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.
There seems to be a strong PB consensus here for bunging out the rapperations lolly provided it’s not called that. I get this same understanding from todays COP reporting, there’s no argument anymore that UK, and other developed nations will pay it, it’s just a question of the “solidarity” nature of the payment mechanism and the wording being worked on behind the scenes, Sunak remains silent on this until that’s agreed.
The Tory Right won’t make paying this this hard work for Sunak will they?
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 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
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 think Rishi understands that this is make or break for 2024.
It would, of course, be great to have some agreement in place to address immigrant boats but it's not 'make or break for 2024' - given the CoL crisis and recession it's probably more 'break or wake' for the Tories.
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
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.
There seems to be a strong PB consensus here for bunging out the rapperations lolly provided it’s not called that. I get this same understanding from todays COP reporting, there’s no argument anymore that UK, and other developed nations will pay it, it’s just a question of the “solidarity” nature of the payment mechanism and the wording being worked on behind the scenes, Sunak remains silent on this until that’s agreed.
The Tory Right won’t make paying this this hard work for Sunak will they?
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.
It is at my expense, as it creates moneyt for shareholders often in foreign lands. UK plc has been sold off long ago.
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
Sounds definitive.
It’s double sourced, in Game of Thrones, the then Prince Charles, tells his pet dwarf he doesn’t want a replacement for Brittania because he’s got his eye on a very flashy Royal Dragon instead.
I trust this more than all that “fake news” stuff.
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.
Don't engage.
He feeds on it.
A little Englander takes his place in the defensive wall against the Yellow Peril.
Mastered the protocol for flying the Royal Standard yet?
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 think Rishi understands that this is make or break for 2024.
It would, of course, be great to have some agreement in place to address immigrant boats but it's not 'make or break for 2024' - given the CoL crisis and recession it's probably more 'break or wake' for the Tories.
Not really, both parties have the same answer on the cost of living crisis. If the Tories fix the boats situation they will get credit for it.
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 think Rishi understands that this is make or break for 2024.
It would, of course, be great to have some agreement in place to address immigrant boats but it's not 'make or break for 2024' - given the CoL crisis and recession it's probably more 'break or wake' for the Tories.
Not really, both parties have the same answer on the cost of living crisis. If the Tories fix the boats situation they will get credit for it.
If you knock over a bowl of soup and then clear it up, I’m not giving you much credit for cleaning up a mess of your own making.
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
The Crown has become the truth.
I think there is some truth though in the fact that Charles wants to shift the monarchy from the Imperial monarchy his mother inherited, when we still had much of the Empire in Africa, the Caribbean, the Middle East and the Far East, to a more European, Nordic or Spanish style constitutional monarchy
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 think Rishi understands that this is make or break for 2024.
It would, of course, be great to have some agreement in place to address immigrant boats but it's not 'make or break for 2024' - given the CoL crisis and recession it's probably more 'break or wake' for the Tories.
Not really, both parties have the same answer on the cost of living crisis. If the Tories fix the boats situation they will get credit for it.
I agree, they would. But my point is, no amount of credit on that will offset the blame they are going to get for the next 2 - 3 years of economic pain.
In some ways it might play better for the Tories to keep the boat migrants as an issue for the next two years.
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.
It is at my expense, as it creates moneyt for shareholders often in foreign lands. UK plc has been sold off long ago.
We're not in the 1960s any more.
Are businesses really convinced to sign on the dotted line by a glass of English Fizz on the quarter deck? Or by the cold facts of the bottom line? A bit more attention to the latter is what is needed.
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 think Rishi understands that this is make or break for 2024.
It would, of course, be great to have some agreement in place to address immigrant boats but it's not 'make or break for 2024' - given the CoL crisis and recession it's probably more 'break or wake' for the Tories.
Not really, both parties have the same answer on the cost of living crisis. If the Tories fix the boats situation they will get credit for it.
If you knock over a bowl of soup and then clear it up, I’m not giving you much credit for cleaning up a mess of your own making.
The boats crisis is of everyone's making and is happening all across Europe. Italy just made a big move on this front too. Illegal work and workers have been a problem issue for 20 years or longer.
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.
Don't engage.
He feeds on it.
A little Englander takes his place in the defensive wall against the Yellow Peril.
Mastered the protocol for flying the Royal Standard yet?
@TheO2 tonight. Ricky Wilson was absolutely wasted. Slurring, forgetting lyrics, stumbling all over the place, repeatedly telling the crowd that he didn’t want to be there. Never seen an arena empty out early, so quickly!
Going to see them next week. Actually just going to see the support act, so Ricky pissed will be a pure bonus.
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 think Rishi understands that this is make or break for 2024.
It would, of course, be great to have some agreement in place to address immigrant boats but it's not 'make or break for 2024' - given the CoL crisis and recession it's probably more 'break or wake' for the Tories.
Not really, both parties have the same answer on the cost of living crisis. If the Tories fix the boats situation they will get credit for it.
If you knock over a bowl of soup and then clear it up, I’m not giving you much credit for cleaning up a mess of your own making.
The boats crisis is of everyone's making and is happening all across Europe. Italy just made a big move on this front too. Illegal work and workers have been a problem issue for 20 years or longer.
We get way fewer boat people than Italy. There are global issues, but the current challenges in the UK have more to do with the catastrophic decline in the speed of processing claims and of deportations, both of which appear to be due to the Conservatives’ poor running of the Home Office.
They campaigned on taking back control of our borders. They own the problem.
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
The Crown has become the truth.
I’ve got a theory about this “Crown started factual but just making it up now” criticism. Maybe it’s harder to spot and correct wonky history the longer ago it was?
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 was abroad during the whole funeral thing, other than some sadness over the weekend's football being cancelled, nobody gave a shit.
A twenty something friend of Fox Jr, a talented designer in a thriving industry, has just given notice and taken a job in Vancouver. Canada takes a different attitude to immigration. See here:
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 was abroad during the whole funeral thing, other than some sadness over the weekend's football being cancelled, nobody gave a shit.
Clever of you to gage everyone 'abroad's opinion like that.
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
The Crown has become the truth.
I’ve got a theory about this “Crown started factual but just making it up now” criticism. Maybe it’s harder to spot and correct wonky history the longer ago it was?
I watched the first series and thought ut quite good. But the last few have been increasingly obviously made up. Which has made me assume the first one was largely made up too. Pity.
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 was abroad during the whole funeral thing, other than some sadness over the weekend's football being cancelled, nobody gave a shit.
Clever of you to gage everyone 'abroad's opinion like that.
just enough of a sample to know casino's being his usual nationalistic self.
A twenty something friend of Fox Jr, a talented designer in a thriving industry, has just given notice and taken a job in Vancouver. Canada takes a different attitude to immigration. See here:
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.
It is at my expense, as it creates moneyt for shareholders often in foreign lands. UK plc has been sold off long ago.
We're not in the 1960s any more.
Are businesses really convinced to sign on the dotted line by a glass of English Fizz on the quarter deck? Or by the cold facts of the bottom line? A bit more attention to the latter is what is needed.
If English fizz doesn't swing the deal there's always rum, sodomy or the lash, according to taste.
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.
It is at my expense, as it creates moneyt for shareholders often in foreign lands. UK plc has been sold off long ago.
We're not in the 1960s any more.
Are businesses really convinced to sign on the dotted line by a glass of English Fizz on the quarter deck? Or by the cold facts of the bottom line? A bit more attention to the latter is what is needed.
If English fizz doesn't swing the deal there's always rum, sodomy or the lash, according to taste.
Surely hold out for all three, for the full experience? Throw in worms in the ships biscuit for extras.
I've just seen Herschel Walker on Ch4 standing for election in Georgia. I did some fashion shots with him in New Orleans when he was acting as a prop with a couple of fashion models. He played for a team nicknamed the Dogs I think and there was an even more famous quarter back whose name escapes me. The funny and disappointing thing is that they're now describing him as a right wing anti abortionist God fearing zealot.
Queue up here Geogians for some Herschel Walker stories!
According to Wikipedia Sunak is 5'7" and Macron is 5'9". Not quite sure how that works from the picture.
Macron is further away.
I went to the optical illusion museum in Edinburgh the week before last. Genuinely brilliant. There was a room you could place your daughters in which made the smallest one look bigger than the biggest. Not just a clever photo, it was impressive in real life too.
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 think Rishi understands that this is make or break for 2024.
It would, of course, be great to have some agreement in place to address immigrant boats but it's not 'make or break for 2024' - given the CoL crisis and recession it's probably more 'break or wake' for the Tories.
Not really, both parties have the same answer on the cost of living crisis. If the Tories fix the boats situation they will get credit for it.
If you knock over a bowl of soup and then clear it up, I’m not giving you much credit for cleaning up a mess of your own making.
When Gordon Brown was claiming that he had saved the world economy, my response to people who praised him for it was invariably, 'if an arsonist sets fire to my house I don't then thank him for calling the Fire Brigade.'
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
The Crown has become the truth.
I’ve got a theory about this “Crown started factual but just making it up now” criticism. Maybe it’s harder to spot and correct wonky history the longer ago it was?
Undoubtedly true.
I believe there is also a very real problem with the nature of human memory.
Much of what is contentious in The Crown is not evidence-supported truths or falsehoods but individuals' recollection of events. I think it is the case that we each 'bookmark' events and experiences in our memory with markers that allow us to recall the event. When recalling the event we we retrieve the marker and flesh it out to make it feel like we are recalling the actual event. Often the fleshing out will be influenced by experiences unrelated to the event in question.
That is why several people at the same event will often have markedly different views of that event, each genuinely believing that theirs is a true representation of what happened.
A twenty something friend of Fox Jr, a talented designer in a thriving industry, has just given notice and taken a job in Vancouver. Canada takes a different attitude to immigration. See here:
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
The Crown has become the truth.
I’ve got a theory about this “Crown started factual but just making it up now” criticism. Maybe it’s harder to spot and correct wonky history the longer ago it was?
According to Wikipedia Sunak is 5'7" and Macron is 5'9". Not quite sure how that works from the picture.
Macron is further away.
I went to the optical illusion museum in Edinburgh the week before last. Genuinely brilliant. There was a room you could place your daughters in which made the smallest one look bigger than the biggest. Not just a clever photo, it was impressive in real life too.
I was sceptical at first but you are right. Here's video of their meeting:
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
The Crown has become the truth.
I’ve got a theory about this “Crown started factual but just making it up now” criticism. Maybe it’s harder to spot and correct wonky history the longer ago it was?
Undoubtedly true.
I believe there is also a very real problem with the nature of human memory.
Much of what is contentious in The Crown is not evidence-supported truths or falsehoods but individuals' recollection of events. I think it is the case that we each 'bookmark' events and experiences in our memory with markers that allow us to recall the event. When recalling the event we we retrieve the marker and flesh it out to make it feel like we are recalling the actual event. Often the fleshing out will be influenced by experiences unrelated to the event in question.
That is why several people at the same event will often have markedly different views of that event, each genuinely believing that theirs is a true representation of what happened.
If you have ever read Hugh Trevor-Roper's the last days of Hitler there is a very good discussion of how people can have very accurate recollections of events that can still appear to be wildly different.
Whilst you are here BJO, where do you stand on Ed Miliband committing UK to climate reparations?
I wouldnt call it that but as we chopped all our forests down to drive economic growth it seems reasonahle to compensate others so they dont chop all theirs down for the same reason.
SKS wont unleash Eds plan too unpopular with the right wing voters he wants to attract
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 think Rishi understands that this is make or break for 2024.
It would, of course, be great to have some agreement in place to address immigrant boats but it's not 'make or break for 2024' - given the CoL crisis and recession it's probably more 'break or wake' for the Tories.
Not really, both parties have the same answer on the cost of living crisis. If the Tories fix the boats situation they will get credit for it.
If you knock over a bowl of soup and then clear it up, I’m not giving you much credit for cleaning up a mess of your own making.
When Gordon Brown was claiming that he had saved the world economy, my response to people who praised them for it was invariably, 'if an arsonist sets fire to my house I don't then thank him for calling the Fire Brigade.'
This is different less clear cut than soup and fire, though. I agree with Max - if Sunak government concentrates on improving each problem area, crossings, slow processing, teacher doctor and nurse shortages, getting to see doctors, waiting less on appointments and treatments, improvement in ambulance service, etc etc they may not get response they need from voters, but it’s still the best way of earning it and improving the polls.
Whilst you are here BJO, where do you stand on Ed Miliband committing UK to climate reparations?
I wouldnt call it that but as we chopped all our forests down to drive economic growth it seems reasonahle to compensate others so they dont chop all theirs down for the same reason.
SKS wont unleash Eds plan too unpopular with the right wing voters he wants to attract
It’s already unleashed is it not! Roaring at us from the front of Todays Daily Mail.
Whilst you are here BJO, where do you stand on Ed Miliband committing UK to climate reparations?
I wouldnt call it that but as we chopped all our forests down to drive economic growth it seems reasonahle to compensate others so they dont chop all theirs down for the same reason.
SKS wont unleash Eds plan too unpopular with the right wing voters he wants to attract
Ref UK GAIN Doncaster North, we speak to defeated Labour former leader and MP Ed Miliband.... 'Bugger'
A twenty something friend of Fox Jr, a talented designer in a thriving industry, has just given notice and taken a job in Vancouver. Canada takes a different attitude to immigration. See here:
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
The Crown has become the truth.
I’ve got a theory about this “Crown started factual but just making it up now” criticism. Maybe it’s harder to spot and correct wonky history the longer ago it was?
Undoubtedly true.
I believe there is also a very real problem with the nature of human memory.
Much of what is contentious in The Crown is not evidence-supported truths or falsehoods but individuals' recollection of events. I think it is the case that we each 'bookmark' events and experiences in our memory with markers that allow us to recall the event. When recalling the event we we retrieve the marker and flesh it out to make it feel like we are recalling the actual event. Often the fleshing out will be influenced by experiences unrelated to the event in question.
That is why several people at the same event will often have markedly different views of that event, each genuinely believing that theirs is a true representation of what happened.
If you have ever read Hugh Trevor-Roper's the last days of Hitler there is a very good discussion of how people can have very accurate recollections of events that can still appear to be wildly different.
You don’t like the book? But it’s often held up as example of a great history book. Written by the intelligence service to get to the truth of what actually happened? I have read it, and also one of the history books film Downfall was based on
I think I learnt new things from JoJo Rabbit, from point of view inside Germany provincial town as war in Europe comes to it
Whilst you are here BJO, where do you stand on Ed Miliband committing UK to climate reparations?
I wouldnt call it that but as we chopped all our forests down to drive economic growth it seems reasonahle to compensate others so they dont chop all theirs down for the same reason.
SKS wont unleash Eds plan too unpopular with the right wing voters he wants to attract
Ref UK GAIN Doncaster North, we speak to defeated Labour former leader and MP Ed Miliband.... 'Bugger'
Shared power curbs the worst excesses of both parties, therefore I recommend voting for a Republican Congress, given that the Presidency is Democratic.
Whilst you are here BJO, where do you stand on Ed Miliband committing UK to climate reparations?
I wouldnt call it that but as we chopped all our forests down to drive economic growth it seems reasonahle to compensate others so they dont chop all theirs down for the same reason.
SKS wont unleash Eds plan too unpopular with the right wing voters he wants to attract
Ref UK GAIN Doncaster North, we speak to defeated Labour former leader and MP Ed Miliband.... 'Bugger'
The record set earlier this year was 19.9 GW, but someone said a free days ago the data on gridwatch (which is getting the official source at BM Reports) isn't accurate. Would be interesting to know more about that if they want to share.
A twenty something friend of Fox Jr, a talented designer in a thriving industry, has just given notice and taken a job in Vancouver. Canada takes a different attitude to immigration. See here:
Canada is a fascinating place. A much closer UK/Canada alliance would be quite an interesting economic and military actor.
Our family has done its bit - our eldest son married a Canadian in 2015 and they live in Vancouver
A great city.
(Not completely unlike my hometown, Auckland).
I am serious about UK / Canada collaboration.
Imagine the worst happens: Trump wins again in 2024 and pulls support from Ukraine. He disengages from Europe. Democracy corrodes and the US sinks into a soft authoritarianism not unlike Orban’s Hungary.
Both the UK and Canada would face quite profound geopolitical questions over their relationship to the U.S. and their commitment to democracy.
A twenty something friend of Fox Jr, a talented designer in a thriving industry, has just given notice and taken a job in Vancouver. Canada takes a different attitude to immigration. See here:
Whilst you are here BJO, where do you stand on Ed Miliband committing UK to climate reparations?
I wouldnt call it that but as we chopped all our forests down to drive economic growth it seems reasonahle to compensate others so they dont chop all theirs down for the same reason.
SKS wont unleash Eds plan too unpopular with the right wing voters he wants to attract
Ref UK GAIN Doncaster North, we speak to defeated Labour former leader and MP Ed Miliband.... 'Bugger'
Whilst you are here BJO, where do you stand on Ed Miliband committing UK to climate reparations?
I wouldnt call it that but as we chopped all our forests down to drive economic growth it seems reasonahle to compensate others so they dont chop all theirs down for the same reason.
SKS wont unleash Eds plan too unpopular with the right wing voters he wants to attract
Ref UK GAIN Doncaster North, we speak to defeated Labour former leader and MP Ed Miliband.... 'Bugger'
The result has leaked very early . I call foul! Joking aside. Sixth best vote share (20.4%) in 2019 behind 2 Barnsley seats, Hartlepool, the Speakers seat and Blaenau Gwent so certainly a target for them if any sort of Faragist momentum gathers
I've just seen Herschel Walker on Ch4 standing for election in Georgia. I did some fashion shots with him in New Orleans when he was acting as a prop with a couple of fashion models. He played for a team nicknamed the Dogs I think and there was an even more famous quarter back whose name escapes me. The funny and disappointing thing is that they're now describing him as a right wing anti abortionist God fearing zealot.
Queue up here Geogians for some Herschel Walker stories!
Did this anti abortionist ever pay for an abortion to get himself off the hook, do you know?
A twenty something friend of Fox Jr, a talented designer in a thriving industry, has just given notice and taken a job in Vancouver. Canada takes a different attitude to immigration. See here:
Canada is a fascinating place. A much closer UK/Canada alliance would be quite an interesting economic and military actor.
Our family has done its bit - our eldest son married a Canadian in 2015 and they live in Vancouver
A great city.
(Not completely unlike my hometown, Auckland).
I am serious about UK / Canada collaboration.
Imagine the worst happens: Trump wins again in 2024 and pulls support from Ukraine. He disengages from Europe. Democracy corrodes and the US sinks into a soft authoritarianism not unlike Orban’s Hungary.
Both the UK and Canada would face quite profound geopolitical questions over their relationship to the U.S. and their commitment to democracy.
Preparation should start now.
I agree with this. The issue however is whether the remainder of NATO have the military and economic power to maintain the defence of Ukraine and ultimately the defence of Europe without the US. We do of course if we are willing to commit the necessary funding both to Ukraine's and our own defensive needs. I am just not sure there are enough people like you and I even in Canada and the UK, let alone the rest of Western Europe.
Whilst you are here BJO, where do you stand on Ed Miliband committing UK to climate reparations?
I wouldnt call it that but as we chopped all our forests down to drive economic growth it seems reasonahle to compensate others so they dont chop all theirs down for the same reason.
SKS wont unleash Eds plan too unpopular with the right wing voters he wants to attract
Ref UK GAIN Doncaster North, we speak to defeated Labour former leader and MP Ed Miliband.... 'Bugger'
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
The Crown has become the truth.
I’ve got a theory about this “Crown started factual but just making it up now” criticism. Maybe it’s harder to spot and correct wonky history the longer ago it was?
It isn't the function of mass media to tell the truth. Think about any sort of coverage of anything you really know about, apply this to everything, add the fact that it has to make money, good stories make money, all mass media is formulaic, real history does not happen in mass media suitable story chunks.
I've just seen Herschel Walker on Ch4 standing for election in Georgia. I did some fashion shots with him in New Orleans when he was acting as a prop with a couple of fashion models. He played for a team nicknamed the Dogs I think and there was an even more famous quarter back whose name escapes me. The funny and disappointing thing is that they're now describing him as a right wing anti abortionist God fearing zealot.
Queue up here Geogians for some Herschel Walker stories!
Did this anti abortionist ever pay for an abortion to get himself off the hook, do you know?
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
The Crown has become the truth.
I’ve got a theory about this “Crown started factual but just making it up now” criticism. Maybe it’s harder to spot and correct wonky history the longer ago it was?
Undoubtedly true.
I believe there is also a very real problem with the nature of human memory.
Much of what is contentious in The Crown is not evidence-supported truths or falsehoods but individuals' recollection of events. I think it is the case that we each 'bookmark' events and experiences in our memory with markers that allow us to recall the event. When recalling the event we we retrieve the marker and flesh it out to make it feel like we are recalling the actual event. Often the fleshing out will be influenced by experiences unrelated to the event in question.
That is why several people at the same event will often have markedly different views of that event, each genuinely believing that theirs is a true representation of what happened.
If you have ever read Hugh Trevor-Roper's the last days of Hitler there is a very good discussion of how people can have very accurate recollections of events that can still appear to be wildly different.
You don’t like the book? But it’s often held up as example of a great history book. Written by the intelligence service to get to the truth of what actually happened? I have read it, and also one of the history books film Downfall was based on
Why would you think that based on what I said, given I described it as 'very good?'
I've just seen Herschel Walker on Ch4 standing for election in Georgia. I did some fashion shots with him in New Orleans when he was acting as a prop with a couple of fashion models. He played for a team nicknamed the Dogs I think and there was an even more famous quarter back whose name escapes me. The funny and disappointing thing is that they're now describing him as a right wing anti abortionist God fearing zealot.
Queue up here Geogians for some Herschel Walker stories!
Did this anti abortionist ever pay for an abortion to get himself off the hook, do you know?
That would be awkward.
Even more so if he did it not once but twice.
Once could be regarded a misfortune, twice is carelessness
Whilst you are here BJO, where do you stand on Ed Miliband committing UK to climate reparations?
I wouldnt call it that but as we chopped all our forests down to drive economic growth it seems reasonahle to compensate others so they dont chop all theirs down for the same reason.
SKS wont unleash Eds plan too unpopular with the right wing voters he wants to attract
Ref UK GAIN Doncaster North, we speak to defeated Labour former leader and MP Ed Miliband.... 'Bugger'
Whilst you are here BJO, where do you stand on Ed Miliband committing UK to climate reparations?
I wouldnt call it that but as we chopped all our forests down to drive economic growth it seems reasonahle to compensate others so they dont chop all theirs down for the same reason.
SKS wont unleash Eds plan too unpopular with the right wing voters he wants to attract
I thought we chopped down all our forests to kill Frenchmen? Surely a far more worthy cause.
A twenty something friend of Fox Jr, a talented designer in a thriving industry, has just given notice and taken a job in Vancouver. Canada takes a different attitude to immigration. See here:
Canada is a fascinating place. A much closer UK/Canada alliance would be quite an interesting economic and military actor.
Our family has done its bit - our eldest son married a Canadian in 2015 and they live in Vancouver
A great city.
(Not completely unlike my hometown, Auckland).
I am serious about UK / Canada collaboration.
Imagine the worst happens: Trump wins again in 2024 and pulls support from Ukraine. He disengages from Europe. Democracy corrodes and the US sinks into a soft authoritarianism not unlike Orban’s Hungary.
Both the UK and Canada would face quite profound geopolitical questions over their relationship to the U.S. and their commitment to democracy.
Preparation should start now.
Though Alberta and the prairie states of Canada are not too far from Trumpland USA in view, while the US coasts are far closer to the rest of Canada and most of the UK than the Trump voting flyover land
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.
Agreed. National vanity project rightly cancelled.
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.
White guys.
And if you want to be stupid like that about it then the most polluting per capita nation in the world is the Micronesian nation of Palau, whose nationals emit 4x per capita what the Americans do.
So is Palau the nation that is predominantly the cause of climate change, more than any other nation? Or does the fact the nation has a population comparable to Bangor or Nantwich count against that?
Whilst you are here BJO, where do you stand on Ed Miliband committing UK to climate reparations?
I wouldnt call it that but as we chopped all our forests down to drive economic growth it seems reasonahle to compensate others so they dont chop all theirs down for the same reason.
SKS wont unleash Eds plan too unpopular with the right wing voters he wants to attract
Ref UK GAIN Doncaster North, we speak to defeated Labour former leader and MP Ed Miliband.... 'Bugger'
You sure that poll isn’t merely correction of previous outlier?
Given Deltapoll has gone the other way it suggests things are bouncing around still looking for a new equilibrium
The 3 up to 29 from Delta a great poll for the Tories, not least because it’s most recent field work. We await a Techne and haven’t had a Kantor since September. Tories could be averaging thirty something in a matter of days.
A twenty something friend of Fox Jr, a talented designer in a thriving industry, has just given notice and taken a job in Vancouver. Canada takes a different attitude to immigration. See here:
A twenty something friend of Fox Jr, a talented designer in a thriving industry, has just given notice and taken a job in Vancouver. Canada takes a different attitude to immigration. See here:
Canada is a fascinating place. A much closer UK/Canada alliance would be quite an interesting economic and military actor.
Our family has done its bit - our eldest son married a Canadian in 2015 and they live in Vancouver
A great city.
(Not completely unlike my hometown, Auckland).
I am serious about UK / Canada collaboration.
Imagine the worst happens: Trump wins again in 2024 and pulls support from Ukraine. He disengages from Europe. Democracy corrodes and the US sinks into a soft authoritarianism not unlike Orban’s Hungary.
Both the UK and Canada would face quite profound geopolitical questions over their relationship to the U.S. and their commitment to democracy.
Preparation should start now.
I agree with this. The issue however is whether the remainder of NATO have the military and economic power to maintain the defence of Ukraine and ultimately the defence of Europe without the US. We do of course if we are willing to commit the necessary funding both to Ukraine's and our own defensive needs. I am just not sure there are enough people like you and I even in Canada and the UK, let alone the rest of Western Europe.
I think the aim would be to create strong alignment around democratic practice and a geopolitical position vis a vis the U.S. and Russia which in turn could both influence other NATO allies and mitigate against possible and real harms emanating from a non- or less-democratic USA.
See Twitter for example. A US/Musk/Saudi funded and led vehicle of significant political reach. What do we do if it mutates into something actively sinister?
A twenty something friend of Fox Jr, a talented designer in a thriving industry, has just given notice and taken a job in Vancouver. Canada takes a different attitude to immigration. See here:
Whilst you are here BJO, where do you stand on Ed Miliband committing UK to climate reparations?
I wouldnt call it that but as we chopped all our forests down to drive economic growth it seems reasonahle to compensate others so they dont chop all theirs down for the same reason.
SKS wont unleash Eds plan too unpopular with the right wing voters he wants to attract
Er, we chopped ours down well over 1,000 years ago before fossil fuels were even on the scene.
Whilst you are here BJO, where do you stand on Ed Miliband committing UK to climate reparations?
I wouldnt call it that but as we chopped all our forests down to drive economic growth it seems reasonahle to compensate others so they dont chop all theirs down for the same reason.
SKS wont unleash Eds plan too unpopular with the right wing voters he wants to attract
Ref UK GAIN Doncaster North, we speak to defeated Labour former leader and MP Ed Miliband.... 'Bugger'
A twenty something friend of Fox Jr, a talented designer in a thriving industry, has just given notice and taken a job in Vancouver. Canada takes a different attitude to immigration. See here:
Canada is a fascinating place. A much closer UK/Canada alliance would be quite an interesting economic and military actor.
Our family has done its bit - our eldest son married a Canadian in 2015 and they live in Vancouver
A great city.
(Not completely unlike my hometown, Auckland).
I am serious about UK / Canada collaboration.
Imagine the worst happens: Trump wins again in 2024 and pulls support from Ukraine. He disengages from Europe. Democracy corrodes and the US sinks into a soft authoritarianism not unlike Orban’s Hungary.
Both the UK and Canada would face quite profound geopolitical questions over their relationship to the U.S. and their commitment to democracy.
Preparation should start now.
Though Alberta and the prairie states of Canada are not too far from Trumpland USA in view, while the US coasts are far closer to the rest of Canada and most of the UK than the Trump voting flyover land
Our Alberta and Saskatchewan based relations aren’t in any way Trumpish.
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.
Agreed. National vanity project rightly cancelled.
Would be a terrible look at the same time as spending cuts and tax rises.
Whilst you are here BJO, where do you stand on Ed Miliband committing UK to climate reparations?
I wouldnt call it that but as we chopped all our forests down to drive economic growth it seems reasonahle to compensate others so they dont chop all theirs down for the same reason.
SKS wont unleash Eds plan too unpopular with the right wing voters he wants to attract
Ref UK GAIN Doncaster North, we speak to defeated Labour former leader and MP Ed Miliband.... 'Bugger'
You sure that poll isn’t merely correction of previous outlier?
Given Deltapoll has gone the other way it suggests things are bouncing around still looking for a new equilibrium
The 3 up to 29 from Delta a great poll for the Tories, not least because it’s most recent field work. We await a Techne and haven’t had a Kantor since September. Tories could be averaging thirty something in a matter of days.
Techne will be Friday. Labour are off their highs and Tories off their lows, but its still a huge gap. Any agreement with France on boats might provide a temporary boost given the issue profile, but really i still think its a long haul strategy to limit blood loss, and of course the budget will set the tone for the next few months
Whilst you are here BJO, where do you stand on Ed Miliband committing UK to climate reparations?
I wouldnt call it that but as we chopped all our forests down to drive economic growth it seems reasonahle to compensate others so they dont chop all theirs down for the same reason.
SKS wont unleash Eds plan too unpopular with the right wing voters he wants to attract
Ref UK GAIN Doncaster North, we speak to defeated Labour former leader and MP Ed Miliband.... 'Bugger'
Whilst you are here BJO, where do you stand on Ed Miliband committing UK to climate reparations?
I wouldnt call it that but as we chopped all our forests down to drive economic growth it seems reasonahle to compensate others so they dont chop all theirs down for the same reason.
SKS wont unleash Eds plan too unpopular with the right wing voters he wants to attract
Er, we chopped ours down well over 1,000 years ago before fossil fuels were even on the scene.
Indeed the UK has been growing its forests, not shrinking them, for a long time.
There's more than twice as much forestry in the UK today than there was a century ago and its nearly back to the levels surveyed by William the Conquerer.
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.
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.
White guys.
And if you want to be stupid like that about it then the most polluting per capita nation in the world is the Micronesian nation of Palau, whose nationals emit 4x per capita what the Americans do.
So is Palau the nation that is predominantly the cause of climate change, more than any other nation? Or does the fact the nation has a population comparable to Bangor or Nantwich count against that?
He's protecting what he secretly is himself.
It's like those evangelical politicians who like to fingerpoint about the evils of homosexuality in the USA before going on to sink a bottle of bourbon and covertly sodomising a young boy.
Whilst you are here BJO, where do you stand on Ed Miliband committing UK to climate reparations?
I wouldnt call it that but as we chopped all our forests down to drive economic growth it seems reasonahle to compensate others so they dont chop all theirs down for the same reason.
SKS wont unleash Eds plan too unpopular with the right wing voters he wants to attract
Ref UK GAIN Doncaster North, we speak to defeated Labour former leader and MP Ed Miliband.... 'Bugger'
You sure that poll isn’t merely correction of previous outlier?
Given Deltapoll has gone the other way it suggests things are bouncing around still looking for a new equilibrium
The 2 polls have the Tories on 27 & 29 and Labour on 47 & 48. Sunak is in deep trouble if the polls start settling around those sort of figures.
On the subject of polling, this is an interesting one:
Poll: Nearly 90% of citizens believe Ukraine will be ‘prosperous EU country’ in 10 years.
A poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) suggested that 88% of Ukrainians “believe that in 10 years Ukraine will be a prosperous country within the EU.”
The poll noted that 96% of those in favor are “ready to endure financial difficulties” for three to five years should it result in Ukraine becoming a member of the EU.
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
The Crown has become the truth.
I’ve got a theory about this “Crown started factual but just making it up now” criticism. Maybe it’s harder to spot and correct wonky history the longer ago it was?
Undoubtedly true.
I believe there is also a very real problem with the nature of human memory.
Much of what is contentious in The Crown is not evidence-supported truths or falsehoods but individuals' recollection of events. I think it is the case that we each 'bookmark' events and experiences in our memory with markers that allow us to recall the event. When recalling the event we we retrieve the marker and flesh it out to make it feel like we are recalling the actual event. Often the fleshing out will be influenced by experiences unrelated to the event in question.
That is why several people at the same event will often have markedly different views of that event, each genuinely believing that theirs is a true representation of what happened.
If you have ever read Hugh Trevor-Roper's the last days of Hitler there is a very good discussion of how people can have very accurate recollections of events that can still appear to be wildly different.
You don’t like the book? But it’s often held up as example of a great history book. Written by the intelligence service to get to the truth of what actually happened? I have read it, and also one of the history books film Downfall was based on
Why would you think that based on what I said, given I described it as 'very good?'
Apologies, I read it you described the discussion as very good, not the book. “there is a very good discussion of how people can have very accurate recollections of events that can still appear to be wildly different.”
So a good history book interviews more than one person, and reports all the findings?
Or the very good discussion realises recollections only appear to be very different, in the telling, so the good historian treads a path where recollections do actually build a picture. Like an episode of The Avengers I watched recently where they didn’t know what the monster was as some witnesses thought it was spider, others a snake, or a shark, and worked out from that what it was.
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.
Whilst you are here BJO, where do you stand on Ed Miliband committing UK to climate reparations?
I wouldnt call it that but as we chopped all our forests down to drive economic growth it seems reasonahle to compensate others so they dont chop all theirs down for the same reason.
SKS wont unleash Eds plan too unpopular with the right wing voters he wants to attract
Er, we chopped ours down well over 1,000 years ago before fossil fuels were even on the scene.
Indeed the UK has been growing its forests, not shrinking them, for a long time.
There's more than twice as much forestry in the UK today than there was a century ago and its nearly back to the levels surveyed by William the Conquerer.
When will I be free to hunt the king's deer though?
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.
Whilst you are here BJO, where do you stand on Ed Miliband committing UK to climate reparations?
I wouldnt call it that but as we chopped all our forests down to drive economic growth it seems reasonahle to compensate others so they dont chop all theirs down for the same reason.
SKS wont unleash Eds plan too unpopular with the right wing voters he wants to attract
Ref UK GAIN Doncaster North, we speak to defeated Labour former leader and MP Ed Miliband.... 'Bugger'
Whilst you are here BJO, where do you stand on Ed Miliband committing UK to climate reparations?
I wouldnt call it that but as we chopped all our forests down to drive economic growth it seems reasonahle to compensate others so they dont chop all theirs down for the same reason.
SKS wont unleash Eds plan too unpopular with the right wing voters he wants to attract
Ref UK GAIN Doncaster North, we speak to defeated Labour former leader and MP Ed Miliband.... 'Bugger'
You sure that poll isn’t merely correction of previous outlier?
Given Deltapoll has gone the other way it suggests things are bouncing around still looking for a new equilibrium
The 2 polls have the Tories on 27 & 29 and Labour on 47 & 48. Sunak is in deep trouble if the polls start settling around those sort of figures.
On the subject of polling, this is an interesting one:
Poll: Nearly 90% of citizens believe Ukraine will be ‘prosperous EU country’ in 10 years.
A poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) suggested that 88% of Ukrainians “believe that in 10 years Ukraine will be a prosperous country within the EU.”
The poll noted that 96% of those in favor are “ready to endure financial difficulties” for three to five years should it result in Ukraine becoming a member of the EU.
Not likely is my thoughts, but you can see why the Ukranians fight on. They believe in a better future than Putin offers.
I hope they can achieve it (though like you 10 years seems unlikely). But where there is a genuine will from people and leaders it is possible to radically transform places in a swift period. Whatever one thinks about the UK's relationship to and with the EU, it would undoubtedly be a fantastic option for Ukraine, and a large nation which is very very keen to be a member is no bad thing for the EU either.
Mermaids over-reach becoming painfully obvious as their case is eviscerated by the Charity Commission counsel
Absolutely key points from counsel for the Charity Commission. The law absolutely does not require all charities to have one particular view of issues that are highly contentious within society, as Mermaids seems to believe. Mermaids' position is fundamentally anti-democratic.
This is what happens when you only ever listen to people who agree with you…”No Debate” meets “the real world”.
Seems like a very strange case. There must be lots of charities have views other charities think are deeply wrong. The argument about primary purpose and charitable benefit seems kind of weak.
Even Stonewall had the wit not to get drawn into this. Arrogance borne of hubris. And people too frightened to speak out. Not any more.
You might want to ask which minority is being eviscerated in this for little gain. Trans people have the most to fear from this witch hunt.
Help me understand, are male-to-female trans witches or wizards?
Always find an alterantive wording if you can: and Wiccan is helpfully ungendered.
Wiccan is a twat religion invented in 1956 by a civil servant....just saying
A twenty something friend of Fox Jr, a talented designer in a thriving industry, has just given notice and taken a job in Vancouver. Canada takes a different attitude to immigration. See here:
Canada is a fascinating place. A much closer UK/Canada alliance would be quite an interesting economic and military actor.
Our family has done its bit - our eldest son married a Canadian in 2015 and they live in Vancouver
A great city.
(Not completely unlike my hometown, Auckland).
I am serious about UK / Canada collaboration.
Imagine the worst happens: Trump wins again in 2024 and pulls support from Ukraine. He disengages from Europe. Democracy corrodes and the US sinks into a soft authoritarianism not unlike Orban’s Hungary.
Both the UK and Canada would face quite profound geopolitical questions over their relationship to the U.S. and their commitment to democracy.
Preparation should start now.
Though Alberta and the prairie states of Canada are not too far from Trumpland USA in view, while the US coasts are far closer to the rest of Canada and most of the UK than the Trump voting flyover land
Our Alberta and Saskatchewan based relations aren’t in any way Trumpish.
Even in the most ardent part of Trumpland there will be outliers.
A twenty something friend of Fox Jr, a talented designer in a thriving industry, has just given notice and taken a job in Vancouver. Canada takes a different attitude to immigration. See here:
Canada is a fascinating place. A much closer UK/Canada alliance would be quite an interesting economic and military actor.
Our family has done its bit - our eldest son married a Canadian in 2015 and they live in Vancouver
A great city.
(Not completely unlike my hometown, Auckland).
I am serious about UK / Canada collaboration.
Imagine the worst happens: Trump wins again in 2024 and pulls support from Ukraine. He disengages from Europe. Democracy corrodes and the US sinks into a soft authoritarianism not unlike Orban’s Hungary.
Both the UK and Canada would face quite profound geopolitical questions over their relationship to the U.S. and their commitment to democracy.
Preparation should start now.
Though Alberta and the prairie states of Canada are not too far from Trumpland USA in view, while the US coasts are far closer to the rest of Canada and most of the UK than the Trump voting flyover land
Our Alberta and Saskatchewan based relations aren’t in any way Trumpish.
Maybe still not a majority but 33% of Albertans say they would have voted for Trump in 2020, compared to 19% of Canadians overall who would have voted for Trump
Comments
The Tory Right won’t make paying this this hard work for Sunak will they?
He feeds on it.
https://www.getreading.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/boris-johnsons-116bn-climate-fund-21022593
We're not in the 1960s any more.
I trust this more than all that “fake news” stuff.
Mastered the protocol for flying the Royal Standard yet?
Ever left the country?
In some ways it might play better for the Tories to keep the boat migrants as an issue for the next two years.
What an absolute shit show!
@KaiserChiefs
@TheO2
tonight. Ricky Wilson was absolutely wasted. Slurring, forgetting lyrics, stumbling all over the place, repeatedly telling the crowd that he didn’t want to be there. Never seen an arena empty out early, so quickly!
Going to see them next week. Actually just going to see the support act, so Ricky pissed will be a pure bonus.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/07/senior-civil-servant-claims-gavin-williamson-told-them-slit-your-throat?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
They campaigned on taking back control of our borders. They own the problem.
https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/1587533261831639040?t=WedvodUnINwtmKNWe8oLqA&s=19
A much closer UK/Canada alliance would be quite an interesting economic and military actor.
Queue up here Geogians for some Herschel Walker stories!
I went to the optical illusion museum in Edinburgh the week before last. Genuinely brilliant. There was a room you could place your daughters in which made the smallest one look bigger than the biggest. Not just a clever photo, it was impressive in real life too.
I believe there is also a very real problem with the nature of human memory.
Much of what is contentious in The Crown is not evidence-supported truths or falsehoods but individuals' recollection of events. I think it is the case that we each 'bookmark' events and experiences in our memory with markers that allow us to recall the event. When recalling the event we we retrieve the marker and flesh it out to make it feel like we are recalling the actual event. Often the fleshing out will be influenced by experiences unrelated to the event in question.
That is why several people at the same event will often have markedly different views of that event, each genuinely believing that theirs is a true representation of what happened.
As if the writers of The Crown could come up with something as logical and realistic as that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PonZDhl16A0
Must be close to a record, surely?
SKS wont unleash Eds plan too unpopular with the right wing voters he wants to attract
'Bugger'
I think I learnt new things from JoJo Rabbit, from point of view inside Germany provincial town as war in Europe comes to it
Have you seen the history film JoJo Rabbit
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 48% (+1)
CON: 27% (-3)
LDEM: 10% (-2)
REF: 5% (+1)
GRN: 4% (+1)
via @RedfieldWilton, 06 Nov
"Elon Musk
@elonmusk
To independent-minded voters:
Shared power curbs the worst excesses of both parties, therefore I recommend voting for a Republican Congress, given that the Presidency is Democratic.
3:22 PM · Nov 7, 2022"
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1589639376186724354
(Not completely unlike my hometown, Auckland).
I am serious about UK / Canada collaboration.
Imagine the worst happens: Trump wins again in 2024 and pulls support from Ukraine. He disengages from Europe. Democracy corrodes and the US sinks into a soft authoritarianism not unlike Orban’s Hungary.
Both the UK and Canada would face quite profound geopolitical questions over their relationship to the U.S. and their commitment to democracy.
Preparation should start now.
Joking aside. Sixth best vote share (20.4%) in 2019 behind 2 Barnsley seats, Hartlepool, the Speakers seat and Blaenau Gwent so certainly a target for them if any sort of Faragist momentum gathers
That would be awkward.
National vanity project rightly cancelled.
So is Palau the nation that is predominantly the cause of climate change, more than any other nation? Or does the fact the nation has a population comparable to Bangor or Nantwich count against that?
See Twitter for example. A US/Musk/Saudi funded and led vehicle of significant political reach. What do we do if it mutates into something actively sinister?
Next.
There's more than twice as much forestry in the UK today than there was a century ago and its nearly back to the levels surveyed by William the Conquerer.
They're having a laugh.
It's like those evangelical politicians who like to fingerpoint about the evils of homosexuality in the USA before going on to sink a bottle of bourbon and covertly sodomising a young boy.
Poll: Nearly 90% of citizens believe Ukraine will be ‘prosperous EU country’ in 10 years.
A poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) suggested that 88% of Ukrainians “believe that in 10 years Ukraine will be a prosperous country within the EU.”
The poll noted that 96% of those in favor are “ready to endure financial difficulties” for three to five years should it result in Ukraine becoming a member of the EU.
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1589668724092841986?t=tYC_putGxTKg_Cv_-Ojtmg&s=19
Not likely is my thoughts, but you can see why the Ukranians fight on. They believe in a better future than Putin offers.
So a good history book interviews more than one person, and reports all the findings?
Or the very good discussion realises recollections only appear to be very different, in the telling, so the good historian treads a path where recollections do actually build a picture. Like an episode of The Avengers I watched recently where they didn’t know what the monster was as some witnesses thought it was spider, others a snake, or a shark, and worked out from that what it was.
Sometimes big stories start out this way. Sometimes they’re just small stories.
However RefUK up to 5% suggests that while Sunak has gained a few voters back from Labour and the LDs, he has also leaked some Boris and Truss supporters on his right to RefUK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/338canada-trumpism-is-alive-and-well-on-canadas-right/