Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

The front pages after Sunak shows his resolve – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,016
edited February 2023 in General
imageThe front pages after Sunak shows his resolve – politicalbetting.com

Read the full story here

«1

Comments

  • Options
    He should get rid of Raab and Sharp next.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983

    He should get rid of Raab and Sharp next.

    He won't, they backed him for the leadership unlike Zahawi
  • Options
    WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,503
    edited January 2023
    These kinds of indebtedness are his problem. Poking his nose into the BBC and Johnson loan issue would also have the helpful side-effect of further discrediting Johnson and adding more distance from him, but the ERG , or ex-ERG, camp don't desire that.
  • Options
    US general warns British Army no longer top-level fighting force, defence sources reveal

    Rishi Sunak risks failing in his role as "wartime prime minister" unless he takes urgent action given the growing security threat posed by Vladimir Putin, it has been warned, with calls for a significant hike in spending.

    https://news.sky.com/story/us-general-warns-british-army-no-longer-top-level-fighting-force-defence-sources-reveal-12798365
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,325
    edited January 2023

    US general warns British Army no longer top-level fighting force, defence sources reveal

    Rishi Sunak risks failing in his role as "wartime prime minister" unless he takes urgent action given the growing security threat posed by Vladimir Putin, it has been warned, with calls for a significant hike in spending.

    https://news.sky.com/story/us-general-warns-british-army-no-longer-top-level-fighting-force-defence-sources-reveal-12798365

    At just 76,000 strong, the British army is less than half the size it was back in 1990 and the smallest it has been since Napoleonic times.

    The force is due to shrink even further to 73,000 under current plans that will be implemented unless new money is found.


    And also:-

    Offering a sense of the scale of the challenge faced by the army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, it is understood that:

    The armed forces would run out of ammunition "in a few days" if called upon to fight

    The UK lacks the ability to defend its skies against the level of missile and drone strikes that Ukraine is enduring

    It would take five to ten years for the army to be able to field a war-fighting division of some 25,000 to 30,000 troops backed by tanks, artillery and helicopters

    Some 30% of UK forces on high readiness are reservists who are unable to mobilise within NATO timelines - "so we'd turn up under strength"

    The majority of the army's fleet of armoured vehicles, including tanks, was built between 30 to 60 years ago and full replacements are not due for years

    https://news.sky.com/story/us-general-warns-british-army-no-longer-top-level-fighting-force-defence-sources-reveal-12798365
  • Options
    Employers do not want to hire older workers, according to CMI research.

    The CMI surveyed more than 1,000 managers working in UK businesses and public services. It found that just four out of 10 (42%) were open "to a large extent" to hiring people aged between 50 and 64.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64441775
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,325
    edited January 2023
    The Rest is Politics: Rory and Al talk to former Health Secretary Alan Milburn for an hour.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VRvXEEebYQ (or other podcast platforms)

    ETA lots on health policy, some on twitter abuse and Rishi and Keir's similarities.
  • Options
    WillGWillG Posts: 2,089
    Man, I hope Putin ends up hanging from a lamppost.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64397745
  • Options
    WillGWillG Posts: 2,089

    US general warns British Army no longer top-level fighting force, defence sources reveal

    Rishi Sunak risks failing in his role as "wartime prime minister" unless he takes urgent action given the growing security threat posed by Vladimir Putin, it has been warned, with calls for a significant hike in spending.

    https://news.sky.com/story/us-general-warns-british-army-no-longer-top-level-fighting-force-defence-sources-reveal-12798365

    Translation: buy more hardware from us.
    I don't know why a general would care about US arms sales.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,954
    WillG said:

    US general warns British Army no longer top-level fighting force, defence sources reveal

    Rishi Sunak risks failing in his role as "wartime prime minister" unless he takes urgent action given the growing security threat posed by Vladimir Putin, it has been warned, with calls for a significant hike in spending.

    https://news.sky.com/story/us-general-warns-british-army-no-longer-top-level-fighting-force-defence-sources-reveal-12798365

    Translation: buy more hardware from us.
    I don't know why a general would care about US arms sales.
    Agreed: the General cares about the UK armed forced being well equipped. And he's right to be concerned about how hollowed out we are.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,508

    US general warns British Army no longer top-level fighting force, defence sources reveal

    Rishi Sunak risks failing in his role as "wartime prime minister" unless he takes urgent action given the growing security threat posed by Vladimir Putin, it has been warned, with calls for a significant hike in spending.

    https://news.sky.com/story/us-general-warns-british-army-no-longer-top-level-fighting-force-defence-sources-reveal-12798365

    Translation: buy more hardware from us.
    No doubt there’s some special pleading in there: but the points made are essentially correct, even if you think it’s fine to have an army much reduced in size.

    The lack of ammunition is the most absurd, since it renders a lot of the expensive kit worthless without it, and the compete inadequacy of our air defence probably.the most worrying.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,986

    US general warns British Army no longer top-level fighting force, defence sources reveal

    Rishi Sunak risks failing in his role as "wartime prime minister" unless he takes urgent action given the growing security threat posed by Vladimir Putin, it has been warned, with calls for a significant hike in spending.

    https://news.sky.com/story/us-general-warns-british-army-no-longer-top-level-fighting-force-defence-sources-reveal-12798365

    "US general". Fucking LOL. This is just Baldy Ben or one of his thanes leaking stuff to try to get more money from the Treasury. Possible preemptive strike to stave off a cut to the army. They have put the words in the mouth of a "US general", who may or may not exist, because they think it carries more heft than just Captain Mainwaring saying it.
  • Options
    WillGWillG Posts: 2,089
    Interesting maps showing Britain to be 18% Muslim by 2050.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/10o5vxv/
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,508
    rcs1000 said:

    WillG said:

    US general warns British Army no longer top-level fighting force, defence sources reveal

    Rishi Sunak risks failing in his role as "wartime prime minister" unless he takes urgent action given the growing security threat posed by Vladimir Putin, it has been warned, with calls for a significant hike in spending.

    https://news.sky.com/story/us-general-warns-british-army-no-longer-top-level-fighting-force-defence-sources-reveal-12798365

    Translation: buy more hardware from us.
    I don't know why a general would care about US arms sales.
    Agreed: the General cares about the UK armed forced being well equipped. And he's right to be concerned about how hollowed out we are.
    We do need (laughs hollowly) another urgent defence review.
    There’s no way in our current economic state that the armed forces are going to get everything they want, and although the army is in a parlous state, the more urgent near term problem is that we genuinely lack the capacity to defend our airspace.
  • Options
    Dura_Ace said:

    US general warns British Army no longer top-level fighting force, defence sources reveal

    Rishi Sunak risks failing in his role as "wartime prime minister" unless he takes urgent action given the growing security threat posed by Vladimir Putin, it has been warned, with calls for a significant hike in spending.

    https://news.sky.com/story/us-general-warns-british-army-no-longer-top-level-fighting-force-defence-sources-reveal-12798365

    "US general". Fucking LOL. This is just Baldy Ben or one of his thanes leaking stuff to try to get more money from the Treasury. Possible preemptive strike to stave off a cut to the army. They have put the words in the mouth of a "US general", who may or may not exist, because they think it carries more heft than just Captain Mainwaring saying it.
    Well, the possibly fictitious American general has a point after decades of cuts. The latest complaint is that Rishi is giving tanks to Ukraine without ordering new ones. Which, incidentally, is further than Ukraine's BFF Boris was prepared to go.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,508
    WillG said:

    US general warns British Army no longer top-level fighting force, defence sources reveal

    Rishi Sunak risks failing in his role as "wartime prime minister" unless he takes urgent action given the growing security threat posed by Vladimir Putin, it has been warned, with calls for a significant hike in spending.

    https://news.sky.com/story/us-general-warns-british-army-no-longer-top-level-fighting-force-defence-sources-reveal-12798365

    Translation: buy more hardware from us.
    I don't know why a general would care about US arms sales.
    I can think of a few reasons.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,508
    Dura_Ace said:

    US general warns British Army no longer top-level fighting force, defence sources reveal

    Rishi Sunak risks failing in his role as "wartime prime minister" unless he takes urgent action given the growing security threat posed by Vladimir Putin, it has been warned, with calls for a significant hike in spending.

    https://news.sky.com/story/us-general-warns-british-army-no-longer-top-level-fighting-force-defence-sources-reveal-12798365

    "US general". Fucking LOL. This is just Baldy Ben or one of his thanes leaking stuff to try to get more money from the Treasury. Possible preemptive strike to stave off a cut to the army. They have put the words in the mouth of a "US general", who may or may not exist, because they think it carries more heft than just Captain Mainwaring saying it.
    The points aren’t wrong though, are they ?
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,325
    edited January 2023
    deleted -- I'm going to bed. Goodnight PB.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,132
    WillG said:

    Interesting maps showing Britain to be 18% Muslim by 2050.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/10o5vxv/

    Eh, 9.7%.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,954
    Taz said:

    WillG said:

    Interesting maps showing Britain to be 18% Muslim by 2050.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/10o5vxv/

    Eh, 9.7%.
    It's 17.2% in the high migration scenario.

    Albeit that scenario requires massively more Muslim migration than is currently the case.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,216
    It seems the armed forces are another public service on which we spend more and more to get less and less. Russia is not a conventional threat to us as has been shown in the Ukraine where their army is being destroyed. It is not easy to see what the conventional threat is at the moment.

    The real question for defence is do we want to try and play in the Pacific. If we do the carriers should be the major focus of our defence efforts. They are not capable of being deployed without a lot of support from the US right now. Do we want to try and address that?
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,132

    Employers do not want to hire older workers, according to CMI research.

    The CMI surveyed more than 1,000 managers working in UK businesses and public services. It found that just four out of 10 (42%) were open "to a large extent" to hiring people aged between 50 and 64.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64441775

    Hardly a surprise. The workplace discriminates against older workers. It’s an acceptable prejudice. How Hunt overcomes this remains to be seen.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,132
    rcs1000 said:

    Taz said:

    WillG said:

    Interesting maps showing Britain to be 18% Muslim by 2050.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/10o5vxv/

    Eh, 9.7%.
    It's 17.2% in the high migration scenario.

    Albeit that scenario requires massively more Muslim migration than is currently the case.
    Thanks.

    So I’d say pretty unlikely in that case but I’d also say no big deal,either way.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,940

    Dura_Ace said:

    US general warns British Army no longer top-level fighting force, defence sources reveal

    Rishi Sunak risks failing in his role as "wartime prime minister" unless he takes urgent action given the growing security threat posed by Vladimir Putin, it has been warned, with calls for a significant hike in spending.

    https://news.sky.com/story/us-general-warns-british-army-no-longer-top-level-fighting-force-defence-sources-reveal-12798365

    "US general". Fucking LOL. This is just Baldy Ben or one of his thanes leaking stuff to try to get more money from the Treasury. Possible preemptive strike to stave off a cut to the army. They have put the words in the mouth of a "US general", who may or may not exist, because they think it carries more heft than just Captain Mainwaring saying it.
    Well, the possibly fictitious American general has a point after decades of cuts. The latest complaint is that Rishi is giving tanks to Ukraine without ordering new ones. Which, incidentally, is further than Ukraine's BFF Boris was prepared to go.
    If I may play devil's advocate for a moment, then I'd say that now may be exactly the *wrong* time to be ordering tanks for our own use. What we may be seeing in Ukraine is the first 'proper' tank battles between militaries equipped with very modern weapons. How the Ch2, Abrams, Leo2s and all the ex-Soviet tanks behave in the next year, and the tactics developed to effectively use, and defeat, them, should be fed into any new designs. And yes, that might mean Ch3 is dead.

    A decent military will be looking at this, and working out how tanks can be made more effective and survivable on the modern battlefield. As an example (which was already know to a small extent), putting your ammo stores in a bustle is better than in the turret.

    Yes, this would mean a delay in obtaining new tanks, but the Ch3 project has been so laggardly that another delay - actually with a good reason this time - is excusable.
  • Options
    Only just seen this, from yesterday's Sunday Times.


  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181

    Only just seen this, from yesterday's Sunday Times.


    Is that thing next to the pizza a tin of pineapple?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,216

    Dura_Ace said:

    US general warns British Army no longer top-level fighting force, defence sources reveal

    Rishi Sunak risks failing in his role as "wartime prime minister" unless he takes urgent action given the growing security threat posed by Vladimir Putin, it has been warned, with calls for a significant hike in spending.

    https://news.sky.com/story/us-general-warns-british-army-no-longer-top-level-fighting-force-defence-sources-reveal-12798365

    "US general". Fucking LOL. This is just Baldy Ben or one of his thanes leaking stuff to try to get more money from the Treasury. Possible preemptive strike to stave off a cut to the army. They have put the words in the mouth of a "US general", who may or may not exist, because they think it carries more heft than just Captain Mainwaring saying it.
    Well, the possibly fictitious American general has a point after decades of cuts. The latest complaint is that Rishi is giving tanks to Ukraine without ordering new ones. Which, incidentally, is further than Ukraine's BFF Boris was prepared to go.
    If I may play devil's advocate for a moment, then I'd say that now may be exactly the *wrong* time to be ordering tanks for our own use. What we may be seeing in Ukraine is the first 'proper' tank battles between militaries equipped with very modern weapons. How the Ch2, Abrams, Leo2s and all the ex-Soviet tanks behave in the next year, and the tactics developed to effectively use, and defeat, them, should be fed into any new designs. And yes, that might mean Ch3 is dead.

    A decent military will be looking at this, and working out how tanks can be made more effective and survivable on the modern battlefield. As an example (which was already know to a small extent), putting your ammo stores in a bustle is better than in the turret.

    Yes, this would mean a delay in obtaining new tanks, but the Ch3 project has been so laggardly that another delay - actually with a good reason this time - is excusable.
    The test will be whether tanks remain a mainstay of battlefield operations or not. That will depend on how western tanks cope with modern drones and hand held anti tank systems. Russian tanks did not cope with the latter at all, hence the defeat of their drive to Kyiv at the start of the war. And drones have developed massively since then, providing ever more fire power at a few percent of the cost of a MBT.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,371
    edited January 2023
    Not been a good few days for papers called The Daily Telegraph.

    I'm sure the PBers who fell for this bullshit will be eager to apologise to the Sussexes.



    https://www.theage.com.au/national/tele-s-mandela-hit-on-meghan-and-harry-backfires-20230129-p5cg8g.html
  • Options
    Great policy for the criminally neglected middle classes.

    The government should give middle-class drivers incentives to buy a second-hand electric car if climate targets are to be met, experts say.

    Demand for used electric vehicles is falling as electricity prices have risen, and the price of used electric cars, particularly luxury models, has fallen. The average price of a used Jaguar I-pace has fallen 14.6 per cent in a year, and the Tesla Model X is down 12.1 per cent.

    Cheaper models such as the Nissan Leaf have not fallen as far, by only 1.6 per cent. The price of the two-seater Smart ForTwo has fallen by 1.3 per cent.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/give-middle-classes-help-to-buy-a-used-electric-car-say-experts-slnpc537n
  • Options
    More communism from this leftist government, no wonder Michael Foot and Corbyn were in favour of leaving the EC.

    Michael Gove has pledged to bring forward laws to scrap most “feudal” leaseholds in England this year.

    Ministers are preparing to ditch rules that bar flat owners from buying the freehold to their property if a small part of their building is given over to commercial use, such as shops.

    The government will also make it much easier for leaseholders in flats to take over their buildings and bring them into common ownership to avoid extortionate management fees and ground rents.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/michael-gove-vows-to-scrap-feudal-leasehold-system-this-year-920srddc6
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,508
    .
    rcs1000 said:

    Taz said:

    WillG said:

    Interesting maps showing Britain to be 18% Muslim by 2050.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/10o5vxv/

    Eh, 9.7%.
    It's 17.2% in the high migration scenario.

    Albeit that scenario requires massively more Muslim migration than is currently the case.
    So if lots more come in, we'll have lots more ?
    Remarkable.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,592

    Great policy for the criminally neglected middle classes.

    The government should give middle-class drivers incentives to buy a second-hand electric car if climate targets are to be met, experts say.

    Demand for used electric vehicles is falling as electricity prices have risen, and the price of used electric cars, particularly luxury models, has fallen. The average price of a used Jaguar I-pace has fallen 14.6 per cent in a year, and the Tesla Model X is down 12.1 per cent.

    Cheaper models such as the Nissan Leaf have not fallen as far, by only 1.6 per cent. The price of the two-seater Smart ForTwo has fallen by 1.3 per cent.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/give-middle-classes-help-to-buy-a-used-electric-car-say-experts-slnpc537n

    A few weeks ago Tesla cut its new retail prices due to slowing sales. Apparently those who bought at the old price the week before are annoyed at getting no rebate.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jan/13/tesla-prices-us-europe-slowing-demand-elon-musk
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Sunak did the right thing, once he had exhausted every possible alternative.
  • Options
    FPT:
    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    Apparently Tory voters by 49% to 37% want the fat lying oaf back as PM . Really these people should be sterilized so they can’t add more idiocy to the UK gene pool !

    Voters overall prefer Sunak to Johnson 37% to 34%, and Remain voters prefer Sunak too.

    2019 Conservative voters though yes and Leave voters still prefer Johnson to Sunak

    https://twitter.com/TLDRNewsUK/status/1619741991407095809?s=20&t=VuysHzejZDpfxJVvGEXRyw
    On the surface, that's odd. After all, Rishi was a Leaver before it was cool and for sincere reasons. Boris was later to the party and not as convincing.

    There' must be something else going on (see also Leaver's attributes to Truss vs. Sunak). Something about confidence and brio? Sunak comes across as a bit diffident, a bit dweeby, and that's a Remain state of mind...
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,592
    Nigelb said:

    .

    rcs1000 said:

    Taz said:

    WillG said:

    Interesting maps showing Britain to be 18% Muslim by 2050.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/10o5vxv/

    Eh, 9.7%.
    It's 17.2% in the high migration scenario.

    Albeit that scenario requires massively more Muslim migration than is currently the case.
    So if lots more come in, we'll have lots more ?
    Remarkable.
    Brexit hasn't impacted on immigration numbers but has shifted the origins of the migrants. We get more from MENA and South Asia now. Our Greek doctors are being replaced by Egyptians.
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    rcs1000 said:

    Taz said:

    WillG said:

    Interesting maps showing Britain to be 18% Muslim by 2050.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/10o5vxv/

    Eh, 9.7%.
    It's 17.2% in the high migration scenario.

    Albeit that scenario requires massively more Muslim migration than is currently the case.
    So if lots more come in, we'll have lots more ?
    Remarkable.
    Brexit hasn't impacted on immigration numbers but has shifted the origins of the migrants. We get more from MENA and South Asia now. Our Greek doctors are being replaced by Egyptians.
    How could it be otherwise? When push comes to shove, the jobs still need to be done.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,508

    Dura_Ace said:

    US general warns British Army no longer top-level fighting force, defence sources reveal

    Rishi Sunak risks failing in his role as "wartime prime minister" unless he takes urgent action given the growing security threat posed by Vladimir Putin, it has been warned, with calls for a significant hike in spending.

    https://news.sky.com/story/us-general-warns-british-army-no-longer-top-level-fighting-force-defence-sources-reveal-12798365

    "US general". Fucking LOL. This is just Baldy Ben or one of his thanes leaking stuff to try to get more money from the Treasury. Possible preemptive strike to stave off a cut to the army. They have put the words in the mouth of a "US general", who may or may not exist, because they think it carries more heft than just Captain Mainwaring saying it.
    Well, the possibly fictitious American general has a point after decades of cuts. The latest complaint is that Rishi is giving tanks to Ukraine without ordering new ones. Which, incidentally, is further than Ukraine's BFF Boris was prepared to go.
    If I may play devil's advocate for a moment, then I'd say that now may be exactly the *wrong* time to be ordering tanks for our own use. What we may be seeing in Ukraine is the first 'proper' tank battles between militaries equipped with very modern weapons. How the Ch2, Abrams, Leo2s and all the ex-Soviet tanks behave in the next year, and the tactics developed to effectively use, and defeat, them, should be fed into any new designs. And yes, that might mean Ch3 is dead...
    As it probably should be.
    Of all the future scenarios we can imagine, the UK fighting tanks battles is one if the more remote ones.
    And if it's a question if supporting allies, we'd be more useful if we fielded the same kit.

    We long since abandoned any claim to be a competitive supplier of tanks. Cobbling together a new one using old Challenger hulls is a waste of time and money.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,592

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    rcs1000 said:

    Taz said:

    WillG said:

    Interesting maps showing Britain to be 18% Muslim by 2050.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/10o5vxv/

    Eh, 9.7%.
    It's 17.2% in the high migration scenario.

    Albeit that scenario requires massively more Muslim migration than is currently the case.
    So if lots more come in, we'll have lots more ?
    Remarkable.
    Brexit hasn't impacted on immigration numbers but has shifted the origins of the migrants. We get more from MENA and South Asia now. Our Greek doctors are being replaced by Egyptians.
    How could it be otherwise? When push comes to shove, the jobs still need to be done.
    Indeed, but those who pushed Brexit may not be so keen on the shift.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,508

    Great policy for the criminally neglected middle classes.

    The government should give middle-class drivers incentives to buy a second-hand electric car if climate targets are to be met, experts say.

    Demand for used electric vehicles is falling as electricity prices have risen, and the price of used electric cars, particularly luxury models, has fallen. The average price of a used Jaguar I-pace has fallen 14.6 per cent in a year, and the Tesla Model X is down 12.1 per cent.

    Cheaper models such as the Nissan Leaf have not fallen as far, by only 1.6 per cent. The price of the two-seater Smart ForTwo has fallen by 1.3 per cent.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/give-middle-classes-help-to-buy-a-used-electric-car-say-experts-slnpc537n

    Subsidies on second hand vehicles aren't going to increase the supply. How does this help 'meet climate targets' ?
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,592
    Nigelb said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    US general warns British Army no longer top-level fighting force, defence sources reveal

    Rishi Sunak risks failing in his role as "wartime prime minister" unless he takes urgent action given the growing security threat posed by Vladimir Putin, it has been warned, with calls for a significant hike in spending.

    https://news.sky.com/story/us-general-warns-british-army-no-longer-top-level-fighting-force-defence-sources-reveal-12798365

    "US general". Fucking LOL. This is just Baldy Ben or one of his thanes leaking stuff to try to get more money from the Treasury. Possible preemptive strike to stave off a cut to the army. They have put the words in the mouth of a "US general", who may or may not exist, because they think it carries more heft than just Captain Mainwaring saying it.
    Well, the possibly fictitious American general has a point after decades of cuts. The latest complaint is that Rishi is giving tanks to Ukraine without ordering new ones. Which, incidentally, is further than Ukraine's BFF Boris was prepared to go.
    If I may play devil's advocate for a moment, then I'd say that now may be exactly the *wrong* time to be ordering tanks for our own use. What we may be seeing in Ukraine is the first 'proper' tank battles between militaries equipped with very modern weapons. How the Ch2, Abrams, Leo2s and all the ex-Soviet tanks behave in the next year, and the tactics developed to effectively use, and defeat, them, should be fed into any new designs. And yes, that might mean Ch3 is dead...
    As it probably should be.
    Of all the future scenarios we can imagine, the UK fighting tanks battles is one if the more remote ones.
    And if it's a question if supporting allies, we'd be more useful if we fielded the same kit.

    We long since abandoned any claim to be a competitive supplier of tanks. Cobbling together a new one using old Challenger hulls is a waste of time and money.
    I wonder how much self propelled artillery we can now deploy too.

    Ammo must be a big issue too in any significant large scale action. It seems to be a major limiting factor in the Ukraine War.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,592
    edited January 2023
    DavidL said:

    It seems the armed forces are another public service on which we spend more and more to get less and less. Russia is not a conventional threat to us as has been shown in the Ukraine where their army is being destroyed. It is not easy to see what the conventional threat is at the moment.

    The real question for defence is do we want to try and play in the Pacific. If we do the carriers should be the major focus of our defence efforts. They are not capable of being deployed without a lot of support from the US right now. Do we want to try and address that?

    Sending a ship named HMS Prince of Wales into the South China Sea with inadequate escort doesn't have a great precedent, and that was when we had local bases.
  • Options
    MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    How do EVs help the environment if much of the electricity to charge them is produced using fossil fuels?
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,393
    With the exception of the Times (non shock) I don't see a good headline for Sunak here.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    It seems the armed forces are another public service on which we spend more and more to get less and less. Russia is not a conventional threat to us as has been shown in the Ukraine where their army is being destroyed. It is not easy to see what the conventional threat is at the moment.

    The real question for defence is do we want to try and play in the Pacific. If we do the carriers should be the major focus of our defence efforts. They are not capable of being deployed without a lot of support from the US right now. Do we want to try and address that?

    Sending a ship named HMS Prince of Wales into the South China Sea with inadequate escort doesn't have a great precedent, and that was when we had local bases.
    I agree, they would be Repulsed.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,258
    edited January 2023

    Only just seen this, from yesterday's Sunday Times.


    :D

    That bath stunt by the repulsive Ian Maxwell and swallowed hook, line and sinker by the sycophantic Daily Telegraph might just be the worst piece of journalist puff in my lifetime.

    Although The Hitler Diaries weren't exactly a good example of rigorous standards ...
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181

    How do EVs help the environment if much of the electricity to charge them is produced using fossil fuels?

    Well, they do improve air quality in cities. Which is badly needed in itself.

    Also, a decreasing amount of our electricity is from fossil fuels. Sure, the last couple of weeks have been dominated by gas but this month as a whole is looking good for electricity production.

    Plus, if you charge them up at night when the wind is blowing but demand is low you balance the grid.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    Heathener said:

    Only just seen this, from yesterday's Sunday Times.


    :D

    That bath stunt by the repulsive Ian Maxwell and swallowed hook, line and sinker by the sycophantic Daily Telegraph might just be the worst piece of journalist puff in my lifetime.

    Although The Hitler Diaries weren't exactly a good example of rigorous standards ...
    Yeah, I don't think they've paid DM9 million for that stupid photo.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,577

    How do EVs help the environment if much of the electricity to charge them is produced using fossil fuels?

    1. Even with 100% fossil fuel generation from oil the carbon efficiency of EV would be lower than for ICEs because centralised generation and transmission is much more efficient than decentralised fuel burning
    2. In reality a large chunk of our generation is zero carbon and most of the rest is natural gas which has a much lower carbon footprint than diesel or petrol

    EVs also have the bonus of not emitting NOx, particulates and other nasties into the urban atmosphere. (Though particulates from tyres are still an issue).
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,508

    How do EVs help the environment if much of the electricity to charge them is produced using fossil fuels?

    How do wind turbines help the environment if everyone carries on driving ICE vehicles ?
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,986

    How do EVs help the environment if much of the electricity to charge them is produced using fossil fuels?

    Electricity generated at a power station (even if it is from fossil fuels) has significantly less CO2 emissions per mile driven than burning petrol/diesel in the car.

    https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/does-electric-vehicle-emit-less-petrol-or-diesel/
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,508
    ydoethur said:

    Heathener said:

    Only just seen this, from yesterday's Sunday Times.


    :D

    That bath stunt by the repulsive Ian Maxwell and swallowed hook, line and sinker by the sycophantic Daily Telegraph might just be the worst piece of journalist puff in my lifetime.

    Although The Hitler Diaries weren't exactly a good example of rigorous standards ...
    Yeah, I don't think they've paid DM9 million for that stupid photo.
    If they'd got Damien Hirst to sign it, they might have sold it for that.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    TimS said:

    How do EVs help the environment if much of the electricity to charge them is produced using fossil fuels?

    1. Even with 100% fossil fuel generation from oil the carbon efficiency of EV would be lower than for ICEs because centralised generation and transmission is much more efficient than decentralised fuel burning
    2. In reality a large chunk of our generation is zero carbon and most of the rest is natural gas which has a much lower carbon footprint than diesel or petrol

    EVs also have the bonus of not emitting NOx, particulates and other nasties into the urban atmosphere. (Though particulates from tyres are still an issue).
    Are you sure on 1? I thought it was the other way around. Otherwise, why do we pipe gas to houses instead of heating them with electricity? And why would we need more electricity to achieve the same thermal output?
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    Only just seen this, from yesterday's Sunday Times.


    Is that thing next to the pizza a tin of pineapple?
    Prince Andrew seems the type of degenerate to put pineapple on his pizza.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,133
    HYUFD said:

    He should get rid of Raab and Sharp next.

    He won't, they backed him for the leadership unlike Zahawi
    Untrue. He backed Sunak.

    https://twitter.com/nadhimzahawi/status/1584280847141638144

    After he had backed Truss. And then Johnson after Truss resigned.

  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,508
    ydoethur said:

    TimS said:

    How do EVs help the environment if much of the electricity to charge them is produced using fossil fuels?

    1. Even with 100% fossil fuel generation from oil the carbon efficiency of EV would be lower than for ICEs because centralised generation and transmission is much more efficient than decentralised fuel burning
    2. In reality a large chunk of our generation is zero carbon and most of the rest is natural gas which has a much lower carbon footprint than diesel or petrol

    EVs also have the bonus of not emitting NOx, particulates and other nasties into the urban atmosphere. (Though particulates from tyres are still an issue).
    Are you sure on 1? I thought it was the other way around. Otherwise, why do we pipe gas to houses instead of heating them with electricity? And why would we need more electricity to achieve the same thermal output?
    EVs are also considerably more efficient in terms of energy used per mile compared with ICE vehicles.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,884
    Rishi is going to put his failure to sack Braverman front and centre...

    Rishi Sunak will take a zero-tolerance approach to future breaches of the ministerial code after sacking Nadhim Zahawi for failing to be honest about his tax affairs, senior allies have said.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nadhim-zahawi-sacked-conservative-party-chairman-rishi-sunak-btkw8796l
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,612
    To say the cases of Bryson & Scott are entirely unrelated to the #GRRBill is nonsense. Both the policy that led to the debacle & the bill result from gender identity ideology & the bizarre notion that we must accept any man’s declaration that he’s a woman.

    https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1619960880959225856
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,986

    Dura_Ace said:

    US general warns British Army no longer top-level fighting force, defence sources reveal

    Rishi Sunak risks failing in his role as "wartime prime minister" unless he takes urgent action given the growing security threat posed by Vladimir Putin, it has been warned, with calls for a significant hike in spending.

    https://news.sky.com/story/us-general-warns-british-army-no-longer-top-level-fighting-force-defence-sources-reveal-12798365

    "US general". Fucking LOL. This is just Baldy Ben or one of his thanes leaking stuff to try to get more money from the Treasury. Possible preemptive strike to stave off a cut to the army. They have put the words in the mouth of a "US general", who may or may not exist, because they think it carries more heft than just Captain Mainwaring saying it.
    Well, the possibly fictitious American general has a point after decades of cuts. The latest complaint is that Rishi is giving tanks to Ukraine without ordering new ones. Which, incidentally, is further than Ukraine's BFF Boris was prepared to go.


    Yes, this would mean a delay in obtaining new tanks, but the Ch3 project has been so laggardly that another delay - actually with a good reason this time - is excusable.
    The CR3 contract is already signed to upgrade 148 x CR2. Cancelling it now (to do what?) would involve lining the pockets of BAE and the political shitstorm of job losses.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    TimS said:

    How do EVs help the environment if much of the electricity to charge them is produced using fossil fuels?

    1. Even with 100% fossil fuel generation from oil the carbon efficiency of EV would be lower than for ICEs because centralised generation and transmission is much more efficient than decentralised fuel burning
    2. In reality a large chunk of our generation is zero carbon and most of the rest is natural gas which has a much lower carbon footprint than diesel or petrol

    EVs also have the bonus of not emitting NOx, particulates and other nasties into the urban atmosphere. (Though particulates from tyres are still an issue).
    Are you sure on 1? I thought it was the other way around. Otherwise, why do we pipe gas to houses instead of heating them with electricity? And why would we need more electricity to achieve the same thermal output?
    EVs are also considerably more efficient in terms of energy used per mile compared with ICE vehicles.
    Fair enough then.
  • Options
    Scott_xP said:

    Rishi is going to put his failure to sack Braverman front and centre...

    Rishi Sunak will take a zero-tolerance approach to future breaches of the ministerial code after sacking Nadhim Zahawi for failing to be honest about his tax affairs, senior allies have said.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nadhim-zahawi-sacked-conservative-party-chairman-rishi-sunak-btkw8796l

    Which is how it should be- roughly how it was for a long time. This shouldn't be news.

    But it might prove awkward, depending on what comes out next.

    Talking of which:

    Exclusive:

    Nadhim Zahawi Is weighing up whether to publish a formal response to the Laurie Magnus report

    He is furious and feels he was denied the chance to make his case


    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1619960691217276928
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,024
    Nigelb said:

    .

    rcs1000 said:

    Taz said:

    WillG said:

    Interesting maps showing Britain to be 18% Muslim by 2050.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/10o5vxv/

    Eh, 9.7%.
    It's 17.2% in the high migration scenario.

    Albeit that scenario requires massively more Muslim migration than is currently the case.
    So if lots more come in, we'll have lots more ?
    Remarkable.
    Once the Muslim proportion of the population goes above 10-15% the non-Muslim locals will start voting for hard right nativist parties

    If it reaches 30% - like Sweden in one of those projections - I reckon you would see permanent unrest and possible civil conflict. Sweden has ALREADY voted in partially hard right governments
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,884
    @tnewtondunn: Startling polling from @Unherd, on the eve of the 3rd anniversary of Brexit. In all 650 UK constituencies apart fro… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1619973831212544000
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,258
    So the Express reckons the clown is next party chair....
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,327
    edited January 2023
    TimS said:

    How do EVs help the environment if much of the electricity to charge them is produced using fossil fuels?

    1. Even with 100% fossil fuel generation from oil the carbon efficiency of EV would be lower than for ICEs because centralised generation and transmission is much more efficient than decentralised fuel burning
    2. In reality a large chunk of our generation is zero carbon and most of the rest is natural gas which has a much lower carbon footprint than diesel or petrol

    EVs also have the bonus of not emitting NOx, particulates and other nasties into the urban atmosphere. (Though particulates from tyres are still an issue).
    Our preference for separate (detached or semi) homes has an impact on emissions, because it makes district heating (supplying everyone in an area from one efficient boiler) somewhat less efficient (compared with blocks of flats) as more piping is needed - not sure how much, though. When I lived in Denmark 50 years ago district heating was already the norm in cities, and it's now mandatory for new connections unless you use heat pumps. A fringe benefit is that you save the space taken up by an individual boiler and don't have to worry about breakdowns.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    edited January 2023
    To be honest though, before worrying about subsidising electric cars, a very simple first step to reducing carbon emissions and diesel imports would be to electrify the remainder of the railway network. Or at least, the main lines and the heavily used branch lines. It seems mad to me that we don't have wires on the whole of the Midland Main Line, the Great Western main line to Swansea and Plymouth, the Valleys lines, the Cross Country route, the North Wales line and the Marches line. Or indeed the Highland and Edinburgh-Dundee-Aberdeen lines. Fort William and Oban might be more marginal but that line does carry a fair amount of freight.

    OK, so in some places low bridges and tunnels present a problem, but they're not beyond the wit of man to solve. If they could run wires through the Severn Tunnel I'm sure they could find a solution to the tubular bridges at Conwy.

    But every time we try and electrify railways, somebody finds an exciting new way to cock things up.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,940
    Nigelb said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    US general warns British Army no longer top-level fighting force, defence sources reveal

    Rishi Sunak risks failing in his role as "wartime prime minister" unless he takes urgent action given the growing security threat posed by Vladimir Putin, it has been warned, with calls for a significant hike in spending.

    https://news.sky.com/story/us-general-warns-british-army-no-longer-top-level-fighting-force-defence-sources-reveal-12798365

    "US general". Fucking LOL. This is just Baldy Ben or one of his thanes leaking stuff to try to get more money from the Treasury. Possible preemptive strike to stave off a cut to the army. They have put the words in the mouth of a "US general", who may or may not exist, because they think it carries more heft than just Captain Mainwaring saying it.
    Well, the possibly fictitious American general has a point after decades of cuts. The latest complaint is that Rishi is giving tanks to Ukraine without ordering new ones. Which, incidentally, is further than Ukraine's BFF Boris was prepared to go.
    If I may play devil's advocate for a moment, then I'd say that now may be exactly the *wrong* time to be ordering tanks for our own use. What we may be seeing in Ukraine is the first 'proper' tank battles between militaries equipped with very modern weapons. How the Ch2, Abrams, Leo2s and all the ex-Soviet tanks behave in the next year, and the tactics developed to effectively use, and defeat, them, should be fed into any new designs. And yes, that might mean Ch3 is dead...
    As it probably should be.
    Of all the future scenarios we can imagine, the UK fighting tanks battles is one if the more remote ones.
    And if it's a question if supporting allies, we'd be more useful if we fielded the same kit.

    We long since abandoned any claim to be a competitive supplier of tanks. Cobbling together a new one using old Challenger hulls is a waste of time and money.
    That's pretty much my view. We should have done what Poland did and get licence production of another tank - and SK's K2 Black Panther tank is allegedly very good.
  • Options
    Smart51Smart51 Posts: 52

    How do EVs help the environment if much of the electricity to charge them is produced using fossil fuels?

    If. If the electricity were produced solely by fossil fuels, it would help the environment by natural gas having a lot less carbon than petrol or diesel. Except of course much of our electricity is produced by solar, wind and nuclear. But even the fossil fuel part has cleaner emissions than the tail pipe of a car.
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,184
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    rcs1000 said:

    Taz said:

    WillG said:

    Interesting maps showing Britain to be 18% Muslim by 2050.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/10o5vxv/

    Eh, 9.7%.
    It's 17.2% in the high migration scenario.

    Albeit that scenario requires massively more Muslim migration than is currently the case.
    So if lots more come in, we'll have lots more ?
    Remarkable.
    Brexit hasn't impacted on immigration numbers but has shifted the origins of the migrants. We get more from MENA and South Asia now. Our Greek doctors are being replaced by Egyptians.


    Most foreign doctors are and have always been from outside the EU. It suits remainers to insinuate that most were from the EU, but it was at no point true.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,914
    edited January 2023

    How do EVs help the environment if much of the electricity to charge them is produced using fossil fuels?

    Depends on the fuel. Vehicle efficiency. Power plant efficiency

    1 litre of petrol is 8.9 kwh / 2.3 kg of CO2
    1 litre of diesel is 10 kwh / 2.7 kg CO2.

    So the ~ 550 miles I get out of ~ 50 litres (500 kwh) of diesel produces 135 kg of CO2 - Give or take

    4 miles/kg CO2.

    How many miles does an EV get out of a kg of CO2 produced ?
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,516
    Scott_xP said:

    @tnewtondunn: Startling polling from @Unherd, on the eve of the 3rd anniversary of Brexit. In all 650 UK constituencies apart fro… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1619973831212544000

    If everyone thought these figures meant precisely what they say then Labour would already be committed, at the very least, to EFTA/EEA in the SM, if not more.

    So conclude that these figures mean something slightly different.

    In particular they probably elide those who regret Brexit in principle, and those who regret the way it has been handled since 2016. And may well elide those who truly regret and those for whom, though it is bad, all the other options are also bad as soon as their attention is drawn to them.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,393
    Smart51 said:

    How do EVs help the environment if much of the electricity to charge them is produced using fossil fuels?

    If. If the electricity were produced solely by fossil fuels, it would help the environment by natural gas having a lot less carbon than petrol or diesel. Except of course much of our electricity is produced by solar, wind and nuclear. But even the fossil fuel part has cleaner emissions than the tail pipe of a car.
    I think quite soon we will have to look at CO2 management, like water management, rather than the simplistic notion of CO2 being something we need to eliminate. For example, we need to ensure that we have enough CO2 in the air for plants to thrive. We need studies to understand whether high CO2 emitters like China have better-growing crops.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983
    edited January 2023

    More communism from this leftist government, no wonder Michael Foot and Corbyn were in favour of leaving the EC.

    Michael Gove has pledged to bring forward laws to scrap most “feudal” leaseholds in England this year.

    Ministers are preparing to ditch rules that bar flat owners from buying the freehold to their property if a small part of their building is given over to commercial use, such as shops.

    The government will also make it much easier for leaseholders in flats to take over their buildings and bring them into common ownership to avoid extortionate management fees and ground rents.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/michael-gove-vows-to-scrap-feudal-leasehold-system-this-year-920srddc6

    I don't see what is wrong with that provided it focuses on common ownership rather than leasehold which is the norm with flats and apartments in most of the world, including Scotland and avoids ground rent
  • Options
    More panicky morality combined with hypocrisy. Sam Smith is a bit pish(!) but I like the nostalgic 80s jag when Frankie videos shocked the nation.

    Link to tweet rather than c&p, for the sake of breakfasts.

    https://twitter.com/miffythegamer/status/1619787269178802176?s=61&t=OkZFaO7Sr05s0b0DGLULYA
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983
    edited January 2023
    WillG said:

    Interesting maps showing Britain to be 18% Muslim by 2050.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/10o5vxv/

    Which would still be well below the current global average of 24% Muslim
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,508
    ydoethur said:

    To be honest though, before worrying about subsidising electric cars, a very simple first step to reducing carbon emissions and diesel imports would be to electrify the remainder of the railway network. Or at least, the main lines and the heavily used branch lines. It seems mad to me that we don't have wires on the whole of the Midland Main Line, the Great Western main line to Swansea and Plymouth, the Valleys lines, the Cross Country route, the North Wales line and the Marches line. Or indeed the Highland and Edinburgh-Dundee-Aberdeen lines. Fort William and Oban might be more marginal but that line does carry a fair amount of freight.

    OK, so in some places low bridges and tunnels present a problem, but they're not beyond the wit of man to solve. If they could run wires through the Severn Tunnel I'm sure they could find a solution to the tubular bridges at Conwy.

    But every time we try and electrify railways, somebody finds an exciting new way to cock things up.

    Bombardier already offers a battery/electric train which can recharge from overhead wires, so it ought to be least possible to convert lines even without wiring tunnels.
  • Options

    Smart51 said:

    How do EVs help the environment if much of the electricity to charge them is produced using fossil fuels?

    If. If the electricity were produced solely by fossil fuels, it would help the environment by natural gas having a lot less carbon than petrol or diesel. Except of course much of our electricity is produced by solar, wind and nuclear. But even the fossil fuel part has cleaner emissions than the tail pipe of a car.
    I think quite soon we will have to look at CO2 management, like water management, rather than the simplistic notion of CO2 being something we need to eliminate. For example, we need to ensure that we have enough CO2 in the air for plants to thrive. We need studies to understand whether high CO2 emitters like China have better-growing crops.
    Outside greenhouses, I'd be pretty confident that it doesn't particularly work that way, because any carbon dioxide produced will get blown round by the wind.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,655
    WillG said:

    Interesting maps showing Britain to be 18% Muslim by 2050.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/10o5vxv/

    17% if you're going to round, just saying.
  • Options
    WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,503
    edited January 2023
    carnforth said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    rcs1000 said:

    Taz said:

    WillG said:

    Interesting maps showing Britain to be 18% Muslim by 2050.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/10o5vxv/

    Eh, 9.7%.
    It's 17.2% in the high migration scenario.

    Albeit that scenario requires massively more Muslim migration than is currently the case.
    So if lots more come in, we'll have lots more ?
    Remarkable.
    Brexit hasn't impacted on immigration numbers but has shifted the origins of the migrants. We get more from MENA and South Asia now. Our Greek doctors are being replaced by Egyptians.


    Most foreign doctors are and have always been from outside the EU. It suits remainers to insinuate that most were from the EU, but it was at no point true.
    Morning all. The reduction in staff from Europe is one of the central lunacies of being so opposed to freedom of movement from Europe, yet simultaneously so much primarily concerned about non-European immigration, for the hard right.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983
    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    He should get rid of Raab and Sharp next.

    He won't, they backed him for the leadership unlike Zahawi
    Untrue. He backed Sunak.

    https://twitter.com/nadhimzahawi/status/1584280847141638144

    After he had backed Truss. And then Johnson after Truss resigned.

    He backed Truss in the leadership contest with Sunak after elimination, not Sunak as Shapps and Raab did.

  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,914
    edited January 2023
    Pulpstar said:

    How do EVs help the environment if much of the electricity to charge them is produced using fossil fuels?

    Depends on the fuel. Vehicle efficiency. Power plant efficiency

    1 litre of petrol is 8.9 kwh / 2.3 kg of CO2
    1 litre of diesel is 10 kwh / 2.7 kg CO2.

    So the ~ 550 miles I get out of ~ 50 litres (500 kwh) of diesel produces 135 kg of CO2 - Give or take

    4 miles/kg CO2.

    How many miles does an EV get out of a kg of CO2 produced ?
    Via Google:

    Electric vehicles seem to get 4 - 5 miles/kwh of energy.
    In 2022, these figures were 0.193 kg of CO2e per kWh of electricity
    ( https://bulb.co.uk/carbon-tracker/ )

    4 - 5 miles / 0.193 kg of CO2.

    Or

    20 - 25 miles/kg CO2.

    There you go Mike, clear maths that an EV beats even an efficient ICE car for carbon efficiency.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,884
    @KevinASchofield: Why the government tries to avoid putting ministers on the TV in the morning, in one handy interview. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/kay-burley-clash-helen-whately-nadhim-zahawi_uk_63d770a0e4b01a43638ee56f
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983
    algarkirk said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @tnewtondunn: Startling polling from @Unherd, on the eve of the 3rd anniversary of Brexit. In all 650 UK constituencies apart fro… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1619973831212544000

    If everyone thought these figures meant precisely what they say then Labour would already be committed, at the very least, to EFTA/EEA in the SM, if not more.

    So conclude that these figures mean something slightly different.

    In particular they probably elide those who regret Brexit in principle, and those who regret the way it has been handled since 2016. And may well elide those who truly regret and those for whom, though it is bad, all the other options are also bad as soon as their attention is drawn to them.
    It also is not a rejoin poll, which gives a completely different answer
  • Options
    If you want to lose a few points in the polls, put Helen Whately up for any interview.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,332

    How do EVs help the environment if much of the electricity to charge them is produced using fossil fuels?

    Much of the electricity, in the UK, is from non-carbon producing sources and the percentage is growing. Net zero and all that.

    Even if powered from 100% coal fired power stations, the calculation is that an EV will emit less CO2 than the equivalent ICE.

    And according to other calculations, burning the oil in a power station to power an electric car produces less CO2 than putting petrol into the equivalent ICE.

    Oh, and the massive reduction in particulates. No nitrogen oxides etc etc
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,508
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    How do EVs help the environment if much of the electricity to charge them is produced using fossil fuels?

    Depends on the fuel. Vehicle efficiency. Power plant efficiency

    1 litre of petrol is 8.9 kwh / 2.3 kg of CO2
    1 litre of diesel is 10 kwh / 2.7 kg CO2.

    So the ~ 550 miles I get out of ~ 50 litres (500 kwh) of diesel produces 135 kg of CO2 - Give or take

    4 miles/kg CO2.

    How many miles does an EV get out of a kg of CO2 produced ?
    Via Google:

    Electric vehicles seem to get 4 - 5 miles/kwh of energy.
    In 2022, these figures were 0.193 kg of CO2e per kWh of electricity
    ( https://bulb.co.uk/carbon-tracker/ )

    4 - 5 miles / 0.193 kg of CO2.

    Or

    20 - 25 miles/kg CO2.

    There you go Mike, clear maths that an EV beats even an efficient ICE car for carbon efficiency.
    Actually the figure is probably closer to 300gm per kWh, since generation from burning wood pellets is figured as zero carbon in the calculation, which is clearly nonsense.

    But even so, there's still a large difference.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,612
    I suspect more honoured in the breach rather than the observance:

    On Monday, prosecutors entered a handbook into evidence that has been provided to Proud Boys members. The guidelines outline everything from the groups ideology, communal initiation procedures, group songs and chants, to bizarre rules banning individual behavior including the wearing of fedoras … and masturbation.

    “This is our religion,” reads one rule. “A Proud Boy may not ejaculate alone more often than once every thirty days […] if he needs to ejaculate it must be within one yard of a woman with her consent. The woman may not be a prostitute.”

    The rule also denies an exception for cyber-sex with one’s wife.

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/proud-boys-trial-rule-book-masturbation-ban-1234666317/
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,655
    edited January 2023

    Smart51 said:

    How do EVs help the environment if much of the electricity to charge them is produced using fossil fuels?

    If. If the electricity were produced solely by fossil fuels, it would help the environment by natural gas having a lot less carbon than petrol or diesel. Except of course much of our electricity is produced by solar, wind and nuclear. But even the fossil fuel part has cleaner emissions than the tail pipe of a car.
    I think quite soon we will have to look at CO2 management, like water management, rather than the simplistic notion of CO2 being something we need to eliminate. For example, we need to ensure that we have enough CO2 in the air for plants to thrive. We need studies to understand whether high CO2 emitters like China have better-growing crops.
    ...we need to ensure that we have enough CO2 in the air for plants to thrive...

    What are you on about? Plants survived for millennia in the 180-300ppm CO2 range; we're now over 400ppm. We also know they thrive at much higher levels of CO2. So what?
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,184
    edited January 2023

    carnforth said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    rcs1000 said:

    Taz said:

    WillG said:

    Interesting maps showing Britain to be 18% Muslim by 2050.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/10o5vxv/

    Eh, 9.7%.
    It's 17.2% in the high migration scenario.

    Albeit that scenario requires massively more Muslim migration than is currently the case.
    So if lots more come in, we'll have lots more ?
    Remarkable.
    Brexit hasn't impacted on immigration numbers but has shifted the origins of the migrants. We get more from MENA and South Asia now. Our Greek doctors are being replaced by Egyptians.


    Most foreign doctors are and have always been from outside the EU. It suits remainers to insinuate that most were from the EU, but it was at no point true.
    Morning all. The reduction in European staff is one of the central lunacies of being so opposed to freedom of movement from Europe, yet so much primarily concerned about non-European immigration, for the hard right.
    If someone on the hard right believes that a greek is less foreign or more "european" or whiter (and therefore more desirable) than an egyptian, then I suppose you can say they played themselves by voting for brexit.

    But for those of us who don't care whether our doctor is greek or egyptian, it doesn't really apply.

    Edit: you edited your comment, so my reply now makes less sense! But I am leaving it up anyway... your original comment was:

    "Morning all. This is one of the central lunacies of being so opposed to freedom of movement from Europe, for the hard right."
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,258
    carnforth said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    rcs1000 said:

    Taz said:

    WillG said:

    Interesting maps showing Britain to be 18% Muslim by 2050.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/10o5vxv/

    Eh, 9.7%.
    It's 17.2% in the high migration scenario.

    Albeit that scenario requires massively more Muslim migration than is currently the case.
    So if lots more come in, we'll have lots more ?
    Remarkable.
    Brexit hasn't impacted on immigration numbers but has shifted the origins of the migrants. We get more from MENA and South Asia now. Our Greek doctors are being replaced by Egyptians.


    Most foreign doctors are and have always been from outside the EU. It suits remainers to insinuate that most were from the EU, but it was at no point true.
    But nurses, on the other hand....
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,332
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    To be honest though, before worrying about subsidising electric cars, a very simple first step to reducing carbon emissions and diesel imports would be to electrify the remainder of the railway network. Or at least, the main lines and the heavily used branch lines. It seems mad to me that we don't have wires on the whole of the Midland Main Line, the Great Western main line to Swansea and Plymouth, the Valleys lines, the Cross Country route, the North Wales line and the Marches line. Or indeed the Highland and Edinburgh-Dundee-Aberdeen lines. Fort William and Oban might be more marginal but that line does carry a fair amount of freight.

    OK, so in some places low bridges and tunnels present a problem, but they're not beyond the wit of man to solve. If they could run wires through the Severn Tunnel I'm sure they could find a solution to the tubular bridges at Conwy.

    But every time we try and electrify railways, somebody finds an exciting new way to cock things up.

    Bombardier already offers a battery/electric train which can recharge from overhead wires, so it ought to be least possible to convert lines even without wiring tunnels.
    They are already looking at full battery electric trains in the US. Yes, they use more leecy than overhead wires, but you don't have the cost of constructing and maintaining the wires.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,258
    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    Interesting maps showing Britain to be 18% Muslim by 2050.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/10o5vxv/

    Which would still be well below the current global average of 24% Muslim
    If large swathes of the Arab world, north Africa, Asia, are almost 100% Muslim then the "global average" is a fairly strange concept.

    Some other countries, for example in South America, have less than 1% Muslims.

    I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,258

    To say the cases of Bryson & Scott are entirely unrelated to the #GRRBill is nonsense. Both the policy that led to the debacle & the bill result from gender identity ideology & the bizarre notion that we must accept any man’s declaration that he’s a woman.

    https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1619960880959225856

    Oh look. You're at it again.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,655
    Pulpstar said:

    How do EVs help the environment if much of the electricity to charge them is produced using fossil fuels?

    Depends on the fuel. Vehicle efficiency. Power plant efficiency

    1 litre of petrol is 8.9 kwh / 2.3 kg of CO2
    1 litre of diesel is 10 kwh / 2.7 kg CO2.

    So the ~ 550 miles I get out of ~ 50 litres (500 kwh) of diesel produces 135 kg of CO2 - Give or take

    4 miles/kg CO2.

    How many miles does an EV get out of a kg of CO2 produced ?

    That's increasing every year as renewables increase, surely?
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,258
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    rcs1000 said:

    Taz said:

    WillG said:

    Interesting maps showing Britain to be 18% Muslim by 2050.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/10o5vxv/

    Eh, 9.7%.
    It's 17.2% in the high migration scenario.

    Albeit that scenario requires massively more Muslim migration than is currently the case.
    So if lots more come in, we'll have lots more ?
    Remarkable.
    Once the Muslim proportion of the population goes above 10-15% the non-Muslim locals will start voting for hard right nativist parties

    If it reaches 30% - like Sweden in one of those projections - I reckon you would see permanent unrest and possible civil conflict. Sweden has ALREADY voted in partially hard right governments
    Leondamus has spoken.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,974

    I suspect more honoured in the breach rather than the observance:

    On Monday, prosecutors entered a handbook into evidence that has been provided to Proud Boys members. The guidelines outline everything from the groups ideology, communal initiation procedures, group songs and chants, to bizarre rules banning individual behavior including the wearing of fedoras … and masturbation.

    “This is our religion,” reads one rule. “A Proud Boy may not ejaculate alone more often than once every thirty days […] if he needs to ejaculate it must be within one yard of a woman with her consent. The woman may not be a prostitute.”

    The rule also denies an exception for cyber-sex with one’s wife.

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/proud-boys-trial-rule-book-masturbation-ban-1234666317/

    Nothing like the Boy Scouts, then!

    Good morning one and all! Hospital trip today.
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,184
    IanB2 said:

    carnforth said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    rcs1000 said:

    Taz said:

    WillG said:

    Interesting maps showing Britain to be 18% Muslim by 2050.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/10o5vxv/

    Eh, 9.7%.
    It's 17.2% in the high migration scenario.

    Albeit that scenario requires massively more Muslim migration than is currently the case.
    So if lots more come in, we'll have lots more ?
    Remarkable.
    Brexit hasn't impacted on immigration numbers but has shifted the origins of the migrants. We get more from MENA and South Asia now. Our Greek doctors are being replaced by Egyptians.


    Most foreign doctors are and have always been from outside the EU. It suits remainers to insinuate that most were from the EU, but it was at no point true.
    But nurses, on the other hand....
    ... are mostly from Asia:



    It's a mind-virus!
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,655
    Smart51 said:

    How do EVs help the environment if much of the electricity to charge them is produced using fossil fuels?

    If. If the electricity were produced solely by fossil fuels, it would help the environment by natural gas having a lot less carbon than petrol or diesel. Except of course much of our electricity is produced by solar, wind and nuclear. But even the fossil fuel part has cleaner emissions than the tail pipe of a car.

    A first post that indicates you may be real, not a Russian troll, in which case, welcome Smart51!
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,655
    Time to move on from this Thread
This discussion has been closed.