Howdy, Stranger!

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

Why are misogynistic cultures so hard to root out? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited January 29 in General
imageWhy are misogynistic cultures so hard to root out? – politicalbetting.com

Good question. In a week when we’ve learnt that a Met officer known as “Bastard Dave” by his colleagues was left uninvestigated on 9 separate occasions when allegations were made, why did those colleagues and his bosses do nothing and say nothing? How is it possible that people turn a blind eye to what is being said and done in front of them, the nature of the people they associate with, listen to and, all too often, enable? By their silence – as much as anything else. If the saying (attributed to Burke) – “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – is not at the heart of any training on the topic, it ought to be.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • First.
  • IanB2 said:


    Because there are posters on this site with a good track record of mostly putting their own views aside to analyse the politics to try and identify good betting opportunities.

    Then there are those who have all too evidently allowed their partisan bias to inform what they purport to post as objective, if self-evidently flaky, analysis.

    Then there are those in the middle like me who try to aspire to the former but sometimes struggle.

    Like CHB, I’d guess that most PB’ers have you in the second camp. If it’s any consolation, CHB is with me in the third camp and for balance there are those like Heathener from the left also the second camp.

    HYUFD is an example - probably the best - of somebody who is clearly a Tory but is also good at posting objective analysis. Richard similarly.

    Stodge also knows what is going on, as do you Ian.

    I think there will be a 30 point Labour lead because things seem to be getting worse not better, Sunak is proving himself to be hilariously incompetent and the public are becoming more in favour of strikes not less - and they are blaming the Government.

    A 30 point lead isn't even hugely out there, we've already had such leads in this Parliament.

    For what it's worth, I am one of the few who thinks it won't be a Labour majority. I still think it will be a Hung Parliament - and for me I would prefer such an outcome as I want PR implemented.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    Why are misogynistic cultures so hard to root out?

    It's probably women's fault somehow.

    Jokes.
  • FPT

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    The headline Redfield & Wilton figures suggest little real change but there's plenty of interest in the data:

    https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-22-january-2023/

    The Government approval and Sunak's approval numbers both down while Starmer's approval goes up and in the "best PM" contest, Starmer moves to a 5-point lead over Sunak (40-35).

    Into the entrails and the 2019 Conservative vote splits 53% Conservative, 18% Labour, 14% Don't Know, 8% Reform and 4% LD.

    The Conservatives lead 38-37 in the South East but trail 41-34 among over 65s.

    Excluding the Don't Knows, the split for England is Labour 51%, Conservative 27%, Lib Dem 11%, Reform 7% and Green 3%. That's a swing of 18.5% from Conservative to Labour in England. That takes us to Amber Valley, the 260th most marginal Conservative seat.

    Today's Deltapoll is 205 Conservative seats and a Labour majority of just 64 on the new boundaries, closer to 2005 than 1997

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=30&LAB=44&LIB=9&Reform=4&Green=3&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=15.3&SCOTLAB=28&SCOTLIB=6&SCOTReform=1&SCOTGreen=2.4&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=45.6&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase
    Deltapoll is distinctly the most favourable pollster for the Cons. That doesn't mean that they are wrong of course. However, if your most favourable pollster has you losing by a landslide then maybe you are doing something wrong.
    A Labour majority of 64 is not a landslide
    Hang on, you say Boris Johnson winning a majority of 80 is a landslide, so winning eight fewer seats isn't a landslide?
    Which begs the question of whether there is an accepted definition of landslide in GE terms. Certainly the 2019 result was big, but it was shy of a three figure majority, and well shy of those achieved by Blair and Thatcher.
    I've always considered a majority of 100 or more a landslide.
  • @HYUFD are you using 100 seats as the definition of a landslide?

    I am sure I've seen you say Johnson won a landslide before?

    Still, to go from 80 seat majority to 60 seat majority in one go would make Starmer probably the most successful Labour leader of the last 50 years.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 43,012
    FPT
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    YouGov - bizarre poll finding

    34% of Brits and 31% of Americans believe they would lose a fight with a house cat.

    https://twitter.com/LeoKearse/status/1617221971741409287

    Not as weird as the 6% of Yanks and 2% of Brits who think they can beat a Grizzly unarmed.
    I'm intrigued. How many people have met an armed grizzly?
    Grizzlies are American, so have the right to bear arms.
    I'm impressed at how you clawed that back.

    But really, the 2nd Amendment's implications here should give us all paws for thought.
    I'll bear that in mind.
    Fair enough, but if I were you I wouldn't panda to my political views.
    You sound bamboo-zled.
  • FPT

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    YouGov - bizarre poll finding

    34% of Brits and 31% of Americans believe they would lose a fight with a house cat.

    https://twitter.com/LeoKearse/status/1617221971741409287

    Not as weird as the 6% of Yanks and 2% of Brits who think they can beat a Grizzly unarmed.
    I'm intrigued. How many people have met an armed grizzly?
    Grizzlies are American, so have the right to bear arms.
    I'm impressed at how you clawed that back.

    But really, the 2nd Amendment's implications here should give us all paws for thought.
    I'll bear that in mind.
    Fair enough, but if I were you I wouldn't panda to my political views.
    You sound bamboo-zled.
    What a load of wooffle!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756

    FPT

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    YouGov - bizarre poll finding

    34% of Brits and 31% of Americans believe they would lose a fight with a house cat.

    https://twitter.com/LeoKearse/status/1617221971741409287

    Not as weird as the 6% of Yanks and 2% of Brits who think they can beat a Grizzly unarmed.
    I'm intrigued. How many people have met an armed grizzly?
    Grizzlies are American, so have the right to bear arms.
    I'm impressed at how you clawed that back.

    But really, the 2nd Amendment's implications here should give us all paws for thought.
    I'll bear that in mind.
    Fair enough, but if I were you I wouldn't panda to my political views.
    You sound bamboo-zled.
    I've already withered that one on PT, I can't be bothered to shoot you down again.
  • ydoethur said:

    FPT

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    YouGov - bizarre poll finding

    34% of Brits and 31% of Americans believe they would lose a fight with a house cat.

    https://twitter.com/LeoKearse/status/1617221971741409287

    Not as weird as the 6% of Yanks and 2% of Brits who think they can beat a Grizzly unarmed.
    I'm intrigued. How many people have met an armed grizzly?
    Grizzlies are American, so have the right to bear arms.
    I'm impressed at how you clawed that back.

    But really, the 2nd Amendment's implications here should give us all paws for thought.
    I'll bear that in mind.
    Fair enough, but if I were you I wouldn't panda to my political views.
    You sound bamboo-zled.
    I've already withered that one on PT, I can't be bothered to shoot you down again.
    Welcome back friend!
  • Magnificent


    Yes, indeed. Fuck the pensioners, time for my handouts, where are they?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002

    Magnificent


    Pierce lacks nuance:

    during fiscal 2020/2021, more than half the population got more in benefits than they paid in tax

    Which would be the year when the Covid pandemic was at its peak, when vaccines were only available to a lucky few, and much of the country was shut down.

    We don't have more recent data. We certainly don't *know* that more than half the population are still that way.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Magnificent


    Pierce lacks nuance:

    during fiscal 2020/2021, more than half the population got more in benefits than they paid in tax

    Which would be the year when the Covid pandemic was at its peak, when vaccines were only available to a lucky few, and much of the country was shut down.

    We don't have more recent data. We certainly don't *know* that more than half the population are still that way.
    With the way things have gone frankly I think locking down was the wrong decision. All old people do is tell young people we're feckless and claim benefits. I think fuck them, I put my life on hold for these arseholes and for what?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,576
    kle4 said:

    Why are misogynistic cultures so hard to root out?

    It's probably women's fault somehow.

    Jokes.

    I feel slightly ashamed at my own reaction to the latest police story. I find it hard to understand coercive control, but it’s a real thing, and can be really difficult. I always wonder why women stay with people who treat them like shit, but they so often do.
    But I have to remember that it’s a trap people fall into, and can be hard to see the way out. That complaints to the police were ignored is unconscionable, although the shadow of false accusations taints everything.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,078
    rcs1000 said:

    Magnificent


    Pierce lacks nuance:

    during fiscal 2020/2021, more than half the population got more in benefits than they paid in tax

    Which would be the year when the Covid pandemic was at its peak, when vaccines were only available to a lucky few, and much of the country was shut down.

    We don't have more recent data. We certainly don't *know* that more than half the population are still that way.
    Why let actual, complex facts get in the way of a good headline / story.
  • eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Magnificent


    Pierce lacks nuance:

    during fiscal 2020/2021, more than half the population got more in benefits than they paid in tax

    Which would be the year when the Covid pandemic was at its peak, when vaccines were only available to a lucky few, and much of the country was shut down.

    We don't have more recent data. We certainly don't *know* that more than half the population are still that way.
    Why let actual, complex facts get in the way of a good headline / story.
    He writes for the Daily Mail, are you really surprised?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 28,188

    IanB2 said:


    Because there are posters on this site with a good track record of mostly putting their own views aside to analyse the politics to try and identify good betting opportunities.

    Then there are those who have all too evidently allowed their partisan bias to inform what they purport to post as objective, if self-evidently flaky, analysis.

    Then there are those in the middle like me who try to aspire to the former but sometimes struggle.

    Like CHB, I’d guess that most PB’ers have you in the second camp. If it’s any consolation, CHB is with me in the third camp and for balance there are those like Heathener from the left also the second camp.

    HYUFD is an example - probably the best - of somebody who is clearly a Tory but is also good at posting objective analysis. Richard similarly.

    Stodge also knows what is going on, as do you Ian.

    I think there will be a 30 point Labour lead because things seem to be getting worse not better, Sunak is proving himself to be hilariously incompetent and the public are becoming more in favour of strikes not less - and they are blaming the Government.

    A 30 point lead isn't even hugely out there, we've already had such leads in this Parliament.

    For what it's worth, I am one of the few who thinks it won't be a Labour majority. I still think it will be a Hung Parliament - and for me I would prefer such an outcome as I want PR implemented.
    I should just like to point out for the record that I am not a Tory. I am not even sure I am right of centre on many important issues - at least not as they are normally defined these days. I think in the 19th and early 20th century I would have been a classic liberal. Now I style myself a Libertarian - but of the British rather than US variety and even then I disagree with many things that Libertarians apparently believe in.

    I have voted Tory twice in my life. My first election for Thatcher in 1987 and then once for the local Tory candidate (who was a friend) in 2001 who then turned out to be a crook. I have never voted for a mainstream party apart from those two occasions. I couldn't even bring myself to vote Tory when the alternative was quite possibly the reversal of Brexit.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,576

    @HYUFD are you using 100 seats as the definition of a landslide?

    I am sure I've seen you say Johnson won a landslide before?

    Still, to go from 80 seat majority to 60 seat majority in one go would make Starmer probably the most successful Labour leader of the last 50 years.

    Blair is the gold standard. Only labour majority since the seventies. It might have been an open goal in 1997 (they didn’t think it was themselves) but it still had to be kicked over the line, the party forced to the centre and previous Tory voters welcomed.
  • IanB2 said:


    Because there are posters on this site with a good track record of mostly putting their own views aside to analyse the politics to try and identify good betting opportunities.

    Then there are those who have all too evidently allowed their partisan bias to inform what they purport to post as objective, if self-evidently flaky, analysis.

    Then there are those in the middle like me who try to aspire to the former but sometimes struggle.

    Like CHB, I’d guess that most PB’ers have you in the second camp. If it’s any consolation, CHB is with me in the third camp and for balance there are those like Heathener from the left also the second camp.

    HYUFD is an example - probably the best - of somebody who is clearly a Tory but is also good at posting objective analysis. Richard similarly.

    Stodge also knows what is going on, as do you Ian.

    I think there will be a 30 point Labour lead because things seem to be getting worse not better, Sunak is proving himself to be hilariously incompetent and the public are becoming more in favour of strikes not less - and they are blaming the Government.

    A 30 point lead isn't even hugely out there, we've already had such leads in this Parliament.

    For what it's worth, I am one of the few who thinks it won't be a Labour majority. I still think it will be a Hung Parliament - and for me I would prefer such an outcome as I want PR implemented.
    I should just like to point out for the record that I am not a Tory. I am not even sure I am right of centre on many important issues - at least not as they are normally defined these days. I think in the 19th and early 20th century I would have been a classic liberal. Now I style myself a Libertarian - but of the British rather than US variety and even then I disagree with many things that Libertarians apparently believe in.

    I have voted Tory twice in my life. My first election for Thatcher in 1987 and then once for the local Tory candidate (who was a friend) in 2001 who then turned out to be a crook. I have never voted for a mainstream party apart from those two occasions. I couldn't even bring myself to vote Tory when the alternative was quite possibly the reversal of Brexit.
    I was wrong, I hope you will accept my apology Richard.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756

    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Magnificent


    Pierce lacks nuance:

    during fiscal 2020/2021, more than half the population got more in benefits than they paid in tax

    Which would be the year when the Covid pandemic was at its peak, when vaccines were only available to a lucky few, and much of the country was shut down.

    We don't have more recent data. We certainly don't *know* that more than half the population are still that way.
    Why let actual, complex facts get in the way of a good headline / story.
    He writes for the Daily Mail, are you really surprised?
    I am not sure I agree there Horse. I don't accept that what he does counts as 'writing.'
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    edited January 23

    @HYUFD are you using 100 seats as the definition of a landslide?

    I am sure I've seen you say Johnson won a landslide before?

    Still, to go from 80 seat majority to 60 seat majority in one go would make Starmer probably the most successful Labour leader of the last 50 years.

    Blair is the gold standard. Only labour majority since the seventies. It might have been an open goal in 1997 (they didn’t think it was themselves) but it still had to be kicked over the line, the party forced to the centre and previous Tory voters welcomed.
    Staggering fact:

    60% of Labour majorities over 10 were won by Blair.

    Even if we cut the qualification to all majorities of any size it's still nearly 40%.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,272
    Some of the people are clannish authoritarians, who see themselves as being the only force of right against the rest of the world. Be they the police or the extreme left. Some are people who use the language of modern behavioural disorders to spread hate. That being said, taken to extremes, the argument in the header would be the equivalent of saying everyone on the traditionalist side agrees with the Westboro Baptist Church. "Some of its supporters" definitely hate men who behave like women and vice versa, and would like to police their actions with bullets.
  • ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Magnificent


    Pierce lacks nuance:

    during fiscal 2020/2021, more than half the population got more in benefits than they paid in tax

    Which would be the year when the Covid pandemic was at its peak, when vaccines were only available to a lucky few, and much of the country was shut down.

    We don't have more recent data. We certainly don't *know* that more than half the population are still that way.
    Why let actual, complex facts get in the way of a good headline / story.
    He writes for the Daily Mail, are you really surprised?
    I am not sure I agree there Horse. I don't accept that what he does counts as 'writing.'
    The Daily Mail doesn't do much writing either.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 43,012
    There are misogynistic cultures all over the planet. Adhered to by millions of people. Of course, it doesn't mean we have to be like them.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298
    Darvel 1 Aberdeen 0. Full time.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,317
    fpt

    I was chatting with a Corbynite friend of mine about Sunak. We both agreed he was alright. He's steadied the ship, boosted capital spending, raised the NI threshold whilst freezing the income tax one, led the way in sending tanks to Ukraine and seems to be actually committed to doing stuff. Not that there aren't downsides and a certain political naivety. But for some of us he still seems a refreshing change compared to his predecessors.

    Having perused the thread today I wanted to raise a few points. Firstly 'Cardiff' airport. It's not a white elephant or a vanity project. It's actually Rhoose airport and was re-named Cardiff airport for the purposes of branding. It was an RAF site. There are obvious reasons why the Welsh government would be desperate for an airport with international destinations in Wales. The real question is why they paid so much money to acquire it?

    On tax, I find it hard to see how a minister can pay a major penalty to HMRC and brush it off. The numbers involved are themselves enough to make many people uncomfortable. And the rate on CGT is only 18%. Our tax system is probably better than a lot of comparable countries if we gave it some thought.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,344
    An intervention from BoJo in the Mail:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11667727/BORIS-JOHNSON-sooner-help-Ukraine-victory-sooner-suffering-over.html

    It is not our job to worry about Putin, or where his career might go next, or to engage in pointless Kremlinology. Our job is to help Ukraine win – as fast as possible.

    Those heroic people are fighting for all of us. The Ukrainians are fighting for the Georgians, for the Moldovans, for the Baltic states, for the Poles – for anyone who might in due time be threatened by Putin's crazed revanchism and neo-imperialism. They are fighting for the principle that nations should not have their borders changed by force.

    When Ukraine wins, that is a message that will be heard around the world. So let us help them win, not next year or the year after, but this year, 2023; and don't talk to me, finally, about expense.

    If you want to minimise the world's economic pain, if you want to avoid the enormous cost – in blood and treasure – of letting this tragedy stretch on, then let's together do the obvious thing.

    Let's give the Ukrainians all they need to win now.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 32,310
    There is something dark about human nature.

    And there are men who simply hate women, and will latch onto any cause where they can vent their hatred for women.
  • To be fair, there are many examples of bad MPs but Russell-Moyle seems like a particularly unpleasant individual who seems to think he has carte blanche to be nasty just because he is gay.

  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,317
    I'm not sure I would accuse Olivia Blake, Nadia Whitmore and Zarah Sultana of being misogynists. Daft as brushes perhaps.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 1,059
    Cyclefree - I don't know enough about Starmer to answer your question. But I can tell you about a protest that -- I think -- is related, in a general way: 'After a 2,400-mile trek on foot, a Navajo woman whose aunt vanished over a year ago, arrived in Washington D.C. on a mission: to call attention to the growing number of murdered and missing Indigenous women whose cases go unsolved.

    According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 63-year-old Ella Mae Begay disappeared from Sweetwater, Ariz., on June 15, 2021.
    . . .
    "She never came back. She would not answer her phone calls or nothing," her niece Seraphine Warren, who started walking on the anniversary of Begay's disappearance this year, told the outlet in June. "They said it seems like she left willingly."'
    source: https://people.com/crime/navajo-woman-walking-to-dc-raise-awareness-missing-indigenous-women/

    In my opinion, both the federal government -- and many tribal governments -- have failed to give our native women the protection they deserve.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    ...
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 32,310

    To be fair, there are many examples of bad MPs but Russell-Moyle seems like a particularly unpleasant individual who seems to think he has carte blanche to be nasty just because he is gay.

    Earlier, it was suggested Jared O’Mara was the worst of MP’s. But, having read his Wikipedia entry, I think Russell-Moyle must run him close. He is a singularly nasty specimen.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,576

    I'm not sure I would accuse Olivia Blake, Nadia Whitmore and Zarah Sultana of being misogynists. Daft as brushes perhaps.

    Question then - can women not be misogynists?
  • dixiedean said:

    Darvel 1 Aberdeen 0. Full time.

    Watched the end of that. "who?" "Where?" "Playing in what league?"

    Has there ever been a bigger upset than this in Scotland or England cup ties? All the big FA Cup ones I can think of we're Conference sides beating old Division One. This lot play in the West of Scotland Premier League - the 6th tier!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,357

    @HYUFD are you using 100 seats as the definition of a landslide?

    I am sure I've seen you say Johnson won a landslide before?

    Still, to go from 80 seat majority to 60 seat majority in one go would make Starmer probably the most successful Labour leader of the last 50 years.

    The clear landslides since WW2 were in 1945, 1959, 1983, 1987, 1997 and 2001.

    I would add 1966 and 2019 as effectively landslides too, albeit not as clear as the above
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,576

    dixiedean said:

    Darvel 1 Aberdeen 0. Full time.

    Watched the end of that. "who?" "Where?" "Playing in what league?"

    Has there ever been a bigger upset than this in Scotland or England cup ties? All the big FA Cup ones I can think of we're Conference sides beating old Division One. This lot play in the West of Scotland Premier League - the 6th tier!
    I think Hereford vs Newcastle (the Ronnie Redford one) is the same difference, but it’s a heck of a result.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 43,012

    I'm not sure I would accuse Olivia Blake, Nadia Whitmore and Zarah Sultana of being misogynists. Daft as brushes perhaps.

    Question then - can women not be misogynists?
    FGM is normally carried out by women.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,272
    edited January 23

    I'm not sure I would accuse Olivia Blake, Nadia Whitmore and Zarah Sultana of being misogynists. Daft as brushes perhaps.

    Question then - can women not be misogynists?
    Considering that there is nothing misogynistic in the specific accusation levelled against them, which is that they attended the same protest as an ex-con who committed gruesome crimes which appear to have been against men, I think it is fair to say that there is no grounds for calling them misogynists and it is a little bit misdirecting in an article about violence against women. (Maybe anti-humanistic radicals willing to lean into violence, but hell, you get that in the Daily Mail.)
  • TimSTimS Posts: 3,664

    @HYUFD are you using 100 seats as the definition of a landslide?

    I am sure I've seen you say Johnson won a landslide before?

    Still, to go from 80 seat majority to 60 seat majority in one go would make Starmer probably the most successful Labour leader of the last 50 years.

    Blair is the gold standard. Only labour majority since the seventies. It might have been an open goal in 1997 (they didn’t think it was themselves) but it still had to be kicked over the line, the party forced to the centre and previous Tory voters welcomed.
    Regardless of definitions, for excitement on the night you really need a lot of seats flipping. Ideally seats that represent a big epochal shift. The 2001 election was one of the most boring in recent memory, and 1987 was dull too for similar reasons.

    To me landslide suggests a great movement. 2001 was of course a huge landslide, but it felt less so than 2019.

    1983 and 1997 felt like huge landslides, although I was a bit young to properly appreciate the first. So to the SNP surge in 2015. 2010 promised something exciting for the Lib Dems but went out with a bit of a whimper.
  • dixiedean said:

    Darvel 1 Aberdeen 0. Full time.

    Watched the end of that. "who?" "Where?" "Playing in what league?"

    Has there ever been a bigger upset than this in Scotland or England cup ties? All the big FA Cup ones I can think of we're Conference sides beating old Division One. This lot play in the West of Scotland Premier League - the 6th tier!
    I think Hereford vs Newcastle (the Ronnie Redford one) is the same difference, but it’s a heck of a result.
    Hereford played in the southern league which was the 5th tier. Darvel play in a league which feeds the Scottish Lowland league which feeds the Scottish Football league. So a further tier down to Hereford.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298
    edited January 23

    dixiedean said:

    Darvel 1 Aberdeen 0. Full time.

    Watched the end of that. "who?" "Where?" "Playing in what league?"

    Has there ever been a bigger upset than this in Scotland or England cup ties? All the big FA Cup ones I can think of we're Conference sides beating old Division One. This lot play in the West of Scotland Premier League - the 6th tier!
    The old Division One and Conference don't have much of a time overlap tbf.
    But sixth tier Scottish is in no way equal to sixth tier English. (There are full time sides getting well over four figure crowds in England at that level).
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298

    dixiedean said:

    Darvel 1 Aberdeen 0. Full time.

    Watched the end of that. "who?" "Where?" "Playing in what league?"

    Has there ever been a bigger upset than this in Scotland or England cup ties? All the big FA Cup ones I can think of we're Conference sides beating old Division One. This lot play in the West of Scotland Premier League - the 6th tier!
    I think Hereford vs Newcastle (the Ronnie Redford one) is the same difference, but it’s a heck of a result.
    Hereford played in the southern league which was the 5th tier. Darvel play in a league which feeds the Scottish Lowland league which feeds the Scottish Football league. So a further tier down to Hereford.
    Worcester v Liverpool in the 50's?
  • glwglw Posts: 8,876

    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Magnificent


    Pierce lacks nuance:

    during fiscal 2020/2021, more than half the population got more in benefits than they paid in tax

    Which would be the year when the Covid pandemic was at its peak, when vaccines were only available to a lucky few, and much of the country was shut down.

    We don't have more recent data. We certainly don't *know* that more than half the population are still that way.
    Why let actual, complex facts get in the way of a good headline / story.
    He writes for the Daily Mail, are you really surprised?
    It's not just a Daily Mail problem. It's a bit like a story that X is at it's highest/lowest level for Y years. Such stories are meaningless. Any series of data will have maxima and minima. It's really only interesting if there is a statistically significant deviation from the long term averages.

    Despite the fact that such stories are meaningless they form the basis for a great deal of the political debate/outrage that makes up the news and politics in this country*, and essentially all media outlets are guilty of not analysing whether or not the data really means anything this time.

    A huge amount of stuff that is presented as newsworthy isn't.

    * Charities, unions, trade bodies and the like a particular guilty of hyping up such stuff and trying to push a story that is basically bunkum so that they can grind their axes.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,651

    rcs1000 said:

    Magnificent


    Pierce lacks nuance:

    during fiscal 2020/2021, more than half the population got more in benefits than they paid in tax

    Which would be the year when the Covid pandemic was at its peak, when vaccines were only available to a lucky few, and much of the country was shut down.

    We don't have more recent data. We certainly don't *know* that more than half the population are still that way.
    With the way things have gone frankly I think locking down was the wrong decision. All old people do is tell young people we're feckless and claim benefits. I think fuck them, I put my life on hold for these arseholes and for what?
    Indeed, CHB. Lockdown was an error, we should have kept everything open and let people use their own judgement as to whether they should socialise or not and offered much, much less support IMO. That £400bn will fall on my generation and yours to service, it was spent to keep the olds safe and they seem live in a bubble where they're the only people who worked hard and everyone else just didn't work hard enough to afford the lifestyle they enjoy.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,682
    rcs1000 said:

    Magnificent


    Pierce lacks nuance:

    during fiscal 2020/2021, more than half the population got more in benefits than they paid in tax

    Which would be the year when the Covid pandemic was at its peak, when vaccines were only available to a lucky few, and much of the country was shut down.

    We don't have more recent data. We certainly don't *know* that more than half the population are still that way.
    I wonder if the research behind this study (by Civitas?) included the VAT, council taxes and other taxes people pay?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    ...
  • eekeek Posts: 22,078
    MaxPB said:

    The US is set to approve it's first SMR and the second design (RR) isn't far behind in the approval process. As with everything the UK is going to be left with very little of an industry where we should be 5 years further up the road already given one of our major domestic companies has a viable design and should have a pilot line completing its first unit.

    Aiui, if the US gives approval of the RR design they're likely to shift the whole shebang there and we're going to end up importing US built reactor parts to the UK for final assembly rather than own the majority of the supply chain, assembly and maintenance.

    It's a fucking shambles and it's literally just the civil service holding up the approval for no reason at all.

    It’s not even all the civil service - just the treasury whose models say can’t invest unless all risks are removed.

    Which is why RR are off to the States and why first fusion are off to Canada.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    An intervention from BoJo in the Mail:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11667727/BORIS-JOHNSON-sooner-help-Ukraine-victory-sooner-suffering-over.html

    It is not our job to worry about Putin, or where his career might go next, or to engage in pointless Kremlinology. Our job is to help Ukraine win – as fast as possible.

    Those heroic people are fighting for all of us. The Ukrainians are fighting for the Georgians, for the Moldovans, for the Baltic states, for the Poles – for anyone who might in due time be threatened by Putin's crazed revanchism and neo-imperialism. They are fighting for the principle that nations should not have their borders changed by force.

    When Ukraine wins, that is a message that will be heard around the world. So let us help them win, not next year or the year after, but this year, 2023; and don't talk to me, finally, about expense.

    If you want to minimise the world's economic pain, if you want to avoid the enormous cost – in blood and treasure – of letting this tragedy stretch on, then let's together do the obvious thing.

    Let's give the Ukrainians all they need to win now.

    He was always at his best with slightly vague boosterism, it's what he is made for far more than trying to run a country.

    I think there is a basic point where a full on invasion of this nature (well beyond even the 2014 snatch and grab) means the kind of tip toeing worry about provoking Putin or giving him an excuse to escalate no longer really works, if it ever did. There's still the sensible worry about him being so mad he might go nuclear, but short of that what further escalation can he realistically threaten, in which case there should be less coyness around backing his opponents in Ukraine.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    They were careless people, Tom and Daisy,” recalls Nick Carraway in F Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, “they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money . . . and let other people clean up the mess they had made”.

    And so to Nadhim Zahawi, who as chancellor of the exchequer, we now know, paid several million pounds to HM Revenue & Customs to settle a mistake that had been “careless and not deliberate”. Which is an important distinction. Look, imagine he had been defence secretary, instead, and had bombed your house. Had it been “deliberate” then I expect you’d be quite peeved. But merely “careless”? Clearly you wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sometimes-careless-means-couldnt-care-less-90qthr2rt
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,682

    dixiedean said:

    Darvel 1 Aberdeen 0. Full time.

    Watched the end of that. "who?" "Where?" "Playing in what league?"

    Has there ever been a bigger upset than this in Scotland or England cup ties? All the big FA Cup ones I can think of we're Conference sides beating old Division One. This lot play in the West of Scotland Premier League - the 6th tier!
    Who can forget 'Super Cally go ballistic, Celtic are atrocious'?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    That's actually a very good one. Clear message, multiple scandal references for those paying attention, and a believable depiction of a weak Rishi unable to stem the flow.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,078
    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    I can see why Sunak kept him in place, as the former Chancellor he was clearly “safe’ but the fact he hasn’t been removed with all the news leads me to question how disastrously weak a hand politically does Rishi have?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,651
    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    The US is set to approve it's first SMR and the second design (RR) isn't far behind in the approval process. As with everything the UK is going to be left with very little of an industry where we should be 5 years further up the road already given one of our major domestic companies has a viable design and should have a pilot line completing its first unit.

    Aiui, if the US gives approval of the RR design they're likely to shift the whole shebang there and we're going to end up importing US built reactor parts to the UK for final assembly rather than own the majority of the supply chain, assembly and maintenance.

    It's a fucking shambles and it's literally just the civil service holding up the approval for no reason at all.

    It’s not even all the civil service - just the treasury whose models say can’t invest unless all risks are removed.

    Which is why RR are off to the States and why first fusion are off to Canada.
    No, this is the civil service. RR have the money ready to build out a pilot production line. They're literally just waiting for the reactor design approval which has been held up by the idiots on the civil service for an extra year for reasons they won't say.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,506
    Fpt

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Seems we are being invited to reduce our peak energy use as the windfarms are becalmed by the cold weather

    And yet the demand is for even more windfarms when we really need nuclear and tidal to guarantee constant energy supply if we end gas usage

    It could be a very long time until we can dispense with gas

    We obviously can't dispense with gas, or coal for that matter. The idea is to vastly reduce it during windy and sunny times, or even storing gas/coal for intermittent use. And yes, developing Nuclear as well. It's called a mixed system. We should never put all our eggs in one basket. Obviously there is a demand for more wind farms, like all other sources!
    I am in favour of additional wind generation but it does depend on 'wind' and often in very cold weather the wind is not at all reliable as we are seeing just now
    Storage when there is wind?
    I would assume storage has a role to play
    Interestingly under today’s calm cold conditions we are currently generating 5.3gw of wind power, which is greater than our nuclear generation.

    Whilst more wind power doesn’t eliminate the problem of intermittency it certainly reduces it. With 4x the current capacity (perfectly feasible especially with new larger turbines coming on) we’d be generating half of our electricity from wind even on a still, high demand night like tonight.

    We need more wind (much much more), more solar with built in battery storage, more nuclear, further progress on energy efficiency, more cross border interconnecters to balance European supply and demand, more grid scale storage of various types, and backup gas generation until such time as it’s no longer needed.
    I'm sorry but this post is utter rubbish - both according to basic logic, and current real life. All these wind providers must be paid. They get paid to shut off when their power is too much for the grid - currently hundreds of millions a year. The capacity increase you're proposing would propel constraint payments into the stratosphere, all only for half of electricity supply on a low wind night? It's power generation for the severely numerically-challenged. Your barmy theories are why UK energy production is in its pitiful state.
    I’m proud to know that my PB posts have had such a profound and important impact on our power system.

    We’ve gone over the subsidy and constraint payment canard dozens of times on here before yet you always end up stating the same assumptions.

    Constraint payments are a feature of regional imbalances, not national surplus, and insufficient grid carriage capacity largely because sometimes more wind power is generated in the North and Scotland than the grid capacity able to carry it South. Until recently it had to make its way down the equivalent of narrow b roads. The issue is being actively addressed by investment from national grid. Ie they are building big cables to carry the power to where it’s needed.

    A lot of anti wind rhetoric seems to take one little issue (take your pick: planning eyesore
    birds being hit by blades, what about when it’s calm, constraint payments etc) and conclude the answer is therefore to stop wind power and spend our money on old fossil fuel technologies instead. This ignores the problems with them (climate change aside there is air pollution, geopolitical risk, planning etc) and also ignores the fact that in most case there are solutions to the original issue.

    It is not a canard, and my recollection of previous discussions is that when people have dismissed the cost of constraint and subsidy, they have moved on from the discussion pretty quickly after the true figures were brought to the table.

    I am aware that in many cases, local grid deficiencies mean wind farms have to constrain - that's why they build them in those locations. The grid can be made more robust, but it will never be a bottomless pit, and the overcapacity you're talking about would result in vastly more problems both locally, and, on windy days, nationally. The UK billpayer would be on the hook for every kw produced, and not produced.

    The answer is not to 'stop' wind power, or even 'stop' subsidies (which would have the same effect), but to reorganise the subsidy regime to prevent the worst abuses, and incentivise storage and reselling of power amongst wind providers. Meanwhile, invest in reliable, non-intermittent renewables like tidal, and domestic fossil fuel production to clamp down on imported coal, gas and timber, which add even more carbon to the atmosphere. Not increase the issue four-fold ffs.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,682

    rcs1000 said:

    Magnificent


    Pierce lacks nuance:

    during fiscal 2020/2021, more than half the population got more in benefits than they paid in tax

    Which would be the year when the Covid pandemic was at its peak, when vaccines were only available to a lucky few, and much of the country was shut down.

    We don't have more recent data. We certainly don't *know* that more than half the population are still that way.
    With the way things have gone frankly I think locking down was the wrong decision. All old people do is tell young people we're feckless and claim benefits. I think fuck them, I put my life on hold for these arseholes and for what?
    Quite possibly. The debate about Sweden continues. The latest analysis I saw suggests that, while its covid deaths were higher than elsewhere during the period when it took probably the loosest attitude to restrictions in Europe, now that you can factor in the lower rate of suicides there during the height of the pandemic, and the higher rate of cancer deaths in lockdown countries arising from too-late diagnosis, the overall excess mortality rate in Sweden during that period looks relatively good.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    @guardian: Zahawi, Sunak, Johnson: this is rule by plutocrat. It’s like a stench that’s worse each day | Polly Toynbee https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/23/nadhim-zahawi-rishi-sunak-boris-johnson-plutocrat-tax-error-tory
  • glwglw Posts: 8,876
    eek said:

    It’s not even all the civil service - just the treasury whose models say can’t invest unless all risks are removed.

    Which is why RR are off to the States and why first fusion are off to Canada.

    It's not only the Treasury. Look at the idiots complaining about wastage on PPE, covid testing, and quite possibly even vaccines if I look hard enough. In 2020 there was almost unanimous calls for "spend whatever it takes", and now many of the loudest voices from then moan about the wastage. It's absolute idiocy.

  • eekeek Posts: 22,078

    dixiedean said:

    Darvel 1 Aberdeen 0. Full time.

    Watched the end of that. "who?" "Where?" "Playing in what league?"

    Has there ever been a bigger upset than this in Scotland or England cup ties? All the big FA Cup ones I can think of we're Conference sides beating old Division One. This lot play in the West of Scotland Premier League - the 6th tier!
    I think Hereford vs Newcastle (the Ronnie Redford one) is the same difference, but it’s a heck of a result.
    Hereford played in the southern league which was the 5th tier. Darvel play in a league which feeds the Scottish Lowland league which feeds the Scottish Football league. So a further tier down to Hereford.
    6th tier - tier 5 is the conference, tier 6 conference north and south.

    Worth saying that it’s way easier to end up in the conference then to get promoted from it - it’s why you often see the newly promoted conference side high up in league w the following year.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,682

    IanB2 said:


    Because there are posters on this site with a good track record of mostly putting their own views aside to analyse the politics to try and identify good betting opportunities.

    Then there are those who have all too evidently allowed their partisan bias to inform what they purport to post as objective, if self-evidently flaky, analysis.

    Then there are those in the middle like me who try to aspire to the former but sometimes struggle.

    Like CHB, I’d guess that most PB’ers have you in the second camp. If it’s any consolation, CHB is with me in the third camp and for balance there are those like Heathener from the left also the second camp.

    HYUFD is an example - probably the best - of somebody who is clearly a Tory but is also good at posting objective analysis. Richard similarly.

    Stodge also knows what is going on, as do you Ian.

    I think there will be a 30 point Labour lead because things seem to be getting worse not better, Sunak is proving himself to be hilariously incompetent and the public are becoming more in favour of strikes not less - and they are blaming the Government.

    A 30 point lead isn't even hugely out there, we've already had such leads in this Parliament.

    For what it's worth, I am one of the few who thinks it won't be a Labour majority. I still think it will be a Hung Parliament - and for me I would prefer such an outcome as I want PR implemented.
    I should just like to point out for the record that I am not a Tory. I am not even sure I am right of centre on many important issues - at least not as they are normally defined these days. I think in the 19th and early 20th century I would have been a classic liberal. Now I style myself a Libertarian - but of the British rather than US variety and even then I disagree with many things that Libertarians apparently believe in.

    I have voted Tory twice in my life. My first election for Thatcher in 1987 and then once for the local Tory candidate (who was a friend) in 2001 who then turned out to be a crook. I have never voted for a mainstream party apart from those two occasions. I couldn't even bring myself to vote Tory when the alternative was quite possibly the reversal of Brexit.
    I was wrong, I hope you will accept my apology Richard.
    Wrong indeed. He’s too Tory for the Tories.

    Still, in finding out that the Tory he voted for turned out to be a crook, he’s done his best to live a more mainstream existence….
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,506
    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    The US is set to approve it's first SMR and the second design (RR) isn't far behind in the approval process. As with everything the UK is going to be left with very little of an industry where we should be 5 years further up the road already given one of our major domestic companies has a viable design and should have a pilot line completing its first unit.

    Aiui, if the US gives approval of the RR design they're likely to shift the whole shebang there and we're going to end up importing US built reactor parts to the UK for final assembly rather than own the majority of the supply chain, assembly and maintenance.

    It's a fucking shambles and it's literally just the civil service holding up the approval for no reason at all.

    It’s not even all the civil service - just the treasury whose models say can’t invest unless all risks are removed.

    Which is why RR are off to the States and why first fusion are off to Canada.
    No, this is the civil service. RR have the money ready to build out a pilot production line. They're literally just waiting for the reactor design approval which has been held up by the idiots on the civil service for an extra year for reasons they won't say.
    They're actively undermining the country.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423
    Sean_F said:

    There is something dark about human nature.

    And there are men who simply hate women, and will latch onto any cause where they can vent their hatred for women.

    There are women who hate men as well.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    @NatashaC: Excl: Ministers have privately agreed to bring forward the date the state pension age hits 68

    Was due to be 2046,… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1617650854038749184
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    ...
  • eek said:

    dixiedean said:

    Darvel 1 Aberdeen 0. Full time.

    Watched the end of that. "who?" "Where?" "Playing in what league?"

    Has there ever been a bigger upset than this in Scotland or England cup ties? All the big FA Cup ones I can think of we're Conference sides beating old Division One. This lot play in the West of Scotland Premier League - the 6th tier!
    I think Hereford vs Newcastle (the Ronnie Redford one) is the same difference, but it’s a heck of a result.
    Hereford played in the southern league which was the 5th tier. Darvel play in a league which feeds the Scottish Lowland league which feeds the Scottish Football league. So a further tier down to Hereford.
    6th tier - tier 5 is the conference, tier 6 conference north and south.

    Worth saying that it’s way easier to end up in the conference then to get promoted from it - it’s why you often see the newly promoted conference side high up in league w the following year.
    The conference/ national league only came into existence in 1979 - Hereford played in a Southern League where the next rung was election to the 4th Division
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,357
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:


    Because there are posters on this site with a good track record of mostly putting their own views aside to analyse the politics to try and identify good betting opportunities.

    Then there are those who have all too evidently allowed their partisan bias to inform what they purport to post as objective, if self-evidently flaky, analysis.

    Then there are those in the middle like me who try to aspire to the former but sometimes struggle.

    Like CHB, I’d guess that most PB’ers have you in the second camp. If it’s any consolation, CHB is with me in the third camp and for balance there are those like Heathener from the left also the second camp.

    HYUFD is an example - probably the best - of somebody who is clearly a Tory but is also good at posting objective analysis. Richard similarly.

    Stodge also knows what is going on, as do you Ian.

    I think there will be a 30 point Labour lead because things seem to be getting worse not better, Sunak is proving himself to be hilariously incompetent and the public are becoming more in favour of strikes not less - and they are blaming the Government.

    A 30 point lead isn't even hugely out there, we've already had such leads in this Parliament.

    For what it's worth, I am one of the few who thinks it won't be a Labour majority. I still think it will be a Hung Parliament - and for me I would prefer such an outcome as I want PR implemented.
    I should just like to point out for the record that I am not a Tory. I am not even sure I am right of centre on many important issues - at least not as they are normally defined these days. I think in the 19th and early 20th century I would have been a classic liberal. Now I style myself a Libertarian - but of the British rather than US variety and even then I disagree with many things that Libertarians apparently believe in.

    I have voted Tory twice in my life. My first election for Thatcher in 1987 and then once for the local Tory candidate (who was a friend) in 2001 who then turned out to be a crook. I have never voted for a mainstream party apart from those two occasions. I couldn't even bring myself to vote Tory when the alternative was quite possibly the reversal of Brexit.
    I was wrong, I hope you will accept my apology Richard.
    Wrong indeed. He’s too Tory for the Tories.

    Still, in finding out that the Tory he voted for turned out to be a crook, he’s done his best to live a more mainstream existence….
    Richard did vote UKIP in 2015 I believe
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    I can see why Sunak kept him in place, as the former Chancellor he was clearly “safe’ but the fact he hasn’t been removed with all the news leads me to question how disastrously weak a hand politically does Rishi have?
    That's true, and the lack of recovery makes him all the more unable to do, well, a lot of things, though it is worth remembering that even when he has a choice about things he does things like appoint Gavin Williamson.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,682
    eek said:

    dixiedean said:

    Darvel 1 Aberdeen 0. Full time.

    Watched the end of that. "who?" "Where?" "Playing in what league?"

    Has there ever been a bigger upset than this in Scotland or England cup ties? All the big FA Cup ones I can think of we're Conference sides beating old Division One. This lot play in the West of Scotland Premier League - the 6th tier!
    I think Hereford vs Newcastle (the Ronnie Redford one) is the same difference, but it’s a heck of a result.
    Hereford played in the southern league which was the 5th tier. Darvel play in a league which feeds the Scottish Lowland league which feeds the Scottish Football league. So a further tier down to Hereford.
    6th tier - tier 5 is the conference, tier 6 conference north and south.

    Worth saying that it’s way easier to end up in the conference then to get promoted from it - it’s why you often see the newly promoted conference side high up in league w the following year.
    At the time the Southern League was the 5th tier:

    The home team, Hereford United, were playing in the Southern Football League, the fifth tier of the English football league system. The away team, Newcastle United, played in the English First Division, the first tier.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereford_United_2–1_Newcastle_United
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    Scott_xP said:

    @NatashaC: Excl: Ministers have privately agreed to bring forward the date the state pension age hits 68

    Was due to be 2046,… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1617650854038749184

    Very sensible move. No doubt very unpopular.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298
    eek said:

    dixiedean said:

    Darvel 1 Aberdeen 0. Full time.

    Watched the end of that. "who?" "Where?" "Playing in what league?"

    Has there ever been a bigger upset than this in Scotland or England cup ties? All the big FA Cup ones I can think of we're Conference sides beating old Division One. This lot play in the West of Scotland Premier League - the 6th tier!
    I think Hereford vs Newcastle (the Ronnie Redford one) is the same difference, but it’s a heck of a result.
    Hereford played in the southern league which was the 5th tier. Darvel play in a league which feeds the Scottish Lowland league which feeds the Scottish Football league. So a further tier down to Hereford.
    6th tier - tier 5 is the conference, tier 6 conference north and south.

    Worth saying that it’s way easier to end up in the conference then to get promoted from it - it’s why you often see the newly promoted conference side high up in league w the following year.
    Was no conference (that is national non-league division) then. Wasn't formed till 1979.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    Scott_xP said:

    @guardian: Zahawi, Sunak, Johnson: this is rule by plutocrat. It’s like a stench that’s worse each day | Polly Toynbee https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/23/nadhim-zahawi-rishi-sunak-boris-johnson-plutocrat-tax-error-tory

    Hmm, I don't think them being rich is why things are so bad. For starters, they are very different levels of rich, and got rich in very different ways.

    I think it is a combination of a government in office too long, facing intractable problems (or at least intractable for the range of options they can politically consider), and having long since abandoned any concern about personal ethics and professional standards as other than trivial.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 3,664
    edited January 23

    Fpt

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Seems we are being invited to reduce our peak energy use as the windfarms are becalmed by the cold weather

    And yet the demand is for even more windfarms when we really need nuclear and tidal to guarantee constant energy supply if we end gas usage

    It could be a very long time until we can dispense with gas

    We obviously can't dispense with gas, or coal for that matter. The idea is to vastly reduce it during windy and sunny times, or even storing gas/coal for intermittent use. And yes, developing Nuclear as well. It's called a mixed system. We should never put all our eggs in one basket. Obviously there is a demand for more wind farms, like all other sources!
    I am in favour of additional wind generation but it does depend on 'wind' and often in very cold weather the wind is not at all reliable as we are seeing just now
    Storage when there is wind?
    I would assume storage has a role to play
    Interestingly under today’s calm cold conditions we are currently generating 5.3gw of wind power, which is greater than our nuclear generation.

    Whilst more wind power doesn’t eliminate the problem of intermittency it certainly reduces it. With 4x the current capacity (perfectly feasible especially with new larger turbines coming on) we’d be generating half of our electricity from wind even on a still, high demand night like tonight.

    We need more wind (much much more), more solar with built in battery storage, more nuclear, further progress on energy efficiency, more cross border interconnecters to balance European supply and demand, more grid scale storage of various types, and backup gas generation until such time as it’s no longer needed.
    I'm sorry but this post is utter rubbish - both according to basic logic, and current real life. All these wind providers must be paid. They get paid to shut off when their power is too much for the grid - currently hundreds of millions a year. The capacity increase you're proposing would propel constraint payments into the stratosphere, all only for half of electricity supply on a low wind night? It's power generation for the severely numerically-challenged. Your barmy theories are why UK energy production is in its pitiful state.
    I’m proud to know that my PB posts have had such a profound and important impact on our power system.

    We’ve gone over the subsidy and constraint payment canard dozens of times on here before yet you always end up stating the same assumptions.

    Constraint payments are a feature of regional imbalances, not national surplus, and insufficient grid carriage capacity largely because sometimes more wind power is generated in the North and Scotland than the grid capacity able to carry it South. Until recently it had to make its way down the equivalent of narrow b roads. The issue is being actively addressed by investment from national grid. Ie they are building big cables to carry the power to where it’s needed.

    A lot of anti wind rhetoric seems to take one little issue (take your pick: planning eyesore
    birds being hit by blades, what about when it’s calm, constraint payments etc) and conclude the answer is therefore to stop wind power and spend our money on old fossil fuel technologies instead. This ignores the problems with them (climate change aside there is air pollution, geopolitical risk, planning etc) and also ignores the fact that in most case there are solutions to the original issue.

    It is not a canard, and my recollection of previous discussions is that when people have dismissed the cost of constraint and subsidy, they have moved on from the discussion pretty quickly after the true figures were brought to the table.

    I am aware that in many cases, local grid deficiencies mean wind farms have to constrain - that's why they build them in those locations. The grid can be made more robust, but it will never be a bottomless pit, and the overcapacity you're talking about would result in vastly more problems both locally, and, on windy days, nationally. The UK billpayer would be on the hook for every kw produced, and not produced.

    The answer is not to 'stop' wind power, or even 'stop' subsidies (which would have the same effect), but to reorganise the subsidy regime to prevent the worst abuses, and incentivise storage and reselling of power amongst wind providers. Meanwhile, invest in reliable, non-intermittent renewables like tidal, and domestic fossil fuel production to clamp down on imported coal, gas and timber, which add even more carbon to the atmosphere. Not increase the issue four-fold ffs.
    I didn’t spot that in the previous thread. Much of it is sensible and I don’t disagree. Until the last couple of sentences.

    Domestic fossil fuel resources are almost all not financially viable and will become less so. The one exception being existing North Sea oil and gas fields some of which are still viable, and probably have a few years of production left. And as a result they continue to be exploited.

    Multiplying wind power, our biggest natural energy resource, remains the cheapest way to wean ourselves off fossil fuels and if there is infrastructure investment needed to tackle constraint issues (as there already has been, as well as improved grid balancing) and ramp up storage then great, get on with investing. Every growing technology comes up against constraints: when cars multiplied we got congestion so built motorways, when industry took off we got pollution so introduced environmental regulations, indeed the national grid and its vast arrays of pylons were put in place to ensure the country could balance supply and demand.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298
    Scott_xP said:

    @NatashaC: Excl: Ministers have privately agreed to bring forward the date the state pension age hits 68

    Was due to be 2046,… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1617650854038749184

    2035. Not 2034.
    And I am unanimous on that.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @guardian: Zahawi, Sunak, Johnson: this is rule by plutocrat. It’s like a stench that’s worse each day | Polly Toynbee https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/23/nadhim-zahawi-rishi-sunak-boris-johnson-plutocrat-tax-error-tory

    Hmm, I don't think them being rich is why things are so bad. For starters, they are very different levels of rich, and got rich in very different ways.

    I think it is a combination of a government in office too long, facing intractable problems (or at least intractable for the range of options they can politically consider), and having long since abandoned any concern about personal ethics and professional standards as other than trivial.
    It's worth reading Hugo Rifkind's Times column linked upthread.

    If Toynbee in the Guardian and Rifkind in The Times are both saying similar things, there must be something there...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    @SkyNews: 'Rishi Sunak has a difficult few days ahead and he could end it by sacking former chancellor Nadhim Zahawi.'

    Liste… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1617654271482134528
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    @AllieHBNews: Tuesday’s INDEPENDENT Digital: “How can he keep his job?” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1617656272697933824/photo/1
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,214
    edited January 23
    Place in bloated file, MoonRabbit told us so


  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,682
    There's a rather shocking table on page 18 of the Civitas report that triggered the Daily Mail, that shows that even the top income quintile of retired people receive more in benefits than they pay in tax.

    https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/State-dependency-FINAL.pdf

    I didn't notice the DM headlining on that particular nugget.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,759
    Scott_xP said:

    @NatashaC: Excl: Ministers have privately agreed to bring forward the date the state pension age hits 68

    Was due to be 2046,… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1617650854038749184

    It's a tricky one, and the sort of thing our politicians should really seek to achieve a cross-party consensus on to take the heat out of it.

    Retiring at 68 would be fine for most of the well-heeled contributors to PB. But for low-paid manual workers with gruelling jobs, it's a stretch. I can't help but think that a more radical solution may be needed.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 2,373
    dixiedean said:

    Darvel 1 Aberdeen 0. Full time.

    Is it possible for a football manager to be sacked for gross negligence, without compensation? Asking for a friend.
  • An intervention from BoJo in the Mail:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11667727/BORIS-JOHNSON-sooner-help-Ukraine-victory-sooner-suffering-over.html

    It is not our job to worry about Putin, or where his career might go next, or to engage in pointless Kremlinology. Our job is to help Ukraine win – as fast as possible.

    Those heroic people are fighting for all of us. The Ukrainians are fighting for the Georgians, for the Moldovans, for the Baltic states, for the Poles – for anyone who might in due time be threatened by Putin's crazed revanchism and neo-imperialism. They are fighting for the principle that nations should not have their borders changed by force.

    When Ukraine wins, that is a message that will be heard around the world. So let us help them win, not next year or the year after, but this year, 2023; and don't talk to me, finally, about expense.

    If you want to minimise the world's economic pain, if you want to avoid the enormous cost – in blood and treasure – of letting this tragedy stretch on, then let's together do the obvious thing.

    Let's give the Ukrainians all they need to win now.

    Didn't Priti Patel get into bother running a freelance foreign policy?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,506
    edited January 23
    TimS said:

    Fpt

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Seems we are being invited to reduce our peak energy use as the windfarms are becalmed by the cold weather

    And yet the demand is for even more windfarms when we really need nuclear and tidal to guarantee constant energy supply if we end gas usage

    It could be a very long time until we can dispense with gas

    We obviously can't dispense with gas, or coal for that matter. The idea is to vastly reduce it during windy and sunny times, or even storing gas/coal for intermittent use. And yes, developing Nuclear as well. It's called a mixed system. We should never put all our eggs in one basket. Obviously there is a demand for more wind farms, like all other sources!
    I am in favour of additional wind generation but it does depend on 'wind' and often in very cold weather the wind is not at all reliable as we are seeing just now
    Storage when there is wind?
    I would assume storage has a role to play
    Interestingly under today’s calm cold conditions we are currently generating 5.3gw of wind power, which is greater than our nuclear generation.

    Whilst more wind power doesn’t eliminate the problem of intermittency it certainly reduces it. With 4x the current capacity (perfectly feasible especially with new larger turbines coming on) we’d be generating half of our electricity from wind even on a still, high demand night like tonight.

    We need more wind (much much more), more solar with built in battery storage, more nuclear, further progress on energy efficiency, more cross border interconnecters to balance European supply and demand, more grid scale storage of various types, and backup gas generation until such time as it’s no longer needed.
    I'm sorry but this post is utter rubbish - both according to basic logic, and current real life. All these wind providers must be paid. They get paid to shut off when their power is too much for the grid - currently hundreds of millions a year. The capacity increase you're proposing would propel constraint payments into the stratosphere, all only for half of electricity supply on a low wind night? It's power generation for the severely numerically-challenged. Your barmy theories are why UK energy production is in its pitiful state.
    I’m proud to know that my PB posts have had such a profound and important impact on our power system.

    We’ve gone over the subsidy and constraint payment canard dozens of times on here before yet you always end up stating the same assumptions.

    Constraint payments are a feature of regional imbalances, not national surplus, and insufficient grid carriage capacity largely because sometimes more wind power is generated in the North and Scotland than the grid capacity able to carry it South. Until recently it had to make its way down the equivalent of narrow b roads. The issue is being actively addressed by investment from national grid. Ie they are building big cables to carry the power to where it’s needed.

    A lot of anti wind rhetoric seems to take one little issue (take your pick: planning eyesore
    birds being hit by blades, what about when it’s calm, constraint payments etc) and conclude the answer is therefore to stop wind power and spend our money on old fossil fuel technologies instead. This ignores the problems with them (climate change aside there is air pollution, geopolitical risk, planning etc) and also ignores the fact that in most case there are solutions to the original issue.

    It is not a canard, and my recollection of previous discussions is that when people have dismissed the cost of constraint and subsidy, they have moved on from the discussion pretty quickly after the true figures were brought to the table.

    I am aware that in many cases, local grid deficiencies mean wind farms have to constrain - that's why they build them in those locations. The grid can be made more robust, but it will never be a bottomless pit, and the overcapacity you're talking about would result in vastly more problems both locally, and, on windy days, nationally. The UK billpayer would be on the hook for every kw produced, and not produced.

    The answer is not to 'stop' wind power, or even 'stop' subsidies (which would have the same effect), but to reorganise the subsidy regime to prevent the worst abuses, and incentivise storage and reselling of power amongst wind providers. Meanwhile, invest in reliable, non-intermittent renewables like tidal, and domestic fossil fuel production to clamp down on imported coal, gas and timber, which add even more carbon to the atmosphere. Not increase the issue four-fold ffs.
    I didn’t spot that in the previous thread. Much of it is sensible and I don’t disagree. Until the last couple of sentences.

    Domestic fossil fuel resources are almost all not financially viable and will become less so. The one exception being existing North Sea oil and gas fields some of which are still viable, and probably have a few years of production left. And as a result they continue to be exploited.

    Multiplying wind power, our biggest natural energy resource, remains the cheapest way to wean ourselves off fossil fuels and if there is infrastructure investment needed to tackle constraint issues (as there already has been, as well as improved grid balancing) and ramp up storage then great, get on with investing. Every growing technology comes up against constraints: when cars multiplied we got congestion so built motorways, when industry took off we got pollution so introduced environmental regulations, indeed the national grid and its vast arrays of pylons were put in place to ensure the country could balance supply and demand.
    5bn in subsidies in a year for offshore alone (same again for onshore?) plus constraint is not a 'cheap' sum to chuck at one form of supposedly free power.

    And the point is that nobody is investing in storage because most aspects of the subsidy regime actively discourage storage. Why would you store your power and resell if it is far more profitable to be compensated for constraining?

    There are proven oilfields in the North Sea that are not being exploited. There is also fracking, which we're constantly told is unprofitable and a dead end - so why does it need to be banned?

    And one thing we do have in abundance - totally reliable tides. And the civil service killed that, and haven't revived it even under the current circumstances.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298
    edited January 23

    Scott_xP said:

    @NatashaC: Excl: Ministers have privately agreed to bring forward the date the state pension age hits 68

    Was due to be 2046,… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1617650854038749184

    It's a tricky one, and the sort of thing our politicians should really seek to achieve a cross-party consensus on to take the heat out of it.

    Retiring at 68 would be fine for most of the well-heeled contributors to PB. But for low-paid manual workers with gruelling jobs, it's a stretch. I can't help but think that a more radical solution may be needed.
    Not just manual workers.
    I'm not convinced a teaching assistant aged 67 would be effective.
    Although we have them at 16, so maybe?
    A substantial pay rise could be of more utility?
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 2,373
    eek said:

    dixiedean said:

    Darvel 1 Aberdeen 0. Full time.

    Watched the end of that. "who?" "Where?" "Playing in what league?"

    Has there ever been a bigger upset than this in Scotland or England cup ties? All the big FA Cup ones I can think of we're Conference sides beating old Division One. This lot play in the West of Scotland Premier League - the 6th tier!
    I think Hereford vs Newcastle (the Ronnie Redford one) is the same difference, but it’s a heck of a result.
    Hereford played in the southern league which was the 5th tier. Darvel play in a league which feeds the Scottish Lowland league which feeds the Scottish Football league. So a further tier down to Hereford.
    6th tier - tier 5 is the conference, tier 6 conference north and south.

    Worth saying that it’s way easier to end up in the conference then to get promoted from it - it’s why you often see the newly promoted conference side high up in league w the following year.
    The equivalent would be Brackley Town knocking out Newcastle.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,344

    There's a rather shocking table on page 18 of the Civitas report that triggered the Daily Mail, that shows that even the top income quintile of retired people receive more in benefits than they pay in tax.

    https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/State-dependency-FINAL.pdf

    I didn't notice the DM headlining on that particular nugget.

    Benefits in kind includes the NHS. Do you think think the basic principle of allocating resources by need should change?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 17,643

    There's a rather shocking table on page 18 of the Civitas report that triggered the Daily Mail, that shows that even the top income quintile of retired people receive more in benefits than they pay in tax.

    https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/State-dependency-FINAL.pdf

    I didn't notice the DM headlining on that particular nugget.

    Benefits in kind includes the NHS. Do you think think the basic principle of allocating resources by need should change?
    Surely though the top quintile are not in “need”.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,759
    dixiedean said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @NatashaC: Excl: Ministers have privately agreed to bring forward the date the state pension age hits 68

    Was due to be 2046,… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1617650854038749184

    It's a tricky one, and the sort of thing our politicians should really seek to achieve a cross-party consensus on to take the heat out of it.

    Retiring at 68 would be fine for most of the well-heeled contributors to PB. But for low-paid manual workers with gruelling jobs, it's a stretch. I can't help but think that a more radical solution may be needed.
    Not just manual workers.
    I'm not convinced a teaching assistant aged 67 would be effective.
    Although we have them at 16, so maybe?
    A substantial pay rise could be of more utility?
    I agree. I was burnt out of teaching at 45 and proceeded to higher-paid and less exhausting jobs until retirement.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 2,373
    Commenting on the thread header (it’s time someone did), men are used to being in power. Women are threatening this, and some men are unable to accept it. It’s vital that those of us who do accept it ensure that misogyny is called out and rooted out. The SNP example is slightly different, in that it is a political elite who are feeling vulnerable, and are hitting out against all perceived opposition.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,110

    There's a rather shocking table on page 18 of the Civitas report that triggered the Daily Mail, that shows that even the top income quintile of retired people receive more in benefits than they pay in tax.

    https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/State-dependency-FINAL.pdf

    I didn't notice the DM headlining on that particular nugget.

    Benefits in kind includes the NHS. Do you think think the basic principle of allocating resources by need should change?
    Surely though the top quintile are not in “need”.
    They still get to use the NHS, which I think was William’s point.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 2,373

    Place in bloated file, MoonRabbit told us so


    Is that @MoonRabbit’s birthday card sending cousin Moonpig?
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,317

    I'm not sure I would accuse Olivia Blake, Nadia Whitmore and Zarah Sultana of being misogynists. Daft as brushes perhaps.

    Question then - can women not be misogynists?
    Yes I suppose.
  • dixiedean said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @NatashaC: Excl: Ministers have privately agreed to bring forward the date the state pension age hits 68

    Was due to be 2046,… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1617650854038749184

    It's a tricky one, and the sort of thing our politicians should really seek to achieve a cross-party consensus on to take the heat out of it.

    Retiring at 68 would be fine for most of the well-heeled contributors to PB. But for low-paid manual workers with gruelling jobs, it's a stretch. I can't help but think that a more radical solution may be needed.
    Not just manual workers.
    I'm not convinced a teaching assistant aged 67 would be effective.
    Although we have them at 16, so maybe?
    A substantial pay rise could be of more utility?
    It's a problem we've known about for ages, without coming up with good ideas to solve it.

    We can't all have 20 years retirement, because we mostly can't earn enough to fund that.

    There are lots of jobs that we don't really want sixtysomethings doing, because they're just too physical or fast-moving.

    We also need to keep a flow through the career ladders, so that the generation below can have opportunities as well.

    Not sure what we do about it, though.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    @NatashaC: RT @FirstEdition: "The challenge for Nadhim is look at the front pages, he's leading too many of them."

    Tory MP Caroline Nokes says… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1617654472771084295
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 2,373

    Scott_xP said:

    @NatashaC: Excl: Ministers have privately agreed to bring forward the date the state pension age hits 68

    Was due to be 2046,… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1617650854038749184

    It's a tricky one, and the sort of thing our politicians should really seek to achieve a cross-party consensus on to take the heat out of it.

    Retiring at 68 would be fine for most of the well-heeled contributors to PB. But for low-paid manual workers with gruelling jobs, it's a stretch. I can't help but think that a more radical solution may be needed.
    Office workers should retire at 70. Manual workers should retire at 65. Alternatively, nobody should be allowed to retire until they have worked for 50 years. Went into an apprenticeship at 16? Retire at 66. Went to university and stayed on for a PhD? Retire at 75.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,240

    There's a rather shocking table on page 18 of the Civitas report that triggered the Daily Mail, that shows that even the top income quintile of retired people receive more in benefits than they pay in tax.

    https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/State-dependency-FINAL.pdf

    I didn't notice the DM headlining on that particular nugget.

    Benefits in kind includes the NHS. Do you think think the basic principle of allocating resources by need should change?
    Surely though the top quintile are not in “need”.
    They're more in need of expensive healthcare then most people of working age, and it would be hard for them to pay enough tax to pay for that as they go. Whether implicitly, through being net contributors during their working life, or explicitly with an insurance fund, you would expect that people would build up an entitlement to a pension and healthcare that they would drawdown once they retired.

    This is how the system is designed. It should come as no surprise.

    The problem we are facing now is that because our system was designed as a pay as you go system, the baby boomer generation didn't have to contribute all that much while they were working, because they had much fewer pensioners to support. And now there are relatively many fewer people of working age to provide their expected benefits. If we then try to transition to an explicit insurance fund model, where people pay ahead for their own care, rather than expect the next generation to stump up for it, then the poor bloody generation caught in the middle will end up having to pay for their own retirement as well as for their parents.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 11,082
    edited January 23

    Place in bloated file, MoonRabbit told us so


    Arnold Ziffel Gets Kicked Out of Hooterville Elementary - Green Acres
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0K_INetpzM

    Addendum - Thus sparking a student uprising 1960s-style
This discussion has been closed.