Howdy, Stranger!

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

New R&W poll: Just 19% support local fracking – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 20 in General
imageNew R&W poll: Just 19% support local fracking – politicalbetting.com

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,767
    edited October 19
    First like Arsenal.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 8,259
    Someone stop the madness!
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,132
    edited October 19
    Nobody wants Nuclear power stations being built locally either, but they have to be built somewhere.

    Local NIMBYs are the true anti-growth coalition.

    (Fracking does seem fairly pointless at this time though - can anyone disabuse of this view?)
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,204
    But it's not a hypothecated tax now, it's just a tax like any other. You're proposing to increase taxes on the working poor so you can keep your inheritance. Do you not see how immoral that is, as a church going person I think your reverend would have words with you. Impoverishing those without so you can enrich yourself with your parents wealth one day is morally wrong.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,453

    Do we need an outright ban on hydraulic fracking? Can't it just be safely regulated? And if there is no commercial interest in doing so on those terms, who cares?

    Fracking should be legal and encouraged by central government. However, should commercial reserves be found (and to date, it is important to realise they have not), then given the inevitable disruption, it is unsustainable not to have local buy-in.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1582737795944443904

    Sam Coates Sky
    @SamCoatesSky
    ·
    12s
    Tory MPs absolutely incredulous that they're being told they will lose the whip if they don't vote for the fracking motion which breaks the 2019 Tory manifesto.

    And I don't get the impression chief whip Wendy Morton has good answers to obvious questions....
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    rcs1000 said:

    Do we need an outright ban on hydraulic fracking? Can't it just be safely regulated? And if there is no commercial interest in doing so on those terms, who cares?

    Fracking should be legal and encouraged by central government. However, should commercial reserves be found (and to date, it is important to realise they have not), then given the inevitable disruption, it is unsustainable not to have local buy-in.
    Given what we know know about the UK's geology surely it's obvious that there is little to no chance any commercially viable reserves exist in the UK
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,148
    MaxPB said:

    But it's not a hypothecated tax now, it's just a tax like any other. You're proposing to increase taxes on the working poor so you can keep your inheritance. Do you not see how immoral that is, as a church going person I think your reverend would have words with you. Impoverishing those without so you can enrich yourself with your parents wealth one day is morally wrong.

    Well it should be a hypothecation insurance/tax as it was set up to be.

    It was not the working poor who Sunak raised National insurance on to fund social care but higher earners, indeed the very poor don't pay National insurance at all.

    Proper Tories, including High Tory Anglicans would support preservation of inherited wealth. Don't you try lecturing me on what is morally wrong just because proper Tory values are not you libertarian agenda, tough!!!!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    MaxPB said:

    Onshore wind, and lots of it, please. Get manufacturing and building those turbines asap, the state should demand a 90% UK and UK owned supply chain as well to boost domestic manufacturing capability.

    One thing that makes me nervous is the prospect of Truss entering into long term gas contracts with (say) Norway when all the indications are that gas should carry on falling in the long term as LNG capacity supply is driven up globally by the current high prices.
    I sincerely hope we didn't enter any a couple of months back.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,453
    Phil said:

    Nobody wants Nuclear power stations being built locally either, but they have to be built somewhere.

    Local NIMBYs are the true anti-growth coalition.

    (Fracking does seem fairly pointless at this time though - can anyone disabuse of this view?)

    There have been 12-20 exploratory wells drilled (and fracked) by Cuadrilla and iGas. None of them have found commercial level of natural gas. It is possible that changes in the medium term, and IIRC Ineos has acquired some of the acreage from iGas and has applied for permits to drill some more wells.

    However, it is worth noting that oil and gas companies will (all things being equal) drill the wells that are most likely to encounter hydrocarbons, based on core samples and seismic. The chances of finding something worth exploiting fall with each subsequent hole, until eventually a formation is written off.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,380
    Build a new nuclear power station.... in my back garden (its not very big, but if you can fit a portable nuclear reactor in a backpack, or in a Delorean DMC12 then surely you can get it in my garden).

    I'd best clear it with the wife however. She won't be happy.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,362
    How many nuclear submarines do we have? Couldn’t we just plug them into the National Grid?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,094

    Build a new nuclear power station.... in my back garden (its not very big, but if you can fit a portable nuclear reactor in a backpack, or in a Delorean DMC12 then surely you can get it in my garden).

    I'd best clear it with the wife however. She won't be happy.

    What about the retired Tory voting couple living on the other side of the back hedge? They sure won't be happy. And neither will their expectant children when they see how much their inheritance is reduced.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,453
    MaxPB said:

    Onshore wind, and lots of it, please. Get manufacturing and building those turbines asap, the state should demand a 90% UK and UK owned supply chain as well to boost domestic manufacturing capability.

    If you want the turbines up quickly, you'll need to accept that you're going to be importing a lot of components.

    (IIRC, Vestas makes wind turbine blades on the Isle of Wight for a lot of Western Europe.)
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    FPT


    Perhaps you should pay the £86k up front as a one off insurance premium, though at what point that should be payable is tricky.

    One thing that does annoy me is the way that care costs are significantly higher (often nearly double) for those self funding as opposed to those who are council funded.

    That is definitely unfair.

    Self funders are paying way more than council funded residents because it's the only way to get the books to balance.

    And while council funded residents pay less they are a very consistent source of income while self-funding results in some gaps.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,204
    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Onshore wind, and lots of it, please. Get manufacturing and building those turbines asap, the state should demand a 90% UK and UK owned supply chain as well to boost domestic manufacturing capability.

    If you want the turbines up quickly, you'll need to accept that you're going to be importing a lot of components.

    (IIRC, Vestas makes wind turbine blades on the Isle of Wight for a lot of Western Europe.)
    Phase in the requirement over a period. Call it energy security.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    Carnyx said:

    Build a new nuclear power station.... in my back garden (its not very big, but if you can fit a portable nuclear reactor in a backpack, or in a Delorean DMC12 then surely you can get it in my garden).

    I'd best clear it with the wife however. She won't be happy.

    What about the retired Tory voting couple living on the other side of the back hedge? They sure won't be happy. And neither will their expectant children when they see how much their inheritance is reduced.
    Tough - if you want the view you need to own the view.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,864
    Utterly fucking ridiculous that scientists are still doing this


    “JUST IN - US researchers at Boston University have developed a new lethal Covid mutant strain in a laboratory – echoing the type of experiments many fear started the pandemic.”

    https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1582034277524332544?s=46&t=1KENNfcwOvbWPl8-mRg2Ew
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,245
    HYUFD said:

    - ”Tories 40pp behind in the Red Wall.”

    Tories 33pp behind in Scotland.

    ( @MikeSmithson , its percentage points, not percent. Or should that be pedant points?)

    So Truss now doing better in Scotland than the redwall, though still far worse in both than Boris did in 2019
    Not sure “better” is the correct word. Less appallingly would be more appropriate.

    If you Tories are happy being on approximately 12% in Scotland, then that’s absolutely fine by me.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,453
    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    Onshore wind, and lots of it, please. Get manufacturing and building those turbines asap, the state should demand a 90% UK and UK owned supply chain as well to boost domestic manufacturing capability.

    One thing that makes me nervous is the prospect of Truss entering into long term gas contracts with (say) Norway when all the indications are that gas should carry on falling in the long term as LNG capacity supply is driven up globally by the current high prices.
    I sincerely hope we didn't enter any a couple of months back.
    It is worth noting that there are two major reasons why the UK is hurting almost as much as Germany, despite not buying any Russian gas:

    (1) We had essentially no long-term LNG supply contracts, which meant that we were entirely at the mercy of world prices for gas. This was very smart from 2016 to 2020. And very dumb in 2022.

    (2) We have very limited levels of gas storage, which means we have no buffer. We need LNG cargoes for power stations, we can't say "nah, too expensive, I'll wait until the next one."
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,864
    Still, no need to worry


    “It now seems likely Putin will detonate some sort of nuclear device in or around Ukraine. That will precipitate the biggest global crisis since Cuba. This morning ministers and Tory MPs are saying the only person they can find to lead us through that crisis is Liz Truss.”

    https://twitter.com/dpjhodges/status/1582627095486038016?s=46&t=1KENNfcwOvbWPl8-mRg2Ew
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,094
    DougSeal said:

    How many nuclear submarines do we have? Couldn’t we just plug them into the National Grid?

    Interesting thought. But a quick sniff test suggests not. HMS Dreadnought and the largest wind turbine each produces something like 10MW. Torness not a million miles from here produces 1300Mw. So the subs wouldn't make much difference - ignoring issues such as training, spare parts and secrecy (US are very sniffy about their engineering: Conqueror at Plymouht is sometimes open to visitors but no way can you see inside the stern half). And of course the fact that most of the boats have been mothballes for ages and the others are, erm, needed.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,380
    Carnyx said:

    Build a new nuclear power station.... in my back garden (its not very big, but if you can fit a portable nuclear reactor in a backpack, or in a Delorean DMC12 then surely you can get it in my garden).

    I'd best clear it with the wife however. She won't be happy.

    What about the retired ToryLabour voting couple living on the other side of the back hedge? They sure won't be happy. And neither will their expectant children when they see how much their inheritance is reduced.
    Fixed it for you. I live in Bootle remember........

  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,148
    MaxPB said:

    Onshore wind, and lots of it, please. Get manufacturing and building those turbines asap, the state should demand a 90% UK and UK owned supply chain as well to boost domestic manufacturing capability.

    But British workers are amongst the worst idlers in the world. You can't trust them to produce wind turbines. Better to get them made in Denmark.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,245
    One of the great things about the Truss calamity is that it has killed certain things stone dead, eg:

    Thatcherite economics
    Fracking
    The Conservative Party

    What’s not to like?

    As I said long before she ever reached the members’ vote: Liz Truss is my kind of Tory! 😄
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225
    NEW: Panic stricken No10 junk PM’s visit this afternoon over warnings they may LOSE tonight’s ‘back frack or sack’ confidence vote:

    Sun live blog: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20143730/liz-truss-news-latest-interview-resign/#liveblog-entry-20161259
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    Leon said:

    Still, no need to worry


    “It now seems likely Putin will detonate some sort of nuclear device in or around Ukraine. That will precipitate the biggest global crisis since Cuba. This morning ministers and Tory MPs are saying the only person they can find to lead us through that crisis is Liz Truss.”

    https://twitter.com/dpjhodges/status/1582627095486038016?s=46&t=1KENNfcwOvbWPl8-mRg2Ew

    I love how everyone treats Hodges saying Brady has zillions of letters in as gospel but they'll poo poo this.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Panic stricken No10 junk PM’s visit this afternoon over warnings they may LOSE tonight’s ‘back frack or sack’ confidence vote:

    Sun live blog: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20143730/liz-truss-news-latest-interview-resign/#liveblog-entry-20161259

    I am shocked, I tell you, shocked.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,148
    edited October 19
    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    But it's not a hypothecated tax now, it's just a tax like any other. You're proposing to increase taxes on the working poor so you can keep your inheritance. Do you not see how immoral that is, as a church going person I think your reverend would have words with you. Impoverishing those without so you can enrich yourself with your parents wealth one day is morally wrong.

    Well it should be a hypothecation insurance/tax as it was set up to be.

    It was not the working poor who Sunak raised National insurance on to fund social care but higher earners, indeed the very poor don't pay National insurance at all.

    Proper Tories, including High Tory Anglicans would support preservation of inherited wealth. Don't you try lecturing me on what is morally wrong just because proper Tory values are not you libertarian agenda, tough!!!!
    But it's not and hasn't been for decades.

    They may support preservation of inherited wealth, yet do they support it at the expense of the working poor? Should someone earning £15k face higher taxes so you can "preserve your wealth" I'd suggest that your local vicar may have a different answer to what you expect. Having sat through seven years of weekly sermons at school I'm pretty sure the school chaplain would be firmly opposed to making poor people pay for your wealth preservation.
    Yes it has, the Tory core vote almost all supports preservation of assets.

    No it is not the working poor either, anyone earning under £35k actually if anything saw a fractional NI cut by Sunak. It was higher earners like you who saw the biggest rise in NI to pay for social care.

    So don't try and pretend you don't have any interest in ensuring NI is not increased for higher earners to fund social care!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225

    One of the great things about the Truss calamity is that it has killed certain things stone dead, eg:

    Thatcherite economics
    Fracking
    The Conservative Party

    What’s not to like?

    As I said long before she ever reached the members’ vote: Liz Truss is my kind of Tory! 😄

    Meanwhile...

    Long time Indy supporter Robin McAlpine's two-word verdict on the SNP's new economic prospectus for independence, "utter pish". Longer read here 👇http://robinmcalpine.org/this-paper-answers-nothing-this-government-has-no-answers/

    https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1582393187796389889
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,148

    HYUFD said:

    - ”Tories 40pp behind in the Red Wall.”

    Tories 33pp behind in Scotland.

    ( @MikeSmithson , its percentage points, not percent. Or should that be pedant points?)

    So Truss now doing better in Scotland than the redwall, though still far worse in both than Boris did in 2019
    Not sure “better” is the correct word. Less appallingly would be more appropriate.

    If you Tories are happy being on approximately 12% in Scotland, then that’s absolutely fine by me.
    I'm not, we were on 25% with Boris in Scotland
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,094

    Carnyx said:

    Build a new nuclear power station.... in my back garden (its not very big, but if you can fit a portable nuclear reactor in a backpack, or in a Delorean DMC12 then surely you can get it in my garden).

    I'd best clear it with the wife however. She won't be happy.

    What about the retired ToryLabour voting couple living on the other side of the back hedge? They sure won't be happy. And neither will their expectant children when they see how much their inheritance is reduced.
    Fixed it for you. I live in Bootle remember........

    Should have said "previously Tory voting"!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225

    Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Panic stricken No10 junk PM’s visit this afternoon over warnings they may LOSE tonight’s ‘back frack or sack’ confidence vote:

    Sun live blog: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20143730/liz-truss-news-latest-interview-resign/#liveblog-entry-20161259

    I am shocked, I tell you, shocked.

    I under-valued the possibility here that the government might end up accidentally calling a vote of confidence in itself.
    https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1582686502148276224
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,362
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    - ”Tories 40pp behind in the Red Wall.”

    Tories 33pp behind in Scotland.

    ( @MikeSmithson , its percentage points, not percent. Or should that be pedant points?)

    So Truss now doing better in Scotland than the redwall, though still far worse in both than Boris did in 2019
    Not sure “better” is the correct word. Less appallingly would be more appropriate.

    If you Tories are happy being on approximately 12% in Scotland, then that’s absolutely fine by me.
    I'm not, we were on 25% with Boris in Scotland
    :D:D:D
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,771
    MaxPB said:

    Onshore wind, and lots of it, please. Get manufacturing and building those turbines asap, the state should demand a 90% UK and UK owned supply chain as well to boost domestic manufacturing capability.

    Offshore wind is far more efficient and can be scaled in a way that onshore can't. It also won't get stuck in planning for 20 years.

    Dogger Bank III, IV and V please.

    Not Lake District I, Cairngorms I or even North Pennines I.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,864
    I wonder if Putin is going to evacuate Kherson, let the Ukrainians take it - then drop a nuke on the city

    https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-mysterious-ben-wallace-trip-to-washington-amid-fears-of-russian-escalation-12723942
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    eek said:

    FPT


    Perhaps you should pay the £86k up front as a one off insurance premium, though at what point that should be payable is tricky.

    One thing that does annoy me is the way that care costs are significantly higher (often nearly double) for those self funding as opposed to those who are council funded.

    That is definitely unfair.

    Self funders are paying way more than council funded residents because it's the only way to get the books to balance.

    And while council funded residents pay less they are a very consistent source of income while self-funding results in some gaps.
    And the reforms that Hunt may be about to abandon are partly designed to deal with this.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,148
    edited October 19
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    But it's not a hypothecated tax now, it's just a tax like any other. You're proposing to increase taxes on the working poor so you can keep your inheritance. Do you not see how immoral that is, as a church going person I think your reverend would have words with you. Impoverishing those without so you can enrich yourself with your parents wealth one day is morally wrong.

    Well it should be a hypothecation insurance/tax as it was set up to be.

    It was not the working poor who Sunak raised National insurance on to fund social care but higher earners, indeed the very poor don't pay National insurance at all.

    Proper Tories, including High Tory Anglicans would support preservation of inherited wealth. Don't you try lecturing me on what is morally wrong just because proper Tory values are not you libertarian agenda, tough!!!!
    It has nothing to do with libertarians or Tories. It is a straight moral issue. You want people poorer than your parents to fund their care through their taxes so you can inherit their wealth. That is a clear moral issue regardless of politics and I think Max is right in what your vicar might think
    It has everything to do with libertarians or Tories.

    Both you and Max are classical liberals, more in common with each other than traditional Tories.

    Scrapping the £86k cap hits average homeowners or less with £200k to £400k homes especially hard as most of their estate goes in care costs.

    The biggest rise in NI by Sunak by far was for those earning over £100k, lower earners even saw a slight NI cut.

    So don't give me this crap about NI hitting the poor most while the social care cap only protects the rich!!!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,204
    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    But it's not a hypothecated tax now, it's just a tax like any other. You're proposing to increase taxes on the working poor so you can keep your inheritance. Do you not see how immoral that is, as a church going person I think your reverend would have words with you. Impoverishing those without so you can enrich yourself with your parents wealth one day is morally wrong.

    Well it should be a hypothecation insurance/tax as it was set up to be.

    It was not the working poor who Sunak raised National insurance on to fund social care but higher earners, indeed the very poor don't pay National insurance at all.

    Proper Tories, including High Tory Anglicans would support preservation of inherited wealth. Don't you try lecturing me on what is morally wrong just because proper Tory values are not you libertarian agenda, tough!!!!
    But it's not and hasn't been for decades.

    They may support preservation of inherited wealth, yet do they support it at the expense of the working poor? Should someone earning £15k face higher taxes so you can "preserve your wealth" I'd suggest that your local vicar may have a different answer to what you expect. Having sat through seven years of weekly sermons at school I'm pretty sure the school chaplain would be firmly opposed to making poor people pay for your wealth preservation.
    Yes it has, the Tory core vote almost all supports preservation of assets.

    No it is not the working poor either, anyone earning under £35k actually if anything saw a fractional NI cut by Sunak. It was higher earners like you who saw the biggest rise in NI to pay for social care.

    So don't try and pretend you don't have any interest in ensuring NI is not increased for higher earners to fund social care!
    But that's been reversed, so we're starting from a base of any NI increase hitting people earning £12.57k or more.

    Even at the time I suggested it should be paid for by decreasing the additional rate threshold and adding 2p to the basic and higher rates. Ideally not at all and the state takes a charge on estate values.

    You want poor people to subsidise your inheritance. I don't.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,453
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Onshore wind, and lots of it, please. Get manufacturing and building those turbines asap, the state should demand a 90% UK and UK owned supply chain as well to boost domestic manufacturing capability.

    If you want the turbines up quickly, you'll need to accept that you're going to be importing a lot of components.

    (IIRC, Vestas makes wind turbine blades on the Isle of Wight for a lot of Western Europe.)
    Phase in the requirement over a period. Call it energy security.
    We live in such an interconnected world that I'm always a little sceptical that the UK can easily own the production of *everything* required to make a wind turbine. (Or most anything else, for that matter.)

    I mean, we make blades for turbines today - but do we import the resin needed to make that?

    And there's bound to be a fair amount of semiconductors and other specialist kit involved in their production. Are we going to subsidize a domestic electronics industry to make those components too? I mean, I'd be staggered if Denmark, despite the presence of Vestas, could make a single wind turbine if cut off from the rest of the world.

    I guess one can improve energy security by having big stockpiles of subcomponents needed, but there the inevitable risk that you end up basically writing big cheques to people for "energy security", when all we've done is move the dependence further up the supply chain.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,697
    Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Panic stricken No10 junk PM’s visit this afternoon over warnings they may LOSE tonight’s ‘back frack or sack’ confidence vote:

    Sun live blog: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20143730/liz-truss-news-latest-interview-resign/#liveblog-entry-20161259

    Ahahaha, genius!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Eabhal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Panic stricken No10 junk PM’s visit this afternoon over warnings they may LOSE tonight’s ‘back frack or sack’ confidence vote:

    Sun live blog: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20143730/liz-truss-news-latest-interview-resign/#liveblog-entry-20161259

    Ahahaha, genius!
    How many minutes until there is a u-turn and it is not a confidence vote?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,644
    Leon said:

    I wonder if Putin is going to evacuate Kherson, let the Ukrainians take it - then drop a nuke on the city

    https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-mysterious-ben-wallace-trip-to-washington-amid-fears-of-russian-escalation-12723942

    Quite the call for you if that happens, but in the 77 years since Nagasaki, no-one has used a nuke in combat, despite the circumstances.

    I suspect this will be the same.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,380
    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Build a new nuclear power station.... in my back garden (its not very big, but if you can fit a portable nuclear reactor in a backpack, or in a Delorean DMC12 then surely you can get it in my garden).

    I'd best clear it with the wife however. She won't be happy.

    What about the retired Tory voting couple living on the other side of the back hedge? They sure won't be happy. And neither will their expectant children when they see how much their inheritance is reduced.
    Tough - if you want the view you need to own the view.
    There was a lovely scene in Election (1999) where one character spends her afternoons looking out her back garden at the nuclear power station nearby.
    And recently, the Tate in Liverpool has had an exhibition called 'Radical Landscapes' which showed the UK landscape in the 1960s to 1990s. Quite a few nice pictures of coal fired power stations to look at.

    What more could you want!?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,697
    Leon said:

    I wonder if Putin is going to evacuate Kherson, let the Ukrainians take it - then drop a nuke on the city

    https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-mysterious-ben-wallace-trip-to-washington-amid-fears-of-russian-escalation-12723942

    I think more likely a high altitude one that knocks out lots of communication/energy systems. Would fit the current infrastructure strategy by Putin.

    Like the start of, ahem, Threads.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,864
    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Still, no need to worry


    “It now seems likely Putin will detonate some sort of nuclear device in or around Ukraine. That will precipitate the biggest global crisis since Cuba. This morning ministers and Tory MPs are saying the only person they can find to lead us through that crisis is Liz Truss.”

    https://twitter.com/dpjhodges/status/1582627095486038016?s=46&t=1KENNfcwOvbWPl8-mRg2Ew

    I love how everyone treats Hodges saying Brady has zillions of letters in as gospel but they'll poo poo this.
    Reading between the lines “Russia drops a tactical nuke” now seems as likely as not

    There is no other way Putin can win. If his army is not capable of a second invasion from Belarus, he is out of options
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757

    Eabhal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Panic stricken No10 junk PM’s visit this afternoon over warnings they may LOSE tonight’s ‘back frack or sack’ confidence vote:

    Sun live blog: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20143730/liz-truss-news-latest-interview-resign/#liveblog-entry-20161259

    Ahahaha, genius!
    How many minutes until there is a u-turn and it is not a confidence vote?
    I believe Labour still gains control over the order paper if the Gov't loses.

    Although I'm not 100% on what that means :D
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    Eabhal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Panic stricken No10 junk PM’s visit this afternoon over warnings they may LOSE tonight’s ‘back frack or sack’ confidence vote:

    Sun live blog: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20143730/liz-truss-news-latest-interview-resign/#liveblog-entry-20161259

    Ahahaha, genius!
    It also seems that the Tories in their haste have removed all pairings which means Bozo is currently in the Caribbean and can't vote but whoever he was paired with can (assuming he was paired).

    7pm tonight is going to be fun and close.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    But it's not a hypothecated tax now, it's just a tax like any other. You're proposing to increase taxes on the working poor so you can keep your inheritance. Do you not see how immoral that is, as a church going person I think your reverend would have words with you. Impoverishing those without so you can enrich yourself with your parents wealth one day is morally wrong.

    Well it should be a hypothecation insurance/tax as it was set up to be.

    It was not the working poor who Sunak raised National insurance on to fund social care but higher earners, indeed the very poor don't pay National insurance at all.

    Proper Tories, including High Tory Anglicans would support preservation of inherited wealth. Don't you try lecturing me on what is morally wrong just because proper Tory values are not you libertarian agenda, tough!!!!
    But it's not and hasn't been for decades.

    They may support preservation of inherited wealth, yet do they support it at the expense of the working poor? Should someone earning £15k face higher taxes so you can "preserve your wealth" I'd suggest that your local vicar may have a different answer to what you expect. Having sat through seven years of weekly sermons at school I'm pretty sure the school chaplain would be firmly opposed to making poor people pay for your wealth preservation.
    Yes it has, the Tory core vote almost all supports preservation of assets.

    No it is not the working poor either, anyone earning under £35k actually if anything saw a fractional NI cut by Sunak. It was higher earners like you who saw the biggest rise in NI to pay for social care.

    So don't try and pretend you don't have any interest in ensuring NI is not increased for higher earners to fund social care!
    But that's been reversed, so we're starting from a base of any NI increase hitting people earning £12.57k or more.

    Even at the time I suggested it should be paid for by decreasing the additional rate threshold and adding 2p to the basic and higher rates. Ideally not at all and the state takes a charge on estate values.

    You want poor people to subsidise your inheritance. I don't.
    10% on all estates to pay for social care seems entirely sensible to me, but politicians always shoot it down in concert with the rightwing tabloids.

  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,204
    Leon said:

    Still, no need to worry


    “It now seems likely Putin will detonate some sort of nuclear device in or around Ukraine. That will precipitate the biggest global crisis since Cuba. This morning ministers and Tory MPs are saying the only person they can find to lead us through that crisis is Liz Truss.”

    https://twitter.com/dpjhodges/status/1582627095486038016?s=46&t=1KENNfcwOvbWPl8-mRg2Ew

    At least it isn't Jeremy Corbyn.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,362
    The pinned tweet at the top of Dan Hodges Twitter is like a reminder of another age.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,882
    Leon said:

    I wonder if Putin is going to evacuate Kherson, let the Ukrainians take it - then drop a nuke on the city

    https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-mysterious-ben-wallace-trip-to-washington-amid-fears-of-russian-escalation-12723942

    I wonder if one of these days your tongue is going to get nuked if Vladimir Putin feels it is invading his intimate space.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,644

    MaxPB said:

    Onshore wind, and lots of it, please. Get manufacturing and building those turbines asap, the state should demand a 90% UK and UK owned supply chain as well to boost domestic manufacturing capability.

    Offshore wind is far more efficient and can be scaled in a way that onshore can't. It also won't get stuck in planning for 20 years.

    Dogger Bank III, IV and V please.

    Not Lake District I, Cairngorms I or even North Pennines I.
    Travelled back from Pembrokeshire on monday (itself well populated by wind turbines). In the distance a forest of turbines on the Black Mountains. People will have different opinions, but at least they are non-polluting sources of power, and tbh, not unattractive.

    Like keeping the football world cup on free to air TV, there must be some locations that are kept free of turbines, but for bog standard farmland in much of the country I don't see an issue.

    That said, I suspect (but don't know) that North Sea turbines are less likely to be completely lacking in wind. They are also bigger (I think) and we have the tech to keep building them.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,179

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Build a new nuclear power station.... in my back garden (its not very big, but if you can fit a portable nuclear reactor in a backpack, or in a Delorean DMC12 then surely you can get it in my garden).

    I'd best clear it with the wife however. She won't be happy.

    What about the retired Tory voting couple living on the other side of the back hedge? They sure won't be happy. And neither will their expectant children when they see how much their inheritance is reduced.
    Tough - if you want the view you need to own the view.
    There was a lovely scene in Election (1999) where one character spends her afternoons looking out her back garden at the nuclear power station nearby.
    And recently, the Tate in Liverpool has had an exhibition called 'Radical Landscapes' which showed the UK landscape in the 1960s to 1990s. Quite a few nice pictures of coal fired power stations to look at.

    What more could you want!?
    I remember, from my youth, how excited and indeed pleased I and my friends were at the building of Bradwell power station not far away from us
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,502
    Leon said:

    I wonder if Putin is going to evacuate Kherson, let the Ukrainians take it - then drop a nuke on the city

    https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-mysterious-ben-wallace-trip-to-washington-amid-fears-of-russian-escalation-12723942

    Unlikely - that's showing a bit too much leg, Putin wants to flirt a bit more first.

    I remain convinced, and I hope I'm wrong, that Russia has already advised the US it will be performing a high-altitude test over the Black Sea or Arctic.

    Then after that, inform Ukraine it has 48 hours to draw back from Kherson to "X" otherwise Kherson gets it.

    A bit more....playful than going straight in.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    DougSeal said:

    The pinned tweet at the top of Dan Hodges Twitter is like a reminder of another age.

    What does he have pinned ?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,644

    Leon said:

    I wonder if Putin is going to evacuate Kherson, let the Ukrainians take it - then drop a nuke on the city

    https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-mysterious-ben-wallace-trip-to-washington-amid-fears-of-russian-escalation-12723942

    Unlikely - that's showing a bit too much leg, Putin wants to flirt a bit more first.

    I remain convinced, and I hope I'm wrong, that Russia has already advised the US it will be performing a high-altitude test over the Black Sea or Arctic.

    Then after that, inform Ukraine it has 48 hours to draw back from Kherson to "X" otherwise Kherson gets it.

    A bit more....playful than going straight in.
    What is behind your belief in this?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,204

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    But it's not a hypothecated tax now, it's just a tax like any other. You're proposing to increase taxes on the working poor so you can keep your inheritance. Do you not see how immoral that is, as a church going person I think your reverend would have words with you. Impoverishing those without so you can enrich yourself with your parents wealth one day is morally wrong.

    Well it should be a hypothecation insurance/tax as it was set up to be.

    It was not the working poor who Sunak raised National insurance on to fund social care but higher earners, indeed the very poor don't pay National insurance at all.

    Proper Tories, including High Tory Anglicans would support preservation of inherited wealth. Don't you try lecturing me on what is morally wrong just because proper Tory values are not you libertarian agenda, tough!!!!
    But it's not and hasn't been for decades.

    They may support preservation of inherited wealth, yet do they support it at the expense of the working poor? Should someone earning £15k face higher taxes so you can "preserve your wealth" I'd suggest that your local vicar may have a different answer to what you expect. Having sat through seven years of weekly sermons at school I'm pretty sure the school chaplain would be firmly opposed to making poor people pay for your wealth preservation.
    Yes it has, the Tory core vote almost all supports preservation of assets.

    No it is not the working poor either, anyone earning under £35k actually if anything saw a fractional NI cut by Sunak. It was higher earners like you who saw the biggest rise in NI to pay for social care.

    So don't try and pretend you don't have any interest in ensuring NI is not increased for higher earners to fund social care!
    But that's been reversed, so we're starting from a base of any NI increase hitting people earning £12.57k or more.

    Even at the time I suggested it should be paid for by decreasing the additional rate threshold and adding 2p to the basic and higher rates. Ideally not at all and the state takes a charge on estate values.

    You want poor people to subsidise your inheritance. I don't.
    10% on all estates to pay for social care seems entirely sensible to me, but politicians always shoot it down in concert with the rightwing tabloids.

    No, just make NI payable on pension income. Hyfud wants it to be an insurance scheme again, well it can be an insurance for healthcare and social care for older people and healthcare and pensions for working age people. It's stupid but maybe he'll agree to it. I doubt it because NI on pension income would hurt his core voters.
  • rjkrjk Posts: 60
    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Still, no need to worry


    “It now seems likely Putin will detonate some sort of nuclear device in or around Ukraine. That will precipitate the biggest global crisis since Cuba. This morning ministers and Tory MPs are saying the only person they can find to lead us through that crisis is Liz Truss.”

    https://twitter.com/dpjhodges/status/1582627095486038016?s=46&t=1KENNfcwOvbWPl8-mRg2Ew

    I love how everyone treats Hodges saying Brady has zillions of letters in as gospel but they'll poo poo this.
    Reading between the lines “Russia drops a tactical nuke” now seems as likely as not

    There is no other way Putin can win. If his army is not capable of a second invasion from Belarus, he is out of options
    Is he in that much of a hurry? His plan to put pressure on Europe and Ukraine by cutting off gas supplies to the former and directly destroying the energy infrastructure of the latter doesn't really start to bite until the winter. If he can put enough troops on the field to prevent Ukraine simply overrunning his forces, then he might still hope that time is on his side.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,453
    Leon said:

    I wonder if Putin is going to evacuate Kherson, let the Ukrainians take it - then drop a nuke on the city

    https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-mysterious-ben-wallace-trip-to-washington-amid-fears-of-russian-escalation-12723942

    That would be quite an escalation.

    And it would invite utter fury from his Chinese paymasters, whose primary policy goal is to avoid nuclear proliferation in Asia.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Still, no need to worry


    “It now seems likely Putin will detonate some sort of nuclear device in or around Ukraine. That will precipitate the biggest global crisis since Cuba. This morning ministers and Tory MPs are saying the only person they can find to lead us through that crisis is Liz Truss.”

    https://twitter.com/dpjhodges/status/1582627095486038016?s=46&t=1KENNfcwOvbWPl8-mRg2Ew

    I love how everyone treats Hodges saying Brady has zillions of letters in as gospel but they'll poo poo this.
    Reading between the lines “Russia drops a tactical nuke” now seems as likely as not

    There is no other way Putin can win. If his army is not capable of a second invasion from Belarus, he is out of options
    It is also not a way he can win.

    It's not impossible that he is mad enough to resort to a nuclear weapon, but it's certainly not 'as likely as not'.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,864
    Chris said:

    Leon said:

    I wonder if Putin is going to evacuate Kherson, let the Ukrainians take it - then drop a nuke on the city

    https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-mysterious-ben-wallace-trip-to-washington-amid-fears-of-russian-escalation-12723942

    I wonder if one of these days your tongue is going to get nuked if Vladimir Putin feels it is invading his intimate space.
    You ok, hun?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,362
    Pulpstar said:

    DougSeal said:

    The pinned tweet at the top of Dan Hodges Twitter is like a reminder of another age.

    What does he have pinned ?
    Something about Beergate.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,453
    Leon said:

    Utterly fucking ridiculous that scientists are still doing this


    “JUST IN - US researchers at Boston University have developed a new lethal Covid mutant strain in a laboratory – echoing the type of experiments many fear started the pandemic.”

    https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1582034277524332544?s=46&t=1KENNfcwOvbWPl8-mRg2Ew

    Oh come on: researchers gotta research.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    But it's not a hypothecated tax now, it's just a tax like any other. You're proposing to increase taxes on the working poor so you can keep your inheritance. Do you not see how immoral that is, as a church going person I think your reverend would have words with you. Impoverishing those without so you can enrich yourself with your parents wealth one day is morally wrong.

    Well it should be a hypothecation insurance/tax as it was set up to be.

    It was not the working poor who Sunak raised National insurance on to fund social care but higher earners, indeed the very poor don't pay National insurance at all.

    Proper Tories, including High Tory Anglicans would support preservation of inherited wealth. Don't you try lecturing me on what is morally wrong just because proper Tory values are not you libertarian agenda, tough!!!!
    But it's not and hasn't been for decades.

    They may support preservation of inherited wealth, yet do they support it at the expense of the working poor? Should someone earning £15k face higher taxes so you can "preserve your wealth" I'd suggest that your local vicar may have a different answer to what you expect. Having sat through seven years of weekly sermons at school I'm pretty sure the school chaplain would be firmly opposed to making poor people pay for your wealth preservation.
    Yes it has, the Tory core vote almost all supports preservation of assets.

    No it is not the working poor either, anyone earning under £35k actually if anything saw a fractional NI cut by Sunak. It was higher earners like you who saw the biggest rise in NI to pay for social care.

    So don't try and pretend you don't have any interest in ensuring NI is not increased for higher earners to fund social care!
    But that's been reversed, so we're starting from a base of any NI increase hitting people earning £12.57k or more.

    Even at the time I suggested it should be paid for by decreasing the additional rate threshold and adding 2p to the basic and higher rates. Ideally not at all and the state takes a charge on estate values.

    You want poor people to subsidise your inheritance. I don't.
    10% on all estates to pay for social care seems entirely sensible to me, but politicians always shoot it down in concert with the rightwing tabloids.

    No, just make NI payable on pension income. Hyfud wants it to be an insurance scheme again, well it can be an insurance for healthcare and social care for older people and healthcare and pensions for working age people. It's stupid but maybe he'll agree to it. I doubt it because NI on pension income would hurt his core voters.
    Killing off the lifetime exemption for capital transfers up to 7 years before date of death would be the simplest, most elegant and fairest way of implementing a wealth tax. Drafted right would hit the grosvenor etc estates for £100ms.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,204
    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Still, no need to worry


    “It now seems likely Putin will detonate some sort of nuclear device in or around Ukraine. That will precipitate the biggest global crisis since Cuba. This morning ministers and Tory MPs are saying the only person they can find to lead us through that crisis is Liz Truss.”

    https://twitter.com/dpjhodges/status/1582627095486038016?s=46&t=1KENNfcwOvbWPl8-mRg2Ew

    I love how everyone treats Hodges saying Brady has zillions of letters in as gospel but they'll poo poo this.
    Reading between the lines “Russia drops a tactical nuke” now seems as likely as not

    There is no other way Putin can win. If his army is not capable of a second invasion from Belarus, he is out of options
    What exactly is the basis on which Hodges is making that claim - a 'hunch' he has?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,620

    One of the great things about the Truss calamity is that it has killed certain things stone dead, eg:

    Thatcherite economics
    Fracking
    The Conservative Party

    What’s not to like?

    As I said long before she ever reached the members’ vote: Liz Truss is my kind of Tory! 😄

    She may also have saved the Union?
    If Starmer wins a decent majority then no need to do any deals/have any understandings with the SNP?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,864
    rjk said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Still, no need to worry


    “It now seems likely Putin will detonate some sort of nuclear device in or around Ukraine. That will precipitate the biggest global crisis since Cuba. This morning ministers and Tory MPs are saying the only person they can find to lead us through that crisis is Liz Truss.”

    https://twitter.com/dpjhodges/status/1582627095486038016?s=46&t=1KENNfcwOvbWPl8-mRg2Ew

    I love how everyone treats Hodges saying Brady has zillions of letters in as gospel but they'll poo poo this.
    Reading between the lines “Russia drops a tactical nuke” now seems as likely as not

    There is no other way Putin can win. If his army is not capable of a second invasion from Belarus, he is out of options
    Is he in that much of a hurry? His plan to put pressure on Europe and Ukraine by cutting off gas supplies to the former and directly destroying the energy infrastructure of the latter doesn't really start to bite until the winter. If he can put enough troops on the field to prevent Ukraine simply overrunning his forces, then he might still hope that time is on his side.
    True

    And that was my assumption. He would keep his boot on the Ukrainian throat with the drones and the energy deprivation, and then hope to win conventionally

    However the urgent sounds coming out of HMG and some journalists suggests something bigger, sooner

    I do not believe Wallace flew so suddenly to DC, in person, just to discuss Iranian missiles
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225
    🔴 Liz Truss faces a showdown with rebellious MPs after declaring a vote on her controversial fracking plans a “confidence motion in the Government” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/10/19/fracking-vote-confidence-liz-truss-test-tory-rebels/?utm_content=politics&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1666186364-2
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225
    And right on cue- Labour draw up a list of Tory mps who’ve expressed concerns about fracking in their areas. Including Jeremy Hunt and Ben Wallace. https://twitter.com/AnushkaAsthana/status/1582682337103355905/photo/1
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,882
    Leon said:

    Still, no need to worry


    “It now seems likely Putin will detonate some sort of nuclear device in or around Ukraine. That will precipitate the biggest global crisis since Cuba. This morning ministers and Tory MPs are saying the only person they can find to lead us through that crisis is Liz Truss.”

    https://twitter.com/dpjhodges/status/1582627095486038016?s=46&t=1KENNfcwOvbWPl8-mRg2Ew

    I wonder which idea is more bizarre - that Putin is going to use nuclear weapons, or that Liz Truss would be the only person we could trust to lead us through a global crisis. Or to lead us to the nearest bus stop, for that matter.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,771
    edited October 19

    MaxPB said:

    Onshore wind, and lots of it, please. Get manufacturing and building those turbines asap, the state should demand a 90% UK and UK owned supply chain as well to boost domestic manufacturing capability.

    Offshore wind is far more efficient and can be scaled in a way that onshore can't. It also won't get stuck in planning for 20 years.

    Dogger Bank III, IV and V please.

    Not Lake District I, Cairngorms I or even North Pennines I.
    Travelled back from Pembrokeshire on monday (itself well populated by wind turbines). In the distance a forest of turbines on the Black Mountains. People will have different opinions, but at least they are non-polluting sources of power, and tbh, not unattractive.

    Like keeping the football world cup on free to air TV, there must be some locations that are kept free of turbines, but for bog standard farmland in much of the country I don't see an issue.

    That said, I suspect (but don't know) that North Sea turbines are less likely to be completely lacking in wind. They are also bigger (I think) and we have the tech to keep building them.
    I agree, they aren't that bad in a bog standard farmed landscape. From our local NNR in the Flatlands you can see well over 100 of the things and they aren't _that_ bad.

    In the uplands it is slightly more difficult. They are visible for miles and if built on peat soil may not actually be reducing CO2 emissions. New roads are required in places where there really shouldn't be roads.

    The offshore ones can be bigger, don't need new roads, are easier to get heavy equipment to, allow bigger blades and perform an additional service of protecting the sea bed from trawling.

    The only issue is sea birds but I don't know what the latest research is on that.

    I do look forward to West Burton Fusion Power though!
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,540
    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Onshore wind, and lots of it, please. Get manufacturing and building those turbines asap, the state should demand a 90% UK and UK owned supply chain as well to boost domestic manufacturing capability.

    If you want the turbines up quickly, you'll need to accept that you're going to be importing a lot of components.

    (IIRC, Vestas makes wind turbine blades on the Isle of Wight for a lot of Western Europe.)
    I thought I remembered that factory being closed some years ago, but here's a story from earlier in the year about it expanding.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-60848933
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,502

    Leon said:

    I wonder if Putin is going to evacuate Kherson, let the Ukrainians take it - then drop a nuke on the city

    https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-mysterious-ben-wallace-trip-to-washington-amid-fears-of-russian-escalation-12723942

    Unlikely - that's showing a bit too much leg, Putin wants to flirt a bit more first.

    I remain convinced, and I hope I'm wrong, that Russia has already advised the US it will be performing a high-altitude test over the Black Sea or Arctic.

    Then after that, inform Ukraine it has 48 hours to draw back from Kherson to "X" otherwise Kherson gets it.

    A bit more....playful than going straight in.
    What is behind your belief in this?
    None. It's an opinion same as any other opinion about "what may happen" on this site. It does seem odd Wallace jetting off (and there are plenty of other ways of avoiding a commons vote), something obviously happened when Truss did her disappearing act (alternative being she was strapped down and given a heavy dose of Ketamine).

    Putin wouldn't go straight in with a full nuclear attack as that loses him his leverage. Nukes are tools of leverage. So the obvious path would be a detonation under the guise of an "exercise" to prove he's not mucking about. Informing the US would be a necessary step to avoid any misunderstanding.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,918
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    But it's not a hypothecated tax now, it's just a tax like any other. You're proposing to increase taxes on the working poor so you can keep your inheritance. Do you not see how immoral that is, as a church going person I think your reverend would have words with you. Impoverishing those without so you can enrich yourself with your parents wealth one day is morally wrong.

    Well it should be a hypothecation insurance/tax as it was set up to be.

    It was not the working poor who Sunak raised National insurance on to fund social care but higher earners, indeed the very poor don't pay National insurance at all.

    Proper Tories, including High Tory Anglicans would support preservation of inherited wealth. Don't you try lecturing me on what is morally wrong just because proper Tory values are not you libertarian agenda, tough!!!!
    It has nothing to do with libertarians or Tories. It is a straight moral issue. You want people poorer than your parents to fund their care through their taxes so you can inherit their wealth. That is a clear moral issue regardless of politics and I think Max is right in what your vicar might think
    It has everything to do with libertarians or Tories.

    Both you and Max are classical liberals, more in common with each other than traditional Tories.

    Scrapping the £86k cap hits average homeowners or less with £200k to £400k homes especially hard as most of their estate goes in care costs.

    The biggest rise in NI by Sunak by far was for those earning over £100k, lower earners even saw a slight NI cut.

    So don't give me this crap about NI hitting the poor most while the social care cap only protects the rich!!!
    That is the 2nd time now you have accused me of saying 'poor' when I actually said 'poorer' The words have very different meanings. Try reading what I say.

    You want people POORER (not the poor) than your parents to fund their care through their taxes so you can inherit their wealth.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,148
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    But it's not a hypothecated tax now, it's just a tax like any other. You're proposing to increase taxes on the working poor so you can keep your inheritance. Do you not see how immoral that is, as a church going person I think your reverend would have words with you. Impoverishing those without so you can enrich yourself with your parents wealth one day is morally wrong.

    Well it should be a hypothecation insurance/tax as it was set up to be.

    It was not the working poor who Sunak raised National insurance on to fund social care but higher earners, indeed the very poor don't pay National insurance at all.

    Proper Tories, including High Tory Anglicans would support preservation of inherited wealth. Don't you try lecturing me on what is morally wrong just because proper Tory values are not you libertarian agenda, tough!!!!
    But it's not and hasn't been for decades.

    They may support preservation of inherited wealth, yet do they support it at the expense of the working poor? Should someone earning £15k face higher taxes so you can "preserve your wealth" I'd suggest that your local vicar may have a different answer to what you expect. Having sat through seven years of weekly sermons at school I'm pretty sure the school chaplain would be firmly opposed to making poor people pay for your wealth preservation.
    Yes it has, the Tory core vote almost all supports preservation of assets.

    No it is not the working poor either, anyone earning under £35k actually if anything saw a fractional NI cut by Sunak. It was higher earners like you who saw the biggest rise in NI to pay for social care.

    So don't try and pretend you don't have any interest in ensuring NI is not increased for higher earners to fund social care!
    But that's been reversed, so we're starting from a base of any NI increase hitting people earning £12.57k or more.

    Even at the time I suggested it should be paid for by decreasing the additional rate threshold and adding 2p to the basic and higher rates. Ideally not at all and the state takes a charge on estate values.

    You want poor people to subsidise your inheritance. I don't.
    10% on all estates to pay for social care seems entirely sensible to me, but politicians always shoot it down in concert with the rightwing tabloids.

    No, just make NI payable on pension income. Hyfud wants it to be an insurance scheme again, well it can be an insurance for healthcare and social care for older people and healthcare and pensions for working age people. It's stupid but maybe he'll agree to it. I doubt it because NI on pension income would hurt his core voters.
    I don't oppose NI on pension income no in return for keeping the £86k care costs cap. Most state pensioners would not be much affected anyway
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,882
    Leon said:

    Chris said:

    Leon said:

    I wonder if Putin is going to evacuate Kherson, let the Ukrainians take it - then drop a nuke on the city

    https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-mysterious-ben-wallace-trip-to-washington-amid-fears-of-russian-escalation-12723942

    I wonder if one of these days your tongue is going to get nuked if Vladimir Putin feels it is invading his intimate space.
    You ok, hun?
    Your clever and original riposte has completely floored me.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,203
    Carnyx said:

    DougSeal said:

    How many nuclear submarines do we have? Couldn’t we just plug them into the National Grid?

    Interesting thought. But a quick sniff test suggests not. HMS Dreadnought and the largest wind turbine each produces something like 10MW. Torness not a million miles from here produces 1300Mw. So the subs wouldn't make much difference - ignoring issues such as training, spare parts and secrecy (US are very sniffy about their engineering: Conqueror at Plymouht is sometimes open to visitors but no way can you see inside the stern half). And of course the fact that most of the boats have been mothballes for ages and the others are, erm, needed.
    The RR mini-nukes are based on submarine tech, scaled up a bit on power.

    It would be interesting to see how close the design is to the reactors that power the US carriers. Which are larger versions of sub reactor tech.

    The US and U.K. have shared a lot since the US gave us the initial designs.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,380
    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Still, no need to worry


    “It now seems likely Putin will detonate some sort of nuclear device in or around Ukraine. That will precipitate the biggest global crisis since Cuba. This morning ministers and Tory MPs are saying the only person they can find to lead us through that crisis is Liz Truss.”

    https://twitter.com/dpjhodges/status/1582627095486038016?s=46&t=1KENNfcwOvbWPl8-mRg2Ew

    I love how everyone treats Hodges saying Brady has zillions of letters in as gospel but they'll poo poo this.
    Reading between the lines “Russia drops a tactical nuke” now seems as likely as not

    There is no other way Putin can win. If his army is not capable of a second invasion from Belarus, he is out of options
    No. Not yet. He does indeed double down, but he will escalate through more stages first.
    There is the chemical weapons out the bag first, possibly biological too.
    Maybe even targetted political assassinations too.

    Nuclear is a final option, and even then he'll drop one on a city and blame the Ukrainians (oh look, Zelensky bought a nuke from Israel, fired it from Kiev, it failed and went off on their own city) to try and deflect blame.

    Slowly, slowly escalating..... but I do agree things are slowly getting worse......
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225
    🚨NEW Westminster Voting Intention🚨

    📈30pt LABOUR LEAD

    🌹Lab 52 (+1)
    🌳Con 22 (-1)
    🔶LD 11 (+1)
    🎗️SNP 4 (=)
    🌍Gre 2 (-2)
    ⬜️Other 8 (=)

    2,195 UK adults, 14-16 Oct

    (chg from 7-9 Oct) https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1582747340108050432/photo/1
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225
    Best PM Metric:

    Starmer 48% (+11)
    Truss 20% (-15)
    Don't know 32% (+3) https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1582747345535369217/photo/1
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,453
    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Still, no need to worry


    “It now seems likely Putin will detonate some sort of nuclear device in or around Ukraine. That will precipitate the biggest global crisis since Cuba. This morning ministers and Tory MPs are saying the only person they can find to lead us through that crisis is Liz Truss.”

    https://twitter.com/dpjhodges/status/1582627095486038016?s=46&t=1KENNfcwOvbWPl8-mRg2Ew

    I love how everyone treats Hodges saying Brady has zillions of letters in as gospel but they'll poo poo this.
    Reading between the lines “Russia drops a tactical nuke” now seems as likely as not

    There is no other way Putin can win. If his army is not capable of a second invasion from Belarus, he is out of options
    Towards the end of the Second World, Hitler was in his bunker, moving around imaginary armies to defeat the invasion of the Fatherland.

    Putin isn't watching CNN, or looking at Oryx, he's hearing what his Generals tell him.

    And they're probably telling him that Yes, losses have been high, but they've been even worse for the Ukrainians. The current attack means that the last of the Ukrainian reserves will have been committed. And the Ukrainian spirit is close to broken with our targeted infrastructure attacks. With our 300,000 fresh soldiers and a broken and battered enemy, we just need one more push and Zelenskky will sue for peace.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,148
    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    But it's not a hypothecated tax now, it's just a tax like any other. You're proposing to increase taxes on the working poor so you can keep your inheritance. Do you not see how immoral that is, as a church going person I think your reverend would have words with you. Impoverishing those without so you can enrich yourself with your parents wealth one day is morally wrong.

    Well it should be a hypothecation insurance/tax as it was set up to be.

    It was not the working poor who Sunak raised National insurance on to fund social care but higher earners, indeed the very poor don't pay National insurance at all.

    Proper Tories, including High Tory Anglicans would support preservation of inherited wealth. Don't you try lecturing me on what is morally wrong just because proper Tory values are not you libertarian agenda, tough!!!!
    But it's not and hasn't been for decades.

    They may support preservation of inherited wealth, yet do they support it at the expense of the working poor? Should someone earning £15k face higher taxes so you can "preserve your wealth" I'd suggest that your local vicar may have a different answer to what you expect. Having sat through seven years of weekly sermons at school I'm pretty sure the school chaplain would be firmly opposed to making poor people pay for your wealth preservation.
    Yes it has, the Tory core vote almost all supports preservation of assets.

    No it is not the working poor either, anyone earning under £35k actually if anything saw a fractional NI cut by Sunak. It was higher earners like you who saw the biggest rise in NI to pay for social care.

    So don't try and pretend you don't have any interest in ensuring NI is not increased for higher earners to fund social care!
    But that's been reversed, so we're starting from a base of any NI increase hitting people earning £12.57k or more.

    Even at the time I suggested it should be paid for by decreasing the additional rate threshold and adding 2p to the basic and higher rates. Ideally not at all and the state takes a charge on estate values.

    You want poor people to subsidise your inheritance. I don't.
    No, not if it is focused on higher NI rates. Poor people didn't subsidise the cap, it was higher earners who were the only ones who paid more under the Sunak plan.

    Truss however has reversed that and delayed the introduction of the cap too
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225
    Another week, and another set of records:

    - Largest ever @SavantaComRes Labour lead
    - Largest ever @SavantaComRes Labour vote share (record broken each of the last three weeks)
    - Lowest Conservative vote share since May 2019 (Brexit Party were on 20% in that poll)

    https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1582747340108050432
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757

    MaxPB said:

    Onshore wind, and lots of it, please. Get manufacturing and building those turbines asap, the state should demand a 90% UK and UK owned supply chain as well to boost domestic manufacturing capability.

    Offshore wind is far more efficient and can be scaled in a way that onshore can't. It also won't get stuck in planning for 20 years.

    Dogger Bank III, IV and V please.

    Not Lake District I, Cairngorms I or even North Pennines I.
    Travelled back from Pembrokeshire on monday (itself well populated by wind turbines). In the distance a forest of turbines on the Black Mountains. People will have different opinions, but at least they are non-polluting sources of power, and tbh, not unattractive.

    Like keeping the football world cup on free to air TV, there must be some locations that are kept free of turbines, but for bog standard farmland in much of the country I don't see an issue.

    That said, I suspect (but don't know) that North Sea turbines are less likely to be completely lacking in wind. They are also bigger (I think) and we have the tech to keep building them.
    I agree, they aren't that bad in a bog standard farmed landscape. From our local NNR in the Flatlands you can see well over 100 of the things and they aren't _that_ bad.

    In the uplands it is slightly more difficult. They are visible for miles and if built on peat soil may not actually be reducing CO2 emissions. New roads are required in places where there really shouldn't be roads.

    The offshore ones can be bigger, don't need new roads, are easier to get heavy equipment to, allow bigger blades and perform an additional service of protecting the sea bed from trawling.

    The only issue is sea birds but I don't know what the latest research is on that.

    I do look forward to West Burton Fusion Power though!
    Richard Tyndall went through a whole load of stuff that means offshore can't be the entire package.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,882

    Leon said:

    I wonder if Putin is going to evacuate Kherson, let the Ukrainians take it - then drop a nuke on the city

    https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-mysterious-ben-wallace-trip-to-washington-amid-fears-of-russian-escalation-12723942

    Unlikely - that's showing a bit too much leg, Putin wants to flirt a bit more first.

    I remain convinced, and I hope I'm wrong, that Russia has already advised the US it will be performing a high-altitude test over the Black Sea or Arctic.

    Then after that, inform Ukraine it has 48 hours to draw back from Kherson to "X" otherwise Kherson gets it.

    A bit more....playful than going straight in.
    What is behind your belief in this?
    That's such an unfair question.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,148
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    But it's not a hypothecated tax now, it's just a tax like any other. You're proposing to increase taxes on the working poor so you can keep your inheritance. Do you not see how immoral that is, as a church going person I think your reverend would have words with you. Impoverishing those without so you can enrich yourself with your parents wealth one day is morally wrong.

    Well it should be a hypothecation insurance/tax as it was set up to be.

    It was not the working poor who Sunak raised National insurance on to fund social care but higher earners, indeed the very poor don't pay National insurance at all.

    Proper Tories, including High Tory Anglicans would support preservation of inherited wealth. Don't you try lecturing me on what is morally wrong just because proper Tory values are not you libertarian agenda, tough!!!!
    It has nothing to do with libertarians or Tories. It is a straight moral issue. You want people poorer than your parents to fund their care through their taxes so you can inherit their wealth. That is a clear moral issue regardless of politics and I think Max is right in what your vicar might think
    It has everything to do with libertarians or Tories.

    Both you and Max are classical liberals, more in common with each other than traditional Tories.

    Scrapping the £86k cap hits average homeowners or less with £200k to £400k homes especially hard as most of their estate goes in care costs.

    The biggest rise in NI by Sunak by far was for those earning over £100k, lower earners even saw a slight NI cut.

    So don't give me this crap about NI hitting the poor most while the social care cap only protects the rich!!!
    That is the 2nd time now you have accused me of saying 'poor' when I actually said 'poorer' The words have very different meanings. Try reading what I say.

    You want people POORER (not the poor) than your parents to fund their care through their taxes so you can inherit their wealth.
    No I don't, the biggest increase in NI was for those earning over £100k who are certainly not poorer than my parents, anyone earning average income of £35k or less had no NI rise.

    You by contrast want average home owners with properties of £200k to £400k to lose most of their property value in care costs by scrapping the £86k care cap
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,864
    Who really gives a flying fuck about fracking right now? We are inches from Apocalypse

    “If Russia faces destruction of their army and utter defeat by NATO, they will use nukes, then NATO will respond with nukes and civilization is over”

    “But, hey, look on the bright side! At least Russia doesn’t get Crimea in that scenario, so you can be comforted by that thought, while watching the mushroom clouds rise.”

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1581999825339699201?s=46&t=1bJFP8rvix7V_P6lYoE7pA
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Leon said:

    Who really gives a flying fuck about fracking right now? We are inches from Apocalypse

    “If Russia faces destruction of their army and utter defeat by NATO, they will use nukes, then NATO will respond with nukes and civilization is over”

    “But, hey, look on the bright side! At least Russia doesn’t get Crimea in that scenario, so you can be comforted by that thought, while watching the mushroom clouds rise.”

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1581999825339699201?s=46&t=1bJFP8rvix7V_P6lYoE7pA

    How does he know? He is just some tech billionaire airing his opinions on twitter.



  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,203
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Still, no need to worry


    “It now seems likely Putin will detonate some sort of nuclear device in or around Ukraine. That will precipitate the biggest global crisis since Cuba. This morning ministers and Tory MPs are saying the only person they can find to lead us through that crisis is Liz Truss.”

    https://twitter.com/dpjhodges/status/1582627095486038016?s=46&t=1KENNfcwOvbWPl8-mRg2Ew

    I love how everyone treats Hodges saying Brady has zillions of letters in as gospel but they'll poo poo this.
    Reading between the lines “Russia drops a tactical nuke” now seems as likely as not

    There is no other way Putin can win. If his army is not capable of a second invasion from Belarus, he is out of options
    Towards the end of the Second World, Hitler was in his bunker, moving around imaginary armies to defeat the invasion of the Fatherland.

    Putin isn't watching CNN, or looking at Oryx, he's hearing what his Generals tell him.

    And they're probably telling him that Yes, losses have been high, but they've been even worse for the Ukrainians. The current attack means that the last of the Ukrainian reserves will have been committed. And the Ukrainian spirit is close to broken with our targeted infrastructure attacks. With our 300,000 fresh soldiers and a broken and battered enemy, we just need one more push and Zelenskky will sue for peace.
    That’s exactly the end of Red Storm Rising. The Central Committee start telling themselves -

    - nukes will divide/panic NATO
    - our untrained reservists are a brilliant army just waiting to win
    - the other side must have taken even heavier casualties than us.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,864
    Chris said:

    Leon said:

    Chris said:

    Leon said:

    I wonder if Putin is going to evacuate Kherson, let the Ukrainians take it - then drop a nuke on the city

    https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-mysterious-ben-wallace-trip-to-washington-amid-fears-of-russian-escalation-12723942

    I wonder if one of these days your tongue is going to get nuked if Vladimir Putin feels it is invading his intimate space.
    You ok, hun?
    Your clever and original riposte has completely floored me.
    Thanks. I’m quite proud of it
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,546
    rcs1000 said:


    Towards the end of the Second World, Hitler was in his bunker, moving around imaginary armies to defeat the invasion of the Fatherland.

    Putin isn't watching CNN, or looking at Oryx, he's hearing what his Generals tell him.

    And they're probably telling him that Yes, losses have been high, but they've been even worse for the Ukrainians. The current attack means that the last of the Ukrainian reserves will have been committed. And the Ukrainian spirit is close to broken with our targeted infrastructure attacks. With our 300,000 fresh soldiers and a broken and battered enemy, we just need one more push and Zelenskky will sue for peace.

    A pity that they don't tell him that he's won and Ukraine is now fully Russian. There's precedent from the reign of Empress Catherine II if he insists on visiting the 'liberated' areas.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,643
    Leon said:

    Who really gives a flying fuck about fracking right now? We are inches from Apocalypse

    “If Russia faces destruction of their army and utter defeat by NATO, they will use nukes, then NATO will respond with nukes and civilization is over”

    “But, hey, look on the bright side! At least Russia doesn’t get Crimea in that scenario, so you can be comforted by that thought, while watching the mushroom clouds rise.”

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1581999825339699201?s=46&t=1bJFP8rvix7V_P6lYoE7pA

    Didn't you say "Apocalypse" last week?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,204
    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    But it's not a hypothecated tax now, it's just a tax like any other. You're proposing to increase taxes on the working poor so you can keep your inheritance. Do you not see how immoral that is, as a church going person I think your reverend would have words with you. Impoverishing those without so you can enrich yourself with your parents wealth one day is morally wrong.

    Well it should be a hypothecation insurance/tax as it was set up to be.

    It was not the working poor who Sunak raised National insurance on to fund social care but higher earners, indeed the very poor don't pay National insurance at all.

    Proper Tories, including High Tory Anglicans would support preservation of inherited wealth. Don't you try lecturing me on what is morally wrong just because proper Tory values are not you libertarian agenda, tough!!!!
    But it's not and hasn't been for decades.

    They may support preservation of inherited wealth, yet do they support it at the expense of the working poor? Should someone earning £15k face higher taxes so you can "preserve your wealth" I'd suggest that your local vicar may have a different answer to what you expect. Having sat through seven years of weekly sermons at school I'm pretty sure the school chaplain would be firmly opposed to making poor people pay for your wealth preservation.
    Yes it has, the Tory core vote almost all supports preservation of assets.

    No it is not the working poor either, anyone earning under £35k actually if anything saw a fractional NI cut by Sunak. It was higher earners like you who saw the biggest rise in NI to pay for social care.

    So don't try and pretend you don't have any interest in ensuring NI is not increased for higher earners to fund social care!
    But that's been reversed, so we're starting from a base of any NI increase hitting people earning £12.57k or more.

    Even at the time I suggested it should be paid for by decreasing the additional rate threshold and adding 2p to the basic and higher rates. Ideally not at all and the state takes a charge on estate values.

    You want poor people to subsidise your inheritance. I don't.
    10% on all estates to pay for social care seems entirely sensible to me, but politicians always shoot it down in concert with the rightwing tabloids.

    No, just make NI payable on pension income. Hyfud wants it to be an insurance scheme again, well it can be an insurance for healthcare and social care for older people and healthcare and pensions for working age people. It's stupid but maybe he'll agree to it. I doubt it because NI on pension income would hurt his core voters.
    I don't oppose NI on pension income no in return for keeping the £86k care costs cap. Most state pensioners would not be much affected anyway
    That's progress. I think NI on pension income would pay for it anyway and then NI rates wouldn't have to rise.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,453
    Scott_xP said:

    🚨NEW Westminster Voting Intention🚨

    📈30pt LABOUR LEAD

    🌹Lab 52 (+1)
    🌳Con 22 (-1)
    🔶LD 11 (+1)
    🎗️SNP 4 (=)
    🌍Gre 2 (-2)
    ⬜️Other 8 (=)

    2,195 UK adults, 14-16 Oct

    (chg from 7-9 Oct) https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1582747340108050432/photo/1

    For humour value:



    Note: assumes no tactical voting.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    Leon said:

    Who really gives a flying fuck about fracking right now? We are inches from Apocalypse

    “If Russia faces destruction of their army and utter defeat by NATO, they will use nukes, then NATO will respond with nukes and civilization is over”

    “But, hey, look on the bright side! At least Russia doesn’t get Crimea in that scenario, so you can be comforted by that thought, while watching the mushroom clouds rise.”

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1581999825339699201?s=46&t=1bJFP8rvix7V_P6lYoE7pA

    St Bart will remind us that the nukes were launched by Putin too.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,540

    MaxPB said:

    Onshore wind, and lots of it, please. Get manufacturing and building those turbines asap, the state should demand a 90% UK and UK owned supply chain as well to boost domestic manufacturing capability.

    Offshore wind is far more efficient and can be scaled in a way that onshore can't. It also won't get stuck in planning for 20 years.

    Dogger Bank III, IV and V please.

    Not Lake District I, Cairngorms I or even North Pennines I.
    I think the crisis we are in justifies an approach of doing everything we can, as quickly as we can, rather than worrying about how to optimise it.

    So, in March earlier this year, we should have pushed the big red button on going ahead with more onshore and offshore wind, and fracking, and gas storage, and tidal, and North Sea oil and gas, and modular nukes, and anything else that was vaguely plausible. It's an emergency, so you have an emergency response.

    That then gives us the best chance of not experiencing an emergency several winters in a row, and once we're past the emergency stage we can see what has worked, what hasn't, where we want to trim, and what we want to reinforce.

    Instead, we've done everything very slowly (even the simple decision to reopen Rough took many months), and we've backed off from pursuing all the options available to us.

    Nothing would have made much of a difference for this winter (except perhaps Rough) but if we have problems next winter it will be because of this sluggish and half-hearted response.
This discussion has been closed.