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.
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?
Reparations is a problematic term and is where the reactions come from here. I don’t know who coined such a self-defeating word for this. It’s like defund the police.
Reparations implies compensation for damage caused willingly / knowingly by an aggressor state in a war. For payments to be climate reparations you’d need to date them back to the moment the harm caused by CO2 emissions became known and understood to a certain set level. Probably less than beyond reasonable doubt but more than just “someone wrote a speculative paper in a climate journal”. Something like the 1988 congressional testimony by Jim Hanson perhaps.
But a lot politically easier to call it a climate adaptation fund instead of creating some quasi-legal definition of guilt and the mess that would create.
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.
My objection is to "reparations".
Call them foreign aid to mitigate climate change on poor countries and everyone is happy, because that is what it is about.
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!"
Except not at your expense, because it generates a net return for UK plc and enhances our soft power. We all benefit.
Emotion on this issue (all about class, of course) utterly clouds judgement.
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?
Do I need to make my position anymore clear?
I don't think you do but to quickly check.
Those who have got rich (in part) by polluting the planet should give substantial financial assistance to those who haven't (done either) and are now suffering the consequences - but this should be badged as climate aid rather than reparations.
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?
Reparations is a problematic term and is where the problems come from here. I don’t know who coined such a self-defeating word for this. It’s like defund the police.
Reparations implies compensation for damage caused willingly / knowingly by an aggressor state in a war. For payments to be climate reparations you’d need to date them back to the moment the harm caused by CO2 emissions became known and understood to a certain set level. Probably less than beyond reasonable doubt but more than just “someone wrote a speculative paper in a climate journal”. Something like the 1988 congressional testimony by Jim Hanson perhaps.
But a lot politically easier to call it a climate adaptation fund instead of creating some quasi-legal definition of guilt and the mess that would create.
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.
There are no doubt oligarchs and pseudo richies nastier than good ole Andy, but I can't immediately think of one. Are we looking at the no true royal fallacy here?
The more you and Casino bloviate about foreigners (both as awed suckers for soft powery royals, and as grasping reparation thieves, the more I think: Never left Western Europe.
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.
Not long. Five or six years. And she has attracted over six million visitors to Leith since she was berthed there, and is Britain's favourite historical attraction - soft power even when decommissioned!
(I love Leith, but it's not exactly tourist central.)
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.
With respect that's total Little Englander bullshit. You're living in the past Casino. Our monarchy is now best known for The Crown, we might as well have a Royal Downton Abbey Yacht.
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.
Not long. Five or six years. And she has attracted over six million visitors to Leith since she was berthed there, and is Britain's favourite historical attraction - soft power even when decommissioned!
(I love Leith, but it's not exactly tourist central.)
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.
My objection is to "reparations".
Call them foreign aid to mitigate climate change on poor countries and everyone is happy, because that is what it is about.
If everyone pays their fair share, and it's done for the right reasons and doesn't create dependency, then yes.
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.
Not long. Five or six years. And she has attracted over six million visitors to Leith since she was berthed there, and is Britain's favourite historical attraction - soft power even when decommissioned!
(I love Leith, but it's not exactly tourist central.)
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 agree. Don't see the point of a surveillance ship. We do all our snooping with or on behalf of the Americans - they can pay for their own surveillance ship.
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.
With respect that's total Little Englander bullshit. You're living in the past Casino. Our monarchy is now best known for The Crown, we might as well have a Royal Downton Abbey Yacht.
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.
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.
Everyone in the world when they see an Englishman stand up and salute for "God save the king", his back as straight as a cricket bat, opens their foreign gob in impressed wonder.
"The British monarchy brings order to the whole world from its pinnacle," they think in Jakarta, Lisbon, Tel Aviv, Tierra del Fuego, Paris, Rome, Moscow, and Beijing.
Everyone in the world who's worthy of true respect thinks this anyway. "What's a pyramid without a capstone?" they ask. "A republic is like a woman without a head, n'est-ce pas?"
Emperor Bokassa, Mohammed bin Salman, emeritus king Juan Carlos - no class!
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.
Not long. Five or six years. And she has attracted over six million visitors to Leith since she was berthed there, and is Britain's favourite historical attraction - soft power even when decommissioned!
(I love Leith, but it's not exactly tourist central.)
You have to walk through Ocean Terminal though. Horrific.
I first went to Ocean Terminal in ?2003?, when it was new, shiny and wonderful. I went back a few weeks ago, and aside from the tram works, it was very shiny but also half-empty. Quite sad.
which makes Britannia's visitor numbers even more impressive.
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.
Not long. Five or six years. And she has attracted over six million visitors to Leith since she was berthed there, and is Britain's favourite historical attraction - soft power even when decommissioned!
(I love Leith, but it's not exactly tourist central.)
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 agree. Don't see the point of a surveillance ship. We do all our snooping with or on behalf of the Americans - they can pay for their own surveillance ship.
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?
Reparations is a problematic term and is where the reactions come from here. I don’t know who coined such a self-defeating word for this. It’s like defund the police.
Reparations implies compensation for damage caused willingly / knowingly by an aggressor state in a war. For payments to be climate reparations you’d need to date them back to the moment the harm caused by CO2 emissions became known and understood to a certain set level. Probably less than beyond reasonable doubt but more than just “someone wrote a speculative paper in a climate journal”. Something like the 1988 congressional testimony by Jim Hanson perhaps.
But a lot politically easier to call it a climate adaptation fund instead of creating some quasi-legal definition of guilt and the mess that would create.
What's bizarre is it isn't like it is opponents calling it that to undermine it, it is adherents, same with defend the police as you say. We might snark about the impact of just calling it something else, but I really think it would work.
It also lends weight to those who are inclined to do as little as possible, since its a loaded term that often seems to come with a lot of unrelated ideological baggage and economic systems and social change, which whether you think they are a good idea or not are not necessary for climate adaptation, so makes those pushing the term look like they are interested in something esle entirely.
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.
Everyone in the world when they see an Englishman stand up and salute for "God save the king", his back as straight as a cricket bat, opens their foreign gob in impressed wonder.
"The British monarchy brings order to the whole world from its pinnacle," they think in Jakarta, Lisbon, Tel Aviv, Tierra del Fuego, Paris, Rome, Moscow, and Beijing.
Everyone in the world who's worthy of true respect thinks this anyway. "What's a pyramid without a capstone?" they ask. "A republic is like a woman without a head, n'est-ce pas?"
Emperor Bokassa, Mohammed bin Salman, emeritus king Juan Carlos - no class!
I refer you to the viewing figures for the Queen's funeral and how *everyone* came from the whole world came here, or wanted to.
There's some weird kind of psychosis going on here: like, you're embarrassed at how much of a status British monarchy has.
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.
Truss wanted to give this ridiculous junket a swerve and keep Charles out too, and clearly she was right to do so. What a pity her own party got rid of her.
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.
So cumulatively we are a five-fold greater contributor than if you just look at today's emissions.
I call that "much more significant".
The implication seemed to be that if you took account of historical impact we would have a disproportionate share. Which is true to an extent, but having already reduced to a more proportionate figure, making further progress means we'll eat into that historic figure quite easily now.
Plus, if the argument is we have historically been a much more significant contributor that might be true, but we aren't now, so we've already done the hard yards if we want to judge based on that. Which might even make the case of people wanting to do less now.
It will be fascinating to see what this is and what's next.
Is it overramped and oversold like a Cameron renegotiation? Or is it substantive?
I have the impression Rishi is seeking a closer relationship with Macron not only over the channel crossings but also Macrons proposals for an outer EU non members relationship
Furthermore I expect he will do a deal with UVDL over the NI protocol
All of this is going to upset ERG but they need sidelining as Rishi moves to the centre
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 agree. Don't see the point of a surveillance ship. We do all our snooping with or on behalf of the Americans - they can pay for their own surveillance ship.
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.
What's the difference between colonialism and foreign aid? Because one could argue that, in a capitalist world, they boil down to pretty much the same thing. Colonialism was about controlling other countries, and foreign aid has the effect of controlling other countries. The difference, perhaps, is that the former was direct control and the latter is indirect control.
Over 4,000 conservative members have defected to ReformUK and hopefully several thousands more will follow so we can have our one nation party back
I might have a little play around later at where Reform might focus as realistic targets. Sunak's a Blue Wall reinforcer, i fancy thd red wall might get 'interesting' in spots if Labour's vote reduces to a more natural recent level (around 40 say), if the Boris coalition unconvinced by a return to Labour or by Sunak go fishing
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.
What's the difference between colonialism and foreign aid? Because one could argue that, in a capitalist world, they boil down to pretty much the same thing. Colonialism was about controlling other countries, and foreign aid has the effect of controlling other countries. The difference, perhaps, is that the former was direct control and the latter is indirect control.
I think our trade minister, Badenoch, recently used one of the aircraft carriers to host an event in New York harbour, so we're clearly already using the Royal Navy for trade promotion purposes, whether we have a dedicated ship for the task or not.
Would it be better to have a dedicated ship for the purpose, rather than to use one that cost ten times as much, which perhaps ought to be doing other things?
I suppose not building it at least saves us the embarrassment of having to sell it when we run out of money.
It will be fascinating to see what this is and what's next.
Is it overramped and oversold like a Cameron renegotiation? Or is it substantive?
I have the impression Rishi is seeking a closer relationship with Macron not only over the channel crossings but also Macrons proposals for an outer EU non members relationship
Furthermore I expect he will do a deal with UVDL over the NI protocol
All of this is going to upset ERG but they need sidelining as Rishi moves to the centre
That's a lot of money for a single plane. However, the An-225 was a real symbol of Ukraine's identity. It is clearly being done for the message that it sends.
Ukraine has started construction of the second An-225 Mriya model aircraft. It will replace the legendary board, which was destroyed by the Russian invaders in Gostomel at the beginning of the invasion. According to the newspaper Bild, the new "Mriya" is already 30% ready.
"The work is being done in a secret place. The second An-225 will be supplied with both new parts and parts of the damaged aircraft," said Yevhen Gavrilov, General Director of Antonov State Enterprise.
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.
What's the difference between colonialism and foreign aid? Because one could argue that in a capitalist world they boil down to pretty much the same thing. Colonialism was about controlling other countries, and foreign aid has the effect of controlling other countries. The only difference is that the former was direct control and the latter is indirect control.
Having seen a fair amount of foreign aid in action, there has always been an element of neo-colonialism to it. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and aid has long been used to influence control, or to subsidise British exporters.
Not exclusively, and not without some good work being done, and importantly in conjunction with local governments rather than at the point of a gun.
The only person he is sending a message to this week is Trump: "I am winning over Democrats, so I must run again to complete the job of making America great".
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.
Truss wanted to give this ridiculous junket a swerve and keep Charles out too, and clearly she was right to do so. What a pity her own party got rid of her.
That's a lot of money for a single plane. However, the An-225 was a real symbol of Ukraine's identity. It is clearly being done for the message that it sends.
Ukraine has started construction of the second An-225 Mriya model aircraft. It will replace the legendary board, which was destroyed by the Russian invaders in Gostomel at the beginning of the invasion. According to the newspaper Bild, the new "Mriya" is already 30% ready.
"The work is being done in a secret place. The second An-225 will be supplied with both new parts and parts of the damaged aircraft," said Yevhen Gavrilov, General Director of Antonov State Enterprise.
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 went to Bodø last month”
I’m putting 2 and two together and placing you at the game! You didn’t just fly and fly out then, you done sight seeing?
That's a lot of money for a single plane. However, the An-225 was a real symbol of Ukraine's identity. It is clearly being done for the message that it sends.
Ukraine has started construction of the second An-225 Mriya model aircraft. It will replace the legendary board, which was destroyed by the Russian invaders in Gostomel at the beginning of the invasion. According to the newspaper Bild, the new "Mriya" is already 30% ready.
"The work is being done in a secret place. The second An-225 will be supplied with both new parts and parts of the damaged aircraft," said Yevhen Gavrilov, General Director of Antonov State Enterprise.
ISTR there were plans to make a second airframe a few years back, as the first was in such demand. Lots of parts had already been made for the second in the 1980/90s (although how many of those parts would still be usable is a different matter.)
Incidentally, my brother was once involved with hiring one of its smaller brothers, an AN-124. It was for something needed in the East Midlands, but it had to fly into Prestwick for some reason rather than East Midlands Airport. Even the smaller brothers are very large planes. The thing they were transporting was not particularly heavy in terms of overall weight, but was a very heavy spot load - meaning it was very compact.
Edit: "By 2000, the need for additional An-225 capacity had become apparent, so the decision was made in September 2006 to complete the second An-225. That second airframe was scheduled for completion around 2008 but was subject to delays.[11] By August 2009, the aircraft had not been completed and work had been abandoned. In May 2011, the Antonov CEO reportedly said that the completion of a second An-225 Mriya transport aircraft with a carrying capacity of 250 tons requires at least $300 million, but if the financing is provided, its completion could be achieved in three years.[14] According to different sources, the second aircraft is 60–70% complete."
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 went to Bodø last month”
I’m putting 2 and two together and placing you at the game! You didn’t just fly and fly out then, you done sight seeing?
Correct. We were singing: "Where's your famous Northern Lights?"
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 .
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.
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 agree. Don't see the point of a surveillance ship. We do all our snooping with or on behalf of the Americans - they can pay for their own surveillance ship.
Showing your true colours again....
I'm showing my true opinion again, as always.
Like the various differing 'opinions' (always mirroring the diverse Russian lines) that you had on the MH17 shootdown?
I think our trade minister, Badenoch, recently used one of the aircraft carriers to host an event in New York harbour, so we're clearly already using the Royal Navy for trade promotion purposes, whether we have a dedicated ship for the task or not.
Would it be better to have a dedicated ship for the purpose, rather than to use one that cost ten times as much, which perhaps ought to be doing other things?
I suppose not building it at least saves us the embarrassment of having to sell it when we run out of money.
Clearly that’s the answer - repurpose the second aircraft carrier for hosting parties.
Grass over the deck and put in fountains and nicely maintained gravel paths, a giant glass marquee, little tiki bars, put on shows with the performers being raised up from “below stage” on the plane lifts. Big guests can arrive by their helicopters. Get Damian Hirst to do a fancy paint job one year, another British artist the next etc. maybe a grass tennis court where people can pay to play the royal family.
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 went to Bodø last month”
I’m putting 2 and two together and placing you at the game! You didn’t just fly and fly out then, you done sight seeing?
Correct. We were singing: "Where's your famous Northern Lights?"
That's annoying, I went to bodo and nobody told me about the museum. Did a rib trip to see the whirlpool though.
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.
Totally ignorant and false.
China emitted more last year alone than we have emitted cumulatively since the IR began.
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?
Sensible?
Causation doesn't care about per capita. And even per capita, we still emit nothing like the emissions of China.
According to Wikipedia Sunak is 5'7" and Macron is 5'9". Not quite sure how that works from the picture.
I think it's that Macron's knee is slightly bent, and he is a small distance further back.
Sunak has got his photo team on it again and he's actually 10ft closer to the camera. Macron's overjoyed running is actually because he's just seen Justin Trudeau.
I think our trade minister, Badenoch, recently used one of the aircraft carriers to host an event in New York harbour, so we're clearly already using the Royal Navy for trade promotion purposes, whether we have a dedicated ship for the task or not.
Would it be better to have a dedicated ship for the purpose, rather than to use one that cost ten times as much, which perhaps ought to be doing other things?
I suppose not building it at least saves us the embarrassment of having to sell it when we run out of money.
Clearly that’s the answer - repurpose the second aircraft carrier for hosting parties.
Grass over the deck and put in fountains and nicely maintained gravel paths, a giant glass marquee, little tiki bars, put on shows with the performers being raised up from “below stage” on the plane lifts. Big guests can arrive by their helicopters. Get Damian Hirst to do a fancy paint job one year, another British artist the next etc. maybe a grass tennis court where people can pay to play the royal family.
Yes, I’ve solved it.
1. Why not acquire a secondhand billionaire's yacht and re-purpose it. 2. Why doesn't Charles pay for it himself if he wants one (I suspect he doesn't). He could afford to.
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.
Totally ignorant and false.
China emitted more last year alone than we have emitted cumulatively since the IR began.
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?
Sensible?
Causation doesn't care about per capita. And even per capita, we still emit nothing like the emissions of China.
Racist, is the answer. Even you are not too stupid to see the injustice of considering the figures not per capita merely because China is a bigger country. Why, I ask myself, do you think the Chinese are not entitled to the most basic and obvious justice? Because they are Chinese, obv.
I think our trade minister, Badenoch, recently used one of the aircraft carriers to host an event in New York harbour, so we're clearly already using the Royal Navy for trade promotion purposes, whether we have a dedicated ship for the task or not.
Would it be better to have a dedicated ship for the purpose, rather than to use one that cost ten times as much, which perhaps ought to be doing other things?
I suppose not building it at least saves us the embarrassment of having to sell it when we run out of money.
Clearly that’s the answer - repurpose the second aircraft carrier for hosting parties.
Grass over the deck and put in fountains and nicely maintained gravel paths, a giant glass marquee, little tiki bars, put on shows with the performers being raised up from “below stage” on the plane lifts. Big guests can arrive by their helicopters. Get Damian Hirst to do a fancy paint job one year, another British artist the next etc. maybe a grass tennis court where people can pay to play the royal family.
Yes, I’ve solved it.
1. Why not acquire a secondhand billionaire's yacht and re-purpose it. 2. Why doesn't Charles pay for it himself if he wants one (I suspect he doesn't). He could afford to.
1. Agree. I don't think it would even have to be a billionaire's one. Any half decent seagoing vessel big enough could be gussied up with some gold leaf and the second best furniture. 2. To do so would lead to too many questions about his real wealth.
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.
Totally ignorant and false.
China emitted more last year alone than we have emitted cumulatively since the IR began.
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?
Sensible?
Causation doesn't care about per capita. And even per capita, we still emit nothing like the emissions of China.
As presented down thread, this country's cumulative emissions, at 5% of global total, are significantly greater than our current annual emissions, at 1% of global total.
Rereading my earlier post, I can see that it could be interpreted as claiming that our cumulative emissions are higher than those of China. This is not what I was saying and clearly is not the case.
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?
Do I need to make my position anymore clear?
I don't think you do but to quickly check.
Those who have got rich (in part) by polluting the planet should give substantial financial assistance to those who haven't (done either) and are now suffering the consequences - but this should be badged as climate aid rather than reparations.
In which case, I'm also of that opinion.
In which case, can you have a word with Starmer about the gag on Red Ed and to start mixing the cement…
Fighting Climate Change solidarity fund - not for individual nations to rush in and admit liability.
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?
Do I need to make my position anymore clear?
Objection....'Old muff face' is an inappropriate and unkind description of an MP (unless Nigel Farage ever makes it into parliament)
I think our trade minister, Badenoch, recently used one of the aircraft carriers to host an event in New York harbour, so we're clearly already using the Royal Navy for trade promotion purposes, whether we have a dedicated ship for the task or not.
Would it be better to have a dedicated ship for the purpose, rather than to use one that cost ten times as much, which perhaps ought to be doing other things?
I suppose not building it at least saves us the embarrassment of having to sell it when we run out of money.
Clearly that’s the answer - repurpose the second aircraft carrier for hosting parties.
Grass over the deck and put in fountains and nicely maintained gravel paths, a giant glass marquee, little tiki bars, put on shows with the performers being raised up from “below stage” on the plane lifts. Big guests can arrive by their helicopters. Get Damian Hirst to do a fancy paint job one year, another British artist the next etc. maybe a grass tennis court where people can pay to play the royal family.
Yes, I’ve solved it.
1. Why not acquire a secondhand billionaire's yacht and re-purpose it. 2. Why doesn't Charles pay for it himself if he wants one (I suspect he doesn't). He could afford to.
1. Agree. I don't think it would even have to be a billionaire's one. Any half decent seagoing vessel big enough could be gussied up with some gold leaf and the second best furniture. 2. To do so would lead to too many questions about his real wealth.
I think our trade minister, Badenoch, recently used one of the aircraft carriers to host an event in New York harbour, so we're clearly already using the Royal Navy for trade promotion purposes, whether we have a dedicated ship for the task or not.
Would it be better to have a dedicated ship for the purpose, rather than to use one that cost ten times as much, which perhaps ought to be doing other things?
I suppose not building it at least saves us the embarrassment of having to sell it when we run out of money.
Clearly that’s the answer - repurpose the second aircraft carrier for hosting parties.
Grass over the deck and put in fountains and nicely maintained gravel paths, a giant glass marquee, little tiki bars, put on shows with the performers being raised up from “below stage” on the plane lifts. Big guests can arrive by their helicopters. Get Damian Hirst to do a fancy paint job one year, another British artist the next etc. maybe a grass tennis court where people can pay to play the royal family.
Yes, I’ve solved it.
1. Why not acquire a secondhand billionaire's yacht and re-purpose it. 2. Why doesn't Charles pay for it himself if he wants one (I suspect he doesn't). He could afford to.
1. Agree. I don't think it would even have to be a billionaire's one. Any half decent seagoing vessel big enough could be gussied up with some gold leaf and the second best furniture. 2. To do so would lead to too many questions about his real wealth.
I think our trade minister, Badenoch, recently used one of the aircraft carriers to host an event in New York harbour, so we're clearly already using the Royal Navy for trade promotion purposes, whether we have a dedicated ship for the task or not.
Would it be better to have a dedicated ship for the purpose, rather than to use one that cost ten times as much, which perhaps ought to be doing other things?
I suppose not building it at least saves us the embarrassment of having to sell it when we run out of money.
Clearly that’s the answer - repurpose the second aircraft carrier for hosting parties.
Grass over the deck and put in fountains and nicely maintained gravel paths, a giant glass marquee, little tiki bars, put on shows with the performers being raised up from “below stage” on the plane lifts. Big guests can arrive by their helicopters. Get Damian Hirst to do a fancy paint job one year, another British artist the next etc. maybe a grass tennis court where people can pay to play the royal family.
Yes, I’ve solved it.
1. Why not acquire a secondhand billionaire's yacht and re-purpose it. 2. Why doesn't Charles pay for it himself if he wants one (I suspect he doesn't). He could afford to.
1. Agree. I don't think it would even have to be a billionaire's one. Any half decent seagoing vessel big enough could be gussied up with some gold leaf and the second best furniture. 2. To do so would lead to too many questions about his real wealth.
I imagine his Di honeymoon on Britannia was not an experience he wants to relive.
Extremely typical. There's a shockingly high proportion of police officers who get downright offended if people do not do exactly what they say, even if they have no right to demand it (and even if they do, don't need to do so in imperious or threatening fashion). Sometimes they get pissy if people do do what they say, but not in a way they like.
It's weird, I've met some astoundingly great police officers and we've all seem terrible examples of them, you'd think they couldn't continue to co-exist together.
Elon Musk is postponing his plan to charge Twitter users a $7.99 monthly subscription fee -- just one day after announcing the move ... and it's all because of the midterms. http://www.tmz.me/M81r20j
Elon Musk is postponing his plan to charge Twitter users a $7.99 monthly subscription fee -- just one day after announcing the move ... and it's all because of the midterms. http://www.tmz.me/M81r20j
I hope he has some splendid people taking care of his other businesses right now.
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.
Totally ignorant and false.
China emitted more last year alone than we have emitted cumulatively since the IR began.
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?
Sensible?
Causation doesn't care about per capita. And even per capita, we still emit nothing like the emissions of China.
Racist, is the answer. Even you are not too stupid to see the injustice of considering the figures not per capita merely because China is a bigger country. Why, I ask myself, do you think the Chinese are not entitled to the most basic and obvious justice? Because they are Chinese, obv.
Its got nothing to do with race, if China is a bigger country then it is more responsible just for being bigger. Especially when they're bigger and emit more per capita and not just in aggregate.
The planet doesn't care about capita, just the emissions, and the UK emits considerably less either way however you split it - in aggregate or per capita.
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.
Totally ignorant and false.
China emitted more last year alone than we have emitted cumulatively since the IR began.
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?
Sensible?
Causation doesn't care about per capita. And even per capita, we still emit nothing like the emissions of China.
Racist, is the answer. Even you are not too stupid to see the injustice of considering the figures not per capita merely because China is a bigger country. Why, I ask myself, do you think the Chinese are not entitled to the most basic and obvious justice? Because they are Chinese, obv.
Its got nothing to do with race, if China is a bigger country then it is more responsible just for being bigger. Especially when they're bigger and emit more per capita and not just in aggregate.
The planet doesn't care about capita, just the emissions, and the UK emits considerably less either way however you split it - in aggregate or per capita.
Those white guys in the USA are emitting a shitload more per capita than China.
Elon Musk is postponing his plan to charge Twitter users a $7.99 monthly subscription fee -- just one day after announcing the move ... and it's all because of the midterms. http://www.tmz.me/M81r20j
It’s almost as if he doesn’t think anything through… yet several PBers assured me he is very clever.
I think our trade minister, Badenoch, recently used one of the aircraft carriers to host an event in New York harbour, so we're clearly already using the Royal Navy for trade promotion purposes, whether we have a dedicated ship for the task or not.
Would it be better to have a dedicated ship for the purpose, rather than to use one that cost ten times as much, which perhaps ought to be doing other things?
I suppose not building it at least saves us the embarrassment of having to sell it when we run out of money.
Clearly that’s the answer - repurpose the second aircraft carrier for hosting parties.
Grass over the deck and put in fountains and nicely maintained gravel paths, a giant glass marquee, little tiki bars, put on shows with the performers being raised up from “below stage” on the plane lifts. Big guests can arrive by their helicopters. Get Damian Hirst to do a fancy paint job one year, another British artist the next etc. maybe a grass tennis court where people can pay to play the royal family.
Yes, I’ve solved it.
1. Why not acquire a secondhand billionaire's yacht and re-purpose it. 2. Why doesn't Charles pay for it himself if he wants one (I suspect he doesn't). He could afford to.
In the new series of the Crown Charles makes clear to the Queen he is opposed to a replacement for Britannia if there is any truth in that
Comments
Reparations implies compensation for damage caused willingly / knowingly by an aggressor state in a war. For payments to be climate reparations you’d need to date them back to the moment the harm caused by CO2 emissions became known and understood to a certain set level. Probably less than beyond reasonable doubt but more than just “someone wrote a speculative paper in a
climate journal”. Something like the 1988 congressional testimony by Jim Hanson perhaps.
But a lot politically easier to call it a climate adaptation fund instead of creating some quasi-legal definition of guilt and the mess that would create.
Emotion on this issue (all about class, of course) utterly clouds judgement.
Those who have got rich (in part) by polluting the planet should give substantial financial assistance to those who haven't (done either) and are now suffering the consequences - but this should be badged as climate aid rather than reparations.
In which case, I'm also of that opinion.
The more you and Casino bloviate about foreigners (both as awed suckers for soft powery royals, and as grasping reparation thieves, the more I think: Never left Western Europe.
(I love Leith, but it's not exactly tourist central.)
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2020/aug/30/former-royal-yacht-britannia-voted-top-attraction-for-uk-visitors
I call that "much more significant".
"The British monarchy brings order to the whole world from its pinnacle," they think in Jakarta, Lisbon, Tel Aviv, Tierra del Fuego, Paris, Rome, Moscow, and Beijing.
Everyone in the world who's worthy of true respect thinks this anyway. "What's a pyramid without a capstone?" they ask. "A republic is like a woman without a head, n'est-ce pas?"
Emperor Bokassa, Mohammed bin Salman, emeritus king Juan Carlos - no class!
which makes Britannia's visitor numbers even more impressive.
It also lends weight to those who are inclined to do as little as possible, since its a loaded term that often seems to come with a lot of unrelated ideological baggage and economic systems and social change, which whether you think they are a good idea or not are not necessary for climate adaptation, so makes those pushing the term look like they are interested in something esle entirely.
Some good news tonight
Over 4,000 conservative members have defected to ReformUK and hopefully several thousands more will follow so we can have our one nation party back
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-small-boats-migrant-crisis-macron-cop27-bf6bpn93h
It will be fascinating to see what this is and what's next.
Is it overramped and oversold like a Cameron renegotiation? Or is it substantive?
There's some weird kind of psychosis going on here: like, you're embarrassed at how much of a status British monarchy has.
@bbchealth
Keir Starmer: Too many people from overseas recruited to NHS"
https://twitter.com/bbchealth/status/1589167657022005248
This sort of meme around 2011-2012 led to a mass dissing of the Conservative membership, a near permanent decline, and the rise in UKIP.
I don't want Conservative members to leave. I want them to stay part of our movement and take the fight to the opposition.
Plus, if the argument is we have historically been a much more significant contributor that might be true, but we aren't now, so we've already done the hard yards if we want to judge based on that. Which might even make the case of people wanting to do less now.
Furthermore I expect he will do a deal with UVDL over the NI protocol
All of this is going to upset ERG but they need sidelining as Rishi moves to the centre
"Why I’m voting Republican
Biden has left this Democratic voter with no alternative
BY ANDREW SULLIVAN"
https://unherd.com/2022/11/why-im-voting-republican/
They tuk r jobs!
Would it be better to have a dedicated ship for the purpose, rather than to use one that cost ten times as much, which perhaps ought to be doing other things?
I suppose not building it at least saves us the embarrassment of having to sell it when we run out of money.
Ukraine has started construction of the second An-225 Mriya model aircraft. It will replace the legendary board, which was destroyed by the Russian invaders in Gostomel at the beginning of the invasion. According to the newspaper Bild, the new "Mriya" is already 30% ready.
"The work is being done in a secret place. The second An-225 will be supplied with both new parts and parts of the damaged aircraft," said Yevhen Gavrilov, General Director of Antonov State Enterprise.
The estimated cost of construction of the second "Mria" is 500 million euros.
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1589699184734900224
Billions at a time where we are facing major spending cuts and tax rises may raise some eyebrows.
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1589696141431656448?s=61&t=sOYFocgJ1TceAWDTXMnArA
Not exclusively, and not without some good work being done, and importantly in conjunction with local governments rather than at the point of a gun.
The only person he is sending a message to this week is Trump: "I am winning over Democrats, so I must run again to complete the job of making America great".
Pillock.
What an amazing, arresting pic from @StefanRousseau
https://twitter.com/RuthDavidsonPC/status/1589702334120341506
I’m putting 2 and two together and placing you at the game! You didn’t just fly and fly out then, you done sight seeing?
Incidentally, my brother was once involved with hiring one of its smaller brothers, an AN-124. It was for something needed in the East Midlands, but it had to fly into Prestwick for some reason rather than East Midlands Airport. Even the smaller brothers are very large planes. The thing they were transporting was not particularly heavy in terms of overall weight, but was a very heavy spot load - meaning it was very compact.
Edit:
"By 2000, the need for additional An-225 capacity had become apparent, so the decision was made in September 2006 to complete the second An-225. That second airframe was scheduled for completion around 2008 but was subject to delays.[11] By August 2009, the aircraft had not been completed and work had been abandoned. In May 2011, the Antonov CEO reportedly said that the completion of a second An-225 Mriya transport aircraft with a carrying capacity of 250 tons requires at least $300 million, but if the financing is provided, its completion could be achieved in three years.[14] According to different sources, the second aircraft is 60–70% complete."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225_Mriya
Reminded me of this.
On one hand, we've exported a lot of our current emissions to China.
On the other hand, everyone has to pay part of our reparations if they own Sheffield Steel cutlery.
Have you read the Dutch report yet?
Grass over the deck and put in fountains and nicely maintained gravel paths, a giant glass marquee, little tiki bars, put on shows with the performers being raised up from “below stage” on the plane lifts. Big guests can arrive by their helicopters. Get Damian Hirst to do a fancy paint job one year, another British artist the next etc. maybe a grass tennis court where people can pay to play the royal family.
Yes, I’ve solved it.
China emitted more last year alone than we have emitted cumulatively since the IR began. Sensible?
Causation doesn't care about per capita. And even per capita, we still emit nothing like the emissions of China.
https://twitter.com/DonutOperator/status/1589379726787112961
"Bring me sunshine..."
http://www.oldnorthstatepolitics.com/2022/10/early-voting-in-nc-update-6-now-with-in.html
2. Why doesn't Charles pay for it himself if he wants one (I suspect he doesn't). He could afford to.
2. To do so would lead to too many questions about his real wealth.
Rereading my earlier post, I can see that it could be interpreted as claiming that our cumulative emissions are higher than those of China. This is not what I was saying and clearly is not the case.
Soz for the ambiguity.
Fighting Climate Change solidarity fund - not for individual nations to rush in and admit liability.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/11/07/us/election-midterm-news/365a8a1c-aae4-5657-ae33-7016172206cb?smid=url-share
It's weird, I've met some astoundingly great police officers and we've all seem terrible examples of them, you'd think they couldn't continue to co-exist together.
Ideal candidates to provide a Royal Yacht.
The planet doesn't care about capita, just the emissions, and the UK emits considerably less either way however you split it - in aggregate or per capita.
White guys.