I am curious, though, as to who leaked the texts to the press. They certainly intended to do for Williamson.
The people gunning for GW are in fact gunning for Rishi. They include the same people gunning for Suella. They have their reasons. Some may think they’re being honourable. But we can be clear about what’s going on.
Rishi presumably appointed GW because he values the political skills he brings to the table. He shouldn’t buckle just because it’s this week’s story to try to get Williamson fired.
He seems to be underestimating the political skill of not provoking negative headlines for the government every 5 minutes.
Were Williamson popular, or the face of a major policy initiative like Braverman, the point might have merit. But Williamson is disliked and not known to be competent, so the price of ditching him is low.
Really that is nothing more than a 'he upsets the right people' argument, which, as ever, is bollocks. Yes, you stick by your people, but there needs to be an upside to doing so. With Braverman there was. Williamson?
I don't think that there is any question that Ga is going to a recount but the question is will it matter? I think the republicans will take both Arizona and Nevada and only have a 50:50 chance of losing Penn giving the Republicans a majority.
I think the Dems gain PA because the Republicans have a Mastriano drag that should not be underestimated.
I think the Republicans gain NV, probably fairly comfortably.
I think GA is going to a run-off, which could be very interesting.
And I think the Republicans should be favourites in AZ, but not massive ones.
Although that's what I think is most likely, I wouldn't bet on my forecasts.
Instead, I'd bet that the polls will be c 3% wrong, one way or the other. So I would bet on the Republicans up 4 seats plus, or the Dems up 1 seat plus. You'll get really good odds on a far from impossible situation.
I don't think that there is any question that Ga is going to a recount but the question is will it matter? I think the republicans will take both Arizona and Nevada and only have a 50:50 chance of losing Penn giving the Republicans a majority.
I think the Dems gain PA because the Republicans have a Mastriano drag that should not be underestimated.
I think the Republicans gain NV, probably fairly comfortably.
I think GA is going to a run-off, which could be very interesting.
And I think the Republicans should be favourites in AZ, but not massive ones.
Kelly, the Democrat incumbent, leads by 1.8% in the latest 538 Arizona average, if that is correct and the GOP take Nevada but the Dems take PA then if GA goes to a runoff Senate control is again not determined until January
I am curious, though, as to who leaked the texts to the press. They certainly intended to do for Williamson.
The people gunning for GW are in fact gunning for Rishi. They include the same people gunning for Suella. They have their reasons. Some may think they’re being honourable. But we can be clear about what’s going on.
Rishi presumably appointed GW because he values the political skills he brings to the table. He shouldn’t buckle just because it’s this week’s story to try to get Williamson fired.
He seems to be underestimating the political skill of not provoking negative headlines for the government every 5 minutes.
Were Williamson popular, or the face of a major policy initiative like Braverman, the point might have merit. But Williamson is disliked and not known to be competent, so the price of ditching him is low.
Really that is nothing more than a 'he upsets the right people' argument, which, as ever, is bollocks. Yes, you stick by your people, but there needs to be an upside to doing so. With Braverman there was. Williamson?
Williamson upsets the right people. And the wrong people. And people who we have no real view on.
I think what Sunak needs to be careful of is that he's not naïve about the many politicians, NGOs and activists that are advocating for climate reparations for whom saving the planet is a figleaf for their real objective of wealth redistribution.
I’m wary of this policy too, for much the same reason you suggested. But as someone said on the last thread, how much money commitment are we actually talking.
Is your position “not a single penny?”
For "reparations"? Yes, not a single penny.
For aid/development/encouraging clean technology take-up? That's a different matter.
It's all dollars, however you label it. Perhaps reparations is a bad label.
A payment for services rendered, versus a payment for bribery, may both be dollars but are possible to view differently.
So where an island home sinks, not because anything they done, but what North Hemisphere done, we don’t owe them a “sorry?”
Or don’t you agree with the premise of my question, we are actually in a no fault at all position?
Coral islands are not sinking because of sea level change.
They are sinking because they were built on and the natural process of regeneration has been stopped.
The Bahamas are coral islands which have survived an astonishing 4000m of local sea level change over millions and millions of years, including multiple glaciations and a period much warmer than today.
In the more recent past, it was only 10,000 years ago that Doggerland disappeared as the ice sheets melted.
The same Pacific coral islands survived that fine.
Who better to weigh in on things rising and falling than a flatlander?
I think what Sunak needs to be careful of is that he's not naïve about the many politicians, NGOs and activists that are advocating for climate reparations for whom saving the planet is a figleaf for their real objective of wealth redistribution.
I’m wary of this policy too, for much the same reason you suggested. But as someone said on the last thread, how much money commitment are we actually talking.
Is your position “not a single penny?”
For "reparations"? Yes, not a single penny.
For aid/development/encouraging clean technology take-up? That's a different matter.
It's all dollars, however you label it. Perhaps reparations is a bad label.
A payment for services rendered, versus a payment for bribery, may both be dollars but are possible to view differently.
So where an island home sinks, not because anything they done, but what North Hemisphere done, we don’t owe them a “sorry?”
Or don’t you agree with the premise of my question, we are actually in a no fault at all position?
Coral islands are not sinking because of sea level change.
They are sinking because they were built on and the natural process of regeneration has been stopped.
The Bahamas are coral islands which have survived an astonishing 4000m of local sea level change over millions and millions of years, including multiple glaciations and a period much warmer than today.
In the more recent past, it was only 10,000 years ago that Doggerland disappeared as the ice sheets melted.
The same Pacific coral islands survived that fine.
Who better to weigh in on things rising and falling than a flatlander?
I don't think that there is any question that Ga is going to a recount but the question is will it matter? I think the republicans will take both Arizona and Nevada and only have a 50:50 chance of losing Penn giving the Republicans a majority.
I think the Dems gain PA because the Republicans have a Mastriano drag that should not be underestimated.
I think the Republicans gain NV, probably fairly comfortably.
I think GA is going to a run-off, which could be very interesting.
And I think the Republicans should be favourites in AZ, but not massive ones.
In Arizona I thought the GOPs strategy of not pick Martha McSally was a masterstroke until I saw Blake Masters
Blake Masters has proven he has cross-party appeal by winning the endorsement of Tulsi Gabbard.
Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak prefer to distance themselves from Trump and Bolsonaro’s refusal to recognise election results but they’re exactly the same when it comes to recognising the democratic rights of Scotland. @scottishlabour@scottories
I think a referendum should happen given the electoral results in Scotland and the wishes of its democratic representatives, but I don't think it is quite the same thing. One is ignoring/contesting the legal outcome long after any challenge has been shown to be nonsense, the other is ignoring the moral case for a policy arising from an electoral win.
It's a messy, probably counter productive stance, but it isn't ignoring the result, but choosing not to enact a policy following that result, and they aren't required to do so.
It might be equally outrageous, but it isn't the same.
In fact, arguably as it's the SNP who are (as they have been pretty much since day 1) refusing to accept the result of a valid referendum they are therefore behaving like Trump and Bolsonaro...
I don’t agree that a majority of voters choosing the SNP and Greens is automatically an endorsement of a new referendum. Voters choose where to place their X for a variety of reasons, and just voting SNP doesn’t mean you support independence - you may just think they are the best party to run a devolved Scotland. But then I have to answer the question of what would indicate a new vote should be held, and I don’t have the answers for that.
Mermaids over-reach becoming painfully obvious as their case is eviscerated by the Charity Commission counsel
Absolutely key points from counsel for the Charity Commission. The law absolutely does not require all charities to have one particular view of issues that are highly contentious within society, as Mermaids seems to believe. Mermaids' position is fundamentally anti-democratic.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I don't think that there is any question that Ga is going to a recount but the question is will it matter? I think the republicans will take both Arizona and Nevada and only have a 50:50 chance of losing Penn giving the Republicans a majority.
I think the Dems gain PA because the Republicans have a Mastriano drag that should not be underestimated.
I think the Republicans gain NV, probably fairly comfortably.
I think GA is going to a run-off, which could be very interesting.
And I think the Republicans should be favourites in AZ, but not massive ones.
Kelly, the Democrat incumbent, leads by 1.8% in the latest 538 Arizona average, if that is correct and the GOP take Nevada but the Dems take PA then if GA goes to a runoff Senate control is again not determined until January
I am curious, though, as to who leaked the texts to the press. They certainly intended to do for Williamson.
The people gunning for GW are in fact gunning for Rishi. They include the same people gunning for Suella. They have their reasons. Some may think they’re being honourable. But we can be clear about what’s going on.
Rishi presumably appointed GW because he values the political skills he brings to the table. He shouldn’t buckle just because it’s this week’s story to try to get Williamson fired.
Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak prefer to distance themselves from Trump and Bolsonaro’s refusal to recognise election results but they’re exactly the same when it comes to recognising the democratic rights of Scotland. @scottishlabour@scottories
I think a referendum should happen given the electoral results in Scotland and the wishes of its democratic representatives, but I don't think it is quite the same thing. One is ignoring/contesting the legal outcome long after any challenge has been shown to be nonsense, the other is ignoring the moral case for a policy arising from an electoral win.
It's a messy, probably counter productive stance, but it isn't ignoring the result, but choosing not to enact a policy following that result, and they aren't required to do so.
It might be equally outrageous, but it isn't the same.
In fact, arguably as it's the SNP who are (as they have been pretty much since day 1) refusing to accept the result of a valid referendum they are therefore behaving like Trump and Bolsonaro...
I don’t agree that a majority of voters choosing the SNP and Greens is automatically an endorsement of a new referendum. Voters choose where to place their X for a variety of reasons, and just voting SNP doesn’t mean you support independence - you may just think they are the best party to run a devolved Scotland. But then I have to answer the question of what would indicate a new vote should be held, and I don’t have the answers for that.
Whilst you are right that people choose parties for many reasons, for me if the parliament is the one who can make a request for a referendum, then if the people pick a parliament who does so request then it should be granted. They've been given that power.
Whereas treating a vote for the makeup of the parliament as a de facto referendum presumes too much.
Mermaids over-reach becoming painfully obvious as their case is eviscerated by the Charity Commission counsel
Absolutely key points from counsel for the Charity Commission. The law absolutely does not require all charities to have one particular view of issues that are highly contentious within society, as Mermaids seems to believe. Mermaids' position is fundamentally anti-democratic.
This is what happens when you only ever listen to people who agree with you…”No Debate” meets “the real world”.
Seems like a very strange case. There must be lots of charities have views other charities think are deeply wrong. The argument about primary purpose and charitable benefit seems kind of weak.
Even Stonewall had the wit not to get drawn into this. Arrogance borne of hubris. And people too frightened to speak out. Not any more.
You might want to ask which minority is being eviscerated in this for little gain. Trans people have the most to fear from this witch hunt.
I think what Sunak needs to be careful of is that he's not naïve about the many politicians, NGOs and activists that are advocating for climate reparations for whom saving the planet is a figleaf for their real objective of wealth redistribution.
I’m wary of this policy too, for much the same reason you suggested. But as someone said on the last thread, how much money commitment are we actually talking.
Is your position “not a single penny?”
For "reparations"? Yes, not a single penny.
For aid/development/encouraging clean technology take-up? That's a different matter.
It's all dollars, however you label it. Perhaps reparations is a bad label.
A payment for services rendered, versus a payment for bribery, may both be dollars but are possible to view differently.
So where an island home sinks, not because anything they done, but what North Hemisphere done, we don’t owe them a “sorry?”
Or don’t you agree with the premise of my question, we are actually in a no fault at all position?
Coral islands are not sinking because of sea level change.
They are sinking because they were built on and the natural process of regeneration has been stopped.
The Bahamas are coral islands which have survived an astonishing 4000m of local sea level change over millions and millions of years, including multiple glaciations and a period much warmer than today.
In the more recent past, it was only 10,000 years ago that Doggerland disappeared as the ice sheets melted.
The same Pacific coral islands survived that fine.
Who better to weigh in on things rising and falling than a flatlander?
As well as slow-onset impacts that develop over time such as the melting of glaciers due to global warming our flatlander paints themself as a denial of, theres droughts and floods becoming more frequent and severe due to climate change with damage to infrastructure in a flood to the loss of a life due to extreme heat. in climate-vulnerable countries this will only worsen as global warming increases. Tuna migration habits in the Pacific Ocean, for example, are changing due to the heating of the ocean, this could have an enormous impact on the small island states whose food supplies and economies depend on tuna fishing, and could cause an estimated $140 million loss in average government revenue per year. In the Lake Chad region, temperatures have risen nearly 2 degrees since the 1960s. Extreme weather events, from flooding to droughts, are affecting the livelihoods of 40 million people. This has contributed to lower fishing, agricultural and livestock yields, the loss of indigenous culture due to the displacement of communities and conflict over arable land. Etc etc
Is there anyone on PB happy to out themselves as in complete denial of all these bad impacts, social, cultural, financial, of climate change? Denying all climate change? Denying what’s caused climate change?
I am curious, though, as to who leaked the texts to the press. They certainly intended to do for Williamson.
The people gunning for GW are in fact gunning for Rishi. They include the same people gunning for Suella. They have their reasons. Some may think they’re being honourable. But we can be clear about what’s going on.
Rishi presumably appointed GW because he values the political skills he brings to the table. He shouldn’t buckle just because it’s this week’s story to try to get Williamson fired.
He seems to be underestimating the political skill of not provoking negative headlines for the government every 5 minutes.
Were Williamson popular, or the face of a major policy initiative like Braverman, the point might have merit. But Williamson is disliked and not known to be competent, so the price of ditching him is low.
Really that is nothing more than a 'he upsets the right people' argument, which, as ever, is bollocks. Yes, you stick by your people, but there needs to be an upside to doing so. With Braverman there was. Williamson?
Wasn't he a pretty effective Chief Whip and leadership election campaigner?
None of which excuses his attitude or words, or means he should be back in the Cabinet now. And if he's effective in the background, that's where he needs to stay. But how many backroom politicians are content to stay there? (Correct answer is: we don't know, because they stay in the background.)
I was wrong, and I am surprised I was. In Redfield v Opinium I had latter as the outlier. But let’s wait for Techne and Kantor before calling honeymoon over and Torys in deep trouble. There may still be some 30’s in next couple of weeks to drag the average of polls up.
I think a 21% Labour lead means the Tories are in deep trouble regardless of what stage of the honeymoon we're in!
Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak prefer to distance themselves from Trump and Bolsonaro’s refusal to recognise election results but they’re exactly the same when it comes to recognising the democratic rights of Scotland. @scottishlabour@scottories
I think a referendum should happen given the electoral results in Scotland and the wishes of its democratic representatives, but I don't think it is quite the same thing. One is ignoring/contesting the legal outcome long after any challenge has been shown to be nonsense, the other is ignoring the moral case for a policy arising from an electoral win.
It's a messy, probably counter productive stance, but it isn't ignoring the result, but choosing not to enact a policy following that result, and they aren't required to do so.
It might be equally outrageous, but it isn't the same.
In fact, arguably as it's the SNP who are (as they have been pretty much since day 1) refusing to accept the result of a valid referendum they are therefore behaving like Trump and Bolsonaro...
I don’t agree that a majority of voters choosing the SNP and Greens is automatically an endorsement of a new referendum. Voters choose where to place their X for a variety of reasons, and just voting SNP doesn’t mean you support independence - you may just think they are the best party to run a devolved Scotland. But then I have to answer the question of what would indicate a new vote should be held, and I don’t have the answers for that.
Whilst you are right that people choose parties for many reasons, for me if the parliament is the one who can make a request for a referendum, then if the people pick a parliament who does so request then it should be granted. They've been given that power.
Whereas treating a vote for the makeup of the parliament as a de facto referendum presumes too much.
Although the terms of the referendum need to be agreed both by the Scottish parliament and the U.K. parliament, as any future divorce affects both of us, as per Brexit. No more simple Y/N question without knowing exactly what Y means.
I think what Sunak needs to be careful of is that he's not naïve about the many politicians, NGOs and activists that are advocating for climate reparations for whom saving the planet is a figleaf for their real objective of wealth redistribution.
I’m wary of this policy too, for much the same reason you suggested. But as someone said on the last thread, how much money commitment are we actually talking.
Is your position “not a single penny?”
My position is we do whatever we can to help the world transition to Net Zero as quickly as we can. That might include help with PMs, engineers, scientists, technology transfer licences, some grants etc.
I think what Sunak needs to be careful of is that he's not naïve about the many politicians, NGOs and activists that are advocating for climate reparations for whom saving the planet is a figleaf for their real objective of wealth redistribution.
I’m wary of this policy too, for much the same reason you suggested. But as someone said on the last thread, how much money commitment are we actually talking.
Is your position “not a single penny?”
For "reparations"? Yes, not a single penny.
For aid/development/encouraging clean technology take-up? That's a different matter.
It's all dollars, however you label it. Perhaps reparations is a bad label.
A payment for services rendered, versus a payment for bribery, may both be dollars but are possible to view differently.
So where an island home sinks, not because anything they done, but what North Hemisphere done, we don’t owe them a “sorry?”
Or don’t you agree with the premise of my question, we are actually in a no fault at all position?
Coral islands are not sinking because of sea level change.
They are sinking because they were built on and the natural process of regeneration has been stopped.
The Bahamas are coral islands which have survived an astonishing 4000m of local sea level change over millions and millions of years, including multiple glaciations and a period much warmer than today.
In the more recent past, it was only 10,000 years ago that Doggerland disappeared as the ice sheets melted.
The same Pacific coral islands survived that fine.
Who better to weigh in on things rising and falling than a flatlander?
As well as slow-onset impacts that develop over time such as the melting of glaciers due to global warming you paint yourself as a denial of, theres droughts and floods becoming more frequent and severe due to climate change with damage to infrastructure in a flood to the loss of a life due to extreme heat. in climate-vulnerable countries this will only worsen as global warming increases. Tuna migration habits in the Pacific Ocean, for example, are changing due to the heating of the ocean, this could have an enormous impact on the small island states whose food supplies and economies depend on tuna fishing, and could cause an estimated $140 million loss in average government revenue per year. In the Lake Chad region, temperatures have risen nearly 2 degrees since the 1960s. Extreme weather events, from flooding to droughts, are affecting the livelihoods of 40 million people. This has contributed to lower fishing, agricultural and livestock yields, the loss of indigenous culture due to the displacement of communities and conflict over arable land. Etc etc
Are you in complete denial of all these bad impacts, social, cultural, financial, of climate change? Denying all climate change? Denying what’s caused climate change?
I'm not in denial of any of these things, but complaints about the Maldives sinking (and/or any other similar pacific archipelago) are not telling the whole story, and they are often very prominent in this discussion.
We have to separate the damage caused by climate change and the (potentially much worse) damage caused by direct habitat destruction.
I think what Sunak needs to be careful of is that he's not naïve about the many politicians, NGOs and activists that are advocating for climate reparations for whom saving the planet is a figleaf for their real objective of wealth redistribution.
I’m wary of this policy too, for much the same reason you suggested. But as someone said on the last thread, how much money commitment are we actually talking.
Is your position “not a single penny?”
For "reparations"? Yes, not a single penny.
For aid/development/encouraging clean technology take-up? That's a different matter.
I was wrong, and I am surprised I was. In Redfield v Opinium I had latter as the outlier. But let’s wait for Techne and Kantor before calling honeymoon over and Torys in deep trouble. There may still be some 30’s in next couple of weeks to drag the average of polls up.
I think a 21% Labour lead means the Tories are in deep trouble regardless of what stage of the honeymoon we're in!
The size of lead is complete rabbit hole to follow as its articially swollen by Labour greedily gobbling the LLG, the unwinding of which, the shrinking of the lead, may be nothing to do with much Tory bounce.
The honeymoon can only be measured by looking at Tory share. And it can only be known to be over many weeks after it is over, ie not today. The Redfield may not indicate the obvious take out if it’s merely correcting a rogue poll, so telling us no change today not a reverse.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I am curious, though, as to who leaked the texts to the press. They certainly intended to do for Williamson.
The people gunning for GW are in fact gunning for Rishi. They include the same people gunning for Suella. They have their reasons. Some may think they’re being honourable. But we can be clear about what’s going on.
Rishi presumably appointed GW because he values the political skills he brings to the table. He shouldn’t buckle just because it’s this week’s story to try to get Williamson fired.
He seems to be underestimating the political skill of not provoking negative headlines for the government every 5 minutes.
Were Williamson popular, or the face of a major policy initiative like Braverman, the point might have merit. But Williamson is disliked and not known to be competent, so the price of ditching him is low.
Really that is nothing more than a 'he upsets the right people' argument, which, as ever, is bollocks. Yes, you stick by your people, but there needs to be an upside to doing so. With Braverman there was. Williamson?
Wasn't he a pretty effective Chief Whip and leadership election campaigner?
None of which excuses his attitude or words, or means he should be back in the Cabinet now. And if he's effective in the background, that's where he needs to stay. But how many backroom politicians are content to stay there? (Correct answer is: we don't know, because they stay in the background.)
That was what I had meant - by competence I meant Cabinet/Ministerial competence. He obviously has a way with things in the backroom. Feels like he got a taste of prominence and cannot go back.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak prefer to distance themselves from Trump and Bolsonaro’s refusal to recognise election results but they’re exactly the same when it comes to recognising the democratic rights of Scotland. @scottishlabour@scottories
I think a referendum should happen given the electoral results in Scotland and the wishes of its democratic representatives, but I don't think it is quite the same thing. One is ignoring/contesting the legal outcome long after any challenge has been shown to be nonsense, the other is ignoring the moral case for a policy arising from an electoral win.
It's a messy, probably counter productive stance, but it isn't ignoring the result, but choosing not to enact a policy following that result, and they aren't required to do so.
It might be equally outrageous, but it isn't the same.
In fact, arguably as it's the SNP who are (as they have been pretty much since day 1) refusing to accept the result of a valid referendum they are therefore behaving like Trump and Bolsonaro...
I don’t agree that a majority of voters choosing the SNP and Greens is automatically an endorsement of a new referendum. Voters choose where to place their X for a variety of reasons, and just voting SNP doesn’t mean you support independence - you may just think they are the best party to run a devolved Scotland. But then I have to answer the question of what would indicate a new vote should be held, and I don’t have the answers for that.
Whilst you are right that people choose parties for many reasons, for me if the parliament is the one who can make a request for a referendum, then if the people pick a parliament who does so request then it should be granted. They've been given that power.
Whereas treating a vote for the makeup of the parliament as a de facto referendum presumes too much.
Although the terms of the referendum need to be agreed both by the Scottish parliament and the U.K. parliament, as any future divorce affects both of us, as per Brexit. No more simple Y/N question without knowing exactly what Y means.
I don't recall anyone suggesting that the entire EU be polled for Brexit.
Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak prefer to distance themselves from Trump and Bolsonaro’s refusal to recognise election results but they’re exactly the same when it comes to recognising the democratic rights of Scotland. @scottishlabour@scottories
I think a referendum should happen given the electoral results in Scotland and the wishes of its democratic representatives, but I don't think it is quite the same thing. One is ignoring/contesting the legal outcome long after any challenge has been shown to be nonsense, the other is ignoring the moral case for a policy arising from an electoral win.
It's a messy, probably counter productive stance, but it isn't ignoring the result, but choosing not to enact a policy following that result, and they aren't required to do so.
It might be equally outrageous, but it isn't the same.
In fact, arguably as it's the SNP who are (as they have been pretty much since day 1) refusing to accept the result of a valid referendum they are therefore behaving like Trump and Bolsonaro...
I don’t agree that a majority of voters choosing the SNP and Greens is automatically an endorsement of a new referendum. Voters choose where to place their X for a variety of reasons, and just voting SNP doesn’t mean you support independence - you may just think they are the best party to run a devolved Scotland. But then I have to answer the question of what would indicate a new vote should be held, and I don’t have the answers for that.
Whilst you are right that people choose parties for many reasons, for me if the parliament is the one who can make a request for a referendum, then if the people pick a parliament who does so request then it should be granted. They've been given that power.
Whereas treating a vote for the makeup of the parliament as a de facto referendum presumes too much.
Although the terms of the referendum need to be agreed both by the Scottish parliament and the U.K. parliament, as any future divorce affects both of us, as per Brexit. No more simple Y/N question without knowing exactly what Y means.
Lessons do need to be learned. The chaos and uncertainty was not a positive experience.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
“generated a clear return” obviously don’t do too long a post, but can you talk us through through that business model?
I think what Sunak needs to be careful of is that he's not naïve about the many politicians, NGOs and activists that are advocating for climate reparations for whom saving the planet is a figleaf for their real objective of wealth redistribution.
I’m wary of this policy too, for much the same reason you suggested. But as someone said on the last thread, how much money commitment are we actually talking.
Is your position “not a single penny?”
For "reparations"? Yes, not a single penny.
For aid/development/encouraging clean technology take-up? That's a different matter.
It's all dollars, however you label it. Perhaps reparations is a bad label.
A payment for services rendered, versus a payment for bribery, may both be dollars but are possible to view differently.
So where an island home sinks, not because anything they done, but what North Hemisphere done, we don’t owe them a “sorry?”
Or don’t you agree with the premise of my question, we are actually in a no fault at all position?
Coral islands are not sinking because of sea level change.
They are sinking because they were built on and the natural process of regeneration has been stopped.
The Bahamas are coral islands which have survived an astonishing 4000m of local sea level change over millions and millions of years, including multiple glaciations and a period much warmer than today.
In the more recent past, it was only 10,000 years ago that Doggerland disappeared as the ice sheets melted.
The same Pacific coral islands survived that fine.
Who better to weigh in on things rising and falling than a flatlander?
As well as slow-onset impacts that develop over time such as the melting of glaciers due to global warming you paint yourself as a denial of, theres droughts and floods becoming more frequent and severe due to climate change with damage to infrastructure in a flood to the loss of a life due to extreme heat. in climate-vulnerable countries this will only worsen as global warming increases. Tuna migration habits in the Pacific Ocean, for example, are changing due to the heating of the ocean, this could have an enormous impact on the small island states whose food supplies and economies depend on tuna fishing, and could cause an estimated $140 million loss in average government revenue per year. In the Lake Chad region, temperatures have risen nearly 2 degrees since the 1960s. Extreme weather events, from flooding to droughts, are affecting the livelihoods of 40 million people. This has contributed to lower fishing, agricultural and livestock yields, the loss of indigenous culture due to the displacement of communities and conflict over arable land. Etc etc
Are you in complete denial of all these bad impacts, social, cultural, financial, of climate change? Denying all climate change? Denying what’s caused climate change?
I'm not in denial of any of these things, but complaints about the Maldives sinking (and/or any other similar pacific archipelago) are not telling the whole story, and they are often very prominent in this discussion.
We have to separate the damage caused by climate change and the (potentially much worse) damage caused by direct habitat destruction.
It isn't always that simple.
I agree on it not sounding simple in the regard you flagged.
Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak prefer to distance themselves from Trump and Bolsonaro’s refusal to recognise election results but they’re exactly the same when it comes to recognising the democratic rights of Scotland. @scottishlabour@scottories
I think a referendum should happen given the electoral results in Scotland and the wishes of its democratic representatives, but I don't think it is quite the same thing. One is ignoring/contesting the legal outcome long after any challenge has been shown to be nonsense, the other is ignoring the moral case for a policy arising from an electoral win.
It's a messy, probably counter productive stance, but it isn't ignoring the result, but choosing not to enact a policy following that result, and they aren't required to do so.
It might be equally outrageous, but it isn't the same.
In fact, arguably as it's the SNP who are (as they have been pretty much since day 1) refusing to accept the result of a valid referendum they are therefore behaving like Trump and Bolsonaro...
I don’t agree that a majority of voters choosing the SNP and Greens is automatically an endorsement of a new referendum. Voters choose where to place their X for a variety of reasons, and just voting SNP doesn’t mean you support independence - you may just think they are the best party to run a devolved Scotland. But then I have to answer the question of what would indicate a new vote should be held, and I don’t have the answers for that.
Whilst you are right that people choose parties for many reasons, for me if the parliament is the one who can make a request for a referendum, then if the people pick a parliament who does so request then it should be granted. They've been given that power.
Whereas treating a vote for the makeup of the parliament as a de facto referendum presumes too much.
Although the terms of the referendum need to be agreed both by the Scottish parliament and the U.K. parliament, as any future divorce affects both of us, as per Brexit. No more simple Y/N question without knowing exactly what Y means.
I don't recall anyone suggesting that the entire EU be polled for Brexit.
Somewhat different situation. For a start 300 years vs 40. Then there was a specific clause in the agreement, article 50, about withdrawal. No such clause exists for Scotland leaving the Union. To be honest, whether you are in favour of Independence or not, resolving the issues before the vote makes sense, and would help avoid the worst of the Brexit shit we endured for 5 years.
Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak prefer to distance themselves from Trump and Bolsonaro’s refusal to recognise election results but they’re exactly the same when it comes to recognising the democratic rights of Scotland. @scottishlabour@scottories
I think a referendum should happen given the electoral results in Scotland and the wishes of its democratic representatives, but I don't think it is quite the same thing. One is ignoring/contesting the legal outcome long after any challenge has been shown to be nonsense, the other is ignoring the moral case for a policy arising from an electoral win.
It's a messy, probably counter productive stance, but it isn't ignoring the result, but choosing not to enact a policy following that result, and they aren't required to do so.
It might be equally outrageous, but it isn't the same.
In fact, arguably as it's the SNP who are (as they have been pretty much since day 1) refusing to accept the result of a valid referendum they are therefore behaving like Trump and Bolsonaro...
I don’t agree that a majority of voters choosing the SNP and Greens is automatically an endorsement of a new referendum. Voters choose where to place their X for a variety of reasons, and just voting SNP doesn’t mean you support independence - you may just think they are the best party to run a devolved Scotland. But then I have to answer the question of what would indicate a new vote should be held, and I don’t have the answers for that.
Whilst you are right that people choose parties for many reasons, for me if the parliament is the one who can make a request for a referendum, then if the people pick a parliament who does so request then it should be granted. They've been given that power.
Whereas treating a vote for the makeup of the parliament as a de facto referendum presumes too much.
Although the terms of the referendum need to be agreed both by the Scottish parliament and the U.K. parliament, as any future divorce affects both of us, as per Brexit. No more simple Y/N question without knowing exactly what Y means.
I don't recall anyone suggesting that the entire EU be polled for Brexit.
turbotubbs doesn't appear to have suggested it either, just that the terms of the referendum be agreed between the legislative bodies. People definitely did suggest, afterwards, that what Brexit would have actually meant should have been agreed beforehand, which would have required EU input, hence the arguments for a confirmatory referendum once the terms of a split were known.
That seems unreaslitic, but some big questiosn being answered beforehand would be a plus.
That’s slightly unexpected, as actually shows an increasing Labour lead. There was another of these yesterday, which I assumed was an outlier.
No I think it is exactly as expected, Bob. The Labour lead appears to be levelling out at about 20 - well down from its giddy heights but plenty good enough for a solid majority to be on the cards.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
There must be a Russian oligarch's yacht we can seize and hand over to the crown...
Reminder, Pennsylvania still has its insane postal voting delay for counts (i.e. postal votes can't even be opened until election day) so there is once again going to be massive blue shift.
We will not know the Penn result for days.
Alistair's Pennsylvania Forecasting service is available for $8.
Mermaids over-reach becoming painfully obvious as their case is eviscerated by the Charity Commission counsel
Absolutely key points from counsel for the Charity Commission. The law absolutely does not require all charities to have one particular view of issues that are highly contentious within society, as Mermaids seems to believe. Mermaids' position is fundamentally anti-democratic.
I think what Sunak needs to be careful of is that he's not naïve about the many politicians, NGOs and activists that are advocating for climate reparations for whom saving the planet is a figleaf for their real objective of wealth redistribution.
I’m wary of this policy too, for much the same reason you suggested. But as someone said on the last thread, how much money commitment are we actually talking.
Is your position “not a single penny?”
For "reparations"? Yes, not a single penny.
For aid/development/encouraging clean technology take-up? That's a different matter.
Absolutely my position too.
I’m not saying you are both wrong. The costs of loss and damage in climate terms are projected to reach at least $1 trillion by 2050, so government accepting liability for loss and damage right now, as Red Ed and Labour want us to! where might that lead? It could set off a wave of lawsuits by developing countries as well as domestic stakeholders.
Yeah, “repatriations” is toxic phrase for a more complex “loss and damage liability” argument, as Flatlander flagged to us. Do climate countries use “repatriations” phrase, or do we - climate vulnerable places would be dumb to use such toxic phrasing.
I just turned to see how Chatham House explain it, and it strikes me as a three way argument not two way. Climate-vulnerable and developing countries point out various issues with current finance institutions such as the Green Climate Fund and World Bank - these institutions do not provide support for non-economic loss and damage or slow-onset events such as sea level rise. Developing countries suggest that a dedicated loss and damage financing facility would help address those gaps, and want loss and damage funding to be ‘new and additional’ rather than drawn from existing funds already pledged for climate change adaptation and humanitarian relief. But the developed countries, us, argue it would be more effective to draw on and strengthen existing funding institutions for climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, development finance and humanitarian assistance.
I think what Sunak needs to be careful of is that he's not naïve about the many politicians, NGOs and activists that are advocating for climate reparations for whom saving the planet is a figleaf for their real objective of wealth redistribution.
I’m wary of this policy too, for much the same reason you suggested. But as someone said on the last thread, how much money commitment are we actually talking.
Is your position “not a single penny?”
For "reparations"? Yes, not a single penny.
For aid/development/encouraging clean technology take-up? That's a different matter.
Absolutely my position too.
I’m not saying you are both wrong. The costs of loss and damage in climate terms are projected to reach at least $1 trillion by 2050, so government accepting liability for loss and damage right now, as Red Ed and Labour want us to! where might that lead? It could set off a wave of lawsuits by developing countries as well as domestic stakeholders.
Yeah, “repatriations” is toxic phrase for a more complex “loss and damage liability” argument, as Flatlander flagged to us. Do climate countries use “repatriations” phrase, or do we - climate vulnerable places would be dumb to use such toxic phrasing.
I just turned to see how Chatham House explain it, and it strikes me as a three way argument not two way. Climate-vulnerable and developing countries point out various issues with current finance institutions such as the Green Climate Fund and World Bank - these institutions do not provide support for non-economic loss and damage or slow-onset events such as sea level rise. Developing countries suggest that a dedicated loss and damage financing facility would help address those gaps, and want loss and damage funding to be ‘new and additional’ rather than drawn from existing funds already pledged for climate change adaptation and humanitarian relief. But the developed countries, us, argue it would be more effective to draw on and strengthen existing funding institutions for climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, development finance and humanitarian assistance.
Mermaids over-reach becoming painfully obvious as their case is eviscerated by the Charity Commission counsel
Absolutely key points from counsel for the Charity Commission. The law absolutely does not require all charities to have one particular view of issues that are highly contentious within society, as Mermaids seems to believe. Mermaids' position is fundamentally anti-democratic.
I don't think that there is any question that Ga is going to a recount but the question is will it matter? I think the republicans will take both Arizona and Nevada and only have a 50:50 chance of losing Penn giving the Republicans a majority.
I think the Dems gain PA because the Republicans have a Mastriano drag that should not be underestimated.
I think the Republicans gain NV, probably fairly comfortably.
I think GA is going to a run-off, which could be very interesting.
And I think the Republicans should be favourites in AZ, but not massive ones.
In Arizona I thought the GOPs strategy of not pick Martha McSally was a masterstroke until I saw Blake Masters
Blake Masters has proven he has cross-party appeal by winning the endorsement of Tulsi Gabbard.
Tulsi Gabbard is now a MAGA cult member and her endorsement means zip .
Mermaids over-reach becoming painfully obvious as their case is eviscerated by the Charity Commission counsel
Absolutely key points from counsel for the Charity Commission. The law absolutely does not require all charities to have one particular view of issues that are highly contentious within society, as Mermaids seems to believe. Mermaids' position is fundamentally anti-democratic.
This is what happens when you only ever listen to people who agree with you…”No Debate” meets “the real world”.
Seems like a very strange case. There must be lots of charities have views other charities think are deeply wrong. The argument about primary purpose and charitable benefit seems kind of weak.
Even Stonewall had the wit not to get drawn into this. Arrogance borne of hubris. And people too frightened to speak out. Not any more.
You might want to ask which minority is being eviscerated in this for little gain. Trans people have the most to fear from this witch hunt.
Help me understand, are male-to-female trans witches or wizards?
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
Disagree. What Royal yacht enthusiasts always seem to forget is that the thing would need a frigate-grade RN warship always escorting it, for security reasons. And add to that the positioning transit times involved, even if the PM or HM are not on the HMY. (That is what used to happen with the Britannia. Unless they devoted an entire warship to the tour, at huge cost in terms of temproary modifications, vide: Vanguard.)
Yet another large chunk out of a shrinking pie of fleet and crewing stats.
Mermaids over-reach becoming painfully obvious as their case is eviscerated by the Charity Commission counsel
Absolutely key points from counsel for the Charity Commission. The law absolutely does not require all charities to have one particular view of issues that are highly contentious within society, as Mermaids seems to believe. Mermaids' position is fundamentally anti-democratic.
This is what happens when you only ever listen to people who agree with you…”No Debate” meets “the real world”.
Seems like a very strange case. There must be lots of charities have views other charities think are deeply wrong. The argument about primary purpose and charitable benefit seems kind of weak.
Even Stonewall had the wit not to get drawn into this. Arrogance borne of hubris. And people too frightened to speak out. Not any more.
You might want to ask which minority is being eviscerated in this for little gain. Trans people have the most to fear from this witch hunt.
Help me understand, are male-to-female trans witches or wizards?
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
It is - of course - worth remembering that 250m is the capital cost. Ongoing maintenance, staffing, fuel, etc. would be very significant expenses.
And if private business benefits from the appearance of a Royal Yacht, then surely private business should be paying for it.
Mermaids over-reach becoming painfully obvious as their case is eviscerated by the Charity Commission counsel
Absolutely key points from counsel for the Charity Commission. The law absolutely does not require all charities to have one particular view of issues that are highly contentious within society, as Mermaids seems to believe. Mermaids' position is fundamentally anti-democratic.
This is what happens when you only ever listen to people who agree with you…”No Debate” meets “the real world”.
Seems like a very strange case. There must be lots of charities have views other charities think are deeply wrong. The argument about primary purpose and charitable benefit seems kind of weak.
Even Stonewall had the wit not to get drawn into this. Arrogance borne of hubris. And people too frightened to speak out. Not any more.
You might want to ask which minority is being eviscerated in this for little gain. Trans people have the most to fear from this witch hunt.
Help me understand, are male-to-female trans witches or wizards?
Mermaids over-reach becoming painfully obvious as their case is eviscerated by the Charity Commission counsel
Absolutely key points from counsel for the Charity Commission. The law absolutely does not require all charities to have one particular view of issues that are highly contentious within society, as Mermaids seems to believe. Mermaids' position is fundamentally anti-democratic.
This is what happens when you only ever listen to people who agree with you…”No Debate” meets “the real world”.
Seems like a very strange case. There must be lots of charities have views other charities think are deeply wrong. The argument about primary purpose and charitable benefit seems kind of weak.
Even Stonewall had the wit not to get drawn into this. Arrogance borne of hubris. And people too frightened to speak out. Not any more.
You might want to ask which minority is being eviscerated in this for little gain. Trans people have the most to fear from this witch hunt.
Help me understand, are male-to-female trans witches or wizards?
Always find an alterantive wording if you can: and Wiccan is helpfully ungendered.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
It is - of course - worth remembering that 250m is the capital cost. Ongoing maintenance, staffing, fuel, etc. would be very significant expenses.
And if private business benefits from the appearance of a Royal Yacht, then surely private business should be paying for it.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
It is - of course - worth remembering that 250m is the capital cost. Ongoing maintenance, staffing, fuel, etc. would be very significant expenses.
And if private business benefits from the appearance of a Royal Yacht, then surely private business should be paying for it.
HMY Britainnia, BTW, was regarded as a floating slum by the crew - even by RN standards of the 1950s. You'd need much better standards of accommodation to keep crew these days - even by comparison with RN standards of the 2020s.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
I think it would be fun to have, but if the business case is so clear, why don't other countries have one?
I think what Sunak needs to be careful of is that he's not naïve about the many politicians, NGOs and activists that are advocating for climate reparations for whom saving the planet is a figleaf for their real objective of wealth redistribution.
I’m wary of this policy too, for much the same reason you suggested. But as someone said on the last thread, how much money commitment are we actually talking.
Is your position “not a single penny?”
For "reparations"? Yes, not a single penny.
For aid/development/encouraging clean technology take-up? That's a different matter.
It's all dollars, however you label it. Perhaps reparations is a bad label.
A payment for services rendered, versus a payment for bribery, may both be dollars but are possible to view differently.
So where an island home sinks, not because anything they done, but what North Hemisphere done, we don’t owe them a “sorry?”
Or don’t you agree with the premise of my question, we are actually in a no fault at all position?
I don't agree with the premise of your question.
If China wants to lead the way offering reparations then let's see some progress on that. But when the UK is emitting about 2.5% the emissions of China, then no we are not responsible.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
Disagree. What Royal yacht enthusiasts always seem to forget is that the thing would need a frigate-grade RN warship always escorting it, for security reasons. And add to that the positioning transit times involved, even if the PM or HM are not on the HMY. (That is what used to happen with the Britannia. Unless they devoted an entire warship to the tour, at huge cost in terms of temproary modifications, vide: Vanguard.)
Yet another large chunk out of a shrinking pie of fleet and crewing stats.
RN ships have to be doing something. If they're under maintenance in port, fair enough. If it's wartime, they'll be at war and the royal yacht will be doing useful stuff or at port. Otherwise, they're in training or on patrol (essentially training).
I was involved with a group that got the Royal Engineers involved. They were *desperate* for real-world 'training', as opposed to the exercises they had been doing for years.
(It was the first time I saw a man inhale a condom from his nose through to his mouth. A trick I have never felt tempted to reproduce. Also the first time I've sene someone be sick through their nostrils - not the same guy. My ex-gf could also achieve the same feat.).
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
I think it would be fun to have, but if the business case is so clear, why don't other countries have one?
Because they aren't stupid or obsessively royalist. Even the Americans don't any more. And ven theirs was more like something you'd see at Cowes.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
“generated a clear return” obviously don’t do too long a post, but can you talk us through through that business model?
No. Why do you always make it such hard work engaging with you?
The benefit we'd have gotten from showcasing the UK in all its grandeur - basically, a bit of portable pomp & pageantry - inviting leading dignitaries to dinners and events on the yacht, and the investments, business and trade deals that would result, would easily have exceeded the £250m construction cost (and annualised operation costs) over its 30 year operational life. People would fight for tickets on it - it would seriously awe and impress people, and enhance our soft power.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
I think it would be fun to have, but if the business case is so clear, why don't other countries have one?
I was sailing in the Lofotens 4 years ago and the Queen pitched up in it to open a joint art exhibition of her work, and that of the keyboard player from Aha.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
It is - of course - worth remembering that 250m is the capital cost. Ongoing maintenance, staffing, fuel, etc. would be very significant expenses.
And if private business benefits from the appearance of a Royal Yacht, then surely private business should be paying for it.
Would you say the same about politicians going on trade or business missions overseas?
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
Disagree. What Royal yacht enthusiasts always seem to forget is that the thing would need a frigate-grade RN warship always escorting it, for security reasons. And add to that the positioning transit times involved, even if the PM or HM are not on the HMY. (That is what used to happen with the Britannia. Unless they devoted an entire warship to the tour, at huge cost in terms of temproary modifications, vide: Vanguard.)
Yet another large chunk out of a shrinking pie of fleet and crewing stats.
RN ships have to be doing something. If they're under maintenance in port, fair enough. If it's wartime, they'll be at war and the royal yacht will be doing useful stuff or at port. Otherwise, they're in training or on patrol (essentially training).
I was involved with a group that got the Royal Engineers involved. They were *desperate* for real-world 'training', as opposed to the exercises they had been doing for years.
(It was the first time I saw a man inhale a condom from his nose through to his mouth. A trick I have never felt tempted to reproduce. Also the first time I've sene someone be sick through their nostrils - not the same guy. My ex-gf could also achieve the same feat.).
Doesn't obviate the point that to (for instance) have PM or HM at a Singapore event for 1 week, the ships have to position long distances and the "training" may not hbe particularly relevant or suit other aims.
Britannia was always allegedly a hospital ship in reservce - but was never used for that, even in the Falklands War where they were spending vast sums on adapting STUFT vessels.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
Disagree. What Royal yacht enthusiasts always seem to forget is that the thing would need a frigate-grade RN warship always escorting it, for security reasons. And add to that the positioning transit times involved, even if the PM or HM are not on the HMY. (That is what used to happen with the Britannia. Unless they devoted an entire warship to the tour, at huge cost in terms of temproary modifications, vide: Vanguard.)
Yet another large chunk out of a shrinking pie of fleet and crewing stats.
Then, we dedicate a frigate. Just as we do to counter narcotics, or for anti-piracy, or to demonstrate a "presence" in the South China Sea.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
I think it would be fun to have, but if the business case is so clear, why don't other countries have one?
I was sailing in the Lofotens 4 years ago and the Queen pitched up in it to open a joint art exhibition of her work, and that of the keyboard player from Aha.
Ever been to Norway? It's *held together* by ferries. Makes much better sense for the Norwegians *in Norway*.
I think what Sunak needs to be careful of is that he's not naïve about the many politicians, NGOs and activists that are advocating for climate reparations for whom saving the planet is a figleaf for their real objective of wealth redistribution.
I’m wary of this policy too, for much the same reason you suggested. But as someone said on the last thread, how much money commitment are we actually talking.
Is your position “not a single penny?”
For "reparations"? Yes, not a single penny.
For aid/development/encouraging clean technology take-up? That's a different matter.
Absolutely my position too.
I’m not saying you are both wrong.
In addition to the length of your posts, perhaps try and bit a tad less pompous??
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
“generated a clear return” obviously don’t do too long a post, but can you talk us through through that business model?
No. Why do you always make it such hard work engaging with you?
The benefit we'd have gotten from showcasing the UK in all its grandeur - basically, a bit of portable pomp & pageantry - inviting leading dignitaries to dinners and events on the yacht, and the investments, business and trade deals that would result, would easily have exceeded the £250m construction cost (and annualised operation costs) over its 30 year operational life. People would fight for tickets on it - it would seriously awe and impress people, and enhance our soft power.
Next.
Last one transported gropy Andrew between golf courses and did irreparable damage to our international standing.
Mermaids over-reach becoming painfully obvious as their case is eviscerated by the Charity Commission counsel
Absolutely key points from counsel for the Charity Commission. The law absolutely does not require all charities to have one particular view of issues that are highly contentious within society, as Mermaids seems to believe. Mermaids' position is fundamentally anti-democratic.
This is what happens when you only ever listen to people who agree with you…”No Debate” meets “the real world”.
Seems like a very strange case. There must be lots of charities have views other charities think are deeply wrong. The argument about primary purpose and charitable benefit seems kind of weak.
Even Stonewall had the wit not to get drawn into this. Arrogance borne of hubris. And people too frightened to speak out. Not any more.
You might want to ask which minority is being eviscerated in this for little gain. Trans people have the most to fear from this witch hunt.
Help me understand, are male-to-female trans witches or wizards?
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
I think it would be fun to have, but if the business case is so clear, why don't other countries have one?
I was sailing in the Lofotens 4 years ago and the Queen pitched up in it to open a joint art exhibition of her work, and that of the keyboard player from Aha.
Ever been to Norway? It's *held together* by ferries. Makes much better sense for the Norwegians *in Norway*.
Lofotens were billed as being in Norway, but who knows the truth?
I am curious, though, as to who leaked the texts to the press. They certainly intended to do for Williamson.
The people gunning for GW are in fact gunning for Rishi. They include the same people gunning for Suella. They have their reasons. Some may think they’re being honourable. But we can be clear about what’s going on.
Rishi presumably appointed GW because he values the political skills he brings to the table. He shouldn’t buckle just because it’s this week’s story to try to get Williamson fired.
He seems to be underestimating the political skill of not provoking negative headlines for the government every 5 minutes.
Were Williamson popular, or the face of a major policy initiative like Braverman, the point might have merit. But Williamson is disliked and not known to be competent, so the price of ditching him is low.
Really that is nothing more than a 'he upsets the right people' argument, which, as ever, is bollocks. Yes, you stick by your people, but there needs to be an upside to doing so. With Braverman there was. Williamson?
Williamson upsets the right people. And the wrong people. And people who we have no real view on.
Yep, that's how Sir Gav rolls. I used to have contrarian sympathy for him - suspecting snobbery and lookism at the root of the ridicule he attracts - but I've moved away from that now. I strongly sense he is genuinely a dick who isn't adding value to public life.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
Disagree. What Royal yacht enthusiasts always seem to forget is that the thing would need a frigate-grade RN warship always escorting it, for security reasons. And add to that the positioning transit times involved, even if the PM or HM are not on the HMY. (That is what used to happen with the Britannia. Unless they devoted an entire warship to the tour, at huge cost in terms of temproary modifications, vide: Vanguard.)
Yet another large chunk out of a shrinking pie of fleet and crewing stats.
Then, we dedicate a frigate. Just as we do to counter narcotics, or for anti-piracy, or to demonstrate a "presence" in the South China Sea.
Worth it.
You may think so as an earnest Royalist, but it's a huge waste oif effort, money and above all in terms of the message it sends to the Navy and to the wider public.
Have a look at the stats for how many destroyers and frigates the Navy had when Britannia was reguilarly in use, and today. Thge ratio is about ten to one for 1960 to today (and a lot more if I went back a bit).
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
“generated a clear return” obviously don’t do too long a post, but can you talk us through through that business model?
No. Why do you always make it such hard work engaging with you?
The benefit we'd have gotten from showcasing the UK in all its grandeur - basically, a bit of portable pomp & pageantry - inviting leading dignitaries to dinners and events on the yacht, and the investments, business and trade deals that would result, would easily have exceeded the £250m construction cost (and annualised operation costs) over its 30 year operational life. People would fight for tickets on it - it would seriously awe and impress people, and enhance our soft power.
Next.
Last one transported gropy Andrew between golf courses and did irreparable damage to our international standing.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
“generated a clear return” obviously don’t do too long a post, but can you talk us through through that business model?
No. Why do you always make it such hard work engaging with you?
The benefit we'd have gotten from showcasing the UK in all its grandeur - basically, a bit of portable pomp & pageantry - inviting leading dignitaries to dinners and events on the yacht, and the investments, business and trade deals that would result, would easily have exceeded the £250m construction cost (and annualised operation costs) over its 30 year operational life. People would fight for tickets on it - it would seriously awe and impress people, and enhance our soft power.
Next.
You're thinking of things when we were young men. You need to project your thinking into the future, in a world where *hundreds* have better yachts.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
I think it would be fun to have, but if the business case is so clear, why don't other countries have one?
I was sailing in the Lofotens 4 years ago and the Queen pitched up in it to open a joint art exhibition of her work, and that of the keyboard player from Aha.
Ever been to Norway? It's *held together* by ferries. Makes much better sense for the Norwegians *in Norway*.
I went to Bodø last month and visited Norway's national aviation museum (well worth a visit if you're ever in the area). That gave the impression that Norway is held together by planes, not ferries.
I think what Sunak needs to be careful of is that he's not naïve about the many politicians, NGOs and activists that are advocating for climate reparations for whom saving the planet is a figleaf for their real objective of wealth redistribution.
I’m wary of this policy too, for much the same reason you suggested. But as someone said on the last thread, how much money commitment are we actually talking.
Is your position “not a single penny?”
For "reparations"? Yes, not a single penny.
For aid/development/encouraging clean technology take-up? That's a different matter.
It's all dollars, however you label it. Perhaps reparations is a bad label.
A payment for services rendered, versus a payment for bribery, may both be dollars but are possible to view differently.
So where an island home sinks, not because anything they done, but what North Hemisphere done, we don’t owe them a “sorry?”
Or don’t you agree with the premise of my question, we are actually in a no fault at all position?
I don't agree with the premise of your question.
If China wants to lead the way offering reparations then let's see some progress on that. But when the UK is emitting about 2.5% the emissions of China, then no we are not responsible.
It isn't a question of what we are emitting now, it is what have we emitted since the Industrial Revolution.
By that metric, we are a much more significant contributor to the problem.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
“generated a clear return” obviously don’t do too long a post, but can you talk us through through that business model?
No. Why do you always make it such hard work engaging with you?
The benefit we'd have gotten from showcasing the UK in all its grandeur - basically, a bit of portable pomp & pageantry - inviting leading dignitaries to dinners and events on the yacht, and the investments, business and trade deals that would result, would easily have exceeded the £250m construction cost (and annualised operation costs) over its 30 year operational life. People would fight for tickets on it - it would seriously awe and impress people, and enhance our soft power.
Next.
Last one transported gropy Andrew between golf courses and did irreparable damage to our international standing.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
I think it would be fun to have, but if the business case is so clear, why don't other countries have one?
I was sailing in the Lofotens 4 years ago and the Queen pitched up in it to open a joint art exhibition of her work, and that of the keyboard player from Aha.
Ever been to Norway? It's *held together* by ferries. Makes much better sense for the Norwegians *in Norway*.
I went to Bodø last month and visited Norway's national aviation museum (well worth a visit if you're ever in the area). That gave the impression that Norway is held together by planes, not ferries.
Sounds worth adding to our planning list! But a lot of those planes were and AFAIK remain seaplanes, though.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
Disagree. What Royal yacht enthusiasts always seem to forget is that the thing would need a frigate-grade RN warship always escorting it, for security reasons. And add to that the positioning transit times involved, even if the PM or HM are not on the HMY. (That is what used to happen with the Britannia. Unless they devoted an entire warship to the tour, at huge cost in terms of temproary modifications, vide: Vanguard.)
Yet another large chunk out of a shrinking pie of fleet and crewing stats.
Then, we dedicate a frigate. Just as we do to counter narcotics, or for anti-piracy, or to demonstrate a "presence" in the South China Sea.
Worth it.
You may think so as an earnest Royalist, but it's a huge waste oif effort, money and above all in terms of the message it sends to the Navy and to the wider public.
Have a look at the stats for how many destroyers and frigates the Navy had when Britannia was reguilarly in use, and today. Thge ratio is about ten to one for 1960 to today (and a lot more if I went back a bit).
No, I don't think so at all.
It almost certainly does more work in promoting our soft power and "brand" that sending an aircraft carrier around on tour, which is also far more expensive.
I agree the Royal Navy is undersized with escorts. I'd expand numbers of those too.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
I think it would be fun to have, but if the business case is so clear, why don't other countries have one?
I was sailing in the Lofotens 4 years ago and the Queen pitched up in it to open a joint art exhibition of her work, and that of the keyboard player from Aha.
Ever been to Norway? It's *held together* by ferries. Makes much better sense for the Norwegians *in Norway*.
I went to Bodø last month and visited Norway's national aviation museum (well worth a visit if you're ever in the area). That gave the impression that Norway is held together by planes, not ferries.
Sounds worth adding to our planning list! But a lot of those planes were and AFAIK remain seaplanes, though.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
I think it would be fun to have, but if the business case is so clear, why don't other countries have one?
I was sailing in the Lofotens 4 years ago and the Queen pitched up in it to open a joint art exhibition of her work, and that of the keyboard player from Aha.
Ever been to Norway? It's *held together* by ferries. Makes much better sense for the Norwegians *in Norway*.
I went to Bodø last month and visited Norway's national aviation museum (well worth a visit if you're ever in the area). That gave the impression that Norway is held together by planes, not ferries.
Sounds worth adding to our planning list! But a lot of those planes were and AFAIK remain seaplanes, though.
And flying boats!
Oh, I'd intended to include them - was under the impression that seaplanes = flying boats and floatplanes (and the weird ones like ekranoplans and hydrofoils and whatever one calls the Sea Dart). But maybe I am wrong.
I think what Sunak needs to be careful of is that he's not naïve about the many politicians, NGOs and activists that are advocating for climate reparations for whom saving the planet is a figleaf for their real objective of wealth redistribution.
I’m wary of this policy too, for much the same reason you suggested. But as someone said on the last thread, how much money commitment are we actually talking.
Is your position “not a single penny?”
For "reparations"? Yes, not a single penny.
For aid/development/encouraging clean technology take-up? That's a different matter.
It's all dollars, however you label it. Perhaps reparations is a bad label.
A payment for services rendered, versus a payment for bribery, may both be dollars but are possible to view differently.
So where an island home sinks, not because anything they done, but what North Hemisphere done, we don’t owe them a “sorry?”
Or don’t you agree with the premise of my question, we are actually in a no fault at all position?
I don't agree with the premise of your question.
If China wants to lead the way offering reparations then let's see some progress on that. But when the UK is emitting about 2.5% the emissions of China, then no we are not responsible.
It isn't a question of what we are emitting now, it is what have we emitted since the Industrial Revolution.
By that metric, we are a much more significant contributor to the problem.
So what?
Whoever got their first would be in the same position. We don't bear a unique culpability for a "sin" in this that we need to atone for. And there are many more countries that are far bigger sinners and have done much more damage since, even per capita.
Like reparations for slavery this is just a vector for extortion from the usual suspects that they think might work.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
Disagree. What Royal yacht enthusiasts always seem to forget is that the thing would need a frigate-grade RN warship always escorting it, for security reasons. And add to that the positioning transit times involved, even if the PM or HM are not on the HMY. (That is what used to happen with the Britannia. Unless they devoted an entire warship to the tour, at huge cost in terms of temproary modifications, vide: Vanguard.)
Yet another large chunk out of a shrinking pie of fleet and crewing stats.
Then, we dedicate a frigate. Just as we do to counter narcotics, or for anti-piracy, or to demonstrate a "presence" in the South China Sea.
Worth it.
You may think so as an earnest Royalist, but it's a huge waste oif effort, money and above all in terms of the message it sends to the Navy and to the wider public.
Have a look at the stats for how many destroyers and frigates the Navy had when Britannia was reguilarly in use, and today. Thge ratio is about ten to one for 1960 to today (and a lot more if I went back a bit).
No, I don't think so at all.
It almost certainly does more work in promoting our soft power and "brand" that sending an aircraft carrier around on tour, which is also far more expensive.
I agree the Royal Navy is undersized with escorts. I'd expand numbers of those too.
In two weeks time, Jeremy Hunt is set to announce 20 billion of spending cuts, 20 billion of tax rises, plus a bit.
I think what Sunak needs to be careful of is that he's not naïve about the many politicians, NGOs and activists that are advocating for climate reparations for whom saving the planet is a figleaf for their real objective of wealth redistribution.
I’m wary of this policy too, for much the same reason you suggested. But as someone said on the last thread, how much money commitment are we actually talking.
Is your position “not a single penny?”
For "reparations"? Yes, not a single penny.
For aid/development/encouraging clean technology take-up? That's a different matter.
It's all dollars, however you label it. Perhaps reparations is a bad label.
A payment for services rendered, versus a payment for bribery, may both be dollars but are possible to view differently.
So where an island home sinks, not because anything they done, but what North Hemisphere done, we don’t owe them a “sorry?”
Or don’t you agree with the premise of my question, we are actually in a no fault at all position?
I don't agree with the premise of your question.
If China wants to lead the way offering reparations then let's see some progress on that. But when the UK is emitting about 2.5% the emissions of China, then no we are not responsible.
You realise how it makes you look, citing that stat not on qa per capita basis?
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
I think it would be fun to have, but if the business case is so clear, why don't other countries have one?
I was sailing in the Lofotens 4 years ago and the Queen pitched up in it to open a joint art exhibition of her work, and that of the keyboard player from Aha.
Interesting. Acquired 1947, though. That's not getting replaced. Maybe we should have just hung on to the old one.
I think what Sunak needs to be careful of is that he's not naïve about the many politicians, NGOs and activists that are advocating for climate reparations for whom saving the planet is a figleaf for their real objective of wealth redistribution.
I’m wary of this policy too, for much the same reason you suggested. But as someone said on the last thread, how much money commitment are we actually talking.
Is your position “not a single penny?”
For "reparations"? Yes, not a single penny.
For aid/development/encouraging clean technology take-up? That's a different matter.
Absolutely my position too.
I’m not saying you are both wrong. The costs of loss and damage in climate terms are projected to reach at least $1 trillion by 2050, so government accepting liability for loss and damage right now, as Red Ed and Labour want us to! where might that lead? It could set off a wave of lawsuits by developing countries as well as domestic stakeholders.
Yeah, “repatriations” is toxic phrase for a more complex “loss and damage liability” argument, as Flatlander flagged to us. Do climate countries use “repatriations” phrase, or do we - climate vulnerable places would be dumb to use such toxic phrasing.
I just turned to see how Chatham House explain it, and it strikes me as a three way argument not two way. Climate-vulnerable and developing countries point out various issues with current finance institutions such as the Green Climate Fund and World Bank - these institutions do not provide support for non-economic loss and damage or slow-onset events such as sea level rise. Developing countries suggest that a dedicated loss and damage financing facility would help address those gaps, and want loss and damage funding to be ‘new and additional’ rather than drawn from existing funds already pledged for climate change adaptation and humanitarian relief. But the developed countries, us, argue it would be more effective to draw on and strengthen existing funding institutions for climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, development finance and humanitarian assistance.
Having re read this post, I’ve changed my mind and wish to disagree with myself.
Having read some more news sites, it now seems to me UK and developed nations do agree in principle for the need for repartytitions for them, so repartriations are now certain to happen, we are going to bung them lolly - the argument merely about the funding vehicles. For us a vehicle whereby we don’t, for legal reasons admit our clear and obvious liability - it is clear that loss and damage is already occurring on a large scale, especially in climate-vulnerable countries, and it will only worsen as global warming increases. For example climate vulnerable countries clearly having issues from climate change will get their money from us, but it’s IMPORTANT from UK point of view it’s comes out of a “Fighting Climate Change” solidarity fund - not from individual nations, liability not officially at least admitted.
If that sounds a bit Yes Minister, let me sum up more like the thick of it. Starmer needs to gag old Wallace and Gromit face, lock him a room, seal the fucking room in concrete, and bury the whole bloody sealed concrete fuck of a room down a mine shaft. Red Ed is jumping the gun here, in polite parlance, not a fucking clue what he’s signing us up to would be more bloody bleezie. What is the ugly muff face after? “he saved the whole fucking world” statue in Parliament Square, with a fawkward coral reef hanging out of its bloody starfish?
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
“generated a clear return” obviously don’t do too long a post, but can you talk us through through that business model?
No. Why do you always make it such hard work engaging with you?
The benefit we'd have gotten from showcasing the UK in all its grandeur - basically, a bit of portable pomp & pageantry - inviting leading dignitaries to dinners and events on the yacht, and the investments, business and trade deals that would result, would easily have exceeded the £250m construction cost (and annualised operation costs) over its 30 year operational life. People would fight for tickets on it - it would seriously awe and impress people, and enhance our soft power.
Next.
Last one transported gropy Andrew between golf courses and did irreparable damage to our international standing.
Sources please.
res ipsa loquitur.
That just makes you look more of a wanker. And believe me, that's an accomplishment.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
“generated a clear return” obviously don’t do too long a post, but can you talk us through through that business model?
No. Why do you always make it such hard work engaging with you?
The benefit we'd have gotten from showcasing the UK in all its grandeur - basically, a bit of portable pomp & pageantry - inviting leading dignitaries to dinners and events on the yacht, and the investments, business and trade deals that would result, would easily have exceeded the £250m construction cost (and annualised operation costs) over its 30 year operational life. People would fight for tickets on it - it would seriously awe and impress people, and enhance our soft power.
Next.
You're thinking of things when we were young men. You need to project your thinking into the future, in a world where *hundreds* have better yachts.
It's not about who has the best yacht; it's the fact no-one could match Britain with a *royal* yacht. Not even close.
Sure, loads could do shitty bling and crass crap - saudis and Russians excel at it - but no-one can do the real deal - pomp, pageantry, class and style - like we can.
I don't think that there is any question that Ga is going to a recount but the question is will it matter? I think the republicans will take both Arizona and Nevada and only have a 50:50 chance of losing Penn giving the Republicans a majority.
I think the Dems gain PA because the Republicans have a Mastriano drag that should not be underestimated.
I think the Republicans gain NV, probably fairly comfortably.
I think GA is going to a run-off, which could be very interesting.
And I think the Republicans should be favourites in AZ, but not massive ones.
Kelly, the Democrat incumbent, leads by 1.8% in the latest 538 Arizona average, if that is correct and the GOP take Nevada but the Dems take PA then if GA goes to a runoff Senate control is again not determined until January
I think what Sunak needs to be careful of is that he's not naïve about the many politicians, NGOs and activists that are advocating for climate reparations for whom saving the planet is a figleaf for their real objective of wealth redistribution.
I’m wary of this policy too, for much the same reason you suggested. But as someone said on the last thread, how much money commitment are we actually talking.
Is your position “not a single penny?”
For "reparations"? Yes, not a single penny.
For aid/development/encouraging clean technology take-up? That's a different matter.
It's all dollars, however you label it. Perhaps reparations is a bad label.
A payment for services rendered, versus a payment for bribery, may both be dollars but are possible to view differently.
So where an island home sinks, not because anything they done, but what North Hemisphere done, we don’t owe them a “sorry?”
Or don’t you agree with the premise of my question, we are actually in a no fault at all position?
I don't agree with the premise of your question.
If China wants to lead the way offering reparations then let's see some progress on that. But when the UK is emitting about 2.5% the emissions of China, then no we are not responsible.
It isn't a question of what we are emitting now, it is what have we emitted since the Industrial Revolution.
By that metric, we are a much more significant contributor to the problem.
So what?
Whoever got their first would be in the same position. We don't bear a unique culpability for a "sin" in this that we need to atone for. And there are many more countries that are far bigger sinners and have done much more damage since, even per capita.
Like reparations for slavery this is just a vector for extortion from the usual suspects that they think might work.
Would aid to improve flood control in Pakistan be problematic to you? Or reforestation in Malawi? Those are sorts of things proposed.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
I think it would be fun to have, but if the business case is so clear, why don't other countries have one?
I was sailing in the Lofotens 4 years ago and the Queen pitched up in it to open a joint art exhibition of her work, and that of the keyboard player from Aha.
Interesting. Acquired 1947, though. That's not getting replaced. Maybe we should have just hung on to the old one.
John Major (remember him?) said the costs were too great. In 1994 - when we still had more of a Navy to escort it around. And then the matter of a replacement was faffed around and finally abandoned in 1997.
I think what Sunak needs to be careful of is that he's not naïve about the many politicians, NGOs and activists that are advocating for climate reparations for whom saving the planet is a figleaf for their real objective of wealth redistribution.
I’m wary of this policy too, for much the same reason you suggested. But as someone said on the last thread, how much money commitment are we actually talking.
Is your position “not a single penny?”
For "reparations"? Yes, not a single penny.
For aid/development/encouraging clean technology take-up? That's a different matter.
It's all dollars, however you label it. Perhaps reparations is a bad label.
A payment for services rendered, versus a payment for bribery, may both be dollars but are possible to view differently.
So where an island home sinks, not because anything they done, but what North Hemisphere done, we don’t owe them a “sorry?”
Or don’t you agree with the premise of my question, we are actually in a no fault at all position?
I don't agree with the premise of your question.
If China wants to lead the way offering reparations then let's see some progress on that. But when the UK is emitting about 2.5% the emissions of China, then no we are not responsible.
It isn't a question of what we are emitting now, it is what have we emitted since the Industrial Revolution.
By that metric, we are a much more significant contributor to the problem.
Not really:
What becomes clear when we look at emissions across the world today is that the countries with the highest emissions over history are not always the biggest emitters today. The UK, for example, was responsible for only 1% of global emissions in 2017. Reductions here will have a relatively small impact on emissions at the global level – or at least fall far short of the scale of change we need. This creates tension with the argument that the largest contributors in the past should be those doing most to reduce emissions today. This is because a large fraction of CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years once emitted.
Cumulatively the U.K. has been responsible for less than 5% global emissions.
I think what Sunak needs to be careful of is that he's not naïve about the many politicians, NGOs and activists that are advocating for climate reparations for whom saving the planet is a figleaf for their real objective of wealth redistribution.
I’m wary of this policy too, for much the same reason you suggested. But as someone said on the last thread, how much money commitment are we actually talking.
Is your position “not a single penny?”
For "reparations"? Yes, not a single penny.
For aid/development/encouraging clean technology take-up? That's a different matter.
It's all dollars, however you label it. Perhaps reparations is a bad label.
A payment for services rendered, versus a payment for bribery, may both be dollars but are possible to view differently.
So where an island home sinks, not because anything they done, but what North Hemisphere done, we don’t owe them a “sorry?”
Or don’t you agree with the premise of my question, we are actually in a no fault at all position?
I don't agree with the premise of your question.
If China wants to lead the way offering reparations then let's see some progress on that. But when the UK is emitting about 2.5% the emissions of China, then no we are not responsible.
It isn't a question of what we are emitting now, it is what have we emitted since the Industrial Revolution.
By that metric, we are a much more significant contributor to the problem.
So what?
Whoever got their first would be in the same position. We don't bear a unique culpability for a "sin" in this that we need to atone for. And there are many more countries that are far bigger sinners and have done much more damage since, even per capita.
Like reparations for slavery this is just a vector for extortion from the usual suspects that they think might work.
Would aid to improve flood control in Pakistan be problematic to you? Or reforestation in Malawi? Those are sorts of things proposed.
Pakistan has nukes, so it's no from me. I'm fine with international aid going on things like protecting rainforests etc.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
Disagree. What Royal yacht enthusiasts always seem to forget is that the thing would need a frigate-grade RN warship always escorting it, for security reasons. And add to that the positioning transit times involved, even if the PM or HM are not on the HMY. (That is what used to happen with the Britannia. Unless they devoted an entire warship to the tour, at huge cost in terms of temproary modifications, vide: Vanguard.)
Yet another large chunk out of a shrinking pie of fleet and crewing stats.
Then, we dedicate a frigate. Just as we do to counter narcotics, or for anti-piracy, or to demonstrate a "presence" in the South China Sea.
Worth it.
You may think so as an earnest Royalist, but it's a huge waste oif effort, money and above all in terms of the message it sends to the Navy and to the wider public.
Have a look at the stats for how many destroyers and frigates the Navy had when Britannia was reguilarly in use, and today. Thge ratio is about ten to one for 1960 to today (and a lot more if I went back a bit).
No, I don't think so at all.
It almost certainly does more work in promoting our soft power and "brand" that sending an aircraft carrier around on tour, which is also far more expensive.
I agree the Royal Navy is undersized with escorts. I'd expand numbers of those too.
In two weeks time, Jeremy Hunt is set to announce 20 billion of spending cuts, 20 billion of tax rises, plus a bit.
There really, really isn't any money left.
250 million for HMG is fuck all mate. And it's business case would make HS2 look like burning every fiver in the country.
I think what Sunak needs to be careful of is that he's not naïve about the many politicians, NGOs and activists that are advocating for climate reparations for whom saving the planet is a figleaf for their real objective of wealth redistribution.
I’m wary of this policy too, for much the same reason you suggested. But as someone said on the last thread, how much money commitment are we actually talking.
Is your position “not a single penny?”
For "reparations"? Yes, not a single penny.
For aid/development/encouraging clean technology take-up? That's a different matter.
It's all dollars, however you label it. Perhaps reparations is a bad label.
A payment for services rendered, versus a payment for bribery, may both be dollars but are possible to view differently.
So where an island home sinks, not because anything they done, but what North Hemisphere done, we don’t owe them a “sorry?”
Or don’t you agree with the premise of my question, we are actually in a no fault at all position?
I don't agree with the premise of your question.
If China wants to lead the way offering reparations then let's see some progress on that. But when the UK is emitting about 2.5% the emissions of China, then no we are not responsible.
Today you mean? When totalling liability for this damage and loss does it not depend where you start counting from?
And leadership, as in taking the lead, is all about waiting for someone else do go first?
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
“generated a clear return” obviously don’t do too long a post, but can you talk us through through that business model?
No. Why do you always make it such hard work engaging with you?
The benefit we'd have gotten from showcasing the UK in all its grandeur - basically, a bit of portable pomp & pageantry - inviting leading dignitaries to dinners and events on the yacht, and the investments, business and trade deals that would result, would easily have exceeded the £250m construction cost (and annualised operation costs) over its 30 year operational life. People would fight for tickets on it - it would seriously awe and impress people, and enhance our soft power.
Next.
Last one transported gropy Andrew between golf courses and did irreparable damage to our international standing.
We could put you on it?
You could get dreadfully pissed each night and shout abuse at anyone who took your fancy from the balcony.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
I think it would be fun to have, but if the business case is so clear, why don't other countries have one?
No-one does monarchy like us, and no-one has a monarchy like us; the whole world is impressed by ours.
I can't believe this argument even needs to be made.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
“generated a clear return” obviously don’t do too long a post, but can you talk us through through that business model?
No. Why do you always make it such hard work engaging with you?
The benefit we'd have gotten from showcasing the UK in all its grandeur - basically, a bit of portable pomp & pageantry - inviting leading dignitaries to dinners and events on the yacht, and the investments, business and trade deals that would result, would easily have exceeded the £250m construction cost (and annualised operation costs) over its 30 year operational life. People would fight for tickets on it - it would seriously awe and impress people, and enhance our soft power.
Next.
You're thinking of things when we were young men. You need to project your thinking into the future, in a world where *hundreds* have better yachts.
It's not about who has the best yacht; it's the fact no-one could match Britain with a *royal* yacht. Not even close.
Sure, loads could do shitty bling and crass crap - saudis and Russians excel at it - but no-one can do the real deal - pomp, pageantry, class and style - like we can.
Twenty years ago, I went to dinner with Princess Anne. My GF - an Aussie - was a staunch republican, and as she was nervous, she asked me to do all the talking,
In the end I did not get a word in edgeways, and by the end of the evening, my gf was a monarchist.
The effect the monarchy has a concept has on people can be massive, particularly foreigners. They are *different* to the ordinary oligarchs and pseudo-rich. Perhaps that should not be the case, but it's a real form of soft power.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
“generated a clear return” obviously don’t do too long a post, but can you talk us through through that business model?
No. Why do you always make it such hard work engaging with you?
The benefit we'd have gotten from showcasing the UK in all its grandeur - basically, a bit of portable pomp & pageantry - inviting leading dignitaries to dinners and events on the yacht, and the investments, business and trade deals that would result, would easily have exceeded the £250m construction cost (and annualised operation costs) over its 30 year operational life. People would fight for tickets on it - it would seriously awe and impress people, and enhance our soft power.
Next.
Last one transported gropy Andrew between golf courses and did irreparable damage to our international standing.
We could put you on it?
You could get dreadfully pissed each night and shout abuse at anyone who took your fancy from the balcony.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
Disagree. What Royal yacht enthusiasts always seem to forget is that the thing would need a frigate-grade RN warship always escorting it, for security reasons. And add to that the positioning transit times involved, even if the PM or HM are not on the HMY. (That is what used to happen with the Britannia. Unless they devoted an entire warship to the tour, at huge cost in terms of temproary modifications, vide: Vanguard.)
Yet another large chunk out of a shrinking pie of fleet and crewing stats.
Then, we dedicate a frigate. Just as we do to counter narcotics, or for anti-piracy, or to demonstrate a "presence" in the South China Sea.
Worth it.
You may think so as an earnest Royalist, but it's a huge waste oif effort, money and above all in terms of the message it sends to the Navy and to the wider public.
Have a look at the stats for how many destroyers and frigates the Navy had when Britannia was reguilarly in use, and today. Thge ratio is about ten to one for 1960 to today (and a lot more if I went back a bit).
No, I don't think so at all.
It almost certainly does more work in promoting our soft power and "brand" that sending an aircraft carrier around on tour, which is also far more expensive.
I agree the Royal Navy is undersized with escorts. I'd expand numbers of those too.
In two weeks time, Jeremy Hunt is set to announce 20 billion of spending cuts, 20 billion of tax rises, plus a bit.
There really, really isn't any money left.
250 million for HMG is fuck all mate. And it's business case would make HS2 look like burning every fiver in the country.
You just don't want the yacht.
In Modmathics, maybe, but more likely 1bn in real pounds, as (I think) DA pointed out the last time there was a discussion of RMY. ,
And the warship. And the recurrent running costs, and the staffing, and the maintenance, and all the opportunity costs for an already understaffed RN.
And the public example it sets at a time of climate crisis and public spending cuts. "Here I am! Playing at being a ricvh bastard at your expense!"
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
“generated a clear return” obviously don’t do too long a post, but can you talk us through through that business model?
No. Why do you always make it such hard work engaging with you?
The benefit we'd have gotten from showcasing the UK in all its grandeur - basically, a bit of portable pomp & pageantry - inviting leading dignitaries to dinners and events on the yacht, and the investments, business and trade deals that would result, would easily have exceeded the £250m construction cost (and annualised operation costs) over its 30 year operational life. People would fight for tickets on it - it would seriously awe and impress people, and enhance our soft power.
Next.
You're thinking of things when we were young men. You need to project your thinking into the future, in a world where *hundreds* have better yachts.
It's not about who has the best yacht; it's the fact no-one could match Britain with a *royal* yacht. Not even close.
Sure, loads could do shitty bling and crass crap - saudis and Russians excel at it - but no-one can do the real deal - pomp, pageantry, class and style - like we can.
Twenty years ago, I went to dinner with Princess Anne. My GF - an Aussie - was a staunch republican, and as she was nervous, she asked me to do all the talking,
In the end I did not get a word in edgeways, and by the end of the evening, my gf was a monarchist.
The effect the monarchy has a concept has on people can be massive, particularly foreigners. They are *different* to the ordinary oligarchs and pseudo-rich. Perhaps that should not be the case, but it's a real form of soft power.
The point being, they act as public servants and ambassadors for the UK (whereas oligarchs and the pseudo-rich are almost all deeply unpleasant people).
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
“generated a clear return” obviously don’t do too long a post, but can you talk us through through that business model?
No. Why do you always make it such hard work engaging with you?
The benefit we'd have gotten from showcasing the UK in all its grandeur - basically, a bit of portable pomp & pageantry - inviting leading dignitaries to dinners and events on the yacht, and the investments, business and trade deals that would result, would easily have exceeded the £250m construction cost (and annualised operation costs) over its 30 year operational life. People would fight for tickets on it - it would seriously awe and impress people, and enhance our soft power.
Next.
You're thinking of things when we were young men. You need to project your thinking into the future, in a world where *hundreds* have better yachts.
It's not about who has the best yacht; it's the fact no-one could match Britain with a *royal* yacht. Not even close.
Sure, loads could do shitty bling and crass crap - saudis and Russians excel at it - but no-one can do the real deal - pomp, pageantry, class and style - like we can.
Twenty years ago, I went to dinner with Princess Anne. My GF - an Aussie - was a staunch republican, and as she was nervous, she asked me to do all the talking,
In the end I did not get a word in edgeways, and by the end of the evening, my gf was a monarchist.
The effect the monarchy has a concept has on people can be massive, particularly foreigners. They are *different* to the ordinary oligarchs and pseudo-rich. Perhaps that should not be the case, but it's a real form of soft power.
Twenty years ago the RMY Britannia had loooong been decommissioned. Not required.
BREAKING: The plan to build a £250 million 'national flagship has been officially scrapped. It was going to be named after the late Prince Philip. Defence Sec Ben Wallace told MPs he was prioritising the procurement of the multi-role ocean surveillance ship (MROSS) instead.
I know this is an unpopular view, probably because people view it as the Royals living the life of riley at public expense (I don't agree), but this is one thing that I think would have generated a clear return on investment for UK plc.
I'd have gone for it.
Disagree. What Royal yacht enthusiasts always seem to forget is that the thing would need a frigate-grade RN warship always escorting it, for security reasons. And add to that the positioning transit times involved, even if the PM or HM are not on the HMY. (That is what used to happen with the Britannia. Unless they devoted an entire warship to the tour, at huge cost in terms of temproary modifications, vide: Vanguard.)
Yet another large chunk out of a shrinking pie of fleet and crewing stats.
Then, we dedicate a frigate. Just as we do to counter narcotics, or for anti-piracy, or to demonstrate a "presence" in the South China Sea.
Worth it.
You may think so as an earnest Royalist, but it's a huge waste oif effort, money and above all in terms of the message it sends to the Navy and to the wider public.
Have a look at the stats for how many destroyers and frigates the Navy had when Britannia was reguilarly in use, and today. Thge ratio is about ten to one for 1960 to today (and a lot more if I went back a bit).
No, I don't think so at all.
It almost certainly does more work in promoting our soft power and "brand" that sending an aircraft carrier around on tour, which is also far more expensive.
I agree the Royal Navy is undersized with escorts. I'd expand numbers of those too.
In two weeks time, Jeremy Hunt is set to announce 20 billion of spending cuts, 20 billion of tax rises, plus a bit.
There really, really isn't any money left.
250 million for HMG is fuck all mate. And it's business case would make HS2 look like burning every fiver in the country.
You just don't want the yacht.
In Modmathics, maybe, but more likely 1bn in real pounds, as (I think) DA pointed out the last time there was a discussion of RMY. ,
And the warship. And the recurrent running costs, and the staffing, and the maintenance, and all the opportunity costs for an already understaffed RN.
And the public example it sets at a time of climate crisis and public spending cuts. "Here I am! Playing at being a ricvh bastard at your expense!"
Comments
Were Williamson popular, or the face of a major policy initiative like Braverman, the point might have merit. But Williamson is disliked and not known to be competent, so the price of ditching him is low.
Really that is nothing more than a 'he upsets the right people' argument, which, as ever, is bollocks. Yes, you stick by your people, but there needs to be an upside to doing so. With Braverman there was. Williamson?
Instead, I'd bet that the polls will be c 3% wrong, one way or the other. So I would bet on the Republicans up 4 seats plus, or the Dems up 1 seat plus. You'll get really good odds on a far from impossible situation.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/senate/2022/arizona/
Lake Humber will return.
But then I have to answer the question of what would indicate a new vote should be held, and I don’t have the answers for that.
https://twitter.com/geoallison/status/1589646568273346560
It's the nature of the GOP they would have lost to which is more alarming.
Thing is being a rude little shit in an email isn't a resigning matter, provided it isn't to an underling which is bullying.
Sunak live on r4 now.
Whereas treating a vote for the makeup of the parliament as a de facto referendum presumes too much.
Is there anyone on PB happy to out themselves as in complete denial of all these bad impacts, social, cultural, financial, of climate change? Denying all climate change? Denying what’s caused climate change?
None of which excuses his attitude or words, or means he should be back in the Cabinet now. And if he's effective in the background, that's where he needs to stay. But how many backroom politicians are content to stay there? (Correct answer is: we don't know, because they stay in the background.)
What was the prognosis afterwards?
I reject wholesale any notion of "reparations".
We have to separate the damage caused by climate change and the (potentially much worse) damage caused by direct habitat destruction.
It isn't always that simple.
The honeymoon can only be measured by looking at Tory share. And it can only be known to be over many weeks after it is over, ie not today. The Redfield may not indicate the obvious take out if it’s merely correcting a rogue poll, so telling us no change today not a reverse.
I'd have gone for it.
To be honest, whether you are in favour of Independence or not, resolving the issues before the vote makes sense, and would help avoid the worst of the Brexit shit we endured for 5 years.
That seems unreaslitic, but some big questiosn being answered beforehand would be a plus.
We will not know the Penn result for days.
Alistair's Pennsylvania Forecasting service is available for $8.
https://goodlawproject.org/case/lgba/
Yeah, “repatriations” is toxic phrase for a more complex “loss and damage liability” argument, as Flatlander flagged to us. Do climate countries use “repatriations” phrase, or do we - climate vulnerable places would be dumb to use such toxic phrasing.
I just turned to see how Chatham House explain it, and it strikes me as a three way argument not two way. Climate-vulnerable and developing countries point out various issues with current finance institutions such as the Green Climate Fund and World Bank - these institutions do not provide support for non-economic loss and damage or slow-onset events such as sea level rise. Developing countries suggest that a dedicated loss and damage financing facility would help address those gaps, and want loss and damage funding to be ‘new and additional’ rather than drawn from existing funds already pledged for climate change adaptation and humanitarian relief. But the developed countries, us, argue it would be more effective to draw on and strengthen existing funding institutions for climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, development finance and humanitarian assistance.
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2022/08/what-loss-and-damage
I want to compare the targetsmart 2020 projections with actual results on the ground.
I know I can reconstruct this shit from individual county websites and stuff but surely someone has gathered it all together already?
Yet another large chunk out of a shrinking pie of fleet and crewing stats.
Edit: but why does it matter?
And if private business benefits from the appearance of a Royal Yacht, then surely private business should be paying for it.
If China wants to lead the way offering reparations then let's see some progress on that. But when the UK is emitting about 2.5% the emissions of China, then no we are not responsible.
I was involved with a group that got the Royal Engineers involved. They were *desperate* for real-world 'training', as opposed to the exercises they had been doing for years.
(It was the first time I saw a man inhale a condom from his nose through to his mouth. A trick I have never felt tempted to reproduce. Also the first time I've sene someone be sick through their nostrils - not the same guy. My ex-gf could also achieve the same feat.).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Sequoia_(presidential_yacht)
The benefit we'd have gotten from showcasing the UK in all its grandeur - basically, a bit of portable pomp & pageantry - inviting leading dignitaries to dinners and events on the yacht, and the investments, business and trade deals that would result, would easily have exceeded the £250m construction cost (and annualised operation costs) over its 30 year operational life. People would fight for tickets on it - it would seriously awe and impress people, and enhance our soft power.
Next.
Norway has one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNoMY_Norge
I was sailing in the Lofotens 4 years ago and the Queen pitched up in it to open a joint art exhibition of her work, and that of the keyboard player from Aha.
We all benefit from net investment into the UK.
Britannia was always allegedly a hospital ship in reservce - but was never used for that, even in the Falklands War where they were spending vast sums on adapting STUFT vessels.
Worth it.
Have a look at the stats for how many destroyers and frigates the Navy had when Britannia was reguilarly in use, and today. Thge ratio is about ten to one for 1960 to today (and a lot more if I went back a bit).
By that metric, we are a much more significant contributor to the problem.
It almost certainly does more work in promoting our soft power and "brand" that sending an aircraft carrier around on tour, which is also far more expensive.
I agree the Royal Navy is undersized with escorts. I'd expand numbers of those too.
Whoever got their first would be in the same position. We don't bear a unique culpability for a "sin" in this that we need to atone for. And there are many more countries that are far bigger sinners and have done much more damage since, even per capita.
Like reparations for slavery this is just a vector for extortion from the usual suspects that they think might work.
There really, really isn't any money left.
Westminster Voting Intention:
LAB: 47% (-4)
CON: 29% (+3)
LDM: 9% (=)
OTH: 16% (+1)
Via @DeltapollUK, On 3-7 November,
Changes w/ 28-31 October.
Having read some more news sites, it now seems to me UK and developed nations do agree in principle for the need for repartytitions for them, so repartriations are now certain to happen, we are going to bung them lolly - the argument merely about the funding vehicles. For us a vehicle whereby we don’t, for legal reasons admit our clear and obvious liability - it is clear that loss and damage is already occurring on a large scale, especially in climate-vulnerable countries, and it will only worsen as global warming increases. For example climate vulnerable countries clearly having issues from climate change will get their money from us, but it’s IMPORTANT from UK point of view it’s comes out of a “Fighting Climate Change” solidarity fund - not from individual nations, liability not officially at least admitted.
If that sounds a bit Yes Minister, let me sum up more like the thick of it. Starmer needs to gag old Wallace and Gromit face, lock him a room, seal the fucking room in concrete, and bury the whole bloody sealed concrete fuck of a room down a mine shaft. Red Ed is jumping the gun here, in polite parlance, not a fucking clue what he’s signing us up to would be more bloody bleezie. What is the ugly muff face after? “he saved the whole fucking world” statue in Parliament Square, with a fawkward coral reef hanging out of its bloody starfish?
Do I need to make my position anymore clear?
Sure, loads could do shitty bling and crass crap - saudis and Russians excel at it - but no-one can do the real deal - pomp, pageantry, class and style - like we can.
What becomes clear when we look at emissions across the world today is that the countries with the highest emissions over history are not always the biggest emitters today. The UK, for example, was responsible for only 1% of global emissions in 2017. Reductions here will have a relatively small impact on emissions at the global level – or at least fall far short of the scale of change we need. This creates tension with the argument that the largest contributors in the past should be those doing most to reduce emissions today. This is because a large fraction of CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years once emitted.
Cumulatively the U.K. has been responsible for less than 5% global emissions.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-cumulative-co2
You just don't want the yacht.
And leadership, as in taking the lead, is all about waiting for someone else do go first?
You could get dreadfully pissed each night and shout abuse at anyone who took your fancy from the balcony.
I can't believe this argument even needs to be made.
In the end I did not get a word in edgeways, and by the end of the evening, my gf was a monarchist.
The effect the monarchy has a concept has on people can be massive, particularly foreigners. They are *different* to the ordinary oligarchs and pseudo-rich. Perhaps that should not be the case, but it's a real form of soft power.
And the warship. And the recurrent running costs, and the staffing, and the maintenance, and all the opportunity costs for an already understaffed RN.
And the public example it sets at a time of climate crisis and public spending cuts. "Here I am! Playing at being a ricvh bastard at your expense!"