Duncan Smith. How behind are the feeds?
A mad, mad world. Perhaps it serves us our own worst nightmares. I am watching LBC on global player
Ah right, so Raab is a pundit on LBC.
At this stage he is anything you want him to be
I'd like him to be Next PM as settled by the Betfair market rules.
Me too, but being on Liz at 101 softens the blow
It is quite amazing that, despite the book opening only three years ago, the final two contenders have been backed at 100/1 and 250/1, despite them both occupying Great Offices in the meantime. Well done PB!
In 2020 Russia’s male population aged 20-39 was 15.4% the national total, or about 22 million, which is an imperfect but reasonable proxy of rough pool for fighting.
Ukraine claims 48k Russian dead and current kill rates of 350 per day. Usual military estimates indicate 2x wounded for each KIA. So using Ukraine’s estimates, we’re looking at almost 150k Russian KIA and wounded. Or about two thirds of a percent of the total male fighting demographic. Which not coincidentally is not much smaller than the working demographic too. And that’s before the Kherson kill zone strategy has really swung into gear.
What’s notable of course is that troops have been raised predominantly from the regions, not the relatively wealthier and internationalised “centre”. One assumes there are towns upon towns where there was little work for young men but the military and where whole local regiments have been wiped out or very shortly will be. Very World War 1 in tone.
It’s my contention that if these losses continue, and it seems highly likely they will, it’s going to be very difficult indeed for Putin’s successor to keep the social fabric of his nation from running away from him (as indeed we saw even in post WW1 Britain).
If the war drags on until next summer, Putin’s successor may come to office finding not only that autonomous regions like Dagestan are in a state of agitation, but importantly that there has been a major degradation in his regional security apparatus, certainly to the extent that fighting multiple “Chechen Wars” simultaneously would beyond the Federal government.
So what does he do? Some people worry about the risk of another nationalist strongman, who would continue to wage war for the glory of Russia but be more competent. Hard to see this in my view. Firstly how would they come to power, secondly what means would they have that are unavailable to Putin?
I think we’re looking at one or both of two paths. A reproachment with the West, and the further Balkanisation of the Russian Federation. The second carries considerable risk for the world and would need a titanic figure to safely see it through. Perhaps this time, that figure would get the state funeral they deserve.
This is spot on:
Russia does not have the manpower or the materiel for a long-conflict, and changing the strongman in the Kremlin doesn't change that. (And, by the way, I don't think they even have the manpower for the slow sapping of resources and morale that come with a long occupation, in the event that they were able to achieve a fragile peace.)
The Russians can probably afford to set up an invading army of imported mercenaries, but I can't see it going well, certainly not for the idea of recapturing the lost Russian lands; ie the whole of Eastern Europe, or all the way to Dublin, as they sometimes fantasise about. I think one of @rcs1000's good insights was that invading a country is not a very smart move, uses up a lot of resources (human, technical etc); and where there is a lack of compliant population, it isn't really possible to create or sustain any authority in land that you have captured. But, I think the broader problem is that there needs to be a strategic end that we are trying to achieve in Ukraine. If it is just weakening the Russians so they can't do any more fighting etc, then the problem is of pushing them in to a Chinese vassal state, so then we have that problem to contend with. I think it is probably a big mistake to be celebrating the prospect of Chinese vassalage for Russia, it would be a cultural tragedy, and also a big military threat.
It's a bit much to say we have to let Russia get a win so China, recently friend of UK under Osborne and co, gets one in the snook.
In 2020 Russia’s male population aged 20-39 was 15.4% the national total, or about 22 million, which is an imperfect but reasonable proxy of rough pool for fighting.
Ukraine claims 48k Russian dead and current kill rates of 350 per day. Usual military estimates indicate 2x wounded for each KIA. So using Ukraine’s estimates, we’re looking at almost 150k Russian KIA and wounded. Or about two thirds of a percent of the total male fighting demographic. Which not coincidentally is not much smaller than the working demographic too. And that’s before the Kherson kill zone strategy has really swung into gear.
What’s notable of course is that troops have been raised predominantly from the regions, not the relatively wealthier and internationalised “centre”. One assumes there are towns upon towns where there was little work for young men but the military and where whole local regiments have been wiped out or very shortly will be. Very World War 1 in tone.
It’s my contention that if these losses continue, and it seems highly likely they will, it’s going to be very difficult indeed for Putin’s successor to keep the social fabric of his nation from running away from him (as indeed we saw even in post WW1 Britain).
If the war drags on until next summer, Putin’s successor may come to office finding not only that autonomous regions like Dagestan are in a state of agitation, but importantly that there has been a major degradation in his regional security apparatus, certainly to the extent that fighting multiple “Chechen Wars” simultaneously would beyond the Federal government.
So what does he do? Some people worry about the risk of another nationalist strongman, who would continue to wage war for the glory of Russia but be more competent. Hard to see this in my view. Firstly how would they come to power, secondly what means would they have that are unavailable to Putin?
I think we’re looking at one or both of two paths. A reproachment with the West, and the further Balkanisation of the Russian Federation. The second carries considerable risk for the world and would need a titanic figure to safely see it through. Perhaps this time, that figure would get the state funeral they deserve.
This is spot on:
Russia does not have the manpower or the materiel for a long-conflict, and changing the strongman in the Kremlin doesn't change that. (And, by the way, I don't think they even have the manpower for the slow sapping of resources and morale that come with a long occupation, in the event that they were able to achieve a fragile peace.)
The Russians can probably afford to set up an invading army of imported mercenaries, but I can't see it going well, certainly not for the idea of recapturing the lost Russian lands; ie the whole of Eastern Europe, or all the way to Dublin, as they sometimes fantasise about. I think one of @rcs1000's good insights was that invading a country is not a very smart move, uses up a lot of resources (human, technical etc); and where there is a lack of compliant population, it isn't really possible to create or sustain any authority in land that you have captured. But, I think the broader problem is that there needs to be a strategic end that we are trying to achieve in Ukraine. If it is just weakening the Russians so they can't do any more fighting etc, then the problem is of pushing them in to a Chinese vassal state, so then we have that problem to contend with. I think it is probably a big mistake to be celebrating the prospect of Chinese vassalage for Russia, it would be a cultural tragedy, and also a big military threat.
It's a bit much to say we have to let Russia get a win so China, recently friend of UK under Osborne and co, gets one in the snook.
Dominic Cummings was complaining recently that politicians have not worked out what they want the Ukraine end game to be.
In 2020 Russia’s male population aged 20-39 was 15.4% the national total, or about 22 million, which is an imperfect but reasonable proxy of rough pool for fighting.
Ukraine claims 48k Russian dead and current kill rates of 350 per day. Usual military estimates indicate 2x wounded for each KIA. So using Ukraine’s estimates, we’re looking at almost 150k Russian KIA and wounded. Or about two thirds of a percent of the total male fighting demographic. Which not coincidentally is not much smaller than the working demographic too. And that’s before the Kherson kill zone strategy has really swung into gear.
What’s notable of course is that troops have been raised predominantly from the regions, not the relatively wealthier and internationalised “centre”. One assumes there are towns upon towns where there was little work for young men but the military and where whole local regiments have been wiped out or very shortly will be. Very World War 1 in tone.
It’s my contention that if these losses continue, and it seems highly likely they will, it’s going to be very difficult indeed for Putin’s successor to keep the social fabric of his nation from running away from him (as indeed we saw even in post WW1 Britain).
If the war drags on until next summer, Putin’s successor may come to office finding not only that autonomous regions like Dagestan are in a state of agitation, but importantly that there has been a major degradation in his regional security apparatus, certainly to the extent that fighting multiple “Chechen Wars” simultaneously would beyond the Federal government.
So what does he do? Some people worry about the risk of another nationalist strongman, who would continue to wage war for the glory of Russia but be more competent. Hard to see this in my view. Firstly how would they come to power, secondly what means would they have that are unavailable to Putin?
I think we’re looking at one or both of two paths. A reproachment with the West, and the further Balkanisation of the Russian Federation. The second carries considerable risk for the world and would need a titanic figure to safely see it through. Perhaps this time, that figure would get the state funeral they deserve.
This is spot on:
Russia does not have the manpower or the materiel for a long-conflict, and changing the strongman in the Kremlin doesn't change that. (And, by the way, I don't think they even have the manpower for the slow sapping of resources and morale that come with a long occupation, in the event that they were able to achieve a fragile peace.)
The end result would be a de facto partition though. The Russian controlled parts would probably repel most of their Ukrainian loyalist population, and likewise, life is unlikely to be made particularly easy in RUKr. for many who bear a Russian identity. It's not the ideal future, but it may be the neatest one now. I don't see a Mandela's rainbow nation future for Ukraine if it regains its borders, do you?
One of the big unknowns of the war, where it’s hard to find a trustworthy source: what is actual public opinion toward Ukraine and Russia in the Donbass and other Russian controlled areas.
Russian propaganda would have us believe there’s a whole downtrodden people yearning to return to the motherland. Ukrainian propaganda would have you believe the people of Luhansk, Donetsk, Mariupol et al are united in their hatred of the Russian occupier and longing for liberation. I suspect the truth is messier than either narrative. I do think the experience of period from 2014 has turned a lot of erstwhile Russian friendly people in those regions against the former colonial power.
The breakaway republics have not been great places to live, with virtually no "real" economic activity.
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.
A "politics of envy" vibe, you mean? Ok, but I'd argue that "tax the rich" IS inherently desirable. The rich are disadvantaged by government tax & spend because they pay more than they get back in public services. Conversely the poor are advantaged because they get back more than they pay. Thus high tax & spend is redistributive. Its impact is to lessen inequality. Or at least it steers that way.
I disagree. Tax the rich is a regrettable way of achieving other aims. It shouldn't be an end in itself. Not least because it makes us all poorer. Ideally we'd get the money to do it from other means, like finding a massive hidden seam of lithium. Absent that, somebody's got to pay to fund the goodies we want. But in no way is it desirable in itself.
Tax doesn't make us all poorer. It's a transfer of resource from private to public. The impact on total wealth depends on lots of other variables.
But that's by the by. Reason we disagree is we place a different value on a more equal wealth distribution compared to other things. Which is fair enough.
It makes us all poorer because a)rich people make other arrangements, including working less, so the tax burden must be spread more widely, but also because we are moving money from a high value to a lower value use (this is broadly true in principle as per Wealth if Nations, but arguable in hundreds of individual cases - the principal argument against it being who values an extra £100 more, a millionaire or a minimum wage earner? So I won't push that line too hard.) I do value a more equal society, but not enough that us all being poorer in absolute terms seems worth it.
Ah no, here you're bending things - or more accurately treating selective theory as objective fact - to avoid what is in fact a value judgement you're making. You can have a cake or eat a cake but not the both. And btw there is no problem at all in my view with people placing a different value on different things. Such is the heart of politics! - or much of it anyway.
Well I agree with the latter certainly. My belief is that by taxing people who are richer than me, I will ultimately be worse off, and by taxing me, people poorer than me will be worse off, because doing so will shrink the tax base. That isn't a value judgement, that's my expectation of how the economics play out. You might question that interpretation, but that's different. Now I do value a more equal society. And I would certainly support a policy which aimed to achieve that which I expected to work. Though I also value a prosperous society, and there is a bit of a trafe ofd between the two. If I could grow society in such a way that the proceeds of growth go primarily to the bottom half of society, great.
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:
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.
It is possible to 'go along' with what we are being told to do in relation to climate change on the basis that it reflects scientific consensus whilst disregarding these apocalyptic predictions. That is what I do. Much of the reporting on climate change is pseudo religious propoganda and it has gone in to overdrive since the early 2010's to the point where there is no point even reading it.
Ok, but that presupposes that apocalypses are impossible. Tipping points do exist, we just don't know how near they are so rely on scientific estimates which you call 'pseudo religious propaganda'. We could make things better by moving to renewables even if it's not necessary.
If you look in to the guardian book review linked to above, about the coming climate apocalypse; the book is written by an agronomist and a journalist, and is about how we can adapt to the coming apocalypse. It just assumes the apocalypse is coming, that is a given. If you want to read something serious on the subject, then you need to start with an IPCC report, not the 'reporting' of it, and then it does become more complicated and more variables emerge, and there is ultimately rather less certainty about the coming 'apocalypse'.
That is as far as I get when I try and 'educate' myself about climate change, I am not a 'denier', I accept the basic narrative about what we are being asked to do; the 'tipping point' could be coming, but I don't think it is entirely sensible or rational to try and live my life as if there is an imminent climate apocalypse unfolding. This is particularly the case as when you look in to the studies on existential risks to humanity, climate change doesn't feature that highly against the dangers posed by the expansion of AI.
Eh? I'm seeing Iain Duncan Smith. How behind are the feeds?
A mad, mad world. Perhaps it serves us our own worst nightmares. I am watching LBC on global player
Ah right, so Raab is a pundit on LBC.
At this stage he is anything you want him to be
I'd like him to be Next PM as settled by the Betfair market rules.
Me too, but being on Liz at 101 softens the blow
It is quite amazing that, despite the book opening only three years ago, the final two contenders have been backed at 100/1 and 250/1, despite them both occupying Great Offices in the meantime. Well done PB!
Quite
I have no idea who tipped Liz but I saf owe them a deibk
In 2020 Russia’s male population aged 20-39 was 15.4% the national total, or about 22 million, which is an imperfect but reasonable proxy of rough pool for fighting.
Ukraine claims 48k Russian dead and current kill rates of 350 per day. Usual military estimates indicate 2x wounded for each KIA. So using Ukraine’s estimates, we’re looking at almost 150k Russian KIA and wounded. Or about two thirds of a percent of the total male fighting demographic. Which not coincidentally is not much smaller than the working demographic too. And that’s before the Kherson kill zone strategy has really swung into gear.
What’s notable of course is that troops have been raised predominantly from the regions, not the relatively wealthier and internationalised “centre”. One assumes there are towns upon towns where there was little work for young men but the military and where whole local regiments have been wiped out or very shortly will be. Very World War 1 in tone.
It’s my contention that if these losses continue, and it seems highly likely they will, it’s going to be very difficult indeed for Putin’s successor to keep the social fabric of his nation from running away from him (as indeed we saw even in post WW1 Britain).
If the war drags on until next summer, Putin’s successor may come to office finding not only that autonomous regions like Dagestan are in a state of agitation, but importantly that there has been a major degradation in his regional security apparatus, certainly to the extent that fighting multiple “Chechen Wars” simultaneously would beyond the Federal government.
So what does he do? Some people worry about the risk of another nationalist strongman, who would continue to wage war for the glory of Russia but be more competent. Hard to see this in my view. Firstly how would they come to power, secondly what means would they have that are unavailable to Putin?
I think we’re looking at one or both of two paths. A reproachment with the West, and the further Balkanisation of the Russian Federation. The second carries considerable risk for the world and would need a titanic figure to safely see it through. Perhaps this time, that figure would get the state funeral they deserve.
This is spot on:
Russia does not have the manpower or the materiel for a long-conflict, and changing the strongman in the Kremlin doesn't change that. (And, by the way, I don't think they even have the manpower for the slow sapping of resources and morale that come with a long occupation, in the event that they were able to achieve a fragile peace.)
The Russians can probably afford to set up an invading army of imported mercenaries, but I can't see it going well, certainly not for the idea of recapturing the lost Russian lands; ie the whole of Eastern Europe, or all the way to Dublin, as they sometimes fantasise about. I think one of @rcs1000's good insights was that invading a country is not a very smart move, uses up a lot of resources (human, technical etc); and where there is a lack of compliant population, it isn't really possible to create or sustain any authority in land that you have captured. But, I think the broader problem is that there needs to be a strategic end that we are trying to achieve in Ukraine. If it is just weakening the Russians so they can't do any more fighting etc, then the problem is of pushing them in to a Chinese vassal state, so then we have that problem to contend with. I think it is probably a big mistake to be celebrating the prospect of Chinese vassalage for Russia, it would be a cultural tragedy, and also a big military threat.
It's a bit much to say we have to let Russia get a win so China, recently friend of UK under Osborne and co, gets one in the snook.
Dominic Cummings was complaining recently that politicians have not worked out what they want the Ukraine end game to be.
Again, a bit rich from Dr No himself, the man who can harness the negating anger of tens of millions, yet who has never successfully implemented a positive policy.
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?
Wind power generators have occasionally been paid to not generate electricity. And HPC will also - from time-to-time - be paid for energy that it is not generating.
Because of grid constraints, it is perfectly possible to have the system as a whole needing power from natural gas and nuclear, while paying to disconnect some wind.
With that said, even without energy storage, this is much less of an issue than you might think.
Firstly, it only applies to wind turbines on fixed price supply contracts. And those prices are *way* below market prices. If Wind Farm One is getting 50 pounds per MWh and the average price of power is 100 pounds. Then even if it's paid 5% of the time not to produce power, that only raises the price of needed power from Wind Farm One by 2.50.
Secondly, as more wind becomes "merchant" (i.e. just recieves the prevailing price), then if prices go negative, then the Wind Farm will actually pay to put money into the grid.
Thirdly, this doesn't happen very often. Right now, it's almost always because of takeaway capacity on distribution lines. (And/or poor forecasting by system operators.) As the grid is improved, it should increasingly only happen on those very rare occasions (0.1% of the time) when pretty much every turbine is running well, the sun is shining, and power demand is low.
As discussed downthread from the quoted post, it has clearly become a little more of a problem than one might think (though the issue may have peaked).
£50 per megawatt hour may seem cheap, but surely that's only under current circumstances where the gas price has been elevated artificially into the low hundreds per mwh. Under normal circumstances, is gas not £28 per mwh? That makes £50 fairly expensive for power, and hella expensive for no power.
Nobody is going to build a modern gas power plant to get £28/MWh.
If you've already built the plant, then you'll *accept* £28/MWh at certain gas prices.
Because your marginal cost of production might be £26 or £27/MWh.
Remember, your CCGT has three sets of costs:
- capital costs (i.e. what it cost you to build the plant that you amortize over its life) - maintenance costs (i.e. what it costs to keep it running, irrespective of how much power it generates) - marginal costs (i.e. how much the fuel costs)
You will run your plant whenever the price is above the marginal cost of production, even though that is likely to be well below your all-in cost.
Thanks. I don't pretend to understand this; it's well outside my field. But from those figures, the USA gets its wind for 25 dollars, which is £21.50. Ours is £48. Why is UK wind more than twice as expensive as American wind? Does God charge us more?
Perhaps America has an (un)natural advantage re: wind, given how in recent years (though it seems longer) the Sage > Security Risk of Mar-a-Lardo has been generating about 50% of USA wind production.
Out of BOTH his blow-holes.
Even with Boris Johnson and rest of Tory cabinet on the job, the UK simply can NOT compete.
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.
Oryx Ukraine has been stuck on 990 Russian tanks for a while now. 1,000 independently confirmed Russian tank kills is going to be quite a moment.
Ukraine is remaining very tight-lipped about operations in the south. However, the Russians seem to be admitting a serious break through of their lines:
I think that Oryx are finding it more and more difficult to verify what’s going on, with a lot of the action now taking place in territory that’s properly occupied by the enemy, as opposed to the early stages where most of the dead tanks were on roads surrounded by defenders.
In 2020 Russia’s male population aged 20-39 was 15.4% the national total, or about 22 million, which is an imperfect but reasonable proxy of rough pool for fighting.
Ukraine claims 48k Russian dead and current kill rates of 350 per day. Usual military estimates indicate 2x wounded for each KIA. So using Ukraine’s estimates, we’re looking at almost 150k Russian KIA and wounded. Or about two thirds of a percent of the total male fighting demographic. Which not coincidentally is not much smaller than the working demographic too. And that’s before the Kherson kill zone strategy has really swung into gear.
What’s notable of course is that troops have been raised predominantly from the regions, not the relatively wealthier and internationalised “centre”. One assumes there are towns upon towns where there was little work for young men but the military and where whole local regiments have been wiped out or very shortly will be. Very World War 1 in tone.
It’s my contention that if these losses continue, and it seems highly likely they will, it’s going to be very difficult indeed for Putin’s successor to keep the social fabric of his nation from running away from him (as indeed we saw even in post WW1 Britain).
If the war drags on until next summer, Putin’s successor may come to office finding not only that autonomous regions like Dagestan are in a state of agitation, but importantly that there has been a major degradation in his regional security apparatus, certainly to the extent that fighting multiple “Chechen Wars” simultaneously would beyond the Federal government.
So what does he do? Some people worry about the risk of another nationalist strongman, who would continue to wage war for the glory of Russia but be more competent. Hard to see this in my view. Firstly how would they come to power, secondly what means would they have that are unavailable to Putin?
I think we’re looking at one or both of two paths. A reproachment with the West, and the further Balkanisation of the Russian Federation. The second carries considerable risk for the world and would need a titanic figure to safely see it through. Perhaps this time, that figure would get the state funeral they deserve.
This is spot on:
Russia does not have the manpower or the materiel for a long-conflict, and changing the strongman in the Kremlin doesn't change that. (And, by the way, I don't think they even have the manpower for the slow sapping of resources and morale that come with a long occupation, in the event that they were able to achieve a fragile peace.)
The end result would be a de facto partition though. The Russian controlled parts would probably repel most of their Ukrainian loyalist population, and likewise, life is unlikely to be made particularly easy in RUKr. for many who bear a Russian identity. It's not the ideal future, but it may be the neatest one now. I don't see a Mandela's rainbow nation future for Ukraine if it regains its borders, do you?
One of the big unknowns of the war, where it’s hard to find a trustworthy source: what is actual public opinion toward Ukraine and Russia in the Donbass and other Russian controlled areas.
Russian propaganda would have us believe there’s a whole downtrodden people yearning to return to the motherland. Ukrainian propaganda would have you believe the people of Luhansk, Donetsk, Mariupol et al are united in their hatred of the Russian occupier and longing for liberation. I suspect the truth is messier than either narrative. I do think the experience of period from 2014 has turned a lot of erstwhile Russian friendly people in those regions against the former colonial power.
The breakaway republics have not been great places to live, with virtually no "real" economic activity.
...and a high degree of probability of beinh forced into the Russiam army and used as cannon fodder.
(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.
I wouldn't necessarily disagree. Rewilding, as was explained to me, is often just husbandry with a different set of rules. It often includes razing the entire area and then replanting it with the "right" seeds to achieve whatever artificial outcome is required. Isabella Tree is the guru apparently.
On productive farmland it does seem a bit of a daft idea. You are just outsourcing the destruction to somewhere else which might already be wild.
On land which really isn't very productive, then rewilding makes sense. Anders Povlsen has certainly used his money from Asos to go big on that front...
It doesn't really. There's a serious plot afoot to remove all the stock (sheep cattle ponies) from Dartmoor; Natural England's target figure at the moment is literally 0.04 beasts per hectare. What you get if it isn't grazed, is an impenetrable mess. Then they want to "rewet" it as if it wasn't the wettest place in the world anyway. What's the point of transforming a landscape into impenetrable thicket, and bog?
Because thicket has much more biodiversity, and bog absorbs serious amounts of carbon (more than trees), as well as being an interesting habitat.
Overgrazed moor is dull dull dull and contributes to flooding.
Why is your contrast not grazed vs not grazed, but overgrazed vs not grazed? Inexplicable, almost.
NE's SSSI figures never seem to bear out your claim, and I don't think you know what you are talking about anyway. Grazed bits of Dartmoor are by no means exclusively grass, whereas your "thicket" in reality is wall to wall common gorse. Do you have any evidence at all for your claim?
By what mechanism does overgrazing imply flooding?
Because the wet parts of the uplands have had drains cut to make them dry enough to be grazed by sheep. These drains (often called moor grips) cause run off and soil erosion.
Blocking this drainage up to slow the run off, prevent flooding and allow bog plants to survive is the 'rewetting' you seem to be against.
Naturally, if you make the place wet then it won't support as many grazing animals.
There's an organisation doing some of this work in the Pennines, and no doubt the same benefits would apply to Dartmoor.
Like I say, you don't know what you are talking about. Blocking the drainage with leaky dams and stuff is one thing, actually there's thousands of tonnes of heavy machinery up there (on purpose-built tracks) trashing them at huge environmental cost. Funny how the photos in your link don't have a single jcb in them.
There's no purpose built tracks as you'd know if you'd been there and talked to the people involved.
Anyway, I'm obviously wasting my time here.
Twit. I bloody live here, and graze stock on the Dartmoor commons. How much more here could I possibly get?
One of the perennial joys of PB: there’s always someone with actual real life experience on a topic.
Two in this case (of moorland restoration) but one seems to have a vested interest...
Jesus Christ you bloody arse, yes: I know what I am talking about. Nobody who did, would link to that pathetic, public-facing website about it.
So where is the "there" that you've been and which people involved have you talked to? Job descriptions fine if you don't want to give names.
You say you know something about the Pennines and "no doubt the same benefits would apply to Dartmoor." Of course because glacial, non-glacial, what's the difference? Have you ever been to Dartmoor? Because I've been to the Pennines. Different.
Never seen anyone embarrass themselve so comprehensively on line or indeed IRL. Why not pretend your internet has gone down or you're watching the hustings?
There is new metalled track in the Belstone/ Yes Tor/ Hangingstone area specifically for rewetting btw. I no bicoz I sene it. Bet on this?
I'm not sure what is wrong with linking to the public facing website of an organisation doing pretty much what you seem to be complaining about with which I am familiar.
In 2020 Russia’s male population aged 20-39 was 15.4% the national total, or about 22 million, which is an imperfect but reasonable proxy of rough pool for fighting.
Ukraine claims 48k Russian dead and current kill rates of 350 per day. Usual military estimates indicate 2x wounded for each KIA. So using Ukraine’s estimates, we’re looking at almost 150k Russian KIA and wounded. Or about two thirds of a percent of the total male fighting demographic. Which not coincidentally is not much smaller than the working demographic too. And that’s before the Kherson kill zone strategy has really swung into gear.
What’s notable of course is that troops have been raised predominantly from the regions, not the relatively wealthier and internationalised “centre”. One assumes there are towns upon towns where there was little work for young men but the military and where whole local regiments have been wiped out or very shortly will be. Very World War 1 in tone.
It’s my contention that if these losses continue, and it seems highly likely they will, it’s going to be very difficult indeed for Putin’s successor to keep the social fabric of his nation from running away from him (as indeed we saw even in post WW1 Britain).
If the war drags on until next summer, Putin’s successor may come to office finding not only that autonomous regions like Dagestan are in a state of agitation, but importantly that there has been a major degradation in his regional security apparatus, certainly to the extent that fighting multiple “Chechen Wars” simultaneously would beyond the Federal government.
So what does he do? Some people worry about the risk of another nationalist strongman, who would continue to wage war for the glory of Russia but be more competent. Hard to see this in my view. Firstly how would they come to power, secondly what means would they have that are unavailable to Putin?
I think we’re looking at one or both of two paths. A reproachment with the West, and the further Balkanisation of the Russian Federation. The second carries considerable risk for the world and would need a titanic figure to safely see it through. Perhaps this time, that figure would get the state funeral they deserve.
This is spot on:
Russia does not have the manpower or the materiel for a long-conflict, and changing the strongman in the Kremlin doesn't change that. (And, by the way, I don't think they even have the manpower for the slow sapping of resources and morale that come with a long occupation, in the event that they were able to achieve a fragile peace.)
The end result would be a de facto partition though. The Russian controlled parts would probably repel most of their Ukrainian loyalist population, and likewise, life is unlikely to be made particularly easy in RUKr. for many who bear a Russian identity. It's not the ideal future, but it may be the neatest one now. I don't see a Mandela's rainbow nation future for Ukraine if it regains its borders, do you?
One of the big unknowns of the war, where it’s hard to find a trustworthy source: what is actual public opinion toward Ukraine and Russia in the Donbass and other Russian controlled areas.
Russian propaganda would have us believe there’s a whole downtrodden people yearning to return to the motherland. Ukrainian propaganda would have you believe the people of Luhansk, Donetsk, Mariupol et al are united in their hatred of the Russian occupier and longing for liberation. I suspect the truth is messier than either narrative. I do think the experience of period from 2014 has turned a lot of erstwhile Russian friendly people in those regions against the former colonial power.
The relative ease or difficulty of the takeover in the first place seems like a reasonable indication of, at the least, initial pro-Russian sentiment.
That is, it was pretty high in Crimea, and included a significant element in parts of Luhansk and Donetsk, but nowhere near as much since the Russians had to step in more obviously militarily, and Putin didn't go the route of formally absorbing them into Russia (and indeed, still has not done so) as with Crimea.
Regardless of the rigging of any electoral exercise undertaken, it suggests to me support was not overwhelming, and as you say the experience does not appear to have conducive to retaining their support.
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?
Wind power generators have occasionally been paid to not generate electricity. And HPC will also - from time-to-time - be paid for energy that it is not generating.
Because of grid constraints, it is perfectly possible to have the system as a whole needing power from natural gas and nuclear, while paying to disconnect some wind.
With that said, even without energy storage, this is much less of an issue than you might think.
Firstly, it only applies to wind turbines on fixed price supply contracts. And those prices are *way* below market prices. If Wind Farm One is getting 50 pounds per MWh and the average price of power is 100 pounds. Then even if it's paid 5% of the time not to produce power, that only raises the price of needed power from Wind Farm One by 2.50.
Secondly, as more wind becomes "merchant" (i.e. just recieves the prevailing price), then if prices go negative, then the Wind Farm will actually pay to put money into the grid.
Thirdly, this doesn't happen very often. Right now, it's almost always because of takeaway capacity on distribution lines. (And/or poor forecasting by system operators.) As the grid is improved, it should increasingly only happen on those very rare occasions (0.1% of the time) when pretty much every turbine is running well, the sun is shining, and power demand is low.
As discussed downthread from the quoted post, it has clearly become a little more of a problem than one might think (though the issue may have peaked).
£50 per megawatt hour may seem cheap, but surely that's only under current circumstances where the gas price has been elevated artificially into the low hundreds per mwh. Under normal circumstances, is gas not £28 per mwh? That makes £50 fairly expensive for power, and hella expensive for no power.
Nobody is going to build a modern gas power plant to get £28/MWh.
If you've already built the plant, then you'll *accept* £28/MWh at certain gas prices.
Because your marginal cost of production might be £26 or £27/MWh.
Remember, your CCGT has three sets of costs:
- capital costs (i.e. what it cost you to build the plant that you amortize over its life) - maintenance costs (i.e. what it costs to keep it running, irrespective of how much power it generates) - marginal costs (i.e. how much the fuel costs)
You will run your plant whenever the price is above the marginal cost of production, even though that is likely to be well below your all-in cost.
Thanks. I don't pretend to understand this; it's well outside my field. But from those figures, the USA gets its wind for 25 dollars, which is £21.50. Ours is £48. Why is UK wind more than twice as expensive as American wind? Does God charge us more?
Perhaps America has an (un)natural advantage re: wind, given how in recent years (though it seems longer) the Sage > Security Risk of Mar-a-Lardo has been generating about 50% of USA wind production.
Out of BOTH his blow-holes.
Even with Boris Johnson and rest of Tory cabinet on the job, the UK simply can NOT compete.
(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.
I wouldn't necessarily disagree. Rewilding, as was explained to me, is often just husbandry with a different set of rules. It often includes razing the entire area and then replanting it with the "right" seeds to achieve whatever artificial outcome is required. Isabella Tree is the guru apparently.
On productive farmland it does seem a bit of a daft idea. You are just outsourcing the destruction to somewhere else which might already be wild.
On land which really isn't very productive, then rewilding makes sense. Anders Povlsen has certainly used his money from Asos to go big on that front...
It doesn't really. There's a serious plot afoot to remove all the stock (sheep cattle ponies) from Dartmoor; Natural England's target figure at the moment is literally 0.04 beasts per hectare. What you get if it isn't grazed, is an impenetrable mess. Then they want to "rewet" it as if it wasn't the wettest place in the world anyway. What's the point of transforming a landscape into impenetrable thicket, and bog?
Because thicket has much more biodiversity, and bog absorbs serious amounts of carbon (more than trees), as well as being an interesting habitat.
Overgrazed moor is dull dull dull and contributes to flooding.
Why is your contrast not grazed vs not grazed, but overgrazed vs not grazed? Inexplicable, almost.
NE's SSSI figures never seem to bear out your claim, and I don't think you know what you are talking about anyway. Grazed bits of Dartmoor are by no means exclusively grass, whereas your "thicket" in reality is wall to wall common gorse. Do you have any evidence at all for your claim?
By what mechanism does overgrazing imply flooding?
Because the wet parts of the uplands have had drains cut to make them dry enough to be grazed by sheep. These drains (often called moor grips) cause run off and soil erosion.
Blocking this drainage up to slow the run off, prevent flooding and allow bog plants to survive is the 'rewetting' you seem to be against.
Naturally, if you make the place wet then it won't support as many grazing animals.
There's an organisation doing some of this work in the Pennines, and no doubt the same benefits would apply to Dartmoor.
Like I say, you don't know what you are talking about. Blocking the drainage with leaky dams and stuff is one thing, actually there's thousands of tonnes of heavy machinery up there (on purpose-built tracks) trashing them at huge environmental cost. Funny how the photos in your link don't have a single jcb in them.
There's no purpose built tracks as you'd know if you'd been there and talked to the people involved.
Anyway, I'm obviously wasting my time here.
Twit. I bloody live here, and graze stock on the Dartmoor commons. How much more here could I possibly get?
One of the perennial joys of PB: there’s always someone with actual real life experience on a topic.
Two in this case (of moorland restoration) but one seems to have a vested interest...
Jesus Christ you bloody arse, yes: I know what I am talking about. Nobody who did, would link to that pathetic, public-facing website about it.
So where is the "there" that you've been and which people involved have you talked to? Job descriptions fine if you don't want to give names.
You say you know something about the Pennines and "no doubt the same benefits would apply to Dartmoor." Of course because glacial, non-glacial, what's the difference? Have you ever been to Dartmoor? Because I've been to the Pennines. Different.
Never seen anyone embarrass themselve so comprehensively on line or indeed IRL. Why not pretend your internet has gone down or you're watching the hustings?
There is new metalled track in the Belstone/ Yes Tor/ Hangingstone area specifically for rewetting btw. I no bicoz I sene it. Bet on this?
I'm not sure what is wrong with linking to the public facing website of an organisation doing pretty much what you seem to be complaining about with which I am familiar.
The Park Authority is full of ill informed teenage dweebs like you, and you think water behaves the same in an eroded granite landscape vs a heavily glaciated one. Which is about like thinking that water and petrol are interchangeable because they are both clear liquids.
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.
"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.
All this stuff has been discussed for a number of years - it’s just that you’re new to it.
Constraint payments are required contractually for generators who are part of the grid balancing mechanism; it’s not just wind power. There has to be a contractual arrangement to get generators to reduce power generation when demand drops, since up until now we have minimal storage.
It’s not all bad news - the cost gives government a very strong incentive to improve interconnects. And provides an immediate market for any storage technology with reasonable costs and capacity.
Have I been mispronouncing mayor my whole life ? Is it "May" "or" ? Not mair ?
Liz went to the worst school in England. They weren't taught English or Maths, let alone how to pronounce mayor. It must have been some sort of clerical error that got her to Oxford and thence parliament.
Eh? I'm seeing Iain Duncan Smith. How behind are the feeds?
A mad, mad world. Perhaps it serves us our own worst nightmares. I am watching LBC on global player
Ah right, so Raab is a pundit on LBC.
At this stage he is anything you want him to be
I'd like him to be Next PM as settled by the Betfair market rules.
Me too, but being on Liz at 101 softens the blow
It is quite amazing that, despite the book opening only three years ago, the final two contenders have been backed at 100/1 and 250/1, despite them both occupying Great Offices in the meantime. Well done PB!
Quite
I have no idea who tipped Liz but I saf owe them a deibk
ETA and a drink!
May have been me. My post from the middle of Dec 2020:
"The tip was 100/1 for next PM. She [Truss] has been chopped down by most bookies, but you can still get 100/1 for Next PM. I`ve just had a tenner on with Victor Chandler (they reduced me from £20 the cowards)."
Given my 250/1 bet on Sunak lets hope that he is right
Watching the right wing media pivot to 'we supported the underdog all along and of course he was right about borrowing' within a nanosecond of that result will be something else.
Eh? I'm seeing Iain Duncan Smith. How behind are the feeds?
A mad, mad world. Perhaps it serves us our own worst nightmares. I am watching LBC on global player
Ah right, so Raab is a pundit on LBC.
At this stage he is anything you want him to be
I'd like him to be Next PM as settled by the Betfair market rules.
Me too, but being on Liz at 101 softens the blow
It is quite amazing that, despite the book opening only three years ago, the final two contenders have been backed at 100/1 and 250/1, despite them both occupying Great Offices in the meantime. Well done PB!
Quite
I have no idea who tipped Liz but I saf owe them a deibk
ETA and a drink!
May have been me. My post from the middle of Dec 2020:
"The tip was 100/1 for next PM. She [Truss] has been chopped down by most bookies, but you can still get 100/1 for Next PM. I`ve just had a tenner on with Victor Chandler (they reduced me from £20 the cowards)."
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.
"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.
All this stuff has been discussed for a number of years - it’s just that you’re new to it.
Constraint payments are required contractually for generators who are part of the grid balancing mechanism; it’s not just wind power. There has to be a contractual arrangement to get generators to reduce power generation when demand drops, since up until now we have minimal storage.
It’s not all bad news - the cost gives government a very strong incentive to improve interconnects. And provides an immediate market for any storage technology with reasonable costs and capacity.
I'm aware it's public knowledge, but on here, in this quoted thread, we were told that we use all the wind power we generate, and that, whilst strictly factual, was misleading. I think that it characterises the whole renewables debate.
Regarding your last point, I am not sure a few hundred million here and there encourages the Government to do much at all. If these costs were borne by the generators themselves, I'm far more convinced we'd see action.
Given my 250/1 bet on Sunak lets hope that he is right
Watching the right wing media pivot to 'we supported the underdog all along and of course he was right about borrowing' within a nanosecond of that result will be something else.
It'd be drowned out by the claims of fraud being behind the result.
Dominic Cummings was complaining recently that politicians have not worked out what they want the Ukraine end game to be.
There's more than an element of truth in this - we all want Russia to be "defeated" and Ukraine to be "free" but the devil is in the detail.
The obvious is a complete withdrawal of all Russian forces from the independently recognised borders of the Ukraine which includes Crimea and the separatist areas of Donetsk and Luhansk, the dissolution of the puppet republics and their full return under Kyiv control.
Even if that were to happen, peace wouldn't be guaranteed. Those in Donetsk and Luhansk who want to be in Russia won't stop wanting to be in Russia even if the Ukraine is in control and it's likely we'd soon see a new low-level conflict with pro-Russia groups supported by Moscow giving the Ukrainians a hard time.
I really don't know about Crimea - after all, the Ukrainians ended the Republic of Crimea, formed in 1992 and perhaps the solution is to restore Crimea's independence with both Kyiv and Moscow agreeing to recognise that independence. Rather as with Tartus in Syria, the existing Russian military presence at Sevastopol and elsewhere in the Crimea complicates that - perhaps a long term lease?
It's ironic to be considering the future of Russia less than 24 hours after the passing of Mikhail Gorbachev, one of the most significant political leaders of the second half of the 20th Century and the man, in my view, largely responsible for the ending of what we many end up calling the First Cold War and the ending of Communist rule across Eastern Europe - accomplished with surprisingly little bloodshed with the exception of Romania.
As others have argued, for Russia we can hope for a post-war rapprochement with the West though that would seem to require the removal of the entire political caste or we may see a post-Putin Russia move further from the West toward China and a renewed Sino-Russian Pact which would aid China economically in terms of raw materials and resources and effectively confirm the bi-polar world. As long predicted, you'd imagine then the emphasis would switch to the Pacific leaving Europe isolated on the wrong side of the globe.
His legendary good judgement and perception at play.
Considering he was assigned as Boris's deputy it is a little odd he didn't fall in behind the candidate who was the most loyal to Boris of all the candidates.
Johnson demoted him from the FO in favour of Truss and he was Not At All A Happy Bunny about that. It's not surprising he would be lining up behind the other candidate and snubbing Johnson's preferred loser, er, lunatic, er, successor.
But I don’t think it’s the right editorial decision by the BBC to put it as their main headline story at the top of their front page.
It’s not the most important story happening in Britain, or the world right now.
I guess the problem is - the deteriorating quality of the police/criminal justice system is never quite important enough to make the headline story, but it’s undoubtedly a widespread concern. Perhaps “forcing” a story like this into a headline is a necessary editorial decision.
Hmm.
I might have changed my mind while writing this comment….
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:
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.
It is possible to 'go along' with what we are being told to do in relation to climate change on the basis that it reflects scientific consensus whilst disregarding these apocalyptic predictions. That is what I do. Much of the reporting on climate change is pseudo religious propoganda and it has gone in to overdrive since the early 2010's to the point where there is no point even reading it.
Ok, but that presupposes that apocalypses are impossible. Tipping points do exist, we just don't know how near they are so rely on scientific estimates which you call 'pseudo religious propaganda'. We could make things better by moving to renewables even if it's not necessary.
Co2 emissions are not going down globally. And the subject is like debt and deficit; lots of people think that if we emit less CO2 then the problem is solved. It isn't of course. Even if we reduced it to a tenth of current levels it only slows down the problem. Decades of talk had not even reduced the CO2, let alone (as needed) abolished and reversed it. Nor is that going to occur.
Conclusion: If the science is right the technology for removal (Climeworks etc) + amelioration are in fact the only serious options.
"Read My Lips, No New Taxes" - that went well for the last person who said it.
Who in their right mind makes such a hostage to fortune? No serious leader can or should ever rule out anything because you don't know what's going to happen.
Dominic Cummings was complaining recently that politicians have not worked out what they want the Ukraine end game to be.
There's more than an element of truth in this - we all want Russia to be "defeated" and Ukraine to be "free" but the devil is in the detail.
The obvious is a complete withdrawal of all Russian forces from the independently recognised borders of the Ukraine which includes Crimea and the separatist areas of Donetsk and Luhansk, the dissolution of the puppet republics and their full return under Kyiv control.
Even if that were to happen, peace wouldn't be guaranteed. Those in Donetsk and Luhansk who want to be in Russia won't stop wanting to be in Russia even if the Ukraine is in control and it's likely we'd soon see a new low-level conflict with pro-Russia groups supported by Moscow giving the Ukrainians a hard time.
I really don't know about Crimea - after all, the Ukrainians ended the Republic of Crimea, formed in 1992 and perhaps the solution is to restore Crimea's independence with both Kyiv and Moscow agreeing to recognise that independence. Rather as with Tartus in Syria, the existing Russian military presence at Sevastopol and elsewhere in the Crimea complicates that - perhaps a long term lease?
It's ironic to be considering the future of Russia less than 24 hours after the passing of Mikhail Gorbachev, one of the most significant political leaders of the second half of the 20th Century and the man, in my view, largely responsible for the ending of what we many end up calling the First Cold War and the ending of Communist rule across Eastern Europe - accomplished with surprisingly little bloodshed with the exception of Romania.
As others have argued, for Russia we can hope for a post-war rapprochement with the West though that would seem to require the removal of the entire political caste or we may see a post-Putin Russia move further from the West toward China and a renewed Sino-Russian Pact which would aid China economically in terms of raw materials and resources and effectively confirm the bi-polar world. As long predicted, you'd imagine then the emphasis would switch to the Pacific leaving Europe isolated on the wrong side of the globe.
It might have been better if Russia had bought Crimea back from Ukraine; historically it was part of Russia, and there is a history of land purchases especially in American history. Whether it is too late to work out some sort of deal around a peaceful and compensated return of Russian-majority states after appropriate referendum results, I don't know. Possibly it is.
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.
A "politics of envy" vibe, you mean? Ok, but I'd argue that "tax the rich" IS inherently desirable. The rich are disadvantaged by government tax & spend because they pay more than they get back in public services. Conversely the poor are advantaged because they get back more than they pay. Thus high tax & spend is redistributive. Its impact is to lessen inequality. Or at least it steers that way.
I disagree. Tax the rich is a regrettable way of achieving other aims. It shouldn't be an end in itself. Not least because it makes us all poorer. Ideally we'd get the money to do it from other means, like finding a massive hidden seam of lithium. Absent that, somebody's got to pay to fund the goodies we want. But in no way is it desirable in itself.
Tax doesn't make us all poorer. It's a transfer of resource from private to public. The impact on total wealth depends on lots of other variables.
But that's by the by. Reason we disagree is we place a different value on a more equal wealth distribution compared to other things. Which is fair enough.
It makes us all poorer because a)rich people make other arrangements, including working less, so the tax burden must be spread more widely, but also because we are moving money from a high value to a lower value use (this is broadly true in principle as per Wealth if Nations, but arguable in hundreds of individual cases - the principal argument against it being who values an extra £100 more, a millionaire or a minimum wage earner? So I won't push that line too hard.) I do value a more equal society, but not enough that us all being poorer in absolute terms seems worth it.
Ah no, here you're bending things - or more accurately treating selective theory as objective fact - to avoid what is in fact a value judgement you're making. You can have a cake or eat a cake but not the both. And btw there is no problem at all in my view with people placing a different value on different things. Such is the heart of politics! - or much of it anyway.
Well I agree with the latter certainly. My belief is that by taxing people who are richer than me, I will ultimately be worse off, and by taxing me, people poorer than me will be worse off, because doing so will shrink the tax base. That isn't a value judgement, that's my expectation of how the economics play out. You might question that interpretation, but that's different. Now I do value a more equal society. And I would certainly support a policy which aimed to achieve that which I expected to work. Though I also value a prosperous society, and there is a bit of a trafe ofd between the two. If I could grow society in such a way that the proceeds of growth go primarily to the bottom half of society, great.
Ok, but economics is a mystery in many ways so let's park that. Here's what I mean: When assessing any political policy - inc tax & spend - someone will ask various questions (assuming they don't only look at how it affects them personally).
Will this make the country richer? Safer? Cleaner? More peaceful? More free? More equal? (And so on)
Different people will give greater or lesser weight to each of these - cf the others - depending on their political brain chemistry. And the basic core reason that (eg) you and I disagree on tax & spend is that I'll weight the 'more equal' question higher than you will. By the same token you'll give more (relative) weight than me to some of those other (good) things.
This is why we disagree. It's not that you truly think "tax makes us all poorer" and I think otherwise. Truth is, we both know the impact depends on the circumstances and on multiple variables.
So with that fulsome explanation now on the record I hope we can agree to agree on why we disagree on this matter.
But I don’t think it’s the right editorial decision by the BBC to put it as their main headline story at the top of their front page.
Why not? Police selectively refusing to enforce the law is a big, big problem. And it's a widespread problem. I've been trying to get them to act against violent and dangerous off-road motorbikers in Cannock and they literally don't care. When I finally got hold of somebody she offered to talk to them about the law on motoring if I could tell her who they were. I asked, rather tartly, if she didn't care about the law, which mandates two years' imprisonment for such people. Her response was to say I could complain about her email if I wished, but no reply to my question as to whether she proposed to do her job.
And this is an order of magnitude worse. The bikers are twats who will kill somebody, most probably themselves. These are violent criminals who should be being locked up for assault, not given cautions (which in itself is a highly problematic part of our justice system that urgently needs reforming).
Quite frankly, this is another area that's completely gone. Police don't appear to have a clue what they're doing, and even if they did the courts are in such a mess after Susan Acland-Hood's disastrous tenure there's not a lot will be done.
But at the same time, it's another sign of a system of government that's actually unravelling.
I think UK and EU governments will end up effectively nationalising and rationing gas supplies for the duration of the crisis, taking the liabilities onto the public balance sheet, and outbidding developing nations to do so.
Truss will get there too but, like the ideology of the Whigs during the Irish famine in 1846, it's a question of how long it take her to get there.
JRM for BEIS (if true) is a fucking appalling choice. I'd expect his department or the role to be asset stripped by No.10 on the big stuff if it is.
I've never understood how rationing for gas would work for domestic users. I think the only technical way it could be implemented would be by switching off the supply completely for a few hours/day at a time.
At least some people would react to that by turning up the heat higher, in the hope that their house would remain warm until gas was next available to them, attempting to hoard heat in the same way that some tried to hoard loo roll, etc. That would end up being quite wasteful.
Can you explain whether I've misunderstood something, if you have a different idea of how it would work?
"Read My Lips, No New Taxes" - that went well for the last person who said it.
Who in their right mind makes such a hostage to fortune? No serious leader can or should ever rule out anything because you don't know what's going to happen.
Does this include a tax on renewable suppliers who are making a mint at moment?
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?
Wind power generators have occasionally been paid to not generate electricity. And HPC will also - from time-to-time - be paid for energy that it is not generating.
Because of grid constraints, it is perfectly possible to have the system as a whole needing power from natural gas and nuclear, while paying to disconnect some wind.
With that said, even without energy storage, this is much less of an issue than you might think.
Firstly, it only applies to wind turbines on fixed price supply contracts. And those prices are *way* below market prices. If Wind Farm One is getting 50 pounds per MWh and the average price of power is 100 pounds. Then even if it's paid 5% of the time not to produce power, that only raises the price of needed power from Wind Farm One by 2.50.
Secondly, as more wind becomes "merchant" (i.e. just recieves the prevailing price), then if prices go negative, then the Wind Farm will actually pay to put money into the grid.
Thirdly, this doesn't happen very often. Right now, it's almost always because of takeaway capacity on distribution lines. (And/or poor forecasting by system operators.) As the grid is improved, it should increasingly only happen on those very rare occasions (0.1% of the time) when pretty much every turbine is running well, the sun is shining, and power demand is low.
As discussed downthread from the quoted post, it has clearly become a little more of a problem than one might think (though the issue may have peaked).
£50 per megawatt hour may seem cheap, but surely that's only under current circumstances where the gas price has been elevated artificially into the low hundreds per mwh. Under normal circumstances, is gas not £28 per mwh? That makes £50 fairly expensive for power, and hella expensive for no power.
Nobody is going to build a modern gas power plant to get £28/MWh.
If you've already built the plant, then you'll *accept* £28/MWh at certain gas prices.
Because your marginal cost of production might be £26 or £27/MWh.
Remember, your CCGT has three sets of costs:
- capital costs (i.e. what it cost you to build the plant that you amortize over its life) - maintenance costs (i.e. what it costs to keep it running, irrespective of how much power it generates) - marginal costs (i.e. how much the fuel costs)
You will run your plant whenever the price is above the marginal cost of production, even though that is likely to be well below your all-in cost.
Thanks. I don't pretend to understand this; it's well outside my field. But from those figures, the USA gets its wind for 25 dollars, which is £21.50. Ours is £48. Why is UK wind more than twice as expensive as American wind? Does God charge us more?
I think (but an actual expert will no doubt correct me) that the majority of US is onshore. Ours is roughly 50:50 onshore:offshore. The latter is obviously more expensive, but inshore would also be much cheaper in the US because of lower cost of land and fewer planning hurdles. Just buy a few thousand acres of Texas and bung a few turbines up.
And far fewer restrictions on turbine height onshore. Which makes for significantly greater efficiency.
"Read My Lips, No New Taxes" - that went well for the last person who said it.
Who in their right mind makes such a hostage to fortune? No serious leader can or should ever rule out anything because you don't know what's going to happen.
Does this include a tax on renewable suppliers who are making a mint at moment?
It worries me rigid that this country has gone far too socialist.
"Read My Lips, No New Taxes" - that went well for the last person who said it.
Who in their right mind makes such a hostage to fortune? No serious leader can or should ever rule out anything because you don't know what's going to happen.
Does this include a tax on renewable suppliers who are making a mint at moment?
It worries me rigid that this country has gone far too socialist.
But I don’t think it’s the right editorial decision by the BBC to put it as their main headline story at the top of their front page.
Why not? Police selectively refusing to enforce the law is a big, big problem. And it's a widespread problem. I've been trying to get them to act against violent and dangerous off-road motorbikers in Cannock and they literally don't care. When I finally got hold of somebody she offered to talk to them about the law on motoring if I could tell her who they were. I asked, rather tartly, if she didn't care about the law, which mandates two years' imprisonment for such people. Her response was to say I could complain about her email if I wished, but no reply to my question as to whether she proposed to do her job.
And this is an order of magnitude worse. The bikers are twats who will kill somebody, most probably themselves. These are violent criminals who should be being locked up for assault, not given cautions (which in itself is a highly problematic part of our justice system that urgently needs reforming).
Quite frankly, this is another area that's completely gone. Police don't appear to have a clue what they're doing, and even if they did the courts are in such a mess after Susan Acland-Hood's disastrous tenure there's not a lot will be done.
But at the same time, it's another sign of a system of government that's actually unravelling.
The very basis of the legitimacy of any state is its ability to keep the peace and deliver justice. It's why the very first thing that any wealth-appropriating elite did was to write a law code, to keep the peace between the people under their dominion. Nothing is more important then the criminal justice system delivering justice for victims of violence.
Comments
I think one of @rcs1000's good insights was that invading a country is not a very smart move, uses up a lot of resources (human, technical etc); and where there is a lack of compliant population, it isn't really possible to create or sustain any authority in land that you have captured.
But, I think the broader problem is that there needs to be a strategic end that we are trying to achieve in Ukraine. If it is just weakening the Russians so they can't do any more fighting etc, then the problem is of pushing them in to a Chinese vassal state, so then we have that problem to contend with.
I think it is probably a big mistake to be celebrating the prospect of Chinese vassalage for Russia, it would be a cultural tragedy, and also a big military threat.
Tipping points do exist, we just don't know how near they are so rely on scientific estimates which you call 'pseudo religious propaganda'.
We could make things better by moving to renewables even if it's not necessary.
Truss will get there too but, like the ideology of the Whigs during the Irish famine in 1846, it's a question of how long it take her to get there.
JRM for BEIS (if true) is a fucking appalling choice. I'd expect his department or the role to be asset stripped by No.10 on the big stuff if it is.
I'm wasting a hundred quid or so but I'm not risking thousands.
Do we think the 22 committee plan was always that this would be a victory rally?
Never knew Liz went to a Leeds comprehensive. Next thing we know, Sunak will be claiming his dad was an immigrant doctor.
It's all repeats.
Have to say I'm encouraged by the collapse in gas prices since the weekend - perhaps that bubble has burst for now - unfortunately the reduced price is still three times where it was this time last year.
Oil has also fallen back to around $90 a barrel so down 25% from its June highs but still ahead of this time last year when it was trading at around $70 a barrel.
Presumably this is all based on the belief the Ukrainian offensive at Kherson will be the pivotal event of the war and will lead in short order to a ceasefire. I'm less convinced - I'm reminded of the old truism "the first casualty of war is truth" and I'm pretty certain Kyiv is as capable of misinformation and disinformation as Moscow if it so chooses.
I suspect the truth is slow progress, heavy casualties and the ruination of another Ukrainian city but I hope I'm wrong.
Regardless of what she claims to be in favour of today, you can tell a lot about a leader by who they appoint. Boris appointing Truss? Made sense, no real enemies or obvious unsuitability. Truss appointing JRM...
Considering he was assigned as Boris's deputy it is a little odd he didn't fall in behind the candidate who was the most loyal to Boris of all the candidates.
SIFO: Centre-left 50.4%, Centre-right 48.0%
Novus: Centre-left 49.1%, Centre-right 50.0%
Pretty much a statistical dead heat. Novus is a better poll for the Moderates but in both polls the Sweden Democrats are the lead centre-right party.
My belief is that by taxing people who are richer than me, I will ultimately be worse off, and by taxing me, people poorer than me will be worse off, because doing so will shrink the tax base. That isn't a value judgement, that's my expectation of how the economics play out. You might question that interpretation, but that's different.
Now I do value a more equal society. And I would certainly support a policy which aimed to achieve that which I expected to work. Though I also value a prosperous society, and there is a bit of a trafe ofd between the two.
If I could grow society in such a way that the proceeds of growth go primarily to the bottom half of society, great.
That is as far as I get when I try and 'educate' myself about climate change, I am not a 'denier', I accept the basic narrative about what we are being asked to do; the 'tipping point' could be coming, but I don't think it is entirely sensible or rational to try and live my life as if there is an imminent climate apocalypse unfolding. This is particularly the case as when you look in to the studies on existential risks to humanity, climate change doesn't feature that highly against the dangers posed by the expansion of AI.
I have no idea who tipped Liz but I saf owe them a deibk
ETA and a drink!
Out of BOTH his blow-holes.
Even with Boris Johnson and rest of Tory cabinet on the job, the UK simply can NOT compete.
https://mobile.twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1564878404314447872
I think that Oryx are finding it more and more difficult to verify what’s going on, with a lot of the action now taking place in territory that’s properly occupied by the enemy, as opposed to the early stages where most of the dead tanks were on roads surrounded by defenders.
Apparently, his phone has not stopped ringing this week.
To the tune of Adam Ant's Prince Charming:
Rishi Sunak, Rishi Sunak
Rishi Sunak, Rishi, Rishi Sunak
Rishi Sunak, Rishi Sunak
Rishi Sunak, Rishi, Rishi Sunak
[Chorus:]
Rishi Sunak
Rishi Sunak
Rishi Sunak, Rishi, Rishi Sunak
Rishi Sunak, Rishi Sunak
Rishi Sunak, Rishi, Rishi Sunak
Rishi Sunak, Rishi Sunak
Rishi Sunak, Rishi, Rishi Sunak
Rishi Sunak, Rishi Sunak
Rishi Sunak, Rishi, Rishi Sunak
[Chorus]
Rishi Sunak, Rishi Sunak
Rishi Sunak, Rishi, Rishi Sunak
Rishi Sunak, Rishi Sunak
Rishi Sunak, Rishi, Rishi Sunak
[Chorus]
Rishi Sunak, Rishi Sunak
Rishi Sunak, Rishi, Rishi Sunak
Rishi Sunak, Rishi Sunak
Rishi Sunak, Rishi, Rishi Sunak
Rishi Sunak
Rishi Sunak
Rishi Sunak, Rishi, Rishi Sunak
Rishi Sunak
Rishi Sunak
Rishi Sunak, Rishi, Rishi Sunak
I assume this a public face of the organisation to which you object? The National Park Authority?
https://www.dartmoor.gov.uk/wildlife-and-heritage/our-conservation-work/the-south-west-peatland-project
That is, it was pretty high in Crimea, and included a significant element in parts of Luhansk and Donetsk, but nowhere near as much since the Russians had to step in more obviously militarily, and Putin didn't go the route of formally absorbing them into Russia (and indeed, still has not done so) as with Crimea.
Regardless of the rigging of any electoral exercise undertaken, it suggests to me support was not overwhelming, and as you say the experience does not appear to have conducive to retaining their support.
This is quite an image:
"Expulsions of Jews from Europe, 1100 to 1600"
https://twitter.com/nrken19/status/1563913534228287488/photo/1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Brazilian_general_election
The Park Authority is full of ill informed teenage dweebs like you, and you think water behaves the same in an eroded granite landscape vs a heavily glaciated one. Which is about like thinking that water and petrol are interchangeable because they are both clear liquids.
Is it "May" "or" ?
Not mair ?
Constraint payments are required contractually for generators who are part of the grid balancing mechanism; it’s not just wind power. There has to be a contractual arrangement to get generators to reduce power generation when demand drops, since up until now we have minimal storage.
The numbers can vary wildly for gas generators, too.
https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/120921-uk-gas-plant-constraint-costs-up-250-month-on-month-in-oct-nat-grid-eso
It’s not all bad news - the cost gives government a very strong incentive to improve interconnects. And provides an immediate market for any storage technology with reasonable costs and capacity.
"The tip was 100/1 for next PM. She [Truss] has been chopped down by most bookies, but you can still get 100/1 for Next PM. I`ve just had a tenner on with Victor Chandler (they reduced me from £20 the cowards)."
Regarding your last point, I am not sure a few hundred million here and there encourages the Government to do much at all. If these costs were borne by the generators themselves, I'm far more convinced we'd see action.
The obvious is a complete withdrawal of all Russian forces from the independently recognised borders of the Ukraine which includes Crimea and the separatist areas of Donetsk and Luhansk, the dissolution of the puppet republics and their full return under Kyiv control.
Even if that were to happen, peace wouldn't be guaranteed. Those in Donetsk and Luhansk who want to be in Russia won't stop wanting to be in Russia even if the Ukraine is in control and it's likely we'd soon see a new low-level conflict with pro-Russia groups supported by Moscow giving the Ukrainians a hard time.
I really don't know about Crimea - after all, the Ukrainians ended the Republic of Crimea, formed in 1992 and perhaps the solution is to restore Crimea's independence with both Kyiv and Moscow agreeing to recognise that independence. Rather as with Tartus in Syria, the existing Russian military presence at Sevastopol and elsewhere in the Crimea complicates that - perhaps a long term lease?
It's ironic to be considering the future of Russia less than 24 hours after the passing of Mikhail Gorbachev, one of the most significant political leaders of the second half of the 20th Century and the man, in my view, largely responsible for the ending of what we many end up calling the First Cold War and the ending of Communist rule across Eastern Europe - accomplished with surprisingly little bloodshed with the exception of Romania.
As others have argued, for Russia we can hope for a post-war rapprochement with the West though that would seem to require the removal of the entire political caste or we may see a post-Putin Russia move further from the West toward China and a renewed Sino-Russian Pact which would aid China economically in terms of raw materials and resources and effectively confirm the bi-polar world. As long predicted, you'd imagine then the emphasis would switch to the Pacific leaving Europe isolated on the wrong side of the globe.
It’s an important story, sure.
But I don’t think it’s the right editorial decision by the BBC to put it as their main headline story at the top of their front page.
It’s not the most important story happening in Britain, or the world right now.
I guess the problem is - the deteriorating quality of the police/criminal justice system is never quite important enough to make the headline story, but it’s undoubtedly a widespread concern. Perhaps “forcing” a story like this into a headline is a necessary editorial decision.
Hmm.
I might have changed my mind while writing this comment….
What does PB think?
Conclusion: If the science is right the technology for removal (Climeworks etc) + amelioration are in fact the only serious options.
Who in their right mind makes such a hostage to fortune? No serious leader can or should ever rule out anything because you don't know what's going to happen.
Will this make the country richer?
Safer?
Cleaner?
More peaceful?
More free?
More equal?
(And so on)
Different people will give greater or lesser weight to each of these - cf the others - depending on their political brain chemistry. And the basic core reason that (eg) you and I disagree on tax & spend is that I'll weight the 'more equal' question higher than you will. By the same token you'll give more (relative) weight than me to some of those other (good) things.
This is why we disagree. It's not that you truly think "tax makes us all poorer" and I think otherwise. Truth is, we both know the impact depends on the circumstances and on multiple variables.
So with that fulsome explanation now on the record I hope we can agree to agree on why we disagree on this matter.
Running scared from Nick Robinson.
And this is an order of magnitude worse. The bikers are twats who will kill somebody, most probably themselves. These are violent criminals who should be being locked up for assault, not given cautions (which in itself is a highly problematic part of our justice system that urgently needs reforming).
Quite frankly, this is another area that's completely gone. Police don't appear to have a clue what they're doing, and even if they did the courts are in such a mess after Susan Acland-Hood's disastrous tenure there's not a lot will be done.
But at the same time, it's another sign of a system of government that's actually unravelling.
Hey but welcome to PB... old horse
At least some people would react to that by turning up the heat higher, in the hope that their house would remain warm until gas was next available to them, attempting to hoard heat in the same way that some tried to hoard loo roll, etc. That would end up being quite wasteful.
Can you explain whether I've misunderstood something, if you have a different idea of how it would work?
Let's hope this version doesn't get charged with anything.
(Edit: didn't get the puns at the time)
(I hope you'll forgive me, Horse. Your username is such a rich source of puns I can't resist.)
(Nor to me)
Companies are paying taxes already.
Talk of windfall taxes is immoral, IMO.