What I find funny about the Renewable Energy Foundation's piece is that it deliberately excludes one of the main reasons why these payments exist:
Nuclear.
When the wind is blowing, the grid needs to turn off power supplies. With gas, that's dead easy. (Please turn off your OCGT/CCGT.) With coal, it's a bit harder, and suppliers will happily have negative prices for a bit rather than put plants through thermal contraction/expansion cycles.
With nuclear, they aren't lowering that output with less than 24 hours notice. Unless you're writing a very big cheque.
Which means that the grid is now looking for the cheapest way to get power production below power demand. And the cheapest way is usually to pay for wind turbines to be disconnected.
But this raises an important question: why is it the fault of wind that nuclear is highly inflexible? Why should the UK government be susbsidising new nuclear at 2x the price of wind, when having it as part of the mix inevitably means having to pay wind not to produce?
There's a second important factor. New windfarms have been built in places with inadequate takeaway capacity. In the old days (pre-2012), it was because permitting took no notice of the need to carry wind energy. But these days, almost everything built has been built because transmission capacity has been promised. And, indeed, that transmission capacity has often been paid for by the wind developers themselves.
If National Grid and Ofgem have failed to deliver contractually obliged takeaway capacity, why is that the fault of the wind developer?
Wind is economic in the UK. Indeed, it is highly economic.
Yes, it needs gas backup, but the capital and maintenance costs of a modern CCGT are miniscule, while it is the fuel that is expensive.
It isn't the fault of wind that nuclear is inflexible; it's the fault of wind that wind is intermittent and unpredictable.
As for subsidising nuclear, I dunno. I'm not a big fan of nuclear personally - look at Zaporiza, a nuclear power plant seems like painting a big target on your bum. I can see why Germany got rid of them. I think I'm in favour of filling the old decommissioned nuclear power stations with small reactors, which seems safer and cheaper, but I have no idea if this is true.
As for wind farms being built in places with poor connectivity, this is absolutely the fault of wind providers, the poor connectivity is a known factor, and this shouldn't be subsidised by the billpayer. Many companies deliberately built their farms in areas of poor connectivity to benefit from constraint payments.
Maybe you should read all of my comment.
I would never do you the discourtesy of not reading to the end of your comment.
I haven't heard of cases of wind farms being built where appropriate grid capacity has been promised that then falls through. It would be a bit stupid of the wind farm company to do that - far better to build behind a grid bottleneck and benefit from constraint payments worth several times what selling the energy would have brought in.
These days, when you submit your plans to the Department of Energy, you are legally required to demonstrate that there is sufficient takeaway capacity for any power you produce. You will not be allowed to build unless you can demonstrate it exists or is in the process of being developed. (And this is true for wind, tidal, and basically anything except small scale solar.)
The problem is that you - the developer - won't be building transmission lines yourself. Those will be the responsibility of National Grid. And National Grid is (a) running several years behind on its capex programme; (b) has different priorities you; and (c) is remunerated in a way, based on returns on its regulated asset base, that do not mesh with what is best for electricity supply in general.
There's a final issue worth mentioning: sometimes power lines get stalled in the planning process. (And sometimes it is in the financial interests of National Grid for them to stall in the planning process.)
Well, that's an interesting development and I'm glad to hear it. I agree, windfarms shouldn't be penalised for constraining when they had a right to expect that the necessary capacity would be built.
This isn't a blip. Look at the underlying numbers in both the Deltapoll and Ipsos polls today (helpfully summarised in the threads below). They're awful for the Tories.
At the risk of turning into @Heathener, the prospect of something close to a Tory wipe out is being underplayed.
Just because it's never happened (ignoring what happened to the Liberals) and just because they've existed for so long (so had the Liberals) doesn't mean it's never going to happen.
I’m pretty instinctively a Tory kind of guy. A Unionist through and through, proud to be British, a believer in capitalism and private enterprise, encouraging people to work hard to get on and rewarding ambition.
I really have no idea what this government is about anymore. It is high tax, low service, short sighted and, particularly anywhere near the Home Office, deeply unpleasant bordering on unBritish. I am in something approaching despair. What on earth happened to Cameron’s new Tories?
She has a point. Is it right to deprive someone of their entire livelihood on the basis of hearsay and anonymous allegations - made to the media not the police?
I suppose you could argue that Brand has the money to fight libel actions but it still doesn’t seem quite right
Maybe key word is 'suspends'?
@Cyclefree probably knows way more than us about this kind of corporate thing, but if there is some kind of allegation of a v serious nature in a workplace are people not sometimes 'suspended' pending an investigation?
Yes they are. Though not always. It depends on the entity's appetite for risk.
She has a point. Is it right to deprive someone of their entire livelihood on the basis of hearsay and anonymous allegations - made to the media not the police?
I suppose you could argue that Brand has the money to fight libel actions but it still doesn’t seem quite right
Maybe key word is 'suspends'?
@Cyclefree probably knows way more than us about this kind of corporate thing, but if there is some kind of allegation of a v serious nature in a workplace are people not sometimes 'suspended' pending an investigation?
If fhere is no court case, and no prosecution, will YouTube “desuspend” him? I rather doubt it, but if so fair enough
If they don’t then this is tantamount to trial and conviction by media and anonymous allegation, with the punishment being: end of career
Without the courts even being involved. That makes me deeply uneasy
And I don’t even stan Brand. He wasn't funny and he got far too much sex for my liking
Tons of entertainers have lost their rides - and often for stuff that isn’t especially bad. See Tiger Woods, mentioned above.
What laws did Lance Armstrong actually break?
If you are in entertainment, you need to be better than “it’s all legal”. It needs to be “my reputation is not a negative for my sponsors.”
That’s a valid argument, on the face of it
And yet it is also an invitation to any malefactor to destroy a public figure they don’t like by merely gathering some “anonymous accounts” and splashing them all over the media
You never have to stand them up in court. You never have to prove anything. You can destroy someone by innuendo. smear and anonymous denunciation
Do we really want to applaud that?
Come off it Leon. Don't be naive. That story in the papers and on Channel 4 will have been lawyered to within an inch of its life. There will be files with names, dates, evidence, witnesses etc - all for the day a libel writ is served. The lawyers wrote to Brand with detailed questions and allegations so he will have known exactly what the allegations and evidence were. Indeed he complained about the amount of detail and also said that he had evidence to rebut the claims.
Criminal proceedings would be better and may yet follow. But let's not pretend that this is some anonymous smear with no substance behind it.
Why this animus against the Commonwealth? It's a voluntary club. Don't be a member if you don't want to. But interesting that Francophone nations have chosen to join it. I wonder why?
It's all about taking back control from their unelected rulers.
Just imagine if the EU sacked a UK Prime Minister in the way the Queen, via her Governor-General did with Gough Whitlam in Australia, something King Charles endorsed.
It's a family affair.
Don't forget Uncle Dickie was lined up to become titular Prime Minister when Wilson was due to be felled in a coup d'etat.
Democracy in action.
Our democracy has made an ass of itself. Cameron, Truss, Boris!, Lizaster, Dishi. But we have an elected system. When a party makes an ass of itself we can remove it.
What is democratic about the monarchy? Whilst the Queen dedicated her life to serving the country, she was imposed. And had she been awful we would have been stuck with her, decade after decade.
I recognise the Take Back Control rationale. And yet so many of the people who champion the principles of democracy and accountability are also wedded to the monarchy.
Putin and Trump and Mugabe were elected Presidents, the Queen wasn't.
Having an elected President doesn't automatically make a great free democracy, indeed most of the dictators in the world today are in republics. Constitutional monarchies like the UK, New Zealand, Norway and Japan and the Netherlands and Canada however are amongst the most free and prosperous nations on earth
And just as you start to despair of Labour having any ambition at all they confirm they'll build the whole of HS2 and NPR (though I'll believe it when I see it).
I know "out of touch" is a cliche but the government really are coming across as very 1996/7 at the moment. Tired and out of ideas.
Their big opportunity in the near term is a poor Labour showing at the byelections. If the SNP keep Rutherglen and Tories retain Tamworth (quite possible) and Mid Beds (also quite possible) then we'll get a couple of weeks of Starmer in crisis to reset the media narrative. If Labour win 2 or 3 of those then it'll just pile on the pain. If Labour win Rutherglen and Tamworth and Lib Dems get Mid Beds with Labour second then the Tories will go into meltdown.
So that we know what to look out for - in what ways would the Tories in meltdown look different from what we are seeing now?
That's the brilliant psychological experiment that the mice are currently running.
Sunak looks like a loser. Different methodologies make it hard to compare, but he's doing about as badly as Major in '96. And he doesn't have the residual kudos for being an election winner in his own right. And Britain is not, as the slogan went, Booming, or showing any signs of preparing to boom.
Standard Operating Procedure here is change leader and hope. But for the reasons listed by @david_herdson upthread, that's not really an option. So all they can do is hang on and hope.
They clearly want to melt down, but they aren't allowed to. The sort of torture some people pay good money for. Apparently.
Meltdown to me means another 1922 committee palaver with the entire parliamentary party stabbing each other in the back. One thing they've sort of managed in the last year is a modicum of unity.
I think the final attempted regicide before the election is there, in the background. It may not happen or it may. A bit like the Prigozhin mutiny (and like that one, I think Sunak would see off the mutineers). Some of the early signs are there.
When it becomes clear that keeping him is more costly electorally than offing him, he'll go. His personal polling falling beneath that of the party would be a sign.
The trouble is there is no king or queen across the water. No Boris.
This is right. It isn't enough for Tory MPs to conclude that Sunak is a liability in that he slips to being less popular than his party (which isn't the case at the moment anyway on most polls).
They also need to think that the act of defenestration wouldn't in itself hurt them still further, and that the new leader they end up with would be better. The new leader has to be an MP, ruling out at least one person of note. Any vaguely capable contender would far rather be the shiny new Leader of the Opposition after an election than the hapless mug who got a shellacking after a handful of months at the helm so will be really hard to persuade to step up rather than wait a short time. That just leaves the howling mad and the terminally sh1t, who aren't an obvious improvement to say the least.
I just can't see it.
The only one is Penny. I'm a fan of the person, but not necessarily the policy agenda of Penny, but she's always been fairly cagey about that anyway.
I think Penny is the only one that Charles would have as PM without making an awful constitutional fuss. I can't see him happily installing Steve Barclay as PM, he'd demand a GE. Penny's sword carrying means he'd probably go with her as caretaker PM. I'd like Penny as the face, with a Trussite/Redwoodite agenda. I don't think the latter is guaranteed, possibly not even likely, but the very presence of a new leader would mean a shift in policy was demanded. Nobody wants a new leader to do a 'better' version of Sunakism.
Firstly, King Charles' views have absolutely nothing to do with it. He might or might not express a view in private audience with the new PM as to whether an election should be called promptly, but his constitutional duty is simply to appoint as PM whoever, due to being elected leader by the majority party, is the person able to command a majority in the House of Commons. If you think he'd do anything else, you're living in a fantasy world.
Secondly, Mordaunt is very unlikely to have any interest in being the sap who gets to be caretaker for a few months before a shellacking. I'm not 100% certain on this one as she sometimes makes eccentric moves (taking her bid against Sunak to the wire in leadership contest 2 for instance) but very unlikely.
Finally, "Penny as the face, with a Trussite/Redwoodite agenda" is just your own, personal fantasy and best left for you to enjoy in your private time.
I made quite clear that that was what I wanted rather than what I expected, not sure why the attempted 'zinger' was necessary.
I think Charles is more than capable of throwing a constitutional strop that derails a leadership takeover. He lacks QEII's propriety in that regard imo.
The King would appoint as PM whoever the majority party elects as PM, unless many of the governing party say they would not support the new PM's government, in which case he would request a vote of confidence in it first.
We are at the point now none of the major Tory leadership contenders, Braverman, Badenoch, Mordaunt, Barclay, Tugendhat etc have much interest in taking over now. They will let Sunak and Hunt lose the next election and then put their stalls forward to be Leader of the Opposition
Charles should remember what happened to the first of his name who tried to impose his will on Parliament. There were a surprising number of reminders of this on show at Windsor if he wished to brush up on it.
What has that got to do with what I said? If he asks a new PM to be confirmed by Parliament as the governing party is divided and if he had refused to prorogue Parliament that is exactly the opposite of imposing his will on Parliament
By the way, surely Tommy 'compromised by China' Tugend is out of the leadership picture now?
Far from it, indeed if I was a betting man I would say Barclay v Tugendhat would be the final 2 Tory MPs pick to go to the membership if Sunak resigns after losing the next general election
Heaven help the conservative party
"Barclay v Tugendhat" ???
Seriously.
The membership will do their absolute nuts at being deprived of who they really want to pick.
Why this animus against the Commonwealth? It's a voluntary club. Don't be a member if you don't want to. But interesting that Francophone nations have chosen to join it. I wonder why?
It's all about taking back control from their unelected rulers.
Just imagine if the EU sacked a UK Prime Minister in the way the Queen, via her Governor-General did with Gough Whitlam in Australia, something King Charles endorsed.
It's a family affair.
Don't forget Uncle Dickie was lined up to become titular Prime Minister when Wilson was due to be felled in a coup d'etat.
Democracy in action.
Our democracy has made an ass of itself. Cameron, Truss, Boris!, Lizaster, Dishi. But we have an elected system. When a party makes an ass of itself we can remove it.
What is democratic about the monarchy? Whilst the Queen dedicated her life to serving the country, she was imposed. And had she been awful we would have been stuck with her, decade after decade.
I recognise the Take Back Control rationale. And yet so many of the people who champion the principles of democracy and accountability are also wedded to the monarchy.
But if you elect a government committed to abolishing the monarchy, it will be abolished (and it would be much easier than leaving the EU), so that argument isn’t really valid.
Yes, voters could have voted for the republican Corbyn to be PM in 2017 and 2019 rather than the monarchist Tories but they didn't, now even Starmer backs keeping the monarchy.
Foot was a republican too in 1983 but was also trounced. Indeed Labour has had its heaviest defeats since WW2 under republican leaders
Why this animus against the Commonwealth? It's a voluntary club. Don't be a member if you don't want to. But interesting that Francophone nations have chosen to join it. I wonder why?
It's all about taking back control from their unelected rulers.
Just imagine if the EU sacked a UK Prime Minister in the way the Queen, via her Governor-General did with Gough Whitlam in Australia, something King Charles endorsed.
It's a family affair.
Don't forget Uncle Dickie was lined up to become titular Prime Minister when Wilson was due to be felled in a coup d'etat.
Democracy in action.
Our democracy has made an ass of itself. Cameron, Truss, Boris!, Lizaster, Dishi. But we have an elected system. When a party makes an ass of itself we can remove it.
What is democratic about the monarchy? Whilst the Queen dedicated her life to serving the country, she was imposed. And had she been awful we would have been stuck with her, decade after decade.
I recognise the Take Back Control rationale. And yet so many of the people who champion the principles of democracy and accountability are also wedded to the monarchy.
But if you elect a government committed to abolishing the monarchy, it will be abolished (and it would be much easier than leaving the EU), so that argument isn’t really valid.
Yes, voters could have voted for the republican Corbyn to be PM in 2017 and 2019 rather than the monarchist Tories but they didn't, now even Starmer backs keeping the monarchy.
Foot was a republican too in 1983 but was also trounced. Indeed Labour has had its heaviest defeats since WW2 under republican leaders
Ms Truss came a cropper too, though I think her republicanism was from before she became totally bonkers.
She has a point. Is it right to deprive someone of their entire livelihood on the basis of hearsay and anonymous allegations - made to the media not the police?
I suppose you could argue that Brand has the money to fight libel actions but it still doesn’t seem quite right
Maybe key word is 'suspends'?
@Cyclefree probably knows way more than us about this kind of corporate thing, but if there is some kind of allegation of a v serious nature in a workplace are people not sometimes 'suspended' pending an investigation?
Quite often, they are.
Tiger Woods lost zillions in sponsorships for behaviour which wasn’t on the level of Brands - cheating on his wife with various er… professionals, mainly.
And amateurs! Like the next door neighbour's daughter.
Yup.
So Brand has nothing to whine about. If you are in the entertainment business, your image can affect others. So it matters. “But it’s legal” doesn’t work for that.
Hang on. I get all this if Brand is found guilty of what he is being accused of. But Leon is right. At the moment he is being cancelled based on (very credible) accusations.
Suspending YouTube income if held for him to be repaid if he was shown not to be guilty seems okay. But scrubbing content from Channel 4 seems way out of line. And should we not give individuals the choice as to whether they want to spend money and time at his shows?
I think the man is a money-grabbing turd these days, but I think we play into the hands of those stoking a culture war by reacting this way.
ETA: just to be clear, I suspect the allegations are probably true and then most/all of these things should happen. But there needs to be a sequence to this stuff imo
Commercial telly is simple. If it isn't going to make money then they won't show it. If their judgement is that people won't want him broadcast then off he goes.
As for YuToob, it has a stack of policies and is already very good at suspending people and channels for no particular reason.
I'm not saying that I support taking away his voice, at least not at this point. But its difficult to force people to watch someone they no longer want to watch. Though surely if he has been "cancelled" by C4 and YuToob, he will be welcomed on GBeebies and given his own "Common Sense" show.
But it’s difficult to force people to watch… Unless I have misunderstood, no one is being forced to watch stuff - in the C4 case they’re being forced not to.
I do think Sir Norfolk Passmore makes a good point that the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ line doesn’t quite apply here. But I also think we cancel people, even moral turds, far too easily. At this stage of proceedings, if people still want to watch him on C4, I think they should be allowed to do so.
The fate of Brand, like others before him, is best thought of in the terms of living through a cultural revolution; a moment of total and complete reputation destruction of a figure associated with the old regime. It provides entertainment and moral direction for the masses. His legal fate is of minimal consequence, this is primarily an episode in the culture war.
FFS. The Guardian's report on Sunak's Net Zero reverse ferret:
"He is also expected to rule out proposed recycling schemes with multiple bins."
It's gone full-on Cones Hotline, hasn't it? This is basically Government by Alan Partridge.
Don't most places already have multiple bins? That's the norm surely, and it has been the case for many years now.
I (and 1000s of others round here) have 'blue bins' and that's it. Once in a while they even get emptied. In between - everything gets chucked in the regular waste.
Our council leader backed reducing the recycling collections as people were ... recycling too much.
That doesn't sound very good, but I can't see why anyone would want to rule out multiple bin schemes, it surely makes sense to get households to sort their waste first?
We have just moved on after a week in Sunak’s constituency. We are used to recycling at home (four bins). We found it extremely difficult to find any recycling facilities, apart from clothes banks. It was almost impossible to recycle glass. We were very disappointed, but I suppose his voters are totally uninterested in the environment.
all emptied pretty efficiently at reasonable intervals. The garden bin does have to be paid for bu an annual charge, and runs from about March to November.
We have 4 - glass goes in with the rest of the recycling.
Quite common from what I have seen.
It's startling how much local authorities vary in their approach. I had no idea any were as minimalist as Richmond but we have Fairliered's testimony.
Here in Redbridge we just have a wheelie bin and a recycling box.
FFS. The Guardian's report on Sunak's Net Zero reverse ferret:
"He is also expected to rule out proposed recycling schemes with multiple bins."
It's gone full-on Cones Hotline, hasn't it? This is basically Government by Alan Partridge.
Don't most places already have multiple bins? That's the norm surely, and it has been the case for many years now.
I (and 1000s of others round here) have 'blue bins' and that's it. Once in a while they even get emptied. In between - everything gets chucked in the regular waste.
Our council leader backed reducing the recycling collections as people were ... recycling too much.
That doesn't sound very good, but I can't see why anyone would want to rule out multiple bin schemes, it surely makes sense to get households to sort their waste first?
We have just moved on after a week in Sunak’s constituency. We are used to recycling at home (four bins). We found it extremely difficult to find any recycling facilities, apart from clothes banks. It was almost impossible to recycle glass. We were very disappointed, but I suppose his voters are totally uninterested in the environment.
all emptied pretty efficiently at reasonable intervals. The garden bin does have to be paid for bu an annual charge, and runs from about March to November.
We have 4 - glass goes in with the rest of the recycling.
I have 3
- Card and Paper - Other mixed recycling - Rubbish
No food caddy. I do have a compost bin in my garden I put my compost into instead.
Could pay for a garden bin, but don't bother. Composting it myself seems more sensible than paying the Council to do so.
Only issue with the compost is that its an underground one I dug and installed into my garden, I read that's a good idea as it attracts worms and improves the health of your garden . . . but my bin has been flooded for the last couple of weeks. The garden being waterlogged was an issue when we moved in, in December, which is part of the reason I dug a hole and installed the underground compost bin and I thought it might be an issue again in winter, but I wasn't expecting the garden to be waterlogged again already by the start of Autumn.
Been a very wet year it seems.
Not sure if any of the site's gardening fans have a suggestion.
She has a point. Is it right to deprive someone of their entire livelihood on the basis of hearsay and anonymous allegations - made to the media not the police?
I suppose you could argue that Brand has the money to fight libel actions but it still doesn’t seem quite right
Maybe key word is 'suspends'?
@Cyclefree probably knows way more than us about this kind of corporate thing, but if there is some kind of allegation of a v serious nature in a workplace are people not sometimes 'suspended' pending an investigation?
Quite often, they are.
Tiger Woods lost zillions in sponsorships for behaviour which wasn’t on the level of Brands - cheating on his wife with various er… professionals, mainly.
And amateurs! Like the next door neighbour's daughter.
Yup.
So Brand has nothing to whine about. If you are in the entertainment business, your image can affect others. So it matters. “But it’s legal” doesn’t work for that.
Hang on. I get all this if Brand is found guilty of what he is being accused of. But Leon is right. At the moment he is being cancelled based on (very credible) accusations.
Suspending YouTube income if held for him to be repaid if he was shown not to be guilty seems okay. But scrubbing content from Channel 4 seems way out of line. And should we not give individuals the choice as to whether they want to spend money and time at his shows?
I think the man is a money-grabbing turd these days, but I think we play into the hands of those stoking a culture war by reacting this way.
ETA: just to be clear, I suspect the allegations are probably true and then most/all of these things should happen. But there needs to be a sequence to this stuff imo
Commercial telly is simple. If it isn't going to make money then they won't show it. If their judgement is that people won't want him broadcast then off he goes.
As for YuToob, it has a stack of policies and is already very good at suspending people and channels for no particular reason.
I'm not saying that I support taking away his voice, at least not at this point. But its difficult to force people to watch someone they no longer want to watch. Though surely if he has been "cancelled" by C4 and YuToob, he will be welcomed on GBeebies and given his own "Common Sense" show.
But it’s difficult to force people to watch… Unless I have misunderstood, no one is being forced to watch stuff - in the C4 case they’re being forced not to.
I do think Sir Norfolk Passmore makes a good point that the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ line doesn’t quite apply here. But I also think we cancel people, even moral turds, far too easily. At this stage of proceedings, if people still want to watch him on C4, I think they should be allowed to do so.
Jim"ll Fix It on the iPlayer too? He was never convicted either.
Broadcasters can make decisions about what from their archives they make available, on what terms they want (subject to the Charter for Beeb) and how it reflects on them.
The copyright isn't Brand's as he presumably contracted it away for cash. The right to access the whole C4 archive for free isn't something we have ever enjoyed.
But there is obviously a good reason why Saville was never convicted, being dead.
There’s another reason why the parallel doesn’t work - to watch Saville with kids at this point would be horrendous given what we know about him. I also think it would be appropriate to cancel Tate, because much of what he talks about is closely linked to the reasons why he was arrested. But Brand’s comedy (or his conspiracy nonsense on YouTube) has nothing to do with whether he is a rapist or not.
Of course C4 is free to make this decision. But I think at this stage it is a poor, and damaging, decision.
Firstly, if you're playing your flawed version of "innocent until proven guilty" the fact Savile is dead makes no difference. It doesn't matter why the allegations were never tested in court - they weren't and he wasn't proven guilty in the sense of that phrase. I mean he was guilty - there is lots of credible evidence against him that many people chose to accept. As many do with Brand.
Secondly, by your argument, just put a warning before Jim'll Fix It saying "not suitable for children" as with other material. But that's not the point - the BBC don't show it (and nor do other broadcasters who may have rights to content) because people would think less of them if they did and it would damage their (for want of a better word) brand. The Channel 4 decision is wholly understandable, and it's their decision.
Thirdly, a huge amount of Brand's content is, in fact, about his libertine reputation and sexual experimentation. Responses to it are rather radically affected by the very strong likelihood he wasn't playing a part on stage, and indeed was toning it down, just as one cannot now look at Savile interacting with a child or speaking about his enigmatic persona without overlaying what you (with very good reason) believe about him.
I see getting rid of "green crap" is tonight's Sunak desperation bid.
Sunak takes aim at his second foot...
Luke Tryl @LukeTryl · Jul 26 The TL;DR Red Wall voters have high thread perception which shapes their attitudes to a huge range of issues, on climate change the threat of climate change -makes them among the most likely to support climate action and transition.
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Why this animus against the Commonwealth? It's a voluntary club. Don't be a member if you don't want to. But interesting that Francophone nations have chosen to join it. I wonder why?
It's all about taking back control from their unelected rulers.
Just imagine if the EU sacked a UK Prime Minister in the way the Queen, via her Governor-General did with Gough Whitlam in Australia, something King Charles endorsed.
The Queen was perfectly correct in the Dismissal, in the same way that she would be correct to dismiss a PM in similar circumstances. This is one of those cases where the Westminster System worked correctly.
Why this animus against the Commonwealth? It's a voluntary club. Don't be a member if you don't want to. But interesting that Francophone nations have chosen to join it. I wonder why?
It's all about taking back control from their unelected rulers.
Just imagine if the EU sacked a UK Prime Minister in the way the Queen, via her Governor-General did with Gough Whitlam in Australia, something King Charles endorsed.
It's a family affair.
Don't forget Uncle Dickie was lined up to become titular Prime Minister when Wilson was due to be felled in a coup d'etat.
Democracy in action.
Our democracy has made an ass of itself. Cameron, Truss, Boris!, Lizaster, Dishi. But we have an elected system. When a party makes an ass of itself we can remove it.
What is democratic about the monarchy? Whilst the Queen dedicated her life to serving the country, she was imposed. And had she been awful we would have been stuck with her, decade after decade.
I recognise the Take Back Control rationale. And yet so many of the people who champion the principles of democracy and accountability are also wedded to the monarchy.
But if you elect a government committed to abolishing the monarchy, it will be abolished (and it would be much easier than leaving the EU), so that argument isn’t really valid.
Yes, voters could have voted for the republican Corbyn to be PM in 2017 and 2019 rather than the monarchist Tories but they didn't, now even Starmer backs keeping the monarchy.
Foot was a republican too in 1983 but was also trounced. Indeed Labour has had its heaviest defeats since WW2 under republican leaders
Ms Truss came a cropper too, though I think her republicanism was from before she became totally bonkers.
A republican was the last person to shake the Queen's hand?
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
Why this animus against the Commonwealth? It's a voluntary club. Don't be a member if you don't want to. But interesting that Francophone nations have chosen to join it. I wonder why?
It's all about taking back control from their unelected rulers.
Just imagine if the EU sacked a UK Prime Minister in the way the Queen, via her Governor-General did with Gough Whitlam in Australia, something King Charles endorsed.
It's a family affair.
Don't forget Uncle Dickie was lined up to become titular Prime Minister when Wilson was due to be felled in a coup d'etat.
Democracy in action.
Our democracy has made an ass of itself. Cameron, Truss, Boris!, Lizaster, Dishi. But we have an elected system. When a party makes an ass of itself we can remove it.
What is democratic about the monarchy? Whilst the Queen dedicated her life to serving the country, she was imposed. And had she been awful we would have been stuck with her, decade after decade.
I recognise the Take Back Control rationale. And yet so many of the people who champion the principles of democracy and accountability are also wedded to the monarchy.
Putin and Trump and Mugabe were elected Presidents, the Queen wasn't.
Having an elected President doesn't automatically make a great free democracy, indeed most of the dictators in the world today are in republics. Constitutional monarchies like the UK, New Zealand, Norway and Japan and the Netherlands and Canada however are amongst the most free and prosperous nations on earth
Most democracies in the world today are republics.
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
I can tell my local MP in a safe Tory seat is getting nervous. They have sent me a first ever letter, and it is to oppose further expansion of housebuilding in the constituency.
Desperately hoping the Nimbys can save the Tory bacon.
She has a point. Is it right to deprive someone of their entire livelihood on the basis of hearsay and anonymous allegations - made to the media not the police?
I suppose you could argue that Brand has the money to fight libel actions but it still doesn’t seem quite right
Maybe key word is 'suspends'?
@Cyclefree probably knows way more than us about this kind of corporate thing, but if there is some kind of allegation of a v serious nature in a workplace are people not sometimes 'suspended' pending an investigation?
Quite often, they are.
Tiger Woods lost zillions in sponsorships for behaviour which wasn’t on the level of Brands - cheating on his wife with various er… professionals, mainly.
And amateurs! Like the next door neighbour's daughter.
Yup.
So Brand has nothing to whine about. If you are in the entertainment business, your image can affect others. So it matters. “But it’s legal” doesn’t work for that.
Hang on. I get all this if Brand is found guilty of what he is being accused of. But Leon is right. At the moment he is being cancelled based on (very credible) accusations.
Suspending YouTube income if held for him to be repaid if he was shown not to be guilty seems okay. But scrubbing content from Channel 4 seems way out of line. And should we not give individuals the choice as to whether they want to spend money and time at his shows?
I think the man is a money-grabbing turd these days, but I think we play into the hands of those stoking a culture war by reacting this way.
ETA: just to be clear, I suspect the allegations are probably true and then most/all of these things should happen. But there needs to be a sequence to this stuff imo
Commercial telly is simple. If it isn't going to make money then they won't show it. If their judgement is that people won't want him broadcast then off he goes.
As for YuToob, it has a stack of policies and is already very good at suspending people and channels for no particular reason.
I'm not saying that I support taking away his voice, at least not at this point. But its difficult to force people to watch someone they no longer want to watch. Though surely if he has been "cancelled" by C4 and YuToob, he will be welcomed on GBeebies and given his own "Common Sense" show.
But it’s difficult to force people to watch… Unless I have misunderstood, no one is being forced to watch stuff - in the C4 case they’re being forced not to.
I do think Sir Norfolk Passmore makes a good point that the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ line doesn’t quite apply here. But I also think we cancel people, even moral turds, far too easily. At this stage of proceedings, if people still want to watch him on C4, I think they should be allowed to do so.
Jim"ll Fix It on the iPlayer too? He was never convicted either.
Broadcasters can make decisions about what from their archives they make available, on what terms they want (subject to the Charter for Beeb) and how it reflects on them.
The copyright isn't Brand's as he presumably contracted it away for cash. The right to access the whole C4 archive for free isn't something we have ever enjoyed.
But there is obviously a good reason why Saville was never convicted, being dead.
There’s another reason why the parallel doesn’t work - to watch Saville with kids at this point would be horrendous given what we know about him. I also think it would be appropriate to cancel Tate, because much of what he talks about is closely linked to the reasons why he was arrested. But Brand’s comedy (or his conspiracy nonsense on YouTube) has nothing to do with whether he is a rapist or not.
Of course C4 is free to make this decision. But I think at this stage it is a poor, and damaging, decision.
Firstly, if you're playing your flawed version of "innocent until proven guilty" the fact Savile is dead makes no difference. It doesn't matter why the allegations were never tested in court - they weren't and he wasn't proven guilty in the sense of that phrase. I mean he was guilty - there is lots of credible evidence against him that many people chose to accept. As many do with Brand.
Secondly, by your argument, just put a warning before Jim'll Fix It saying "not suitable for children" as with other material. But that's not the point - the BBC don't show it (and nor do other broadcasters who may have rights to content) because people would think less of them if they did and it would damage their (for want of a better word) brand. The Channel 4 decision is wholly understandable, and it's their decision.
Thirdly, a huge amount of Brand's content is, in fact, about his libertine reputation and sexual experimentation. Responses to it are rather radically affected by the very strong likelihood he wasn't playing a part on stage, and indeed was toning it down, just as one cannot now look at Savile interacting with a child or speaking about his enigmatic persona without overlaying what you (with very good reason) believe about him.
Bed is calling but I just wanted to acknowledge your third point which I hadn’t realised - if his comedy is all about having sex as you say then I can see why it might need to be removed from C4 and others. I only know of his YouTube nonsense, and then only because an acquaintance kept sending it to me.
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
I can tell my local MP in a safe Tory seat is getting nervous. They have sent me a first ever letter, and it is to oppose further expansion of housebuilding in the constituency.
Desperately hoping the Nimbys can save the Tory bacon.
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
I can tell my local MP in a safe Tory seat is getting nervous. They have sent me a first ever letter, and it is to oppose further expansion of housebuilding in the constituency.
Desperately hoping the Nimbys can save the Tory bacon.
FFS. The Guardian's report on Sunak's Net Zero reverse ferret:
"He is also expected to rule out proposed recycling schemes with multiple bins."
It's gone full-on Cones Hotline, hasn't it? This is basically Government by Alan Partridge.
Don't most places already have multiple bins? That's the norm surely, and it has been the case for many years now.
I (and 1000s of others round here) have 'blue bins' and that's it. Once in a while they even get emptied. In between - everything gets chucked in the regular waste.
Our council leader backed reducing the recycling collections as people were ... recycling too much.
That doesn't sound very good, but I can't see why anyone would want to rule out multiple bin schemes, it surely makes sense to get households to sort their waste first?
We have just moved on after a week in Sunak’s constituency. We are used to recycling at home (four bins). We found it extremely difficult to find any recycling facilities, apart from clothes banks. It was almost impossible to recycle glass. We were very disappointed, but I suppose his voters are totally uninterested in the environment.
all emptied pretty efficiently at reasonable intervals. The garden bin does have to be paid for bu an annual charge, and runs from about March to November.
We have 4 - glass goes in with the rest of the recycling.
Quite common from what I have seen.
It's startling how much local authorities vary in their approach. I had no idea any were as minimalist as Richmond but we have Fairliered's testimony.
Here in Redbridge we just have a wheelie bin and a recycling box.
A bin and a box- luxury!
Havering still runs on good old fashioned bin bags. Maybe the council are taking backhanders from foxes. Orange for paper/tins/plastic bottles, your own bags for everything else. And now the tetra pack bins have vanished from the local supermarket car parks.
In other news, haven't heard anything either way about Aklu Plaza. Bottom line is that it's always a shame when a business fails, even if it's not one you use personally. And there are already lots of empty shops around Romford Market, it will be a more than a shame if there's another one.
FFS. The Guardian's report on Sunak's Net Zero reverse ferret:
"He is also expected to rule out proposed recycling schemes with multiple bins."
It's gone full-on Cones Hotline, hasn't it? This is basically Government by Alan Partridge.
Don't most places already have multiple bins? That's the norm surely, and it has been the case for many years now.
I (and 1000s of others round here) have 'blue bins' and that's it. Once in a while they even get emptied. In between - everything gets chucked in the regular waste.
Our council leader backed reducing the recycling collections as people were ... recycling too much.
That doesn't sound very good, but I can't see why anyone would want to rule out multiple bin schemes, it surely makes sense to get households to sort their waste first?
We have just moved on after a week in Sunak’s constituency. We are used to recycling at home (four bins). We found it extremely difficult to find any recycling facilities, apart from clothes banks. It was almost impossible to recycle glass. We were very disappointed, but I suppose his voters are totally uninterested in the environment.
all emptied pretty efficiently at reasonable intervals. The garden bin does have to be paid for bu an annual charge, and runs from about March to November.
We have 4 - glass goes in with the rest of the recycling.
I have 3
- Card and Paper - Other mixed recycling - Rubbish
No food caddy. I do have a compost bin in my garden I put my compost into instead.
Could pay for a garden bin, but don't bother. Composting it myself seems more sensible than paying the Council to do so.
Only issue with the compost is that its an underground one I dug and installed into my garden, I read that's a good idea as it attracts worms and improves the health of your garden . . . but my bin has been flooded for the last couple of weeks. The garden being waterlogged was an issue when we moved in, in December, which is part of the reason I dug a hole and installed the underground compost bin and I thought it might be an issue again in winter, but I wasn't expecting the garden to be waterlogged again already by the start of Autumn.
Been a very wet year it seems.
Not sure if any of the site's gardening fans have a suggestion.
Weekly food caddy Fortnightly general waste Other fortnightly garden waste (annual fee), paper and card boxes, recycling (plastics and glass).
FFS. The Guardian's report on Sunak's Net Zero reverse ferret:
"He is also expected to rule out proposed recycling schemes with multiple bins."
It's gone full-on Cones Hotline, hasn't it? This is basically Government by Alan Partridge.
Don't most places already have multiple bins? That's the norm surely, and it has been the case for many years now.
I (and 1000s of others round here) have 'blue bins' and that's it. Once in a while they even get emptied. In between - everything gets chucked in the regular waste.
Our council leader backed reducing the recycling collections as people were ... recycling too much.
That doesn't sound very good, but I can't see why anyone would want to rule out multiple bin schemes, it surely makes sense to get households to sort their waste first?
We have just moved on after a week in Sunak’s constituency. We are used to recycling at home (four bins). We found it extremely difficult to find any recycling facilities, apart from clothes banks. It was almost impossible to recycle glass. We were very disappointed, but I suppose his voters are totally uninterested in the environment.
all emptied pretty efficiently at reasonable intervals. The garden bin does have to be paid for bu an annual charge, and runs from about March to November.
We have four bins. Garden and food waste - collected two weekly. Paper and card - collected three weekly. Metal, plastic and glass - collected three weekly. General waste - collected three weekly.
No extra charges levied. Compostable food caddy bags provided FOC. Our local authority is proud of its recycling figures, and rightly so!
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
I can tell my local MP in a safe Tory seat is getting nervous. They have sent me a first ever letter, and it is to oppose further expansion of housebuilding in the constituency.
Desperately hoping the Nimbys can save the Tory bacon.
Real Nimbys will vote LD or Green regardless, semi Nimbys vote LD or Independent locally but usually Tory still nationally and thus might be persuadable
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
I can tell my local MP in a safe Tory seat is getting nervous. They have sent me a first ever letter, and it is to oppose further expansion of housebuilding in the constituency.
Desperately hoping the Nimbys can save the Tory bacon.
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
I can tell my local MP in a safe Tory seat is getting nervous. They have sent me a first ever letter, and it is to oppose further expansion of housebuilding in the constituency.
Desperately hoping the Nimbys can save the Tory bacon.
Presumably car firms that have been investing on the basis of 2030 will be pretty pissed off as well.
As a provincial science master, I take comfort in not really understanding business, but I can't help wondering if Rishi understands even less than I do.
I see getting rid of "green crap" is tonight's Sunak desperation bid.
It feels like a 'core vote' policy shift, except I think a lot of traditional Tories are very much in favour of decarbonisation and looking after the planet, so I'm not sure how big the 'core' he's after is.
And politically it's all too distant. No one is sat around worried about not being able to buy a brand new petrol car on 7 years' time. For anyone financially struggling you can add another 5-10 years' onto that for the age of car purchased, and that feels an age away.
Perhaps Sunak is just a bit crap at this politics business.
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
I can tell my local MP in a safe Tory seat is getting nervous. They have sent me a first ever letter, and it is to oppose further expansion of housebuilding in the constituency.
Desperately hoping the Nimbys can save the Tory bacon.
Real Nimbys will vote LD or Green regardless, semi Nimbys vote LD or Independent locally but usually Tory still nationally and thus might be persuadable
Not round here! It's the LD group on Harborough council opposing the Tory Nimbyism.
Presumably car firms that have been investing on the basis of 2030 will be pretty pissed off as well.
As a provincial science master, I take comfort in not really understanding business, but I can't help wondering if Rishi understands even less than I do.
He doesn't care. It is desperate bid to claw something back against a 20 point Lab lead by pandering to the ageing tory vote who can't understand why it is not 1953 anymore.
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
I can tell my local MP in a safe Tory seat is getting nervous. They have sent me a first ever letter, and it is to oppose further expansion of housebuilding in the constituency.
Desperately hoping the Nimbys can save the Tory bacon.
Real Nimbys will vote LD or Green regardless, semi Nimbys vote LD or Independent locally but usually Tory still nationally and thus might be persuadable
Not round here! It's the LD group on Harborough council opposing the Tory Nimbyism.
There may be exceptions but the local elections in May mainly saw Tory controlled councils losing control to Nimby LDs and Independents and Greens in southern England because the Tory councils Local Plans were seen as building too many new flats and houses and not protecting the greenbelt enough
If Sunak does his big cutting the green crap speech this week it’ll be sensibly timed. Friday would be best: that will be the coolest day of the week and probably of the month. People won’t be feeling very climate changy.
Come next week we should be back into low to mid 20s by day again and we look on course to beat the record for warmest ever September in the Central England Temperature series. Possibly also beating June into warmest month of the year.
Later next week is also when a Cape Verde disturbance modelled to develop into a major hurricane looks on course to hit the Caribbean. The GFS model has it hitting the lesser Antilles, then Haiti, Cuba and finally the Bahamas.
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
I can tell my local MP in a safe Tory seat is getting nervous. They have sent me a first ever letter, and it is to oppose further expansion of housebuilding in the constituency.
Desperately hoping the Nimbys can save the Tory bacon.
If he's against in favour of flatbuilding then fair enough.
FFS. The Guardian's report on Sunak's Net Zero reverse ferret:
"He is also expected to rule out proposed recycling schemes with multiple bins."
It's gone full-on Cones Hotline, hasn't it? This is basically Government by Alan Partridge.
Don't most places already have multiple bins? That's the norm surely, and it has been the case for many years now.
I (and 1000s of others round here) have 'blue bins' and that's it. Once in a while they even get emptied. In between - everything gets chucked in the regular waste.
Our council leader backed reducing the recycling collections as people were ... recycling too much.
That doesn't sound very good, but I can't see why anyone would want to rule out multiple bin schemes, it surely makes sense to get households to sort their waste first?
We have just moved on after a week in Sunak’s constituency. We are used to recycling at home (four bins). We found it extremely difficult to find any recycling facilities, apart from clothes banks. It was almost impossible to recycle glass. We were very disappointed, but I suppose his voters are totally uninterested in the environment.
all emptied pretty efficiently at reasonable intervals. The garden bin does have to be paid for bu an annual charge, and runs from about March to November.
We have four bins. Garden and food waste - collected two weekly. Paper and card - collected three weekly. Metal, plastic and glass - collected three weekly. General waste - collected three weekly.
No extra charges levied. Compostable food caddy bags provided FOC. Our local authority is proud of its recycling figures, and rightly so!
Apart from the basic merits of reuse and recycling of materials, it's the shortage of holes in the ground that makes recycling so sensible. There aren't nearly as many old quarries as there used to be - they have all been infilled, it sometimes seems. Indeed I believe that at least one major complex in the Home Counties makes more money from filling in the hole than in selling the rock it quarries to make the hole. This doesn't change whatever one thinks of net zero.
The former being one of the finest education establishments in Europe of course.
Notably since WW2 most winning Labour leaders have read law eg Attlee, Blair and we assume Starmer. Wilson was the exception who read PPE. Brown read history but did not win a general election
By contrast Tory PM election winners who went to university most commonly read PPE ie Heath and Cameron or classics ie Macmillan and Boris. Thatcher read chemistry (plus did a law conversion), May read Geography and Eden read Oriental languages. Home read history but like Brown did not win an election, Truss and Sunak also read PPE of course
Presumably car firms that have been investing on the basis of 2030 will be pretty pissed off as well.
As a provincial science master, I take comfort in not really understanding business, but I can't help wondering if Rishi understands even less than I do.
He doesn't care. It is desperate bid to claw something back against a 20 point Lab lead by pandering to the ageing tory vote who can't understand why it is not 1953 anymore.
He doesn't even care about the red wall, as others have demonstrated.
He's targeting a core, reactionary group of older voters (unkindly known as gammons/karens by the yoof) in order to drive turnout and avoid a catastrophic Tory defeat.
The former being one of the finest education establishments in Europe of course.
Notably since WW2 most winning Labour leaders have read law eg Attlee, Blair and we assume Starmer. Wilson was the exception who read PPE. Brown read history but did not win a general election
By contrast Tory election winners who went to university most commonly read PPE ie Heath and Cameron or classics ie Macmillan and Boris. Thatcher read chemistry (plus did a law conversion), May read Geography and Eden read Oriental languages. Home read history but like Brown did not win an election, Truss and Sunak also read PPE of course
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
I can tell my local MP in a safe Tory seat is getting nervous. They have sent me a first ever letter, and it is to oppose further expansion of housebuilding in the constituency.
Desperately hoping the Nimbys can save the Tory bacon.
Real Nimbys will vote LD or Green regardless, semi Nimbys vote LD or Independent locally but usually Tory still nationally and thus might be persuadable
Not round here! It's the LD group on Harborough council opposing the Tory Nimbyism.
There may be exceptions but the local elections in May mainly saw Tory controlled councils losing control to Nimby LDs and Independents and Greens in southern England because the Tory councils Local Plans were seen as building too many new flats and houses and not protecting the greenbelt enough
The Tory Nimbys on Harborough council lost control in May with the LDs now the second largest group.
She has a point. Is it right to deprive someone of their entire livelihood on the basis of hearsay and anonymous allegations - made to the media not the police?
I suppose you could argue that Brand has the money to fight libel actions but it still doesn’t seem quite right
Following the universal rule that social media is getting worse in the 2020s, YouTube has become even more capricious and arbitrary over the past year or two. I posted the other day how many military enthusiasts and historians have set up their own platform (armchairhistory.tv?) to bypass YouTubes habit of demonetizing those with violent content, in the same way as the film/media crowd set up Nebula to get around fair use violations. The future for Brand and his cohort is to set up their own hosting website, a GBNews/YouTube hybrid where they can pontificate to their heart's content.
Weirdly, because you spend most of your time on Twitter and I live on YouTube, this might be the only time ever where I am ahead of the curve zeitgeist. Does the Knappers Gazette need a YouTube correspondent?
There are two problems here:
(1) Google monetizes better than anyone else, because they know everything about you.
(2) Google has a financial incentive to demonetize videos. Because you are still seeing adverts (at a rate of x per hour viewed), even if the creators aren't being rewarded for it.
It seems like the correct answer here is to allow advertisers to choose not to avoid controversial videos. Because competition to be shown alongside a video of a Bully XL ripping a human being to bits is going to be lower than for a Taylor Swift video, revenues would be more modest for those who produced controversial content. But it would also avoid people being "cut off at the knees".
I would suggest this is one of these times when Competition Authorities need to encourage behaviour change.
Which Competition Authorities would and could? Only the US and EU competition authorities have enough clout to make a difference?
The former being one of the finest education establishments in Europe of course.
Notably since WW2 most winning Labour leaders have read law eg Attlee, Blair and we assume Starmer. Wilson was the exception who read PPE. Brown read history but did not win a general election
By contrast Tory PM election winners who went to university most commonly read PPE ie Heath and Cameron or classics ie Macmillan and Boris. Thatcher read chemistry (plus did a law conversion), May read Geography and Eden read Oriental languages. Home read history but like Brown did not win an election, Truss and Sunak also read PPE of course
John Smith - who would have won - read history and law.
Ramsey McDonald studied botany and agriculture at Birbeck but failed to take the exams (wikipedia tells me - I didn;t know this one).
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
I can tell my local MP in a safe Tory seat is getting nervous. They have sent me a first ever letter, and it is to oppose further expansion of housebuilding in the constituency.
Desperately hoping the Nimbys can save the Tory bacon.
Real Nimbys will vote LD or Green regardless, semi Nimbys vote LD or Independent locally but usually Tory still nationally and thus might be persuadable
Not round here! It's the LD group on Harborough council opposing the Tory Nimbyism.
There may be exceptions but the local elections in May mainly saw Tory controlled councils losing control to Nimby LDs and Independents and Greens in southern England because the Tory councils Local Plans were seen as building too many new flats and houses and not protecting the greenbelt enough
The Tory Nimbys on Harborough council lost control in May with the LDs now the second largest group.
As I said there may be exceptions but here in Epping Forest the LDs fought hard on a Nimby agenda against Tory development plans at district level and on Epping Town council with Nimby Independents and that was the usual pattern.
See also Oxfordshire and Surrey where the LDs were relentless in their Focus leaflets in attacking Tory councils plans for new flats and new housing and the Tories lost control of most of their councils and see also Uttlesford where Independents/Residents have control on a Nimby platform
Presumably car firms that have been investing on the basis of 2030 will be pretty pissed off as well.
As a provincial science master, I take comfort in not really understanding business, but I can't help wondering if Rishi understands even less than I do.
He doesn't care. It is desperate bid to claw something back against a 20 point Lab lead by pandering to the ageing tory vote who can't understand why it is not 1953 anymore.
He doesn't even care about the red wall, as others have demonstrated.
He's targeting a core, reactionary group of older voters (unkindly known as gammons/karens by the yoof) in order to drive turnout and avoid a catastrophic Tory defeat.
Yep.
This is die in the last ditch stuff.
In a sense it tonight's announcement is fantastic for Starmer.
It says that they know they have lost and it is about how very badly they lose now.
Presumably car firms that have been investing on the basis of 2030 will be pretty pissed off as well.
As a provincial science master, I take comfort in not really understanding business, but I can't help wondering if Rishi understands even less than I do.
He doesn't care. It is desperate bid to claw something back against a 20 point Lab lead by pandering to the ageing tory vote who can't understand why it is not 1953 anymore.
He doesn't even care about the red wall, as others have demonstrated.
He's targeting a core, reactionary group of older voters (unkindly known as gammons/karens by the yoof) in order to drive turnout and avoid a catastrophic Tory defeat.
Yep.
This is die in the last ditch stuff.
In a sense it tonight's announcement is fantastic for Starmer.
It says that they know they have lost and it is about how very badly they lose now.
It'll be interesting if Mr Sunak ditches his helicopter. I doubt now he will.
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
I can tell my local MP in a safe Tory seat is getting nervous. They have sent me a first ever letter, and it is to oppose further expansion of housebuilding in the constituency.
Desperately hoping the Nimbys can save the Tory bacon.
Real Nimbys will vote LD or Green regardless, semi Nimbys vote LD or Independent locally but usually Tory still nationally and thus might be persuadable
Not round here! It's the LD group on Harborough council opposing the Tory Nimbyism.
There may be exceptions but the local elections in May mainly saw Tory controlled councils losing control to Nimby LDs and Independents and Greens in southern England because the Tory councils Local Plans were seen as building too many new flats and houses and not protecting the greenbelt enough
I was in Brentwood today - the High Street is a curiousity. One end seems to be struggling, the other seems to be doing quite well. Shades of Epping with a decent M&S and plenty of eatieries, charity shops and hairdressers but perhaps Brentwood needs a few more of Epping's quirkier shops.
Presumably car firms that have been investing on the basis of 2030 will be pretty pissed off as well.
As a provincial science master, I take comfort in not really understanding business, but I can't help wondering if Rishi understands even less than I do.
He doesn't care. It is desperate bid to claw something back against a 20 point Lab lead by pandering to the ageing tory vote who can't understand why it is not 1953 anymore.
He doesn't even care about the red wall, as others have demonstrated.
He's targeting a core, reactionary group of older voters (unkindly known as gammons/karens by the yoof) in order to drive turnout and avoid a catastrophic Tory defeat.
Yep.
This is die in the last ditch stuff.
In a sense it tonight's announcement is fantastic for Starmer.
It says that they know they have lost and it is about how very badly they lose now.
It'll be interesting if Mr Sunak ditches his helicopter. I doubt now he will.
That would cause a major emergency services response would it not?
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 57m It's intriguing that Sunak's announcement got leaked - and genuinely leaked given they were clearly taken by surprise. To date it's been a remarkably watertight No 10 operation.
If Sunak was going to be in office longer than 12 months and he actually did row back on new zero policy then it would disprove the old canard that by-elections change nothing.
Uxbridge.
By elections have changed things before, the rather small but long overdue planning reform Boris was planning got abandoned after a NIMBY by election defeat to the Lib Dems. For shame.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
I can tell my local MP in a safe Tory seat is getting nervous. They have sent me a first ever letter, and it is to oppose further expansion of housebuilding in the constituency.
Desperately hoping the Nimbys can save the Tory bacon.
Real Nimbys will vote LD or Green regardless, semi Nimbys vote LD or Independent locally but usually Tory still nationally and thus might be persuadable
Not round here! It's the LD group on Harborough council opposing the Tory Nimbyism.
There may be exceptions but the local elections in May mainly saw Tory controlled councils losing control to Nimby LDs and Independents and Greens in southern England because the Tory councils Local Plans were seen as building too many new flats and houses and not protecting the greenbelt enough
I was in Brentwood today - the High Street is a curiousity. One end seems to be struggling, the other seems to be doing quite well. Shades of Epping with a decent M&S and plenty of eatieries, charity shops and hairdressers but perhaps Brentwood needs a few more of Epping's quirkier shops.
Indeed, though the most expensive parts of Brentwood district are actually villages like Ingatestone and Herongate and small towns like Shenfield rather than Brentwood town itself.
Brentwood also has almost 5 times the population of Epping
Headlines from Mail and Express tell us why Sunak has pandered to the ageing tory membership vote yet again.
Pathetic.
Hope he can show his face to his daughters tonight with hanging in shame.
I don't think the Luckyguy vote is likely to save him.
Great idea taking one of the very few long term consensus policies the country has, and ripping it up. What an utter plonker.
Whatever you think of stuff like HS2, offshore wind and Net Zero, the success of these policies is being undercut by the seemingly deliberate introduction of uncertainty in each.
How can the private sector and households make sound investments in the face of all this?
(It was 2030 for no new ICE cars, and no gas boilers in new homes from 2025. Both seem sensible and achievable to me)
Presumably car firms that have been investing on the basis of 2030 will be pretty pissed off as well.
As a provincial science master, I take comfort in not really understanding business, but I can't help wondering if Rishi understands even less than I do.
The interesting question is why did Boris advance this target from 2035 to 2030?
Headlines from Mail and Express tell us why Sunak has pandered to the ageing tory membership vote yet again.
Pathetic.
Hope he can show his face to his daughters tonight with hanging in shame.
I don't think the Luckyguy vote is likely to save him.
Great idea taking one of the very few long term consensus policies the country has, and ripping it up. What an utter plonker.
Whatever you think of stuff like HS2, offshore wind and Net Zero, the success of these policies is being undercut by the seemingly deliberate introduction of uncertainty in each.
How can the private sector and households make sound investments in the face of all this?
(It was 2030 for no new ICE cars, and no gas boilers in new homes from 2025. Both seem sensible and achievable to me)
Exactly.
I mean what does it matter how strict the new homes energy policy is given that this government can't actually bloody build any new homes.
He is a better man than this which just shows the pressures of party and media politics on someone who is frankly inexperienced.
Maybe he’s not a better man . I think many were willing to give him a chance as he seemed the polar opposite to Johnson and were relieved when he took over. We’ve just got nasty , useless and spineless in a posh suit with a now very annoying over enthusiastic manner .
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1 · 3h Be in no doubt @RishiSunak 's plan to weaken the Govt's commitment to Net Zero policies is the single most significant political decision of this year. Net Zero is a disaster for our economy, our security and our freedoms. Reality is winning.
Simon Clarke MP @SimonClarkeMP · 3h Our climate is changing dramatically. The UK has carved out a world-leading role delivering net zero in a market-friendly way that will deliver clean, secure energy and thousands of jobs in deprived communities like Teesside. My Red Wall constituents overwhelmingly support it.
Presumably car firms that have been investing on the basis of 2030 will be pretty pissed off as well.
As a provincial science master, I take comfort in not really understanding business, but I can't help wondering if Rishi understands even less than I do.
The interesting question is why did Boris advance this target from 2035 to 2030?
2035 is the Europe wide target so I have no idea why the UK is 5 years earlier
Headlines from Mail and Express tell us why Sunak has pandered to the ageing tory membership vote yet again.
Pathetic.
Hope he can show his face to his daughters tonight with hanging in shame.
I don't think the Luckyguy vote is likely to save him.
Great idea taking one of the very few long term consensus policies the country has, and ripping it up. What an utter plonker.
Whatever you think of stuff like HS2, offshore wind and Net Zero, the success of these policies is being undercut by the seemingly deliberate introduction of uncertainty in each.
How can the private sector and households make sound investments in the face of all this?
(It was 2030 for no new ICE cars, and no gas boilers in new homes from 2025. Both seem sensible and achievable to me)
The 2026 ban on off-grid oil boilers will be delayed to 2035, with only an 80% phase out target at that date too.
That is sensible as in rural areas like here virtually everyone relies on oil
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 12m In today's poll from @DeltapollUK the Tories were on 5% for 18-24 year olds. And 18% for 25-54 year olds. Don't think this evening's announcements are going to help with that.
The net zero rumours are moving quickly tonight, with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak unusually jumping in to reiterate he is "committed to net zero".
It had been circulating that Mr Sunak could be planning on pushing back a ban on new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035.
On this, the prime minister said: "No leak will stop me beginning the process of telling the country how and why we need to change.
"As a first step, I'll be giving a speech this week to set out an important long-term decision we need to make so our country becomes the place I know we all want it to be for our children..."
"Our politics must again put the long-term interests of our country before the short-term political needs of the moment."
Headlines from Mail and Express tell us why Sunak has pandered to the ageing tory membership vote yet again.
Pathetic.
Hope he can show his face to his daughters tonight with hanging in shame.
I don't think the Luckyguy vote is likely to save him.
Great idea taking one of the very few long term consensus policies the country has, and ripping it up. What an utter plonker.
Whatever you think of stuff like HS2, offshore wind and Net Zero, the success of these policies is being undercut by the seemingly deliberate introduction of uncertainty in each.
How can the private sector and households make sound investments in the face of all this?
(It was 2030 for no new ICE cars, and no gas boilers in new homes from 2025. Both seem sensible and achievable to me)
The 2026 ban on off-grid oil boilers will be delayed to 2035, with only an 80% phase out target at that date too.
That is sensible as in rural areas like here virtually everyone relies on oil
Sunak has certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons and it will be fascinating to see how this unfolds
The net zero rumours are moving quickly tonight, with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak unusually jumping in to reiterate he is "committed to net zero".
It had been circulating that Mr Sunak could be planning on pushing back a ban on new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035.
On this, the prime minister said: "No leak will stop me beginning the process of telling the country how and why we need to change.
"As a first step, I'll be giving a speech this week to set out an important long-term decision we need to make so our country becomes the place I know we all want it to be for our children..."
"Our politics must again put the long-term interests of our country before the short-term political needs of the moment."
What utter drivel . And his last sentence is vomit inducing , he’s clearly putting short term interest first . The best thing Sunak can do for the country and its children is to fxck off back to California.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 12m In today's poll from @DeltapollUK the Tories were on 5% for 18-24 year olds. And 18% for 25-54 year olds. Don't think this evening's announcements are going to help with that.
It might if they drive a petrol car or live in a rural area reliant on oil boilers
Presumably car firms that have been investing on the basis of 2030 will be pretty pissed off as well.
As a provincial science master, I take comfort in not really understanding business, but I can't help wondering if Rishi understands even less than I do.
The interesting question is why did Boris advance this target from 2035 to 2030?
2035 is the Europe wide target so I have no idea why the UK is 5 years earlier
Slightly different bans.
The UK's 2030 is for pure petrol/diesel only; hybrids would still be allowed.
The EU's 2035 is for anything with a combustion engine, so includes hybrids.
Headlines from Mail and Express tell us why Sunak has pandered to the ageing tory membership vote yet again.
Pathetic.
Hope he can show his face to his daughters tonight with hanging in shame.
I don't think the Luckyguy vote is likely to save him.
Great idea taking one of the very few long term consensus policies the country has, and ripping it up. What an utter plonker.
Whatever you think of stuff like HS2, offshore wind and Net Zero, the success of these policies is being undercut by the seemingly deliberate introduction of uncertainty in each.
How can the private sector and households make sound investments in the face of all this?
(It was 2030 for no new ICE cars, and no gas boilers in new homes from 2025. Both seem sensible and achievable to me)
The 2026 ban on off-grid oil boilers will be delayed to 2035, with only an 80% phase out target at that date too.
That is sensible as in rural areas like here virtually everyone relies on oil
Sure (I grew up with one). But only 5% of the population use them. That is not the vote share the Tories are looking for.
Presumably car firms that have been investing on the basis of 2030 will be pretty pissed off as well.
As a provincial science master, I take comfort in not really understanding business, but I can't help wondering if Rishi understands even less than I do.
The interesting question is why did Boris advance this target from 2035 to 2030?
2035 is the Europe wide target so I have no idea why the UK is 5 years earlier
Slightly different bans.
The UK's 2030 is for pure petrol/diesel only; hybrids would still be allowed.
The EU's 2035 is for anything with a combustion engine, so includes hybrids.
So the EU will be selling ICE cars for 5 years more than the UK
Presumably car firms that have been investing on the basis of 2030 will be pretty pissed off as well.
As a provincial science master, I take comfort in not really understanding business, but I can't help wondering if Rishi understands even less than I do.
The interesting question is why did Boris advance this target from 2035 to 2030?
2035 is the Europe wide target so I have no idea why the UK is 5 years earlier
Slightly different bans.
The UK's 2030 is for pure petrol/diesel only; hybrids would still be allowed.
The EU's 2035 is for anything with a combustion engine, so includes hybrids.
Tory: We left EU to do our own thing and the massive single market next door to us makes not a jot of difference.
Headlines from Mail and Express tell us why Sunak has pandered to the ageing tory membership vote yet again.
Pathetic.
Hope he can show his face to his daughters tonight with hanging in shame.
I don't think the Luckyguy vote is likely to save him.
Great idea taking one of the very few long term consensus policies the country has, and ripping it up. What an utter plonker.
Whatever you think of stuff like HS2, offshore wind and Net Zero, the success of these policies is being undercut by the seemingly deliberate introduction of uncertainty in each.
How can the private sector and households make sound investments in the face of all this?
(It was 2030 for no new ICE cars, and no gas boilers in new homes from 2025. Both seem sensible and achievable to me)
The 2026 ban on off-grid oil boilers will be delayed to 2035, with only an 80% phase out target at that date too.
That is sensible as in rural areas like here virtually everyone relies on oil
Sure (I grew up with one). But only 5% of the population use them. That is not the vote share the Tories are looking for.
It is, rural areas are the Conservative core vote and it is a big issue for them, it is not a big issue for the other 95%
Comments
@Cyclefree needed on the board of directors at UHB please
https://youtu.be/oljOqKy2k1I?feature=shared
Criminal proceedings would be better and may yet follow. But let's not pretend that this is some anonymous smear with no substance behind it.
Having an elected President doesn't automatically make a great free democracy, indeed most of the dictators in the world today are in republics. Constitutional monarchies like the UK, New Zealand, Norway and Japan and the Netherlands and Canada however are amongst the most free and prosperous nations on earth
Seriously.
The membership will do their absolute nuts at being deprived of who they really want to pick.
Foot was a republican too in 1983 but was also trounced. Indeed Labour has had its heaviest defeats since WW2 under republican leaders
Pretty bloody sure Sunak told a newspaper this in an interview.
- Card and Paper
- Other mixed recycling
- Rubbish
No food caddy. I do have a compost bin in my garden I put my compost into instead.
Could pay for a garden bin, but don't bother. Composting it myself seems more sensible than paying the Council to do so.
Only issue with the compost is that its an underground one I dug and installed into my garden, I read that's a good idea as it attracts worms and improves the health of your garden . . . but my bin has been flooded for the last couple of weeks. The garden being waterlogged was an issue when we moved in, in December, which is part of the reason I dug a hole and installed the underground compost bin and I thought it might be an issue again in winter, but I wasn't expecting the garden to be waterlogged again already by the start of Autumn.
Been a very wet year it seems.
Not sure if any of the site's gardening fans have a suggestion.
@_SeanOGrady
The break with Cakeism. Historic.
https://twitter.com/_SeanOGrady
Secondly, by your argument, just put a warning before Jim'll Fix It saying "not suitable for children" as with other material. But that's not the point - the BBC don't show it (and nor do other broadcasters who may have rights to content) because people would think less of them if they did and it would damage their (for want of a better word) brand. The Channel 4 decision is wholly understandable, and it's their decision.
Thirdly, a huge amount of Brand's content is, in fact, about his libertine reputation and sexual experimentation. Responses to it are rather radically affected by the very strong likelihood he wasn't playing a part on stage, and indeed was toning it down, just as one cannot now look at Savile interacting with a child or speaking about his enigmatic persona without overlaying what you (with very good reason) believe about him.
Luke Tryl
@LukeTryl
·
Jul 26
The TL;DR Red Wall voters have high thread perception which shapes their attitudes to a huge range of issues, on climate change the threat of climate change -makes them among the most likely to support climate action and transition.
https://twitter.com/LukeTryl/status/1684118582924279808
Uxbridge.
Irony lives.
I can't think of a by election ever changing things for the better.
https://conservativehome.com/2023/09/19/simister-thomas-selected-for-south-norfolk-for-being-able-to-care-about-the-constituency-but-be-impressive-on-the-national-stage/
Desperately hoping the Nimbys can save the Tory bacon.
Hope he loses his seat if that's his priority.
Havering still runs on good old fashioned bin bags. Maybe the council are taking backhanders from foxes. Orange for paper/tins/plastic bottles, your own bags for everything else. And now the tetra pack bins have vanished from the local supermarket car parks.
In other news, haven't heard anything either way about Aklu Plaza. Bottom line is that it's always a shame when a business fails, even if it's not one you use personally. And there are already lots of empty shops around Romford Market, it will be a more than a shame if there's another one.
Will this conveyor belt ever end?
Fortnightly general waste
Other fortnightly garden waste (annual fee), paper and card boxes, recycling (plastics and glass).
Garden and food waste - collected two weekly.
Paper and card - collected three weekly.
Metal, plastic and glass - collected three weekly.
General waste - collected three weekly.
No extra charges levied. Compostable food caddy bags provided FOC.
Our local authority is proud of its recycling figures, and rightly so!
@SamCoatesSky
·
1h
Lots of Whitehall blindsided tonight on the car element of the net zero package, and the timing.
Not least the UK delegation in New York for the climate events at UNGA
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1704224035821715651
https://www.harboroughmail.co.uk/news/people/harborough-area-mps-come-together-to-call-on-council-leader-to-scrap-plans-to-increase-housing-targets-for-the-town-4337375
As a provincial science master, I take comfort in not really understanding business, but I can't help wondering if Rishi understands even less than I do.
Pathetic.
Hope he can show his face to his daughters tonight with hanging in shame.
And politically it's all too distant. No one is sat around worried about not being able to buy a brand new petrol car on 7 years' time. For anyone financially struggling you can add another 5-10 years' onto that for the age of car purchased, and that feels an age away.
Perhaps Sunak is just a bit crap at this politics business.
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/23708129.tories-select-david-simister-thomas-norwich-south-seat/
Come next week we should be back into low to mid 20s by day again and we look on course to beat the record for warmest ever September in the Central England Temperature series. Possibly also beating June into warmest month of the year.
Later next week is also when a Cape Verde disturbance modelled to develop into a major hurricane looks on course to hit the Caribbean. The GFS model has it hitting the lesser Antilles, then Haiti, Cuba and finally the Bahamas.
By contrast Tory PM election winners who went to university most commonly read PPE ie Heath and Cameron or classics ie Macmillan and Boris. Thatcher read chemistry (plus did a law conversion), May read Geography and Eden read Oriental languages. Home read history but like Brown did not win an election, Truss and Sunak also read PPE of course
He's targeting a core, reactionary group of older voters (unkindly known as gammons/karens by the yoof) in order to drive turnout and avoid a catastrophic Tory defeat.
Ramsey McDonald studied botany and agriculture at Birbeck but failed to take the exams (wikipedia tells me - I didn;t know this one).
See also Oxfordshire and Surrey where the LDs were relentless in their Focus leaflets in attacking Tory councils plans for new flats and new housing and the Tories lost control of most of their councils and see also Uttlesford where Independents/Residents have control on a Nimby platform
Could only ever be a Tory candidate.
This is die in the last ditch stuff.
In a sense it tonight's announcement is fantastic for Starmer.
It says that they know they have lost and it is about how very badly they lose now.
https://youtu.be/OKuHYO9TM5A?feature=shared
Great idea taking one of the very few long term consensus policies the country has, and ripping it up. What an utter plonker.
Sam Freedman
@Samfr
·
57m
It's intriguing that Sunak's announcement got leaked - and genuinely leaked given they were clearly taken by surprise. To date it's been a remarkably watertight No 10 operation.
His memoirs will have to try and explain it away.
He is a better man than this which just shows the pressures of party and media politics on someone who is frankly inexperienced.
Brentwood also has almost 5 times the population of Epping
How can the private sector and households make sound investments in the face of all this?
(It was 2030 for no new ICE cars, and no gas boilers in new homes from 2025. Both seem sensible and achievable to me)
He is just using Johnson's random policy generator.
I mean what does it matter how strict the new homes energy policy is given that this government can't actually bloody build any new homes.
Julia Hartley-Brewer
@JuliaHB1
·
3h
Be in no doubt
@RishiSunak
's plan to weaken the Govt's commitment to Net Zero policies is the single most significant political decision of this year.
Net Zero is a disaster for our economy, our security and our freedoms. Reality is winning.
Simon Clarke MP
@SimonClarkeMP
·
3h
Our climate is changing dramatically. The UK has carved out a world-leading role delivering net zero in a market-friendly way that will deliver clean, secure energy and thousands of jobs in deprived communities like Teesside. My Red Wall constituents overwhelmingly support it.
That is sensible as in rural areas like here virtually everyone relies on oil
@Samfr
·
12m
In today's poll from
@DeltapollUK
the Tories were on 5% for 18-24 year olds. And 18% for 25-54 year olds. Don't think this evening's announcements are going to help with that.
The net zero rumours are moving quickly tonight, with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak unusually jumping in to reiterate he is "committed to net zero".
It had been circulating that Mr Sunak could be planning on pushing back a ban on new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035.
On this, the prime minister said: "No leak will stop me beginning the process of telling the country how and why we need to change.
"As a first step, I'll be giving a speech this week to set out an important long-term decision we need to make so our country becomes the place I know we all want it to be for our children..."
"Our politics must again put the long-term interests of our country before the short-term political needs of the moment."
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-nhs-doctors-strike-as-ministers-consider-extending-strikes-law-starmer-to-meet-macron-in-paris-12593360?postid=6459677#liveblog-body
"Post Office auditor let false information go into her High Court statement"
https://www.postofficescandal.uk/post/post-office-auditor/
@PickardJE
·
19m
is he really suggesting that delaying green reforms will make Britain a better place “for our children”?
https://nitter.net/thomasknox/status/1701867275052020124#m
Yes, Cones Hotline Director’s Cut it is. I had a grim moment of clarity in that regard this afternoon.
Sunak has certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons and it will be fascinating to see how this unfolds
Not for the feint hearted conservatives I believe
The UK's 2030 is for pure petrol/diesel only; hybrids would still be allowed.
The EU's 2035 is for anything with a combustion engine, so includes hybrids.
To me that doesn't make sense
Also Tory: EU says 2035 - we should too.
Pathetic on stilts.