Of course we do already have a sugar tax, introduced by this government, and a plastic bag tax, introduced by this government.
Reflecting on these new lies I do wonder if somehow Cummings is back in the frame because they’re very Cummings style lies. They are not actually like 350m a week for the NHS and rather more like “Turkey is joining the EU”. They force the opposition to say “Turkey isn’t joining the EU anytime soon”. The effect, rather like earlier accusations about Britain joining the Euro, is to get a policy reported as wholly negative. When actually it should maybe be considered.
Conversely of course if Labour said “we’ll never bring back the death penalty” the likes of Braverman would be saying “well, actually..,”.
I’d hoped the Boris/Cummings style mendacity was gone along with them as it’s corrosive of democracy, but they’ve gone there.
The next year will be one of increasingly desperate shit-posting and dead cats as Sunak flails about to save his skin.
Anyone expecting intelligent debate about the direction of the country or the serious issues facing the country should turn away now.
Rishi Sunak is drawing up plans for a radical reform of A-levels with a new style of British Baccalaureate under which children would study more subjects after the age of 16.
As part of his pledge to unveil a series of long-term decisions to “change” Britain, the prime minister is expected to set out proposals to move towards a more continental-style system of education.
Under the reforms being drawn up in No 10, children would be required to study a wider range of subjects in post-16 education, and English and maths would become compulsory up until the age of 18.
The proposals are partly in response to the prime minister’s commitment that all children should study some form of maths up to the age of 18. It is not possible to meet that commitment under the existing A-level system.
While the plans are unlikely to take effect before the next election, Sunak hopes the move will open up a clear dividing line with Labour on education policy amid claims that the government has lost its reforming zeal of its early years in power.
I think it would be better to teach the application of maths to everyday life, eg ensure financial education and statistics, to help people understand interests rates, mortgages, pensions, credit cards, how to work out supermarket pricing by being able to do the mental arithmetic on the value of different pack sizes, and how governments, politicians and public bodies and businesses misuse statistics to their own ends
Maths to 18 and a wider bacc style system are different things. Maths on its own looked gimmicky and not worth it, but keeping children learning a broader range of subjects to to 18 is a very good idea.
For a start it puts an end to kids at 16 being pushed into certain combinations of A levels because otherwise they won’t get into something like medicine, or engineering. It also tackles the cultural schism we have between arts and sciences. People should feel confident in both.
Rishi Sunak is drawing up plans for a radical reform of A-levels with a new style of British Baccalaureate under which children would study more subjects after the age of 16.
As part of his pledge to unveil a series of long-term decisions to “change” Britain, the prime minister is expected to set out proposals to move towards a more continental-style system of education.
Under the reforms being drawn up in No 10, children would be required to study a wider range of subjects in post-16 education, and English and maths would become compulsory up until the age of 18.
The proposals are partly in response to the prime minister’s commitment that all children should study some form of maths up to the age of 18. It is not possible to meet that commitment under the existing A-level system.
While the plans are unlikely to take effect before the next election, Sunak hopes the move will open up a clear dividing line with Labour on education policy amid claims that the government has lost its reforming zeal of its early years in power.
I think it would be better to teach the application of maths to everyday life, eg ensure financial education and statistics, to help people understand interests rates, mortgages, pensions, credit cards, how to work out supermarket pricing by being able to do the mental arithmetic on the value of different pack sizes, and how governments, politicians and public bodies and businesses misuse statistics to their own ends
It would be less off putting to non techy kids if it was called by its old name - Arithmetic.
Of course we do already have a sugar tax, introduced by this government, and a plastic bag tax, introduced by this government.
Reflecting on these new lies I do wonder if somehow Cummings is back in the frame because they’re very Cummings style lies. They are not actually like 350m a week for the NHS and rather more like “Turkey is joining the EU”. They force the opposition to say “Turkey isn’t joining the EU anytime soon”. The effect, rather like earlier accusations about Britain joining the Euro, is to get a policy reported as wholly negative. When actually it should maybe be considered.
Conversely of course if Labour said “we’ll never bring back the death penalty” the likes of Braverman would be saying “well, actually..,”.
I’d hoped the Boris/Cummings style mendacity was gone along with them as it’s corrosive of democracy, but they’ve gone there.
The next year will be one of increasingly desperate shit-posting and dead cats as Sunak flails about to save his skin.
Anyone expecting intelligent debate about the direction of the country or the serious issues facing the country should turn away now.
There is a non-zero chance of the death penalty coming into play.
Today I’ll repeal the ban on PBers having menages a trois with Angela Rayner and Holly Willoughby.
If you could throw Alice Roberts into the mix you get my vote. I am sure the only reason I have not been able to sweep her off her feet is a ban I never heard of.
This amuses me.
More to the point the jacket art and title suggest it might be some turgid crap by Tom Knox or someone. So she needs to make clear it’s a serious book
Of course we do already have a sugar tax, introduced by this government, and a plastic bag tax, introduced by this government.
Reflecting on these new lies I do wonder if somehow Cummings is back in the frame because they’re very Cummings style lies. They are not actually like 350m a week for the NHS and rather more like “Turkey is joining the EU”. They force the opposition to say “Turkey isn’t joining the EU anytime soon”. The effect, rather like earlier accusations about Britain joining the Euro, is to get a policy reported as wholly negative. When actually it should maybe be considered.
Conversely of course if Labour said “we’ll never bring back the death penalty” the likes of Braverman would be saying “well, actually..,”.
I’d hoped the Boris/Cummings style mendacity was gone along with them as it’s corrosive of democracy, but they’ve gone there.
The next year will be one of increasingly desperate shit-posting and dead cats as Sunak flails about to save his skin.
Anyone expecting intelligent debate about the direction of the country or the serious issues facing the country should turn away now.
There is a non-zero chance of the death penalty coming into play.
Braverman may raise it to see whether it would benefit her future Tory leadership campaign.
Rishi Sunak is drawing up plans for a radical reform of A-levels with a new style of British Baccalaureate under which children would study more subjects after the age of 16.
As part of his pledge to unveil a series of long-term decisions to “change” Britain, the prime minister is expected to set out proposals to move towards a more continental-style system of education.
Under the reforms being drawn up in No 10, children would be required to study a wider range of subjects in post-16 education, and English and maths would become compulsory up until the age of 18.
The proposals are partly in response to the prime minister’s commitment that all children should study some form of maths up to the age of 18. It is not possible to meet that commitment under the existing A-level system.
While the plans are unlikely to take effect before the next election, Sunak hopes the move will open up a clear dividing line with Labour on education policy amid claims that the government has lost its reforming zeal of its early years in power.
I think it would be better to teach the application of maths to everyday life, eg ensure financial education and statistics, to help people understand interests rates, mortgages, pensions, credit cards, how to work out supermarket pricing by being able to do the mental arithmetic on the value of different pack sizes, and how governments, politicians and public bodies and businesses misuse statistics to their own ends
It would be less off putting to non techy kids if it was called by its old name - Arithmetic.
Just "Sums" would be better. It would go along with timesing x with y and asserting that six is three times bigger than two.
Of course we do already have a sugar tax, introduced by this government, and a plastic bag tax, introduced by this government.
Reflecting on these new lies I do wonder if somehow Cummings is back in the frame because they’re very Cummings style lies. They are not actually like 350m a week for the NHS and rather more like “Turkey is joining the EU”. They force the opposition to say “Turkey isn’t joining the EU anytime soon”. The effect, rather like earlier accusations about Britain joining the Euro, is to get a policy reported as wholly negative. When actually it should maybe be considered.
Conversely of course if Labour said “we’ll never bring back the death penalty” the likes of Braverman would be saying “well, actually..,”.
I’d hoped the Boris/Cummings style mendacity was gone along with them as it’s corrosive of democracy, but they’ve gone there.
The next year will be one of increasingly desperate shit-posting and dead cats as Sunak flails about to save his skin.
Anyone expecting intelligent debate about the direction of the country or the serious issues facing the country should turn away now.
There is a non-zero chance of the death penalty coming into play.
Braverman may raise it to see whether it would benefit her future Tory leadership campaign.
Sunak won’t go there. Too many in the current Tory party would see it as a resigning matter.
After a landslide election defeat though, we’ll see what the remaining MP makeup looks like. Might get easier.
Today I’ll repeal the ban on PBers having menages a trois with Angela Rayner and Holly Willoughby.
If you could throw Alice Roberts into the mix you get my vote. I am sure the only reason I have not been able to sweep her off her feet is a ban I never heard of.
She's quite attractive but Woke Archaeology is NOT
Today I’ll repeal the ban on PBers having menages a trois with Angela Rayner and Holly Willoughby.
If you could throw Alice Roberts into the mix you get my vote. I am sure the only reason I have not been able to sweep her off her feet is a ban I never heard of.
This amuses me.
More to the point the jacket art and title suggest it might be some turgid crap by Tom Knox or someone. So she needs to make clear it’s a serious book
It's a popular science book not an academic book, surely? There has to be a place for both but the style and presentation of the former is obviously going to be very different from the latter.
An Oxford-educated doctor has been caught moonlighting at cosmetic surgery clinics while on NHS sick leave.
Dr Daniel Coventry, 33, was signed off work between April and October 2018 with a suspected virus while working as a junior doctor on £35,000 a year at the Western Sussex NHS Trust.
During that time he worked at the private clinic A New You in Brighton, where facelifts cost up to £8,000 and tummy tucks cost up to £6,000, as well as at his own medical practice DC Aesthetics, investigators found.
He was spotted on social media offering facial fillers, thread facelifts, and anti-wrinkle injections and was subsequently reported to management at Worthing Hospital in West Sussex.
Concerns were raised over his time off work, and he was advised to access the hospital’s StaffNet website to read the rrust’s policies regarding sick leave.
FPT: Republican voters are not completely hopeless on support for Ukraine: "Big majorities of Americans continue to support economic sanctions on Russia and sending aid and supplies to Ukraine. A smaller majority also would keep sending weapons.
But Republicans have become increasingly divided over this.
Republicans have become more resistant to sending aid, which they favored back in February, and they have become more opposed to sending weapons, specifically. And most of them say the administration should generally be doing less to help Ukraine." source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-americans-aid-poll-2023-09-10/
The Republicans who made that report card have raised a little money to run ads in Republican House districts.
(In general, Americans grow less supportive of any war the longer it lasts. I fear that we may be even worse than the world average in wanting quick solutions.)
An Oxford-educated doctor has been caught moonlighting at cosmetic surgery clinics while on NHS sick leave.
Dr Daniel Coventry, 33, was signed off work between April and October 2018 with a suspected virus while working as a junior doctor on £35,000 a year at the Western Sussex NHS Trust.
During that time he worked at the private clinic A New You in Brighton, where facelifts cost up to £8,000 and tummy tucks cost up to £6,000, as well as at his own medical practice DC Aesthetics, investigators found.
He was spotted on social media offering facial fillers, thread facelifts, and anti-wrinkle injections and was subsequently reported to management at Worthing Hospital in West Sussex.
Concerns were raised over his time off work, and he was advised to access the hospital’s StaffNet website to read the rrust’s policies regarding sick leave.
An Oxford-educated doctor has been caught moonlighting at cosmetic surgery clinics while on NHS sick leave.
Dr Daniel Coventry, 33, was signed off work between April and October 2018 with a suspected virus while working as a junior doctor on £35,000 a year at the Western Sussex NHS Trust.
During that time he worked at the private clinic A New You in Brighton, where facelifts cost up to £8,000 and tummy tucks cost up to £6,000, as well as at his own medical practice DC Aesthetics, investigators found.
He was spotted on social media offering facial fillers, thread facelifts, and anti-wrinkle injections and was subsequently reported to management at Worthing Hospital in West Sussex.
Concerns were raised over his time off work, and he was advised to access the hospital’s StaffNet website to read the rrust’s policies regarding sick leave.
That last paragraph doesn’t seem a particularly harsh punishment
Compare and contrast with the postmasters. Fraud in the UK is so driven by class. Jail at one end, to slap on the wrist and keep the money (or even get a massive payoff to leave quietly) at the other.
In all the focus on Sunak stopping things that never happened, his attempts positive seem to have been overlooked:
Is that deliberate or accidental?
"Funding for Sizewell C"?!
Wasn't Monday's announcement simply that they've opened a new application process for potential investors to register their interest?
Barclays were asked to run a search for potential investors in June last year, but they don't seem to have found any, as this new process doesn't seem to involve them.
The government and EDF have both agreed to pay 20% each, which leaves 60% unaccounted for. As far as I can see, no new money has been announced.
So this is basically an outright lie.
Yes, Sizewell C have started the capital raise process.
I suspect it will end up with a few big institutional investors with a lot of the risk backstopped by government.
It's going to be a disaster. At least with HPC it's EDF carrying the can for the flawed French reactor design that just doesn't work properly. We need to stay as far away as possible from the taxpayer assuming construction risk for the EPR. The money would be better spent thrown at RR to get their SMR programme up and running.
Both are shockingly bad value for money.
I guess the question is how confident are we that a future energy mix consisting of HPC + solar + (over-provisioned) wind + grid storage is going to be enough to meet our needs?
It might well make sense to stall on Sizewell C if we think we can get away without it. But if we're not absolutely certain about that (particularly with the grid storage, which I suspect is the bit with the biggest question marks against it), then we risk having a fairly shitty decade from about 2040 onwards if we don't get started on Sizewell in the next couple of years.
The RR SMR stuff looks like a bit of a red herring to me. They've been talking about it for a decade and don't even have a prototype yet. Nothing seems to be happening other than holding out the begging bowl again and again and again. Surely they've missed the boat?
BOE interest rate decision today and most commentators do not know if another increase will happen
I hope I'm wrong but despite inflation coming down I think there will be another rise.
I think so. Having been slow to get hiking they will probably now strain the other way. It's human nature. Also the reputational risk calculus is skewed in that direction. Their mission in life is getting inflation down. If they keep hiking and it comes down but at a bigger than necessary price, so what? You can't prove that cause & effect and in any case they're only doing their job. No big problem (for them) there. But if they under-hike and inflation pops up again? Then they'll look like a bunch of charlies and get some serious stick. "You have one job, one job, and yet again you've managed to fail to do it" (people will say). That most of these 'people' won't have much of a clue what they're talking about is neither here nor there. The BoE's rep will be further tarnished.
So, yep, I'll be surprised and impressed if they don't hike again today.
They want to bring on a recession. Bunch of nutters.
Their brief is to control inflation. If they are to run macro economic and fiscal policy we'll need to abolish the Treasury.
But their decisions don't relate to the inflation figures. If inflation has risen, they say "AH, inflation has risen, hike the rates". If inflation falls, they say, "false dawn, hike the rates". Their decisions seem arbitrary and utterly divorced from the inflation figures.
Rishi Sunak is drawing up plans for a radical reform of A-levels with a new style of British Baccalaureate under which children would study more subjects after the age of 16.
As part of his pledge to unveil a series of long-term decisions to “change” Britain, the prime minister is expected to set out proposals to move towards a more continental-style system of education.
Under the reforms being drawn up in No 10, children would be required to study a wider range of subjects in post-16 education, and English and maths would become compulsory up until the age of 18.
The proposals are partly in response to the prime minister’s commitment that all children should study some form of maths up to the age of 18. It is not possible to meet that commitment under the existing A-level system.
While the plans are unlikely to take effect before the next election, Sunak hopes the move will open up a clear dividing line with Labour on education policy amid claims that the government has lost its reforming zeal of its early years in power.
It took seven years to reform GCSEs and A-levels last time and even then they comprehensively buggered the whole thing up because they left OFQUAL in charge of it, an organisation staffed entirely by people who would be fired from Woolworths for being too stupid.
This would - again - require a whole new syllabus. And would have the same people in charge. Who have failed at everything they have ever attempted because they are utterly useless.
That said, it is not necessarily a stupid idea, as the current exams are so badly written as to be more or less entirely meaningless. There are also far too many of them, most of them having no value even if they were properly assessed rather than pandering to the prejudices of a bunch of intellectually underpowered posh drunks at the DfE. If it was accompanied by the scrapping of GCSEs and SATs which are as much use as Dominic Cummings' brain cell, it might even be a good move.
But it would be expensive and difficult.
And it would also mean admitting Gove's reforms were a complete failure.
Today I’ll repeal the ban on PBers having menages a trois with Angela Rayner and Holly Willoughby.
If you could throw Alice Roberts into the mix you get my vote. I am sure the only reason I have not been able to sweep her off her feet is a ban I never heard of.
She's quite attractive but Woke Archaeology is NOT
Not to you maybe, but clearly to many, given she keeps having books published and presumably bought.
I find her TV programmes rather dumbed down tbh but that's true of lots of TV these days, sadly.
Rishi Sunak is drawing up plans for a radical reform of A-levels with a new style of British Baccalaureate under which children would study more subjects after the age of 16.
As part of his pledge to unveil a series of long-term decisions to “change” Britain, the prime minister is expected to set out proposals to move towards a more continental-style system of education.
Under the reforms being drawn up in No 10, children would be required to study a wider range of subjects in post-16 education, and English and maths would become compulsory up until the age of 18.
The proposals are partly in response to the prime minister’s commitment that all children should study some form of maths up to the age of 18. It is not possible to meet that commitment under the existing A-level system.
While the plans are unlikely to take effect before the next election, Sunak hopes the move will open up a clear dividing line with Labour on education policy amid claims that the government has lost its reforming zeal of its early years in power.
It took seven years to reform GCSEs and A-levels last time and even then they comprehensively buggered the whole thing up because they left OFQUAL in charge of it, an organisation staffed entirely by people who would be fired from Woolworths for being too stupid.
This would - again - require a whole new syllabus. And would have the same people in charge.
Not necessarily a stupid idea, as the current exams are so badly written as to be more or less entirely meaningless. There are also far too many of them, most of them having no value even if they were properly assessed rather than pandering to the prejudices of a bunch of intellectually underpowered posh drunks at the DfE. If it was accompanied by the scrapping of GCSEs and SATs which are as much use as Dominic Cummings' brain cell, it might even be a good move.
But it would be expensive and difficult.
And it would also mean admitting Gove's reforms were a complete failure.
Talking of which (and @ydoethur may wish to look away now...)
Betrays such a staggering failure to understand our education system it's unreal. You'd have to redo the entire national curriculum and change university course structures. Nor do we have anywhere near enough teachers for it to be plausible.
This is an idea entirely formed within No 10 where no-one has any education expertise. DfE not involved.
Rishi Sunak is drawing up plans for a radical reform of A-levels with a new style of British Baccalaureate under which children would study more subjects after the age of 16.
As part of his pledge to unveil a series of long-term decisions to “change” Britain, the prime minister is expected to set out proposals to move towards a more continental-style system of education.
Under the reforms being drawn up in No 10, children would be required to study a wider range of subjects in post-16 education, and English and maths would become compulsory up until the age of 18.
The proposals are partly in response to the prime minister’s commitment that all children should study some form of maths up to the age of 18. It is not possible to meet that commitment under the existing A-level system.
While the plans are unlikely to take effect before the next election, Sunak hopes the move will open up a clear dividing line with Labour on education policy amid claims that the government has lost its reforming zeal of its early years in power.
Look, we have got to stop doing stupid shit like this. It doesn't matter whether the proposals are good or bad, it's a case of the profession hasn't gotten over the last educational reforms from Gove yet. Education is too important for pseudorandom changes by powerful idiots every five minutes. Can we please have a Government that knows how to prioritise? These mad ponyfuckers (copyright Malcolm Tucker) are just slapping buttons at random at this point.
Rishi Sunak is drawing up plans for a radical reform of A-levels with a new style of British Baccalaureate under which children would study more subjects after the age of 16.
As part of his pledge to unveil a series of long-term decisions to “change” Britain, the prime minister is expected to set out proposals to move towards a more continental-style system of education.
Under the reforms being drawn up in No 10, children would be required to study a wider range of subjects in post-16 education, and English and maths would become compulsory up until the age of 18.
The proposals are partly in response to the prime minister’s commitment that all children should study some form of maths up to the age of 18. It is not possible to meet that commitment under the existing A-level system.
While the plans are unlikely to take effect before the next election, Sunak hopes the move will open up a clear dividing line with Labour on education policy amid claims that the government has lost its reforming zeal of its early years in power.
It took seven years to reform GCSEs and A-levels last time and even then they comprehensively buggered the whole thing up because they left OFQUAL in charge of it, an organisation staffed entirely by people who would be fired from Woolworths for being too stupid.
This would - again - require a whole new syllabus. And would have the same people in charge.
Not necessarily a stupid idea, as the current exams are so badly written as to be more or less entirely meaningless. There are also far too many of them, most of them having no value even if they were properly assessed rather than pandering to the prejudices of a bunch of intellectually underpowered posh drunks at the DfE. If it was accompanied by the scrapping of GCSEs and SATs which are as much use as Dominic Cummings' brain cell, it might even be a good move.
But it would be expensive and difficult.
And it would also mean admitting Gove's reforms were a complete failure.
Talking of which (and @ydoethur may wish to look away now...)
Betrays such a staggering failure to understand our education system it's unreal. You'd have to redo the entire national curriculum and change university course structures. Nor do we have anywhere near enough teachers for it to be plausible.
This is an idea entirely formed within No 10 where no-one has any education expertise. DfE not involved.
I'm getting faint whiffs of Rishi in a Berlin bunker in 1945, moving imaginary armies round.
Bit rich coming from a man who was so inept in every education job he held he not only gave us academy chains but lasted less long at Teach First than some of his trainees.
And if the DfE are not involved, that's kept one further group lacking all expertise away from it. Now just to get rid of the useless drunken losers entirely.
Today I’ll repeal the ban on PBers having menages a trois with Angela Rayner and Holly Willoughby.
If you could throw Alice Roberts into the mix you get my vote. I am sure the only reason I have not been able to sweep her off her feet is a ban I never heard of.
She's quite attractive but Woke Archaeology is NOT
Not to you maybe, but clearly to many, given she keeps having books published and presumably bought.
I find her TV programmes rather dumbed down tbh but that's true of lots of TV these days, sadly.
Yes, she is REALLY dumbed down. I'm sure she's a lovely person etc, but her shows are awful trite low-IQ bollocks and - personal gripe here - she has no clue as to the enormous significance of Gobekli Tepe and the Tas Tepeler. She just doesn't get it
But, good luck to her. Better some archaeology on TV than none. Yet there really is room for a new, exciting voice ready to challenge and explore the tedious consensus. I think this is one reason Gobekli Tepe is politely ignored or glossed over by so many - including her. It overturns the happy consensus. It is a lost civilisation from 10,000 years ago, it has evidence of advanced architecture, yet it is obviously phallocratic and masculine, and it is streaked with implicit violence - human sacrifice etc
Not very Woke; doesn't fit the narrative; too complicated to understand; just don't mention it
Today I’ll repeal the ban on PBers having menages a trois with Angela Rayner and Holly Willoughby.
If you could throw Alice Roberts into the mix you get my vote. I am sure the only reason I have not been able to sweep her off her feet is a ban I never heard of.
This amuses me.
More to the point the jacket art and title suggest it might be some turgid crap by Tom Knox or someone. So she needs to make clear it’s a serious book
In all the focus on Sunak stopping things that never happened, his attempts positive seem to have been overlooked:
Is that deliberate or accidental?
"Funding for Sizewell C"?!
Wasn't Monday's announcement simply that they've opened a new application process for potential investors to register their interest?
Barclays were asked to run a search for potential investors in June last year, but they don't seem to have found any, as this new process doesn't seem to involve them.
The government and EDF have both agreed to pay 20% each, which leaves 60% unaccounted for. As far as I can see, no new money has been announced.
So this is basically an outright lie.
Yes, Sizewell C have started the capital raise process.
I suspect it will end up with a few big institutional investors with a lot of the risk backstopped by government.
It's going to be a disaster. At least with HPC it's EDF carrying the can for the flawed French reactor design that just doesn't work properly. We need to stay as far away as possible from the taxpayer assuming construction risk for the EPR. The money would be better spent thrown at RR to get their SMR programme up and running.
Both are shockingly bad value for money.
I guess the question is how confident are we that a future energy mix consisting of HPC + solar + (over-provisioned) wind + grid storage is going to be enough to meet our needs?
It might well make sense to stall on Sizewell C if we think we can get away without it. But if we're not absolutely certain about that (particularly with the grid storage, which I suspect is the bit with the biggest question marks against it), then we risk having a fairly shitty decade from about 2040 onwards if we don't get started on Sizewell in the next couple of years.
The RR SMR stuff looks like a bit of a red herring to me. They've been talking about it for a decade and don't even have a prototype yet. Nothing seems to be happening other than holding out the begging bowl again and again and again. Surely they've missed the boat?
That's why we also keep gas turbines around: minimal maintenance and operating costs, highly flexible, pretty non-polluting.
And in the fullness of time, we'll have so many batteries we won't know what to do with them. But for now, it's a great bridge fuel.
(FWIW, I really don't see where nuclear fits in. If the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, then there simply is no demand for baseload power.)
Rishi Sunak is drawing up plans for a radical reform of A-levels with a new style of British Baccalaureate under which children would study more subjects after the age of 16.
As part of his pledge to unveil a series of long-term decisions to “change” Britain, the prime minister is expected to set out proposals to move towards a more continental-style system of education.
Under the reforms being drawn up in No 10, children would be required to study a wider range of subjects in post-16 education, and English and maths would become compulsory up until the age of 18.
The proposals are partly in response to the prime minister’s commitment that all children should study some form of maths up to the age of 18. It is not possible to meet that commitment under the existing A-level system.
While the plans are unlikely to take effect before the next election, Sunak hopes the move will open up a clear dividing line with Labour on education policy amid claims that the government has lost its reforming zeal of its early years in power.
It took seven years to reform GCSEs and A-levels last time and even then they comprehensively buggered the whole thing up because they left OFQUAL in charge of it, an organisation staffed entirely by people who would be fired from Woolworths for being too stupid.
This would - again - require a whole new syllabus. And would have the same people in charge.
Not necessarily a stupid idea, as the current exams are so badly written as to be more or less entirely meaningless. There are also far too many of them, most of them having no value even if they were properly assessed rather than pandering to the prejudices of a bunch of intellectually underpowered posh drunks at the DfE. If it was accompanied by the scrapping of GCSEs and SATs which are as much use as Dominic Cummings' brain cell, it might even be a good move.
But it would be expensive and difficult.
And it would also mean admitting Gove's reforms were a complete failure.
Talking of which (and @ydoethur may wish to look away now...)
Betrays such a staggering failure to understand our education system it's unreal. You'd have to redo the entire national curriculum and change university course structures. Nor do we have anywhere near enough teachers for it to be plausible.
This is an idea entirely formed within No 10 where no-one has any education expertise. DfE not involved.
I'm getting faint whiffs of Rishi in a Berlin bunker in 1945, moving imaginary armies round.
Bit rich coming from a man who was so inept in every education job he held he not only gave us academy chains but lasted less long at Teach First than some of his trainees.
And if the DfE are not involved, that's kept one further group lacking all expertise away from it. Now just to get rid of the useless drunken losers entirely.
All true, but in this case he's right. There's a decent case for treating 14-19 as a single unit, and making the last couple of years broader than they currently are. (Though the road block to reform in the past has always been a Conservative fetish for Gold Standard A Levels.)
But the system doesn't have the capacity to think about this right now- it's all keeping heads only a little bit below water for another day. It doesn't have the staff to teach more and different programmes. And if the end point of school courses is different, that's going to affect what universities do, and many of them are drowning even more badly than schools are.
It's just not gonna happen. And it does alarm me that this all seems to be coming out of Number Ten. The transport sec didn't seem to know much about yesterday's announcement. Did the ed sec even know if this was coming out today?
Rishi Sunak is drawing up plans for a radical reform of A-levels with a new style of British Baccalaureate under which children would study more subjects after the age of 16.
As part of his pledge to unveil a series of long-term decisions to “change” Britain, the prime minister is expected to set out proposals to move towards a more continental-style system of education.
Under the reforms being drawn up in No 10, children would be required to study a wider range of subjects in post-16 education, and English and maths would become compulsory up until the age of 18.
The proposals are partly in response to the prime minister’s commitment that all children should study some form of maths up to the age of 18. It is not possible to meet that commitment under the existing A-level system.
While the plans are unlikely to take effect before the next election, Sunak hopes the move will open up a clear dividing line with Labour on education policy amid claims that the government has lost its reforming zeal of its early years in power.
Look, we have got to stop doing stupid shit like this. It doesn't matter whether the proposals are good or bad, it's a case of the profession hasn't gotten over the last educational reforms from Gove yet. Education is too important for pseudorandom changes by powerful idiots every five minutes. Can we please have a Government that knows how to prioritise? These mad ponyfuckers (copyright Malcolm Tucker) are just slapping buttons at random at this point.
That is true.
However, at this moment we do not have a functioning assessment system due largely to Gove/Cummings/Spielman/Gibb and their extraordinary ability to cock everything up through ignorance and incompetence.
If sensible proposals to address that were put forward it might be worth listening.
That automatically fails as we're talking about Sunak here.
Today I’ll repeal the ban on PBers having menages a trois with Angela Rayner and Holly Willoughby.
If you could throw Alice Roberts into the mix you get my vote. I am sure the only reason I have not been able to sweep her off her feet is a ban I never heard of.
This amuses me.
More to the point the jacket art and title suggest it might be some turgid crap by Tom Knox or someone. So she needs to make clear it’s a serious book
BOE interest rate decision today and most commentators do not know if another increase will happen
I hope I'm wrong but despite inflation coming down I think there will be another rise.
I think so. Having been slow to get hiking they will probably now strain the other way. It's human nature. Also the reputational risk calculus is skewed in that direction. Their mission in life is getting inflation down. If they keep hiking and it comes down but at a bigger than necessary price, so what? You can't prove that cause & effect and in any case they're only doing their job. No big problem (for them) there. But if they under-hike and inflation pops up again? Then they'll look like a bunch of charlies and get some serious stick. "You have one job, one job, and yet again you've managed to fail to do it" (people will say). That most of these 'people' won't have much of a clue what they're talking about is neither here nor there. The BoE's rep will be further tarnished.
So, yep, I'll be surprised and impressed if they don't hike again today.
They want to bring on a recession. Bunch of nutters.
Their brief is to control inflation. If they are to run macro economic and fiscal policy we'll need to abolish the Treasury.
But their decisions don't relate to the inflation figures. If inflation has risen, they say "AH, inflation has risen, hike the rates". If inflation falls, they say, "false dawn, hike the rates". Their decisions seem arbitrary and utterly divorced from the inflation figures.
Yes, it looks like they've acted in a manner you approve of. Bit of a worry.
Rishi Sunak is drawing up plans for a radical reform of A-levels with a new style of British Baccalaureate under which children would study more subjects after the age of 16.
As part of his pledge to unveil a series of long-term decisions to “change” Britain, the prime minister is expected to set out proposals to move towards a more continental-style system of education.
Under the reforms being drawn up in No 10, children would be required to study a wider range of subjects in post-16 education, and English and maths would become compulsory up until the age of 18.
The proposals are partly in response to the prime minister’s commitment that all children should study some form of maths up to the age of 18. It is not possible to meet that commitment under the existing A-level system.
While the plans are unlikely to take effect before the next election, Sunak hopes the move will open up a clear dividing line with Labour on education policy amid claims that the government has lost its reforming zeal of its early years in power.
It took seven years to reform GCSEs and A-levels last time and even then they comprehensively buggered the whole thing up because they left OFQUAL in charge of it, an organisation staffed entirely by people who would be fired from Woolworths for being too stupid.
This would - again - require a whole new syllabus. And would have the same people in charge.
Not necessarily a stupid idea, as the current exams are so badly written as to be more or less entirely meaningless. There are also far too many of them, most of them having no value even if they were properly assessed rather than pandering to the prejudices of a bunch of intellectually underpowered posh drunks at the DfE. If it was accompanied by the scrapping of GCSEs and SATs which are as much use as Dominic Cummings' brain cell, it might even be a good move.
But it would be expensive and difficult.
And it would also mean admitting Gove's reforms were a complete failure.
Talking of which (and @ydoethur may wish to look away now...)
Betrays such a staggering failure to understand our education system it's unreal. You'd have to redo the entire national curriculum and change university course structures. Nor do we have anywhere near enough teachers for it to be plausible.
This is an idea entirely formed within No 10 where no-one has any education expertise. DfE not involved.
I'm getting faint whiffs of Rishi in a Berlin bunker in 1945, moving imaginary armies round.
Bit rich coming from a man who was so inept in every education job he held he not only gave us academy chains but lasted less long at Teach First than some of his trainees.
And if the DfE are not involved, that's kept one further group lacking all expertise away from it. Now just to get rid of the useless drunken losers entirely.
All true, but in this case he's right. There's a decent case for treating 14-19 as a single unit, and making the last couple of years broader than they currently are. (Though the road block to reform in the past has always been a Conservative fetish for Gold Standard A Levels.)
But the system doesn't have the capacity to think about this right now- it's all keeping heads only a little bit below water for another day. It doesn't have the staff to teach more and different programmes. And if the end point of school courses is different, that's going to affect what universities do, and many of them are drowning even more badly than schools are.
It's just not gonna happen. And it does alarm me that this all seems to be coming out of Number Ten. The transport sec didn't seem to know much about yesterday's announcement. Did the ed sec even know if this was coming out today?
I don't care if he's right (and he is, to the extent that of Sunak wants six A-levels plus GCSEs it ain't happening) it is galling to see a man who has no expertise in education, no administrative ability, who owes his position to his familial connections and has done enormous damage by creating plans that would disgrace a pub bore criticise anyone else for lack of educational expertise.
It's like OFSTED accusing an organisation of having inadequate safeguarding procedures while failing to do basic due diligence on their inspectors or train them in GDPR.
The Spectator, as normal, is surely right here. The migrant crisis is about to rise to the top of the European Problem Pile. I predict at least one major west European country will - in the next decade - elect a far right leader, and not a pathetic charade like Meloni. Someone who will actually attempt violent and severe methods to stop the influx
They will probably fail, that said. This may be an epochal change beyond the wit of democratic man to halt. But someone will have a bash. Ditto America. If Trump doesn't get in next year, a new, younger Trump will succeed in 2028
Sunak is a former Goldman Sachs banker, what did you expect?
Thankfully Starmer is a lawyer, a byword for integrity and honesty.
The place where Sunak worked after he left GS is probably a better guide to why he is as he is now.
As for lawyers, Stephen Dilley's evidence today at the Post Office Inquiry is enough to make me want to cry with shame. The ignorance, arrogance and unprofessionalism of it is quite sickening.
I saw that, Cyclefree. He was at least a bit more coherent than the lamentable Ms Rose yesterday. (She will surely face charges in due course?)
When I were a lad it was perfectly normal for lawyers to withhold evidence that would assist the other side. I know times have changed but I wasn't sure how far Dilley was obliged to yield such evidence to the suspect's team. I thought the barrister did a good job of smoking him out though.
What screams out at you is the obvious fact that at no juncture did anybody think of testing the Horizon system in a cold run. It wouldn't have been difficult, or especially costly. Instead, they just accepted the assurances from Fujitsu that the system was 'robust'. Well, they would say that, wouldn't they!
Where were the managers? Where the IT pros? Where was anybody with some common sense?
It's not looking good for the PO team, but ye Gods it's taken 20 years already.
Btw, will Fujitsi be attending? Surely they should not be offered any more government contracts until they do.
He talked a lot of nonsense about attendance notes. See what I saidfpt. His responses on disclosure were abysmal. In a criminal trial there is an absolute duty to disclose all material, whether relied on by the prosecution or not, that is relevant. In civil cases, there is also a duty to disclose relevant material to the other party and, on top of that, there is an obligation - as an officer of the court (which all solicitors are) - not to mislead the court, whether directly or by omission. This overrides your duty to your client.
Fujitsu will be attending but their witness attendance had to be delayed because - you guessed it - the Post Office had not complied properly with various disclosure orders.
It is really interesting reading the correspondence between Harriet Hartman and Tony Blair. They were concerned about some problems with Horizon at the start and any delay to the project because - and this is key, I think - it would delay the savings they anticipated from discovering all the fraud they thought was going on.Right from the start they assumed there was fraud (Why? On what basis?) and so when discrepancies were found they assumed that it must be fraud and didn't do any proper investigation. The problems with Horizon might not have mattered if there had been a proper separate investigation into the discrepancies which did not depend into accepting as true what Horizon said. But they didn't because they thought fraud was happening and so simply believed that they were finding what they knew was there. They did not look at the evidence with an open mind. This is a basic investigation failure.
It also explains in part the Post Office's attitude since. I suspect that many of the officials and their advisors still think these subpostmasters are guilty and only getting off on a technicality. This would explain why they have been so reluctant to do proper disclosure etc - they think they are in the right and these poor people are guilty crooks who do not deserve the benefit of all these legal rights.
As for Helen Rose - yes she should be done for perjury.
Today I’ll repeal the ban on PBers having menages a trois with Angela Rayner and Holly Willoughby.
If you could throw Alice Roberts into the mix you get my vote. I am sure the only reason I have not been able to sweep her off her feet is a ban I never heard of.
She's quite attractive but Woke Archaeology is NOT
Not to you maybe, but clearly to many, given she keeps having books published and presumably bought.
I find her TV programmes rather dumbed down tbh but that's true of lots of TV these days, sadly.
Yes, she is REALLY dumbed down. I'm sure she's a lovely person etc, but her shows are awful trite low-IQ bollocks and - personal gripe here - she has no clue as to the enormous significance of Gobekli Tepe and the Tas Tepeler. She just doesn't get it
But, good luck to her. Better some archaeology on TV than none. Yet there really is room for a new, exciting voice ready to challenge and explore the tedious consensus. I think this is one reason Gobekli Tepe is politely ignored or glossed over by so many - including her. It overturns the happy consensus. It is a lost civilisation from 10,000 years ago, it has evidence of advanced architecture, yet it is obviously phallocratic and masculine, and it is streaked with implicit violence - human sacrifice etc
Not very Woke; doesn't fit the narrative; too complicated to understand; just don't mention it
Maybe there's an opportunity for an articulate, high-IQ, flint-knapper to front his or her own archeology programme?
The fact that civilisation 10,000 years ago was violent and patriarchal is hardly a surprise to anyone surely, and not something that is going to prevent it being shown on 'woke' TV today. Any history more than 50/100/200* years ago (*delete as you choose) falls foul of the same issues but to a lefty like me it all just goes to prove how much the relentless journey to 'woke' has improved society immeasurably.
Today I’ll repeal the ban on PBers having menages a trois with Angela Rayner and Holly Willoughby.
If you could throw Alice Roberts into the mix you get my vote. I am sure the only reason I have not been able to sweep her off her feet is a ban I never heard of.
She's quite attractive but Woke Archaeology is NOT
Not to you maybe, but clearly to many, given she keeps having books published and presumably bought.
I find her TV programmes rather dumbed down tbh but that's true of lots of TV these days, sadly.
Yes, she is REALLY dumbed down. I'm sure she's a lovely person etc, but her shows are awful trite low-IQ bollocks and - personal gripe here - she has no clue as to the enormous significance of Gobekli Tepe and the Tas Tepeler. She just doesn't get it
But, good luck to her. Better some archaeology on TV than none. Yet there really is room for a new, exciting voice ready to challenge and explore the tedious consensus. I think this is one reason Gobekli Tepe is politely ignored or glossed over by so many - including her. It overturns the happy consensus. It is a lost civilisation from 10,000 years ago, it has evidence of advanced architecture, yet it is obviously phallocratic and masculine, and it is streaked with implicit violence - human sacrifice etc
Not very Woke; doesn't fit the narrative; too complicated to understand; just don't mention it
Mate not everything is about woke/not woke, seriously. I know you enjoy being provocative but saying Gobekli Tepe is 'ignored' because men were probably in charge and there was violence (see also: most societies ever) is just silly.
Alice Roberts is a TV presenter, not really an archaeologist any more. In any case, she's an osteoarchaeologist not a cultural specialist. It's pop stuff hence the focus on well-trodden and proven popular subjects like Celts, Egyptians and human evolution.
I'd love to see something in depth on the Indus Valley civilisation; another mysterious and advanced civilisation with extraordinary urban planning, art and a still-untranslated script (prejudices declared, this was also the subject of my undergrad dissertation).
I’m calling it . We’re going to see Labours lead over the next few weeks cut to single digits.
Most of the pubic aren’t into detail and want any alleged economic pain kicked into the long grass . Labour should have gotten onto the front foot , called a news conference and given Sunak both barrels . Instead they’ve allowed Sunaks party political broadcast to go unchallenged .
I agree.
The understanding by the terminally stupid is thus: Labour want to take away your car, and you can't afford an electric car, because Gordon Brown sold all the gold.
The Tories should put that statement on the side of a bus
Electric cars are so expensive most people can't afford them, unless the price is suddenly going to come down in the next couple of years.
Well surely that was the point of our push towards the banning of NEW ICE cars after 2030. Economies of scale would make your MG4 or your Funky Cat even more competitive. I suspect that by 203 ,new ICE cars will be niche and more expensive than new electric cars anyway. It's going to happen despite Rishi's false flag operation yesterday.
Most people buy used cars. You would still have been be able to buy a used BMW M4 or Ford Mustang GT500 post 2030 if you want the exhilaration of phenomenal acceleration off the line, although haven't MG brought out a performance electric car that would blow the socks off either?
We don't need electric vehicles to be more competitive because petrol vehicles that would be half the price are now illegal.
We need electric vehicles to be more competitive because they're the same price or cheaper than petrol vehicles so ICE vehicles are now obsolete.
Alexa, please translate that post into basic English.
If a petrol car is £13k and an electric car is £27k then banning the petrol car may make the electric car "competitive" but its not positive progress.
Getting the electric car down to £13k so that it is the same price as the petrol car is positive progress and will make the petrol (ICE) car obsolete.
I note that the EV vs ICE comparison above ignores the cost of actually running the vehicle for X years, which will be most crucially affected by differential tax levels and fuel prices, and Sunak has kicked that out beyond the next election because he's too scared to deal with it.
A tax settlement can tip it whichever way is desired. In recent years the current Govt has been reducing grants on EVs whilst cutting Fuel Excise Duty by nearly half in real terms since 2010.
Whoever wins the next General Election will have to face a lot of things that the current Govt are running away from. Even cowardly Rishi.
Running a vehicle for X years doesn't help you if you can't get the credit to get the vehicle in the first place.
Just as paying a mortgage for X years is cheaper than renting, but that doesn't help if you can't get the credit to buy the property in the first place.
Its easy for the well off to take for granted how fortunate they are compared to others.
The last number I saw was that around 90% of new cars are bought on finance.
So not a major issue for the large majority of the market.
You do realise don't you that people are eligible for differing amounts of finance?
If you have a £3k deposit and can get £10k in finance to make the difference to £13k, then do you think that automatically guarantees you can also get £24k in finance to make the difference to £27k?
Don't let great be the enemy of good.
Exactly my point, if you can't afford great (BEV, £27k), you might only be able to afford good (Petrol, £13k).
Want BEV to be affordable, bring capital costs down to ICE capital costs.
People with less money will buy used ICE vehicles. And they will be able to get them cheaper because the ICE owners will be upgrading to BEVs because of subsidies.
So your solution is that people who previously could afford new vehicles shouldn't be able to afford a new vehicle anymore by eliminating that section of the new market and should compete for used vehicles instead?
So there'd be increasing demand for used vehicles (those who would anyone have bought used, plus those who would have bought affordable new) and the supply of used vehicles would be going down as nobody would be buying affordable vehicles anymore and selling them after 2-3 years.
Today you can get a 3 year old used Picanto for £8.5k. If Picantos are made illegal, then 3 years later what used vehicles do people buy?
Eh?
I'm not suggesting banning ICE sales, so I don't see why anyone is disadvantaged. I'm merely suggesting that we make it cheaper to buy BEVs.
Never bought a car on finance. Never will. We shouldn’t encourage it. If anything we should make it harder.
Why not and why?
Because there is no need to. Everyone (well everyone who can afford to run one) can afford a car somewhere in the value chain. Car finance is encouraging you to spend money you don’t have on a luxury you don’t need.
In all the focus on Sunak stopping things that never happened, his attempts positive seem to have been overlooked:
Is that deliberate or accidental?
"Funding for Sizewell C"?!
Wasn't Monday's announcement simply that they've opened a new application process for potential investors to register their interest?
Barclays were asked to run a search for potential investors in June last year, but they don't seem to have found any, as this new process doesn't seem to involve them.
The government and EDF have both agreed to pay 20% each, which leaves 60% unaccounted for. As far as I can see, no new money has been announced.
So this is basically an outright lie.
Yes, Sizewell C have started the capital raise process.
I suspect it will end up with a few big institutional investors with a lot of the risk backstopped by government.
It's going to be a disaster. At least with HPC it's EDF carrying the can for the flawed French reactor design that just doesn't work properly. We need to stay as far away as possible from the taxpayer assuming construction risk for the EPR. The money would be better spent thrown at RR to get their SMR programme up and running.
Both are shockingly bad value for money.
I guess the question is how confident are we that a future energy mix consisting of HPC + solar + (over-provisioned) wind + grid storage is going to be enough to meet our needs?
It might well make sense to stall on Sizewell C if we think we can get away without it. But if we're not absolutely certain about that (particularly with the grid storage, which I suspect is the bit with the biggest question marks against it), then we risk having a fairly shitty decade from about 2040 onwards if we don't get started on Sizewell in the next couple of years.
The RR SMR stuff looks like a bit of a red herring to me. They've been talking about it for a decade and don't even have a prototype yet. Nothing seems to be happening other than holding out the begging bowl again and again and again. Surely they've missed the boat?
That's why we also keep gas turbines around: minimal maintenance and operating costs, highly flexible, pretty non-polluting.
And in the fullness of time, we'll have so many batteries we won't know what to do with them. But for now, it's a great bridge fuel.
(FWIW, I really don't see where nuclear fits in. If the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, then there simply is no demand for baseline power.)
Yeah. We're locked into HPC - but with the way things are going, investing in grid storage feels like it's likely to be a better bet than Sizewell C.
The idea behind EPR wasn't terrible a decade or two ago - but, in retrospect, a gleaming 3.2 GW monster with a 100 year service life is simply a terrible fit for a world in which the cost of renewables is plummeting.
We'd perhaps have been better building a few clones of Sizewell B as a stopgap, but the time for that has long passed.
Sunak is a former Goldman Sachs banker, what did you expect?
Thankfully Starmer is a lawyer, a byword for integrity and honesty.
The place where Sunak worked after he left GS is probably a better guide to why he is as he is now.
As for lawyers, Stephen Dilley's evidence today at the Post Office Inquiry is enough to make me want to cry with shame. The ignorance, arrogance and unprofessionalism of it is quite sickening.
I saw that, Cyclefree. He was at least a bit more coherent than the lamentable Ms Rose yesterday. (She will surely face charges in due course?)
When I were a lad it was perfectly normal for lawyers to withhold evidence that would assist the other side. I know times have changed but I wasn't sure how far Dilley was obliged to yield such evidence to the suspect's team. I thought the barrister did a good job of smoking him out though.
What screams out at you is the obvious fact that at no juncture did anybody think of testing the Horizon system in a cold run. It wouldn't have been difficult, or especially costly. Instead, they just accepted the assurances from Fujitsu that the system was 'robust'. Well, they would say that, wouldn't they!
Where were the managers? Where the IT pros? Where was anybody with some common sense?
It's not looking good for the PO team, but ye Gods it's taken 20 years already.
Btw, will Fujitsi be attending? Surely they should not be offered any more government contracts until they do.
He talked a lot of nonsense about attendance notes. See what I saidfpt. His responses on disclosure were abysmal. In a criminal trial there is an absolute duty to disclose all material, whether relied on by the prosecution or not, that is relevant. In civil cases, there is also a duty to disclose relevant material to the other party and, on top of that, there is an obligation - as an officer of the court (which all solicitors are) - not to mislead the court, whether directly or by omission. This overrides your duty to your client.
Fujitsu will be attending but their witness attendance had to be delayed because - you guessed it - the Post Office had not complied properly with various disclosure orders.
It is really interesting reading the correspondence between Harriet Hartman and Tony Blair. They were concerned about some problems with Horizon at the start and any delay to the project because - and this is key, I think - it would delay the savings they anticipated from discovering all the fraud they thought was going on.Right from the start they assumed there was fraud (Why? On what basis?) and so when discrepancies were found they assumed that it must be fraud and didn't do any proper investigation. The problems with Horizon might not have mattered if there had been a proper separate investigation into the discrepancies which did not depend into accepting as true what Horizon said. But they didn't because they thought fraud was happening and so simply believed that they were finding what they knew was there. They did not look at the evidence with an open mind. This is a basic investigation failure.
It also explains in part the Post Office's attitude since. I suspect that many of the officials and their advisors still think these subpostmasters are guilty and only getting off on a technicality. This would explain why they have been so reluctant to do proper disclosure etc - they think they are in the right and these poor people are guilty crooks who do not deserve the benefit of all these legal rights.
As for Helen Rose - yes she should be done for perjury.
Thanks, Cyclefree. That helps me to understand a lot better than I did.
I have bought Nick Wallis's book and am looking forward to reading it.
Today I’ll repeal the ban on PBers having menages a trois with Angela Rayner and Holly Willoughby.
If you could throw Alice Roberts into the mix you get my vote. I am sure the only reason I have not been able to sweep her off her feet is a ban I never heard of.
She's quite attractive but Woke Archaeology is NOT
Not to you maybe, but clearly to many, given she keeps having books published and presumably bought.
I find her TV programmes rather dumbed down tbh but that's true of lots of TV these days, sadly.
Yes, she is REALLY dumbed down. I'm sure she's a lovely person etc, but her shows are awful trite low-IQ bollocks and - personal gripe here - she has no clue as to the enormous significance of Gobekli Tepe and the Tas Tepeler. She just doesn't get it
But, good luck to her. Better some archaeology on TV than none. Yet there really is room for a new, exciting voice ready to challenge and explore the tedious consensus. I think this is one reason Gobekli Tepe is politely ignored or glossed over by so many - including her. It overturns the happy consensus. It is a lost civilisation from 10,000 years ago, it has evidence of advanced architecture, yet it is obviously phallocratic and masculine, and it is streaked with implicit violence - human sacrifice etc
Not very Woke; doesn't fit the narrative; too complicated to understand; just don't mention it
Mate not everything is about woke/not woke, seriously. I know you enjoy being provocative but saying Gobekli Tepe is 'ignored' because men were probably in charge and there was violence (see also: most societies ever) is just silly.
Alice Roberts is a TV presenter, not really an archaeologist any more. In any case, she's an osteoarchaeologist not a cultural specialist. It's pop stuff hence the focus on well-trodden and proven popular subjects like Celts, Egyptians and human evolution.
I'd love to see something in depth on the Indus Valley civilisation; another mysterious and advanced civilisation with extraordinary urban planning, art and a still-untranslated script (prejudices declared, this was also the subject of my undergrad dissertation).
I know whereof I speak. I once was semi-commissioned to do a BBC documentary about Gobekli Tepe
It all got green lights until it was felt that a more "feminine" and "sensitive" account of Gobekli Tepe was needed. Eventually I was completely ousted and they produced a documentary so laughably neutered it literally didn't mention Gobekli Tepe AT ALL (even though it was the seed of the whole idea), and, naturally, no one watched it because it was so boring, effete and predictable
I carry no sour grapes, I've had a gas doing my own thing, and I am hardly the first person to be screwed over in the absurd world of British TV commissioning (it is, notoriously, even worse and nastier than Hollywood). But what I say is true
I’m calling it . We’re going to see Labours lead over the next few weeks cut to single digits.
Most of the pubic aren’t into detail and want any alleged economic pain kicked into the long grass . Labour should have gotten onto the front foot , called a news conference and given Sunak both barrels . Instead they’ve allowed Sunaks party political broadcast to go unchallenged .
I agree.
The understanding by the terminally stupid is thus: Labour want to take away your car, and you can't afford an electric car, because Gordon Brown sold all the gold.
The Tories should put that statement on the side of a bus
Electric cars are so expensive most people can't afford them, unless the price is suddenly going to come down in the next couple of years.
Well surely that was the point of our push towards the banning of NEW ICE cars after 2030. Economies of scale would make your MG4 or your Funky Cat even more competitive. I suspect that by 203 ,new ICE cars will be niche and more expensive than new electric cars anyway. It's going to happen despite Rishi's false flag operation yesterday.
Most people buy used cars. You would still have been be able to buy a used BMW M4 or Ford Mustang GT500 post 2030 if you want the exhilaration of phenomenal acceleration off the line, although haven't MG brought out a performance electric car that would blow the socks off either?
We don't need electric vehicles to be more competitive because petrol vehicles that would be half the price are now illegal.
We need electric vehicles to be more competitive because they're the same price or cheaper than petrol vehicles so ICE vehicles are now obsolete.
Alexa, please translate that post into basic English.
If a petrol car is £13k and an electric car is £27k then banning the petrol car may make the electric car "competitive" but its not positive progress.
Getting the electric car down to £13k so that it is the same price as the petrol car is positive progress and will make the petrol (ICE) car obsolete.
I note that the EV vs ICE comparison above ignores the cost of actually running the vehicle for X years, which will be most crucially affected by differential tax levels and fuel prices, and Sunak has kicked that out beyond the next election because he's too scared to deal with it.
A tax settlement can tip it whichever way is desired. In recent years the current Govt has been reducing grants on EVs whilst cutting Fuel Excise Duty by nearly half in real terms since 2010.
Whoever wins the next General Election will have to face a lot of things that the current Govt are running away from. Even cowardly Rishi.
Running a vehicle for X years doesn't help you if you can't get the credit to get the vehicle in the first place.
Just as paying a mortgage for X years is cheaper than renting, but that doesn't help if you can't get the credit to buy the property in the first place.
Its easy for the well off to take for granted how fortunate they are compared to others.
The last number I saw was that around 90% of new cars are bought on finance.
So not a major issue for the large majority of the market.
You do realise don't you that people are eligible for differing amounts of finance?
If you have a £3k deposit and can get £10k in finance to make the difference to £13k, then do you think that automatically guarantees you can also get £24k in finance to make the difference to £27k?
Don't let great be the enemy of good.
Exactly my point, if you can't afford great (BEV, £27k), you might only be able to afford good (Petrol, £13k).
Want BEV to be affordable, bring capital costs down to ICE capital costs.
People with less money will buy used ICE vehicles. And they will be able to get them cheaper because the ICE owners will be upgrading to BEVs because of subsidies.
So your solution is that people who previously could afford new vehicles shouldn't be able to afford a new vehicle anymore by eliminating that section of the new market and should compete for used vehicles instead?
So there'd be increasing demand for used vehicles (those who would anyone have bought used, plus those who would have bought affordable new) and the supply of used vehicles would be going down as nobody would be buying affordable vehicles anymore and selling them after 2-3 years.
Today you can get a 3 year old used Picanto for £8.5k. If Picantos are made illegal, then 3 years later what used vehicles do people buy?
Eh?
I'm not suggesting banning ICE sales, so I don't see why anyone is disadvantaged. I'm merely suggesting that we make it cheaper to buy BEVs.
Never bought a car on finance. Never will. We shouldn’t encourage it. If anything we should make it harder.
Why not and why?
Because there is no need to. Everyone (well everyone who can afford to run one) can afford a car somewhere in the value chain. Car finance is encouraging you to spend money you don’t have on a luxury you don’t need.
The Spectator, as normal, is surely right here. The migrant crisis is about to rise to the top of the European Problem Pile. I predict at least one major west European country will - in the next decade - elect a far right leader, and not a pathetic charade like Meloni. Someone who will actually attempt violent and severe methods to stop the influx
They will probably fail, that said. This may be an epochal change beyond the wit of democratic man to halt. But someone will have a bash. Ditto America. If Trump doesn't get in next year, a new, younger Trump will succeed in 2028
Unfortunately I have to agree. The Spectator’s seeming relish for the prospect, bubbling under the surface, is uncouth of course: it’s an opportunity watch the liberals squirm. But Europe is going to struggle to avoid hardliners capitalising on this.
But migrants will keep coming. Populations in West Africa are rising faster than almost anywhere else, environmental crises are pushing people off the land into cities and onwards, and the Sahel with its toxic cocktail of French alienation, Russian meddling and Jihadist gangs is turning into a lawless terra incognita. In contrast I wouldn’t be surprised if migration flows from the Middle East subside as the region settles into a (relatively) calm period.
The only long term solution is economic prosperity in West Africa and the Sahel. Medium term it’s surely about kicking out Wagner and the juntas from the Sahel, someone getting a grip on Libya and some meaningful, managed legal migration policies (the bit so many in Europe will oppose - but the alternative is boat crossings).
I’m calling it . We’re going to see Labours lead over the next few weeks cut to single digits.
Most of the pubic aren’t into detail and want any alleged economic pain kicked into the long grass . Labour should have gotten onto the front foot , called a news conference and given Sunak both barrels . Instead they’ve allowed Sunaks party political broadcast to go unchallenged .
I agree.
The understanding by the terminally stupid is thus: Labour want to take away your car, and you can't afford an electric car, because Gordon Brown sold all the gold.
The Tories should put that statement on the side of a bus
Electric cars are so expensive most people can't afford them, unless the price is suddenly going to come down in the next couple of years.
Well surely that was the point of our push towards the banning of NEW ICE cars after 2030. Economies of scale would make your MG4 or your Funky Cat even more competitive. I suspect that by 203 ,new ICE cars will be niche and more expensive than new electric cars anyway. It's going to happen despite Rishi's false flag operation yesterday.
Most people buy used cars. You would still have been be able to buy a used BMW M4 or Ford Mustang GT500 post 2030 if you want the exhilaration of phenomenal acceleration off the line, although haven't MG brought out a performance electric car that would blow the socks off either?
We don't need electric vehicles to be more competitive because petrol vehicles that would be half the price are now illegal.
We need electric vehicles to be more competitive because they're the same price or cheaper than petrol vehicles so ICE vehicles are now obsolete.
Alexa, please translate that post into basic English.
If a petrol car is £13k and an electric car is £27k then banning the petrol car may make the electric car "competitive" but its not positive progress.
Getting the electric car down to £13k so that it is the same price as the petrol car is positive progress and will make the petrol (ICE) car obsolete.
I note that the EV vs ICE comparison above ignores the cost of actually running the vehicle for X years, which will be most crucially affected by differential tax levels and fuel prices, and Sunak has kicked that out beyond the next election because he's too scared to deal with it.
A tax settlement can tip it whichever way is desired. In recent years the current Govt has been reducing grants on EVs whilst cutting Fuel Excise Duty by nearly half in real terms since 2010.
Whoever wins the next General Election will have to face a lot of things that the current Govt are running away from. Even cowardly Rishi.
Running a vehicle for X years doesn't help you if you can't get the credit to get the vehicle in the first place.
Just as paying a mortgage for X years is cheaper than renting, but that doesn't help if you can't get the credit to buy the property in the first place.
Its easy for the well off to take for granted how fortunate they are compared to others.
The last number I saw was that around 90% of new cars are bought on finance.
So not a major issue for the large majority of the market.
You do realise don't you that people are eligible for differing amounts of finance?
If you have a £3k deposit and can get £10k in finance to make the difference to £13k, then do you think that automatically guarantees you can also get £24k in finance to make the difference to £27k?
Don't let great be the enemy of good.
Exactly my point, if you can't afford great (BEV, £27k), you might only be able to afford good (Petrol, £13k).
Want BEV to be affordable, bring capital costs down to ICE capital costs.
People with less money will buy used ICE vehicles. And they will be able to get them cheaper because the ICE owners will be upgrading to BEVs because of subsidies.
So your solution is that people who previously could afford new vehicles shouldn't be able to afford a new vehicle anymore by eliminating that section of the new market and should compete for used vehicles instead?
So there'd be increasing demand for used vehicles (those who would anyone have bought used, plus those who would have bought affordable new) and the supply of used vehicles would be going down as nobody would be buying affordable vehicles anymore and selling them after 2-3 years.
Today you can get a 3 year old used Picanto for £8.5k. If Picantos are made illegal, then 3 years later what used vehicles do people buy?
Eh?
I'm not suggesting banning ICE sales, so I don't see why anyone is disadvantaged. I'm merely suggesting that we make it cheaper to buy BEVs.
Never bought a car on finance. Never will. We shouldn’t encourage it. If anything we should make it harder.
Why not and why?
Because there is no need to. Everyone (well everyone who can afford to run one) can afford a car somewhere in the value chain. Car finance is encouraging you to spend money you don’t have on a luxury you don’t need.
A very hair shirt approach to life is that
Why am I not surprised to see you have a down on cash buyers?
The Spectator, as normal, is surely right here. The migrant crisis is about to rise to the top of the European Problem Pile. I predict at least one major west European country will - in the next decade - elect a far right leader, and not a pathetic charade like Meloni. Someone who will actually attempt violent and severe methods to stop the influx
They will probably fail, that said. This may be an epochal change beyond the wit of democratic man to halt. But someone will have a bash. Ditto America. If Trump doesn't get in next year, a new, younger Trump will succeed in 2028
I am old enough to remember you were creaming your pants over Meloni.
Another Populist fails when rhetoric comes into contact with reality.
Today I’ll repeal the ban on PBers having menages a trois with Angela Rayner and Holly Willoughby.
If you could throw Alice Roberts into the mix you get my vote. I am sure the only reason I have not been able to sweep her off her feet is a ban I never heard of.
This amuses me.
More to the point the jacket art and title suggest it might be some turgid crap by Tom Knox or someone. So she needs to make clear it’s a serious book
The self-own of the tweeter aside, putting academic titles on books is very tacky, at least in this country. Typically relegated to self help books and the like.
Putting titles in Twitter names equally so. Eminent academics on twitter almost never do it.
Today I’ll repeal the ban on PBers having menages a trois with Angela Rayner and Holly Willoughby.
If you could throw Alice Roberts into the mix you get my vote. I am sure the only reason I have not been able to sweep her off her feet is a ban I never heard of.
This amuses me.
More to the point the jacket art and title suggest it might be some turgid crap by Tom Knox or someone. So she needs to make clear it’s a serious book
The Spectator, as normal, is surely right here. The migrant crisis is about to rise to the top of the European Problem Pile. I predict at least one major west European country will - in the next decade - elect a far right leader, and not a pathetic charade like Meloni. Someone who will actually attempt violent and severe methods to stop the influx
They will probably fail, that said. This may be an epochal change beyond the wit of democratic man to halt. But someone will have a bash. Ditto America. If Trump doesn't get in next year, a new, younger Trump will succeed in 2028
I am old enough to remember you were creaming your pants over Meloni.
Another Populist fails when rhetoric comes into contact with reality.
I’m calling it . We’re going to see Labours lead over the next few weeks cut to single digits.
Most of the pubic aren’t into detail and want any alleged economic pain kicked into the long grass . Labour should have gotten onto the front foot , called a news conference and given Sunak both barrels . Instead they’ve allowed Sunaks party political broadcast to go unchallenged .
I agree.
The understanding by the terminally stupid is thus: Labour want to take away your car, and you can't afford an electric car, because Gordon Brown sold all the gold.
The Tories should put that statement on the side of a bus
Electric cars are so expensive most people can't afford them, unless the price is suddenly going to come down in the next couple of years.
Well surely that was the point of our push towards the banning of NEW ICE cars after 2030. Economies of scale would make your MG4 or your Funky Cat even more competitive. I suspect that by 203 ,new ICE cars will be niche and more expensive than new electric cars anyway. It's going to happen despite Rishi's false flag operation yesterday.
Most people buy used cars. You would still have been be able to buy a used BMW M4 or Ford Mustang GT500 post 2030 if you want the exhilaration of phenomenal acceleration off the line, although haven't MG brought out a performance electric car that would blow the socks off either?
We don't need electric vehicles to be more competitive because petrol vehicles that would be half the price are now illegal.
We need electric vehicles to be more competitive because they're the same price or cheaper than petrol vehicles so ICE vehicles are now obsolete.
Alexa, please translate that post into basic English.
If a petrol car is £13k and an electric car is £27k then banning the petrol car may make the electric car "competitive" but its not positive progress.
Getting the electric car down to £13k so that it is the same price as the petrol car is positive progress and will make the petrol (ICE) car obsolete.
I note that the EV vs ICE comparison above ignores the cost of actually running the vehicle for X years, which will be most crucially affected by differential tax levels and fuel prices, and Sunak has kicked that out beyond the next election because he's too scared to deal with it.
A tax settlement can tip it whichever way is desired. In recent years the current Govt has been reducing grants on EVs whilst cutting Fuel Excise Duty by nearly half in real terms since 2010.
Whoever wins the next General Election will have to face a lot of things that the current Govt are running away from. Even cowardly Rishi.
Running a vehicle for X years doesn't help you if you can't get the credit to get the vehicle in the first place.
Just as paying a mortgage for X years is cheaper than renting, but that doesn't help if you can't get the credit to buy the property in the first place.
Its easy for the well off to take for granted how fortunate they are compared to others.
The last number I saw was that around 90% of new cars are bought on finance.
So not a major issue for the large majority of the market.
You do realise don't you that people are eligible for differing amounts of finance?
If you have a £3k deposit and can get £10k in finance to make the difference to £13k, then do you think that automatically guarantees you can also get £24k in finance to make the difference to £27k?
Don't let great be the enemy of good.
Exactly my point, if you can't afford great (BEV, £27k), you might only be able to afford good (Petrol, £13k).
Want BEV to be affordable, bring capital costs down to ICE capital costs.
People with less money will buy used ICE vehicles. And they will be able to get them cheaper because the ICE owners will be upgrading to BEVs because of subsidies.
So your solution is that people who previously could afford new vehicles shouldn't be able to afford a new vehicle anymore by eliminating that section of the new market and should compete for used vehicles instead?
So there'd be increasing demand for used vehicles (those who would anyone have bought used, plus those who would have bought affordable new) and the supply of used vehicles would be going down as nobody would be buying affordable vehicles anymore and selling them after 2-3 years.
Today you can get a 3 year old used Picanto for £8.5k. If Picantos are made illegal, then 3 years later what used vehicles do people buy?
Eh?
I'm not suggesting banning ICE sales, so I don't see why anyone is disadvantaged. I'm merely suggesting that we make it cheaper to buy BEVs.
Never bought a car on finance. Never will. We shouldn’t encourage it. If anything we should make it harder.
Why not and why?
Because there is no need to. Everyone (well everyone who can afford to run one) can afford a car somewhere in the value chain. Car finance is encouraging you to spend money you don’t have on a luxury you don’t need.
A very hair shirt approach to life is that
No, a practical one. Don’t ish to ever be debt other my mortgage. With a little patience, you can have nice things, you just need to wait.
I accept it’s easier for me to say that with a decent wage, but personal debt is the scourge of British society.
I’m calling it . We’re going to see Labours lead over the next few weeks cut to single digits.
Most of the pubic aren’t into detail and want any alleged economic pain kicked into the long grass . Labour should have gotten onto the front foot , called a news conference and given Sunak both barrels . Instead they’ve allowed Sunaks party political broadcast to go unchallenged .
I agree.
The understanding by the terminally stupid is thus: Labour want to take away your car, and you can't afford an electric car, because Gordon Brown sold all the gold.
The Tories should put that statement on the side of a bus
Electric cars are so expensive most people can't afford them, unless the price is suddenly going to come down in the next couple of years.
Well surely that was the point of our push towards the banning of NEW ICE cars after 2030. Economies of scale would make your MG4 or your Funky Cat even more competitive. I suspect that by 203 ,new ICE cars will be niche and more expensive than new electric cars anyway. It's going to happen despite Rishi's false flag operation yesterday.
Most people buy used cars. You would still have been be able to buy a used BMW M4 or Ford Mustang GT500 post 2030 if you want the exhilaration of phenomenal acceleration off the line, although haven't MG brought out a performance electric car that would blow the socks off either?
We don't need electric vehicles to be more competitive because petrol vehicles that would be half the price are now illegal.
We need electric vehicles to be more competitive because they're the same price or cheaper than petrol vehicles so ICE vehicles are now obsolete.
Alexa, please translate that post into basic English.
If a petrol car is £13k and an electric car is £27k then banning the petrol car may make the electric car "competitive" but its not positive progress.
Getting the electric car down to £13k so that it is the same price as the petrol car is positive progress and will make the petrol (ICE) car obsolete.
I note that the EV vs ICE comparison above ignores the cost of actually running the vehicle for X years, which will be most crucially affected by differential tax levels and fuel prices, and Sunak has kicked that out beyond the next election because he's too scared to deal with it.
A tax settlement can tip it whichever way is desired. In recent years the current Govt has been reducing grants on EVs whilst cutting Fuel Excise Duty by nearly half in real terms since 2010.
Whoever wins the next General Election will have to face a lot of things that the current Govt are running away from. Even cowardly Rishi.
Running a vehicle for X years doesn't help you if you can't get the credit to get the vehicle in the first place.
Just as paying a mortgage for X years is cheaper than renting, but that doesn't help if you can't get the credit to buy the property in the first place.
Its easy for the well off to take for granted how fortunate they are compared to others.
The last number I saw was that around 90% of new cars are bought on finance.
So not a major issue for the large majority of the market.
You do realise don't you that people are eligible for differing amounts of finance?
If you have a £3k deposit and can get £10k in finance to make the difference to £13k, then do you think that automatically guarantees you can also get £24k in finance to make the difference to £27k?
Don't let great be the enemy of good.
Exactly my point, if you can't afford great (BEV, £27k), you might only be able to afford good (Petrol, £13k).
Want BEV to be affordable, bring capital costs down to ICE capital costs.
People with less money will buy used ICE vehicles. And they will be able to get them cheaper because the ICE owners will be upgrading to BEVs because of subsidies.
So your solution is that people who previously could afford new vehicles shouldn't be able to afford a new vehicle anymore by eliminating that section of the new market and should compete for used vehicles instead?
So there'd be increasing demand for used vehicles (those who would anyone have bought used, plus those who would have bought affordable new) and the supply of used vehicles would be going down as nobody would be buying affordable vehicles anymore and selling them after 2-3 years.
Today you can get a 3 year old used Picanto for £8.5k. If Picantos are made illegal, then 3 years later what used vehicles do people buy?
Eh?
I'm not suggesting banning ICE sales, so I don't see why anyone is disadvantaged. I'm merely suggesting that we make it cheaper to buy BEVs.
Never bought a car on finance. Never will. We shouldn’t encourage it. If anything we should make it harder.
Why not and why?
Because there is no need to. Everyone (well everyone who can afford to run one) can afford a car somewhere in the value chain. Car finance is encouraging you to spend money you don’t have on a luxury you don’t need.
A very hair shirt approach to life is that
Why am I not surprised to see you have a down on cash buyers?
Cash buyers rarely use cash in this sense as you know full well.
However, just to please you:
Cash is an outdated waste of space, time, materials, energy and money. That’s it. I’ve bitten for you. Must we go over this yet again?
I’m calling it . We’re going to see Labours lead over the next few weeks cut to single digits.
Most of the pubic aren’t into detail and want any alleged economic pain kicked into the long grass . Labour should have gotten onto the front foot , called a news conference and given Sunak both barrels . Instead they’ve allowed Sunaks party political broadcast to go unchallenged .
I agree.
The understanding by the terminally stupid is thus: Labour want to take away your car, and you can't afford an electric car, because Gordon Brown sold all the gold.
The Tories should put that statement on the side of a bus
Electric cars are so expensive most people can't afford them, unless the price is suddenly going to come down in the next couple of years.
Well surely that was the point of our push towards the banning of NEW ICE cars after 2030. Economies of scale would make your MG4 or your Funky Cat even more competitive. I suspect that by 203 ,new ICE cars will be niche and more expensive than new electric cars anyway. It's going to happen despite Rishi's false flag operation yesterday.
Most people buy used cars. You would still have been be able to buy a used BMW M4 or Ford Mustang GT500 post 2030 if you want the exhilaration of phenomenal acceleration off the line, although haven't MG brought out a performance electric car that would blow the socks off either?
We don't need electric vehicles to be more competitive because petrol vehicles that would be half the price are now illegal.
We need electric vehicles to be more competitive because they're the same price or cheaper than petrol vehicles so ICE vehicles are now obsolete.
Alexa, please translate that post into basic English.
If a petrol car is £13k and an electric car is £27k then banning the petrol car may make the electric car "competitive" but its not positive progress.
Getting the electric car down to £13k so that it is the same price as the petrol car is positive progress and will make the petrol (ICE) car obsolete.
I note that the EV vs ICE comparison above ignores the cost of actually running the vehicle for X years, which will be most crucially affected by differential tax levels and fuel prices, and Sunak has kicked that out beyond the next election because he's too scared to deal with it.
A tax settlement can tip it whichever way is desired. In recent years the current Govt has been reducing grants on EVs whilst cutting Fuel Excise Duty by nearly half in real terms since 2010.
Whoever wins the next General Election will have to face a lot of things that the current Govt are running away from. Even cowardly Rishi.
Running a vehicle for X years doesn't help you if you can't get the credit to get the vehicle in the first place.
Just as paying a mortgage for X years is cheaper than renting, but that doesn't help if you can't get the credit to buy the property in the first place.
Its easy for the well off to take for granted how fortunate they are compared to others.
The last number I saw was that around 90% of new cars are bought on finance.
So not a major issue for the large majority of the market.
You do realise don't you that people are eligible for differing amounts of finance?
If you have a £3k deposit and can get £10k in finance to make the difference to £13k, then do you think that automatically guarantees you can also get £24k in finance to make the difference to £27k?
Don't let great be the enemy of good.
Exactly my point, if you can't afford great (BEV, £27k), you might only be able to afford good (Petrol, £13k).
Want BEV to be affordable, bring capital costs down to ICE capital costs.
People with less money will buy used ICE vehicles. And they will be able to get them cheaper because the ICE owners will be upgrading to BEVs because of subsidies.
So your solution is that people who previously could afford new vehicles shouldn't be able to afford a new vehicle anymore by eliminating that section of the new market and should compete for used vehicles instead?
So there'd be increasing demand for used vehicles (those who would anyone have bought used, plus those who would have bought affordable new) and the supply of used vehicles would be going down as nobody would be buying affordable vehicles anymore and selling them after 2-3 years.
Today you can get a 3 year old used Picanto for £8.5k. If Picantos are made illegal, then 3 years later what used vehicles do people buy?
Eh?
I'm not suggesting banning ICE sales, so I don't see why anyone is disadvantaged. I'm merely suggesting that we make it cheaper to buy BEVs.
Never bought a car on finance. Never will. We shouldn’t encourage it. If anything we should make it harder.
Why not and why?
Because there is no need to. Everyone (well everyone who can afford to run one) can afford a car somewhere in the value chain. Car finance is encouraging you to spend money you don’t have on a luxury you don’t need.
A very hair shirt approach to life is that
No, a practical one. Don’t ish to ever be debt other my mortgage. With a little patience, you can have nice things, you just need to wait.
I accept it’s easier for me to say that with a decent wage, but personal debt is the scourge of British society.
Indeed you can, you just pay off the finance month by month then own a nice car outright. But each to their own, you sound rather preachy TBH.
I’m calling it . We’re going to see Labours lead over the next few weeks cut to single digits.
Most of the pubic aren’t into detail and want any alleged economic pain kicked into the long grass . Labour should have gotten onto the front foot , called a news conference and given Sunak both barrels . Instead they’ve allowed Sunaks party political broadcast to go unchallenged .
I agree.
The understanding by the terminally stupid is thus: Labour want to take away your car, and you can't afford an electric car, because Gordon Brown sold all the gold.
The Tories should put that statement on the side of a bus
Electric cars are so expensive most people can't afford them, unless the price is suddenly going to come down in the next couple of years.
Well surely that was the point of our push towards the banning of NEW ICE cars after 2030. Economies of scale would make your MG4 or your Funky Cat even more competitive. I suspect that by 203 ,new ICE cars will be niche and more expensive than new electric cars anyway. It's going to happen despite Rishi's false flag operation yesterday.
Most people buy used cars. You would still have been be able to buy a used BMW M4 or Ford Mustang GT500 post 2030 if you want the exhilaration of phenomenal acceleration off the line, although haven't MG brought out a performance electric car that would blow the socks off either?
We don't need electric vehicles to be more competitive because petrol vehicles that would be half the price are now illegal.
We need electric vehicles to be more competitive because they're the same price or cheaper than petrol vehicles so ICE vehicles are now obsolete.
Alexa, please translate that post into basic English.
If a petrol car is £13k and an electric car is £27k then banning the petrol car may make the electric car "competitive" but its not positive progress.
Getting the electric car down to £13k so that it is the same price as the petrol car is positive progress and will make the petrol (ICE) car obsolete.
I note that the EV vs ICE comparison above ignores the cost of actually running the vehicle for X years, which will be most crucially affected by differential tax levels and fuel prices, and Sunak has kicked that out beyond the next election because he's too scared to deal with it.
A tax settlement can tip it whichever way is desired. In recent years the current Govt has been reducing grants on EVs whilst cutting Fuel Excise Duty by nearly half in real terms since 2010.
Whoever wins the next General Election will have to face a lot of things that the current Govt are running away from. Even cowardly Rishi.
Running a vehicle for X years doesn't help you if you can't get the credit to get the vehicle in the first place.
Just as paying a mortgage for X years is cheaper than renting, but that doesn't help if you can't get the credit to buy the property in the first place.
Its easy for the well off to take for granted how fortunate they are compared to others.
The last number I saw was that around 90% of new cars are bought on finance.
So not a major issue for the large majority of the market.
You do realise don't you that people are eligible for differing amounts of finance?
If you have a £3k deposit and can get £10k in finance to make the difference to £13k, then do you think that automatically guarantees you can also get £24k in finance to make the difference to £27k?
Don't let great be the enemy of good.
Exactly my point, if you can't afford great (BEV, £27k), you might only be able to afford good (Petrol, £13k).
Want BEV to be affordable, bring capital costs down to ICE capital costs.
People with less money will buy used ICE vehicles. And they will be able to get them cheaper because the ICE owners will be upgrading to BEVs because of subsidies.
So your solution is that people who previously could afford new vehicles shouldn't be able to afford a new vehicle anymore by eliminating that section of the new market and should compete for used vehicles instead?
So there'd be increasing demand for used vehicles (those who would anyone have bought used, plus those who would have bought affordable new) and the supply of used vehicles would be going down as nobody would be buying affordable vehicles anymore and selling them after 2-3 years.
Today you can get a 3 year old used Picanto for £8.5k. If Picantos are made illegal, then 3 years later what used vehicles do people buy?
Eh?
I'm not suggesting banning ICE sales, so I don't see why anyone is disadvantaged. I'm merely suggesting that we make it cheaper to buy BEVs.
Never bought a car on finance. Never will. We shouldn’t encourage it. If anything we should make it harder.
Why not and why?
Because there is no need to. Everyone (well everyone who can afford to run one) can afford a car somewhere in the value chain. Car finance is encouraging you to spend money you don’t have on a luxury you don’t need.
A very hair shirt approach to life is that
Why am I not surprised to see you have a down on cash buyers?
Cash buyers rarely use cash in this sense as you know full well.
However, just to please you:
Cash is an outdated waste of space, time, materials, energy and money. That’s it. I’ve bitten for you. Must we go over this yet again?
Why are you so against people using it if they want to?
The Spectator, as normal, is surely right here. The migrant crisis is about to rise to the top of the European Problem Pile. I predict at least one major west European country will - in the next decade - elect a far right leader, and not a pathetic charade like Meloni. Someone who will actually attempt violent and severe methods to stop the influx
They will probably fail, that said. This may be an epochal change beyond the wit of democratic man to halt. But someone will have a bash. Ditto America. If Trump doesn't get in next year, a new, younger Trump will succeed in 2028
I remind you of my ongoing rant that the current policy of HMG is to import 500k-1m people per year for the foreseeable future.
The Spectator, as normal, is surely right here. The migrant crisis is about to rise to the top of the European Problem Pile. I predict at least one major west European country will - in the next decade - elect a far right leader, and not a pathetic charade like Meloni. Someone who will actually attempt violent and severe methods to stop the influx
They will probably fail, that said. This may be an epochal change beyond the wit of democratic man to halt. But someone will have a bash. Ditto America. If Trump doesn't get in next year, a new, younger Trump will succeed in 2028
Today I’ll repeal the ban on PBers having menages a trois with Angela Rayner and Holly Willoughby.
If you could throw Alice Roberts into the mix you get my vote. I am sure the only reason I have not been able to sweep her off her feet is a ban I never heard of.
She's quite attractive but Woke Archaeology is NOT
Not to you maybe, but clearly to many, given she keeps having books published and presumably bought.
I find her TV programmes rather dumbed down tbh but that's true of lots of TV these days, sadly.
Yes, she is REALLY dumbed down. I'm sure she's a lovely person etc, but her shows are awful trite low-IQ bollocks and - personal gripe here - she has no clue as to the enormous significance of Gobekli Tepe and the Tas Tepeler. She just doesn't get it
But, good luck to her. Better some archaeology on TV than none. Yet there really is room for a new, exciting voice ready to challenge and explore the tedious consensus. I think this is one reason Gobekli Tepe is politely ignored or glossed over by so many - including her. It overturns the happy consensus. It is a lost civilisation from 10,000 years ago, it has evidence of advanced architecture, yet it is obviously phallocratic and masculine, and it is streaked with implicit violence - human sacrifice etc
Not very Woke; doesn't fit the narrative; too complicated to understand; just don't mention it
Mate not everything is about woke/not woke, seriously. I know you enjoy being provocative but saying Gobekli Tepe is 'ignored' because men were probably in charge and there was violence (see also: most societies ever) is just silly.
Alice Roberts is a TV presenter, not really an archaeologist any more. In any case, she's an osteoarchaeologist not a cultural specialist. It's pop stuff hence the focus on well-trodden and proven popular subjects like Celts, Egyptians and human evolution.
I'd love to see something in depth on the Indus Valley civilisation; another mysterious and advanced civilisation with extraordinary urban planning, art and a still-untranslated script (prejudices declared, this was also the subject of my undergrad dissertation).
I do a cracking talk on the Indus Valley Civilisation. One of my favourite topics.
But you are right about the pop stuff. Sadly it is necessary if we are going to get any archaeology or history on TV these days. The days of AJP Taylor talking in depth about the origins of the First World War, live and with no notes, on national TV are long gone.
I’m calling it . We’re going to see Labours lead over the next few weeks cut to single digits.
Most of the pubic aren’t into detail and want any alleged economic pain kicked into the long grass . Labour should have gotten onto the front foot , called a news conference and given Sunak both barrels . Instead they’ve allowed Sunaks party political broadcast to go unchallenged .
I agree.
The understanding by the terminally stupid is thus: Labour want to take away your car, and you can't afford an electric car, because Gordon Brown sold all the gold.
The Tories should put that statement on the side of a bus
Electric cars are so expensive most people can't afford them, unless the price is suddenly going to come down in the next couple of years.
Well surely that was the point of our push towards the banning of NEW ICE cars after 2030. Economies of scale would make your MG4 or your Funky Cat even more competitive. I suspect that by 203 ,new ICE cars will be niche and more expensive than new electric cars anyway. It's going to happen despite Rishi's false flag operation yesterday.
Most people buy used cars. You would still have been be able to buy a used BMW M4 or Ford Mustang GT500 post 2030 if you want the exhilaration of phenomenal acceleration off the line, although haven't MG brought out a performance electric car that would blow the socks off either?
We don't need electric vehicles to be more competitive because petrol vehicles that would be half the price are now illegal.
We need electric vehicles to be more competitive because they're the same price or cheaper than petrol vehicles so ICE vehicles are now obsolete.
Alexa, please translate that post into basic English.
If a petrol car is £13k and an electric car is £27k then banning the petrol car may make the electric car "competitive" but its not positive progress.
Getting the electric car down to £13k so that it is the same price as the petrol car is positive progress and will make the petrol (ICE) car obsolete.
I note that the EV vs ICE comparison above ignores the cost of actually running the vehicle for X years, which will be most crucially affected by differential tax levels and fuel prices, and Sunak has kicked that out beyond the next election because he's too scared to deal with it.
A tax settlement can tip it whichever way is desired. In recent years the current Govt has been reducing grants on EVs whilst cutting Fuel Excise Duty by nearly half in real terms since 2010.
Whoever wins the next General Election will have to face a lot of things that the current Govt are running away from. Even cowardly Rishi.
Running a vehicle for X years doesn't help you if you can't get the credit to get the vehicle in the first place.
Just as paying a mortgage for X years is cheaper than renting, but that doesn't help if you can't get the credit to buy the property in the first place.
Its easy for the well off to take for granted how fortunate they are compared to others.
The last number I saw was that around 90% of new cars are bought on finance.
So not a major issue for the large majority of the market.
You do realise don't you that people are eligible for differing amounts of finance?
If you have a £3k deposit and can get £10k in finance to make the difference to £13k, then do you think that automatically guarantees you can also get £24k in finance to make the difference to £27k?
Don't let great be the enemy of good.
Exactly my point, if you can't afford great (BEV, £27k), you might only be able to afford good (Petrol, £13k).
Want BEV to be affordable, bring capital costs down to ICE capital costs.
People with less money will buy used ICE vehicles. And they will be able to get them cheaper because the ICE owners will be upgrading to BEVs because of subsidies.
So your solution is that people who previously could afford new vehicles shouldn't be able to afford a new vehicle anymore by eliminating that section of the new market and should compete for used vehicles instead?
So there'd be increasing demand for used vehicles (those who would anyone have bought used, plus those who would have bought affordable new) and the supply of used vehicles would be going down as nobody would be buying affordable vehicles anymore and selling them after 2-3 years.
Today you can get a 3 year old used Picanto for £8.5k. If Picantos are made illegal, then 3 years later what used vehicles do people buy?
Eh?
I'm not suggesting banning ICE sales, so I don't see why anyone is disadvantaged. I'm merely suggesting that we make it cheaper to buy BEVs.
Never bought a car on finance. Never will. We shouldn’t encourage it. If anything we should make it harder.
Why not and why?
Because there is no need to. Everyone (well everyone who can afford to run one) can afford a car somewhere in the value chain. Car finance is encouraging you to spend money you don’t have on a luxury you don’t need.
A very hair shirt approach to life is that
Why am I not surprised to see you have a down on cash buyers?
Cash buyers rarely use cash in this sense as you know full well.
However, just to please you:
Cash is an outdated waste of space, time, materials, energy and money. That’s it. I’ve bitten for you. Must we go over this yet again?
Why are you so against people using it if they want to?
I’m calling it . We’re going to see Labours lead over the next few weeks cut to single digits.
Most of the pubic aren’t into detail and want any alleged economic pain kicked into the long grass . Labour should have gotten onto the front foot , called a news conference and given Sunak both barrels . Instead they’ve allowed Sunaks party political broadcast to go unchallenged .
I agree.
The understanding by the terminally stupid is thus: Labour want to take away your car, and you can't afford an electric car, because Gordon Brown sold all the gold.
The Tories should put that statement on the side of a bus
Electric cars are so expensive most people can't afford them, unless the price is suddenly going to come down in the next couple of years.
Well surely that was the point of our push towards the banning of NEW ICE cars after 2030. Economies of scale would make your MG4 or your Funky Cat even more competitive. I suspect that by 203 ,new ICE cars will be niche and more expensive than new electric cars anyway. It's going to happen despite Rishi's false flag operation yesterday.
Most people buy used cars. You would still have been be able to buy a used BMW M4 or Ford Mustang GT500 post 2030 if you want the exhilaration of phenomenal acceleration off the line, although haven't MG brought out a performance electric car that would blow the socks off either?
We don't need electric vehicles to be more competitive because petrol vehicles that would be half the price are now illegal.
We need electric vehicles to be more competitive because they're the same price or cheaper than petrol vehicles so ICE vehicles are now obsolete.
Alexa, please translate that post into basic English.
If a petrol car is £13k and an electric car is £27k then banning the petrol car may make the electric car "competitive" but its not positive progress.
Getting the electric car down to £13k so that it is the same price as the petrol car is positive progress and will make the petrol (ICE) car obsolete.
I note that the EV vs ICE comparison above ignores the cost of actually running the vehicle for X years, which will be most crucially affected by differential tax levels and fuel prices, and Sunak has kicked that out beyond the next election because he's too scared to deal with it.
A tax settlement can tip it whichever way is desired. In recent years the current Govt has been reducing grants on EVs whilst cutting Fuel Excise Duty by nearly half in real terms since 2010.
Whoever wins the next General Election will have to face a lot of things that the current Govt are running away from. Even cowardly Rishi.
Running a vehicle for X years doesn't help you if you can't get the credit to get the vehicle in the first place.
Just as paying a mortgage for X years is cheaper than renting, but that doesn't help if you can't get the credit to buy the property in the first place.
Its easy for the well off to take for granted how fortunate they are compared to others.
The last number I saw was that around 90% of new cars are bought on finance.
So not a major issue for the large majority of the market.
You do realise don't you that people are eligible for differing amounts of finance?
If you have a £3k deposit and can get £10k in finance to make the difference to £13k, then do you think that automatically guarantees you can also get £24k in finance to make the difference to £27k?
Don't let great be the enemy of good.
Exactly my point, if you can't afford great (BEV, £27k), you might only be able to afford good (Petrol, £13k).
Want BEV to be affordable, bring capital costs down to ICE capital costs.
People with less money will buy used ICE vehicles. And they will be able to get them cheaper because the ICE owners will be upgrading to BEVs because of subsidies.
So your solution is that people who previously could afford new vehicles shouldn't be able to afford a new vehicle anymore by eliminating that section of the new market and should compete for used vehicles instead?
So there'd be increasing demand for used vehicles (those who would anyone have bought used, plus those who would have bought affordable new) and the supply of used vehicles would be going down as nobody would be buying affordable vehicles anymore and selling them after 2-3 years.
Today you can get a 3 year old used Picanto for £8.5k. If Picantos are made illegal, then 3 years later what used vehicles do people buy?
Eh?
I'm not suggesting banning ICE sales, so I don't see why anyone is disadvantaged. I'm merely suggesting that we make it cheaper to buy BEVs.
Never bought a car on finance. Never will. We shouldn’t encourage it. If anything we should make it harder.
Why not and why?
Because there is no need to. Everyone (well everyone who can afford to run one) can afford a car somewhere in the value chain. Car finance is encouraging you to spend money you don’t have on a luxury you don’t need.
A very hair shirt approach to life is that
No, a practical one. Don’t ish to ever be debt other my mortgage. With a little patience, you can have nice things, you just need to wait.
I accept it’s easier for me to say that with a decent wage, but personal debt is the scourge of British society.
Indeed you can, you just pay off the finance month by month then own a nice car outright. But each to their own, you sound rather preachy TBH.
What an unpleasant thing to say. Why are you seen keen to drum up profits for the banking sector? Saving up to buy things (other than the impossible like houses) is how many of us were raised.
Even with my house I borrowed less than I could by maybe 20%, because prudence is sensible.
I’m calling it . We’re going to see Labours lead over the next few weeks cut to single digits.
Most of the pubic aren’t into detail and want any alleged economic pain kicked into the long grass . Labour should have gotten onto the front foot , called a news conference and given Sunak both barrels . Instead they’ve allowed Sunaks party political broadcast to go unchallenged .
I agree.
The understanding by the terminally stupid is thus: Labour want to take away your car, and you can't afford an electric car, because Gordon Brown sold all the gold.
The Tories should put that statement on the side of a bus
Electric cars are so expensive most people can't afford them, unless the price is suddenly going to come down in the next couple of years.
Well surely that was the point of our push towards the banning of NEW ICE cars after 2030. Economies of scale would make your MG4 or your Funky Cat even more competitive. I suspect that by 203 ,new ICE cars will be niche and more expensive than new electric cars anyway. It's going to happen despite Rishi's false flag operation yesterday.
Most people buy used cars. You would still have been be able to buy a used BMW M4 or Ford Mustang GT500 post 2030 if you want the exhilaration of phenomenal acceleration off the line, although haven't MG brought out a performance electric car that would blow the socks off either?
We don't need electric vehicles to be more competitive because petrol vehicles that would be half the price are now illegal.
We need electric vehicles to be more competitive because they're the same price or cheaper than petrol vehicles so ICE vehicles are now obsolete.
Alexa, please translate that post into basic English.
If a petrol car is £13k and an electric car is £27k then banning the petrol car may make the electric car "competitive" but its not positive progress.
Getting the electric car down to £13k so that it is the same price as the petrol car is positive progress and will make the petrol (ICE) car obsolete.
I note that the EV vs ICE comparison above ignores the cost of actually running the vehicle for X years, which will be most crucially affected by differential tax levels and fuel prices, and Sunak has kicked that out beyond the next election because he's too scared to deal with it.
A tax settlement can tip it whichever way is desired. In recent years the current Govt has been reducing grants on EVs whilst cutting Fuel Excise Duty by nearly half in real terms since 2010.
Whoever wins the next General Election will have to face a lot of things that the current Govt are running away from. Even cowardly Rishi.
Running a vehicle for X years doesn't help you if you can't get the credit to get the vehicle in the first place.
Just as paying a mortgage for X years is cheaper than renting, but that doesn't help if you can't get the credit to buy the property in the first place.
Its easy for the well off to take for granted how fortunate they are compared to others.
The last number I saw was that around 90% of new cars are bought on finance.
So not a major issue for the large majority of the market.
You do realise don't you that people are eligible for differing amounts of finance?
If you have a £3k deposit and can get £10k in finance to make the difference to £13k, then do you think that automatically guarantees you can also get £24k in finance to make the difference to £27k?
Don't let great be the enemy of good.
Exactly my point, if you can't afford great (BEV, £27k), you might only be able to afford good (Petrol, £13k).
Want BEV to be affordable, bring capital costs down to ICE capital costs.
People with less money will buy used ICE vehicles. And they will be able to get them cheaper because the ICE owners will be upgrading to BEVs because of subsidies.
So your solution is that people who previously could afford new vehicles shouldn't be able to afford a new vehicle anymore by eliminating that section of the new market and should compete for used vehicles instead?
So there'd be increasing demand for used vehicles (those who would anyone have bought used, plus those who would have bought affordable new) and the supply of used vehicles would be going down as nobody would be buying affordable vehicles anymore and selling them after 2-3 years.
Today you can get a 3 year old used Picanto for £8.5k. If Picantos are made illegal, then 3 years later what used vehicles do people buy?
Eh?
I'm not suggesting banning ICE sales, so I don't see why anyone is disadvantaged. I'm merely suggesting that we make it cheaper to buy BEVs.
Never bought a car on finance. Never will. We shouldn’t encourage it. If anything we should make it harder.
Why not and why?
Because there is no need to. Everyone (well everyone who can afford to run one) can afford a car somewhere in the value chain. Car finance is encouraging you to spend money you don’t have on a luxury you don’t need.
A very hair shirt approach to life is that
Why am I not surprised to see you have a down on cash buyers?
Cash buyers rarely use cash in this sense as you know full well.
However, just to please you:
Cash is an outdated waste of space, time, materials, energy and money. That’s it. I’ve bitten for you. Must we go over this yet again?
Why are you so against people using it if they want to?
I’m not. I couldn’t care less. But many businesses are going cashless because most people have more sense than to carry wads of silly slips of paper and daft scraps of metal around with them. And that’s fair enough. Cashless makes a lot of sense for most.
Today I’ll repeal the ban on PBers having menages a trois with Angela Rayner and Holly Willoughby.
If you could throw Alice Roberts into the mix you get my vote. I am sure the only reason I have not been able to sweep her off her feet is a ban I never heard of.
She's quite attractive but Woke Archaeology is NOT
Not to you maybe, but clearly to many, given she keeps having books published and presumably bought.
I find her TV programmes rather dumbed down tbh but that's true of lots of TV these days, sadly.
Yes, she is REALLY dumbed down. I'm sure she's a lovely person etc, but her shows are awful trite low-IQ bollocks and - personal gripe here - she has no clue as to the enormous significance of Gobekli Tepe and the Tas Tepeler. She just doesn't get it
But, good luck to her. Better some archaeology on TV than none. Yet there really is room for a new, exciting voice ready to challenge and explore the tedious consensus. I think this is one reason Gobekli Tepe is politely ignored or glossed over by so many - including her. It overturns the happy consensus. It is a lost civilisation from 10,000 years ago, it has evidence of advanced architecture, yet it is obviously phallocratic and masculine, and it is streaked with implicit violence - human sacrifice etc
Not very Woke; doesn't fit the narrative; too complicated to understand; just don't mention it
Mate not everything is about woke/not woke, seriously. I know you enjoy being provocative but saying Gobekli Tepe is 'ignored' because men were probably in charge and there was violence (see also: most societies ever) is just silly.
Alice Roberts is a TV presenter, not really an archaeologist any more. In any case, she's an osteoarchaeologist not a cultural specialist. It's pop stuff hence the focus on well-trodden and proven popular subjects like Celts, Egyptians and human evolution.
I'd love to see something in depth on the Indus Valley civilisation; another mysterious and advanced civilisation with extraordinary urban planning, art and a still-untranslated script (prejudices declared, this was also the subject of my undergrad dissertation).
I do a cracking talk on the Indus Valley Civilisation. One of my favourite topics.
But you are right about the pop stuff. Sadly it is necessary if we are going to get any archaeology or history on TV these days. The days of AJP Taylor talking in depth about the origins of the First World War, live and with no notes, on national TV are long gone.
Alice Roberts is both interesting and easy on the eye. But her books do get a but waring with her constant look-which-side-of-the-culture-war-I'm-on shtick. For someone whose era is over a thousand years ago it's amazing how often she can get a dig in at the British Empire.
Today I’ll repeal the ban on PBers having menages a trois with Angela Rayner and Holly Willoughby.
If you could throw Alice Roberts into the mix you get my vote. I am sure the only reason I have not been able to sweep her off her feet is a ban I never heard of.
She's quite attractive but Woke Archaeology is NOT
Not to you maybe, but clearly to many, given she keeps having books published and presumably bought.
I find her TV programmes rather dumbed down tbh but that's true of lots of TV these days, sadly.
Yes, she is REALLY dumbed down. I'm sure she's a lovely person etc, but her shows are awful trite low-IQ bollocks and - personal gripe here - she has no clue as to the enormous significance of Gobekli Tepe and the Tas Tepeler. She just doesn't get it
But, good luck to her. Better some archaeology on TV than none. Yet there really is room for a new, exciting voice ready to challenge and explore the tedious consensus. I think this is one reason Gobekli Tepe is politely ignored or glossed over by so many - including her. It overturns the happy consensus. It is a lost civilisation from 10,000 years ago, it has evidence of advanced architecture, yet it is obviously phallocratic and masculine, and it is streaked with implicit violence - human sacrifice etc
Not very Woke; doesn't fit the narrative; too complicated to understand; just don't mention it
Mate not everything is about woke/not woke, seriously. I know you enjoy being provocative but saying Gobekli Tepe is 'ignored' because men were probably in charge and there was violence (see also: most societies ever) is just silly.
Alice Roberts is a TV presenter, not really an archaeologist any more. In any case, she's an osteoarchaeologist not a cultural specialist. It's pop stuff hence the focus on well-trodden and proven popular subjects like Celts, Egyptians and human evolution.
I'd love to see something in depth on the Indus Valley civilisation; another mysterious and advanced civilisation with extraordinary urban planning, art and a still-untranslated script (prejudices declared, this was also the subject of my undergrad dissertation).
I know whereof I speak. I once was semi-commissioned to do a BBC documentary about Gobekli Tepe
It all got green lights until it was felt that a more "feminine" and "sensitive" account of Gobekli Tepe was needed. Eventually I was completely ousted and they produced a documentary so laughably neutered it literally didn't mention Gobekli Tepe AT ALL (even though it was the seed of the whole idea), and, naturally, no one watched it because it was so boring, effete and predictable
I carry no sour grapes, I've had a gas doing my own thing, and I am hardly the first person to be screwed over in the absurd world of British TV commissioning (it is, notoriously, even worse and nastier than Hollywood). But what I say is true
The exposed Sunda Shelf was key to humanity's history during the Ice Age. Just take it on... faith!
Having done a quick scan of the thread I see that there is no reference to a ban on female PB'ers having a threesome with whoever they want.
This is a relief.
OK, so who would you choose for your ideal threesome? Would you go classic female desire: FMM, or the more exotic FFM?
I hesitate to ask you about positions, but you did start this
I love your assumption that this is something for the future rather than in - or in addition to - my past.
I did not start this, btw. There was something earlier about @Richard_Tyndall and Holly Willoughby (and she'd certainly not be on the list) and then some dreary Alice woman I've never heard of.
Plus I never realised that FFM was the more exotic choice.
Having done a quick scan of the thread I see that there is no reference to a ban on female PB'ers having a threesome with whoever they want.
This is a relief.
OK, so who would you choose for your ideal threesome? Would you go classic female desire: FMM, or the more exotic FFM?
I hesitate to ask you about positions, but you did start this
I love your assumption that this is something for the future rather than in - or in addition to - my past.
I did not start this, btw. There was something earlier about @Richard_Tyndall and Holly Willoughby (and she'd certainly not be on the list) and then some dreary Alice woman I've never heard of.
Plus I never realised that FFM was the more exotic choice.
You learn something new on here every day.
When I say "exotic" I am using the strict, but lesser-known definition of "this makes me feel more tinglez down there"
My ideal threesome would be my ex wife and Meghan Markle. And me, obvs
Today I’ll repeal the ban on PBers having menages a trois with Angela Rayner and Holly Willoughby.
If you could throw Alice Roberts into the mix you get my vote. I am sure the only reason I have not been able to sweep her off her feet is a ban I never heard of.
She's quite attractive but Woke Archaeology is NOT
Not to you maybe, but clearly to many, given she keeps having books published and presumably bought.
I find her TV programmes rather dumbed down tbh but that's true of lots of TV these days, sadly.
Yes, she is REALLY dumbed down. I'm sure she's a lovely person etc, but her shows are awful trite low-IQ bollocks and - personal gripe here - she has no clue as to the enormous significance of Gobekli Tepe and the Tas Tepeler. She just doesn't get it
But, good luck to her. Better some archaeology on TV than none. Yet there really is room for a new, exciting voice ready to challenge and explore the tedious consensus. I think this is one reason Gobekli Tepe is politely ignored or glossed over by so many - including her. It overturns the happy consensus. It is a lost civilisation from 10,000 years ago, it has evidence of advanced architecture, yet it is obviously phallocratic and masculine, and it is streaked with implicit violence - human sacrifice etc
Not very Woke; doesn't fit the narrative; too complicated to understand; just don't mention it
Mate not everything is about woke/not woke, seriously. I know you enjoy being provocative but saying Gobekli Tepe is 'ignored' because men were probably in charge and there was violence (see also: most societies ever) is just silly.
Alice Roberts is a TV presenter, not really an archaeologist any more. In any case, she's an osteoarchaeologist not a cultural specialist. It's pop stuff hence the focus on well-trodden and proven popular subjects like Celts, Egyptians and human evolution.
I'd love to see something in depth on the Indus Valley civilisation; another mysterious and advanced civilisation with extraordinary urban planning, art and a still-untranslated script (prejudices declared, this was also the subject of my undergrad dissertation).
I do a cracking talk on the Indus Valley Civilisation. One of my favourite topics.
But you are right about the pop stuff. Sadly it is necessary if we are going to get any archaeology or history on TV these days. The days of AJP Taylor talking in depth about the origins of the First World War, live and with no notes, on national TV are long gone.
Today I’ll repeal the ban on PBers having menages a trois with Angela Rayner and Holly Willoughby.
If you could throw Alice Roberts into the mix you get my vote. I am sure the only reason I have not been able to sweep her off her feet is a ban I never heard of.
She's quite attractive but Woke Archaeology is NOT
Not to you maybe, but clearly to many, given she keeps having books published and presumably bought.
I find her TV programmes rather dumbed down tbh but that's true of lots of TV these days, sadly.
Yes, she is REALLY dumbed down. I'm sure she's a lovely person etc, but her shows are awful trite low-IQ bollocks and - personal gripe here - she has no clue as to the enormous significance of Gobekli Tepe and the Tas Tepeler. She just doesn't get it
But, good luck to her. Better some archaeology on TV than none. Yet there really is room for a new, exciting voice ready to challenge and explore the tedious consensus. I think this is one reason Gobekli Tepe is politely ignored or glossed over by so many - including her. It overturns the happy consensus. It is a lost civilisation from 10,000 years ago, it has evidence of advanced architecture, yet it is obviously phallocratic and masculine, and it is streaked with implicit violence - human sacrifice etc
Not very Woke; doesn't fit the narrative; too complicated to understand; just don't mention it
Mate not everything is about woke/not woke, seriously. I know you enjoy being provocative but saying Gobekli Tepe is 'ignored' because men were probably in charge and there was violence (see also: most societies ever) is just silly.
Alice Roberts is a TV presenter, not really an archaeologist any more. In any case, she's an osteoarchaeologist not a cultural specialist. It's pop stuff hence the focus on well-trodden and proven popular subjects like Celts, Egyptians and human evolution.
I'd love to see something in depth on the Indus Valley civilisation; another mysterious and advanced civilisation with extraordinary urban planning, art and a still-untranslated script (prejudices declared, this was also the subject of my undergrad dissertation).
I do a cracking talk on the Indus Valley Civilisation. One of my favourite topics.
But you are right about the pop stuff. Sadly it is necessary if we are going to get any archaeology or history on TV these days. The days of AJP Taylor talking in depth about the origins of the First World War, live and with no notes, on national TV are long gone.
Alice Roberts is both interesting and easy on the eye. But her books do get a but waring with her constant look-which-side-of-the-culture-war-I'm-on shtick. For someone whose era is over a thousand years ago it's amazing how often she can get a dig in at the British Empire.
I have to admit I have not read any of her books. I tend to prefer the academic stuff because it is my field. But I do like the TV programmes and particularly liked the one she did about wild swimming.
I am a big fan of the 'pop archaeology' programmes partly because I like anything that promiotes archaeology and history to the widr public but mostly because they give me occasional bits of work and even, rarely, allow me to actually speak in front of the camera.
I’m calling it . We’re going to see Labours lead over the next few weeks cut to single digits.
Most of the pubic aren’t into detail and want any alleged economic pain kicked into the long grass . Labour should have gotten onto the front foot , called a news conference and given Sunak both barrels . Instead they’ve allowed Sunaks party political broadcast to go unchallenged .
I agree.
The understanding by the terminally stupid is thus: Labour want to take away your car, and you can't afford an electric car, because Gordon Brown sold all the gold.
The Tories should put that statement on the side of a bus
Electric cars are so expensive most people can't afford them, unless the price is suddenly going to come down in the next couple of years.
Well surely that was the point of our push towards the banning of NEW ICE cars after 2030. Economies of scale would make your MG4 or your Funky Cat even more competitive. I suspect that by 203 ,new ICE cars will be niche and more expensive than new electric cars anyway. It's going to happen despite Rishi's false flag operation yesterday.
Most people buy used cars. You would still have been be able to buy a used BMW M4 or Ford Mustang GT500 post 2030 if you want the exhilaration of phenomenal acceleration off the line, although haven't MG brought out a performance electric car that would blow the socks off either?
We don't need electric vehicles to be more competitive because petrol vehicles that would be half the price are now illegal.
We need electric vehicles to be more competitive because they're the same price or cheaper than petrol vehicles so ICE vehicles are now obsolete.
Alexa, please translate that post into basic English.
If a petrol car is £13k and an electric car is £27k then banning the petrol car may make the electric car "competitive" but its not positive progress.
Getting the electric car down to £13k so that it is the same price as the petrol car is positive progress and will make the petrol (ICE) car obsolete.
I note that the EV vs ICE comparison above ignores the cost of actually running the vehicle for X years, which will be most crucially affected by differential tax levels and fuel prices, and Sunak has kicked that out beyond the next election because he's too scared to deal with it.
A tax settlement can tip it whichever way is desired. In recent years the current Govt has been reducing grants on EVs whilst cutting Fuel Excise Duty by nearly half in real terms since 2010.
Whoever wins the next General Election will have to face a lot of things that the current Govt are running away from. Even cowardly Rishi.
Running a vehicle for X years doesn't help you if you can't get the credit to get the vehicle in the first place.
Just as paying a mortgage for X years is cheaper than renting, but that doesn't help if you can't get the credit to buy the property in the first place.
Its easy for the well off to take for granted how fortunate they are compared to others.
The last number I saw was that around 90% of new cars are bought on finance.
So not a major issue for the large majority of the market.
You do realise don't you that people are eligible for differing amounts of finance?
If you have a £3k deposit and can get £10k in finance to make the difference to £13k, then do you think that automatically guarantees you can also get £24k in finance to make the difference to £27k?
Don't let great be the enemy of good.
Exactly my point, if you can't afford great (BEV, £27k), you might only be able to afford good (Petrol, £13k).
Want BEV to be affordable, bring capital costs down to ICE capital costs.
People with less money will buy used ICE vehicles. And they will be able to get them cheaper because the ICE owners will be upgrading to BEVs because of subsidies.
So your solution is that people who previously could afford new vehicles shouldn't be able to afford a new vehicle anymore by eliminating that section of the new market and should compete for used vehicles instead?
So there'd be increasing demand for used vehicles (those who would anyone have bought used, plus those who would have bought affordable new) and the supply of used vehicles would be going down as nobody would be buying affordable vehicles anymore and selling them after 2-3 years.
Today you can get a 3 year old used Picanto for £8.5k. If Picantos are made illegal, then 3 years later what used vehicles do people buy?
Eh?
I'm not suggesting banning ICE sales, so I don't see why anyone is disadvantaged. I'm merely suggesting that we make it cheaper to buy BEVs.
Never bought a car on finance. Never will. We shouldn’t encourage it. If anything we should make it harder.
Why not and why?
Because there is no need to. Everyone (well everyone who can afford to run one) can afford a car somewhere in the value chain. Car finance is encouraging you to spend money you don’t have on a luxury you don’t need.
A very hair shirt approach to life is that
No, a practical one. Don’t ish to ever be debt other my mortgage. With a little patience, you can have nice things, you just need to wait.
I accept it’s easier for me to say that with a decent wage, but personal debt is the scourge of British society.
A banker I know used to say that the secret to success in life is “never a borrower or a lender be”
Having done a quick scan of the thread I see that there is no reference to a ban on female PB'ers having a threesome with whoever they want.
This is a relief.
OK, so who would you choose for your ideal threesome? Would you go classic female desire: FMM, or the more exotic FFM?
I hesitate to ask you about positions, but you did start this
I love your assumption that this is something for the future rather than in - or in addition to - my past.
I did not start this, btw. There was something earlier about @Richard_Tyndall and Holly Willoughby (and she'd certainly not be on the list) and then some dreary Alice woman I've never heard of.
Plus I never realised that FFM was the more exotic choice.
You learn something new on here every day.
I say!
I was not the one promoting Holly Willoughby (who also wouldn't be on my list) but I must say Alice Roberts is certainly not 'dreary'.
Today I’ll repeal the ban on PBers having menages a trois with Angela Rayner and Holly Willoughby.
If you could throw Alice Roberts into the mix you get my vote. I am sure the only reason I have not been able to sweep her off her feet is a ban I never heard of.
She's quite attractive but Woke Archaeology is NOT
Not to you maybe, but clearly to many, given she keeps having books published and presumably bought.
I find her TV programmes rather dumbed down tbh but that's true of lots of TV these days, sadly.
Yes, she is REALLY dumbed down. I'm sure she's a lovely person etc, but her shows are awful trite low-IQ bollocks and - personal gripe here - she has no clue as to the enormous significance of Gobekli Tepe and the Tas Tepeler. She just doesn't get it
But, good luck to her. Better some archaeology on TV than none. Yet there really is room for a new, exciting voice ready to challenge and explore the tedious consensus. I think this is one reason Gobekli Tepe is politely ignored or glossed over by so many - including her. It overturns the happy consensus. It is a lost civilisation from 10,000 years ago, it has evidence of advanced architecture, yet it is obviously phallocratic and masculine, and it is streaked with implicit violence - human sacrifice etc
Not very Woke; doesn't fit the narrative; too complicated to understand; just don't mention it
Mate not everything is about woke/not woke, seriously. I know you enjoy being provocative but saying Gobekli Tepe is 'ignored' because men were probably in charge and there was violence (see also: most societies ever) is just silly.
Alice Roberts is a TV presenter, not really an archaeologist any more. In any case, she's an osteoarchaeologist not a cultural specialist. It's pop stuff hence the focus on well-trodden and proven popular subjects like Celts, Egyptians and human evolution.
I'd love to see something in depth on the Indus Valley civilisation; another mysterious and advanced civilisation with extraordinary urban planning, art and a still-untranslated script (prejudices declared, this was also the subject of my undergrad dissertation).
I do a cracking talk on the Indus Valley Civilisation. One of my favourite topics.
But you are right about the pop stuff. Sadly it is necessary if we are going to get any archaeology or history on TV these days. The days of AJP Taylor talking in depth about the origins of the First World War, live and with no notes, on national TV are long gone.
I miss Michael Wood.
Michael Wood was great!
Swanning about in his leather jacket, waffling entertaingly about Harthacnut, Vortigern and Hereward the Wake. Brilliant
Today I’ll repeal the ban on PBers having menages a trois with Angela Rayner and Holly Willoughby.
If you could throw Alice Roberts into the mix you get my vote. I am sure the only reason I have not been able to sweep her off her feet is a ban I never heard of.
She's quite attractive but Woke Archaeology is NOT
Not to you maybe, but clearly to many, given she keeps having books published and presumably bought.
I find her TV programmes rather dumbed down tbh but that's true of lots of TV these days, sadly.
Yes, she is REALLY dumbed down. I'm sure she's a lovely person etc, but her shows are awful trite low-IQ bollocks and - personal gripe here - she has no clue as to the enormous significance of Gobekli Tepe and the Tas Tepeler. She just doesn't get it
But, good luck to her. Better some archaeology on TV than none. Yet there really is room for a new, exciting voice ready to challenge and explore the tedious consensus. I think this is one reason Gobekli Tepe is politely ignored or glossed over by so many - including her. It overturns the happy consensus. It is a lost civilisation from 10,000 years ago, it has evidence of advanced architecture, yet it is obviously phallocratic and masculine, and it is streaked with implicit violence - human sacrifice etc
Not very Woke; doesn't fit the narrative; too complicated to understand; just don't mention it
Mate not everything is about woke/not woke, seriously. I know you enjoy being provocative but saying Gobekli Tepe is 'ignored' because men were probably in charge and there was violence (see also: most societies ever) is just silly.
Alice Roberts is a TV presenter, not really an archaeologist any more. In any case, she's an osteoarchaeologist not a cultural specialist. It's pop stuff hence the focus on well-trodden and proven popular subjects like Celts, Egyptians and human evolution.
I'd love to see something in depth on the Indus Valley civilisation; another mysterious and advanced civilisation with extraordinary urban planning, art and a still-untranslated script (prejudices declared, this was also the subject of my undergrad dissertation).
I do a cracking talk on the Indus Valley Civilisation. One of my favourite topics.
But you are right about the pop stuff. Sadly it is necessary if we are going to get any archaeology or history on TV these days. The days of AJP Taylor talking in depth about the origins of the First World War, live and with no notes, on national TV are long gone.
I miss Michael Wood.
Oh absolutely. I have most of his stuff on DVD and it still stands up very well even after all these years.
I’m calling it . We’re going to see Labours lead over the next few weeks cut to single digits.
Most of the pubic aren’t into detail and want any alleged economic pain kicked into the long grass . Labour should have gotten onto the front foot , called a news conference and given Sunak both barrels . Instead they’ve allowed Sunaks party political broadcast to go unchallenged .
I agree.
The understanding by the terminally stupid is thus: Labour want to take away your car, and you can't afford an electric car, because Gordon Brown sold all the gold.
The Tories should put that statement on the side of a bus
Electric cars are so expensive most people can't afford them, unless the price is suddenly going to come down in the next couple of years.
Well surely that was the point of our push towards the banning of NEW ICE cars after 2030. Economies of scale would make your MG4 or your Funky Cat even more competitive. I suspect that by 203 ,new ICE cars will be niche and more expensive than new electric cars anyway. It's going to happen despite Rishi's false flag operation yesterday.
Most people buy used cars. You would still have been be able to buy a used BMW M4 or Ford Mustang GT500 post 2030 if you want the exhilaration of phenomenal acceleration off the line, although haven't MG brought out a performance electric car that would blow the socks off either?
We don't need electric vehicles to be more competitive because petrol vehicles that would be half the price are now illegal.
We need electric vehicles to be more competitive because they're the same price or cheaper than petrol vehicles so ICE vehicles are now obsolete.
Alexa, please translate that post into basic English.
If a petrol car is £13k and an electric car is £27k then banning the petrol car may make the electric car "competitive" but its not positive progress.
Getting the electric car down to £13k so that it is the same price as the petrol car is positive progress and will make the petrol (ICE) car obsolete.
I note that the EV vs ICE comparison above ignores the cost of actually running the vehicle for X years, which will be most crucially affected by differential tax levels and fuel prices, and Sunak has kicked that out beyond the next election because he's too scared to deal with it.
A tax settlement can tip it whichever way is desired. In recent years the current Govt has been reducing grants on EVs whilst cutting Fuel Excise Duty by nearly half in real terms since 2010.
Whoever wins the next General Election will have to face a lot of things that the current Govt are running away from. Even cowardly Rishi.
Running a vehicle for X years doesn't help you if you can't get the credit to get the vehicle in the first place.
Just as paying a mortgage for X years is cheaper than renting, but that doesn't help if you can't get the credit to buy the property in the first place.
Its easy for the well off to take for granted how fortunate they are compared to others.
The last number I saw was that around 90% of new cars are bought on finance.
So not a major issue for the large majority of the market.
You do realise don't you that people are eligible for differing amounts of finance?
If you have a £3k deposit and can get £10k in finance to make the difference to £13k, then do you think that automatically guarantees you can also get £24k in finance to make the difference to £27k?
Don't let great be the enemy of good.
Exactly my point, if you can't afford great (BEV, £27k), you might only be able to afford good (Petrol, £13k).
Want BEV to be affordable, bring capital costs down to ICE capital costs.
People with less money will buy used ICE vehicles. And they will be able to get them cheaper because the ICE owners will be upgrading to BEVs because of subsidies.
So your solution is that people who previously could afford new vehicles shouldn't be able to afford a new vehicle anymore by eliminating that section of the new market and should compete for used vehicles instead?
So there'd be increasing demand for used vehicles (those who would anyone have bought used, plus those who would have bought affordable new) and the supply of used vehicles would be going down as nobody would be buying affordable vehicles anymore and selling them after 2-3 years.
Today you can get a 3 year old used Picanto for £8.5k. If Picantos are made illegal, then 3 years later what used vehicles do people buy?
Eh?
I'm not suggesting banning ICE sales, so I don't see why anyone is disadvantaged. I'm merely suggesting that we make it cheaper to buy BEVs.
Never bought a car on finance. Never will. We shouldn’t encourage it. If anything we should make it harder.
Why not and why?
Because there is no need to. Everyone (well everyone who can afford to run one) can afford a car somewhere in the value chain. Car finance is encouraging you to spend money you don’t have on a luxury you don’t need.
A very hair shirt approach to life is that
No, a practical one. Don’t ish to ever be debt other my mortgage. With a little patience, you can have nice things, you just need to wait.
I accept it’s easier for me to say that with a decent wage, but personal debt is the scourge of British society.
A banker I know used to say that the secret to success in life is “never a borrower or a lender be”
Is this a tangential comment on your Ideal Threesome?
Today I’ll repeal the ban on PBers having menages a trois with Angela Rayner and Holly Willoughby.
If you could throw Alice Roberts into the mix you get my vote. I am sure the only reason I have not been able to sweep her off her feet is a ban I never heard of.
She's quite attractive but Woke Archaeology is NOT
Not to you maybe, but clearly to many, given she keeps having books published and presumably bought.
I find her TV programmes rather dumbed down tbh but that's true of lots of TV these days, sadly.
Yes, she is REALLY dumbed down. I'm sure she's a lovely person etc, but her shows are awful trite low-IQ bollocks and - personal gripe here - she has no clue as to the enormous significance of Gobekli Tepe and the Tas Tepeler. She just doesn't get it
But, good luck to her. Better some archaeology on TV than none. Yet there really is room for a new, exciting voice ready to challenge and explore the tedious consensus. I think this is one reason Gobekli Tepe is politely ignored or glossed over by so many - including her. It overturns the happy consensus. It is a lost civilisation from 10,000 years ago, it has evidence of advanced architecture, yet it is obviously phallocratic and masculine, and it is streaked with implicit violence - human sacrifice etc
Not very Woke; doesn't fit the narrative; too complicated to understand; just don't mention it
Mate not everything is about woke/not woke, seriously. I know you enjoy being provocative but saying Gobekli Tepe is 'ignored' because men were probably in charge and there was violence (see also: most societies ever) is just silly.
Alice Roberts is a TV presenter, not really an archaeologist any more. In any case, she's an osteoarchaeologist not a cultural specialist. It's pop stuff hence the focus on well-trodden and proven popular subjects like Celts, Egyptians and human evolution.
I'd love to see something in depth on the Indus Valley civilisation; another mysterious and advanced civilisation with extraordinary urban planning, art and a still-untranslated script (prejudices declared, this was also the subject of my undergrad dissertation).
I do a cracking talk on the Indus Valley Civilisation. One of my favourite topics.
But you are right about the pop stuff. Sadly it is necessary if we are going to get any archaeology or history on TV these days. The days of AJP Taylor talking in depth about the origins of the First World War, live and with no notes, on national TV are long gone.
I miss Michael Wood.
Michael Wood was great!
Swanning about in his leather jacket, waffling entertaingly about Harthacnut, Vortigern and Hereward the Wake. Brilliant
Where is his equivalent today?
I love the way he would quote something in Anglo-Saxon and then not even bother to translate it. It just sounded so good.
Having done a quick scan of the thread I see that there is no reference to a ban on female PB'ers having a threesome with whoever they want.
This is a relief.
OK, so who would you choose for your ideal threesome? Would you go classic female desire: FMM, or the more exotic FFM?
I hesitate to ask you about positions, but you did start this
I love your assumption that this is something for the future rather than in - or in addition to - my past.
I did not start this, btw. There was something earlier about @Richard_Tyndall and Holly Willoughby (and she'd certainly not be on the list) and then some dreary Alice woman I've never heard of.
Plus I never realised that FFM was the more exotic choice.
You learn something new on here every day.
When I say "exotic" I am using the strict, but lesser-known definition of "this makes me feel more tinglez down there"
My ideal threesome would be my ex wife and Meghan Markle. And me, obvs
I’m calling it . We’re going to see Labours lead over the next few weeks cut to single digits.
Most of the pubic aren’t into detail and want any alleged economic pain kicked into the long grass . Labour should have gotten onto the front foot , called a news conference and given Sunak both barrels . Instead they’ve allowed Sunaks party political broadcast to go unchallenged .
I agree.
The understanding by the terminally stupid is thus: Labour want to take away your car, and you can't afford an electric car, because Gordon Brown sold all the gold.
The Tories should put that statement on the side of a bus
Electric cars are so expensive most people can't afford them, unless the price is suddenly going to come down in the next couple of years.
Well surely that was the point of our push towards the banning of NEW ICE cars after 2030. Economies of scale would make your MG4 or your Funky Cat even more competitive. I suspect that by 203 ,new ICE cars will be niche and more expensive than new electric cars anyway. It's going to happen despite Rishi's false flag operation yesterday.
Most people buy used cars. You would still have been be able to buy a used BMW M4 or Ford Mustang GT500 post 2030 if you want the exhilaration of phenomenal acceleration off the line, although haven't MG brought out a performance electric car that would blow the socks off either?
We don't need electric vehicles to be more competitive because petrol vehicles that would be half the price are now illegal.
We need electric vehicles to be more competitive because they're the same price or cheaper than petrol vehicles so ICE vehicles are now obsolete.
Alexa, please translate that post into basic English.
If a petrol car is £13k and an electric car is £27k then banning the petrol car may make the electric car "competitive" but its not positive progress.
Getting the electric car down to £13k so that it is the same price as the petrol car is positive progress and will make the petrol (ICE) car obsolete.
I note that the EV vs ICE comparison above ignores the cost of actually running the vehicle for X years, which will be most crucially affected by differential tax levels and fuel prices, and Sunak has kicked that out beyond the next election because he's too scared to deal with it.
A tax settlement can tip it whichever way is desired. In recent years the current Govt has been reducing grants on EVs whilst cutting Fuel Excise Duty by nearly half in real terms since 2010.
Whoever wins the next General Election will have to face a lot of things that the current Govt are running away from. Even cowardly Rishi.
Running a vehicle for X years doesn't help you if you can't get the credit to get the vehicle in the first place.
Just as paying a mortgage for X years is cheaper than renting, but that doesn't help if you can't get the credit to buy the property in the first place.
Its easy for the well off to take for granted how fortunate they are compared to others.
The last number I saw was that around 90% of new cars are bought on finance.
So not a major issue for the large majority of the market.
You do realise don't you that people are eligible for differing amounts of finance?
If you have a £3k deposit and can get £10k in finance to make the difference to £13k, then do you think that automatically guarantees you can also get £24k in finance to make the difference to £27k?
Don't let great be the enemy of good.
Exactly my point, if you can't afford great (BEV, £27k), you might only be able to afford good (Petrol, £13k).
Want BEV to be affordable, bring capital costs down to ICE capital costs.
People with less money will buy used ICE vehicles. And they will be able to get them cheaper because the ICE owners will be upgrading to BEVs because of subsidies.
So your solution is that people who previously could afford new vehicles shouldn't be able to afford a new vehicle anymore by eliminating that section of the new market and should compete for used vehicles instead?
So there'd be increasing demand for used vehicles (those who would anyone have bought used, plus those who would have bought affordable new) and the supply of used vehicles would be going down as nobody would be buying affordable vehicles anymore and selling them after 2-3 years.
Today you can get a 3 year old used Picanto for £8.5k. If Picantos are made illegal, then 3 years later what used vehicles do people buy?
Eh?
I'm not suggesting banning ICE sales, so I don't see why anyone is disadvantaged. I'm merely suggesting that we make it cheaper to buy BEVs.
Never bought a car on finance. Never will. We shouldn’t encourage it. If anything we should make it harder.
Why not and why?
Because there is no need to. Everyone (well everyone who can afford to run one) can afford a car somewhere in the value chain. Car finance is encouraging you to spend money you don’t have on a luxury you don’t need.
A very hair shirt approach to life is that
No, a practical one. Don’t ish to ever be debt other my mortgage. With a little patience, you can have nice things, you just need to wait.
I accept it’s easier for me to say that with a decent wage, but personal debt is the scourge of British society.
A banker I know used to say that the secret to success in life is “never a borrower or a lender be”
Neither a borrower nor a lender be, For loan oft loses both itself and friend, And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry. Hamlet
Today I’ll repeal the ban on PBers having menages a trois with Angela Rayner and Holly Willoughby.
If you could throw Alice Roberts into the mix you get my vote. I am sure the only reason I have not been able to sweep her off her feet is a ban I never heard of.
She's quite attractive but Woke Archaeology is NOT
Not to you maybe, but clearly to many, given she keeps having books published and presumably bought.
I find her TV programmes rather dumbed down tbh but that's true of lots of TV these days, sadly.
Yes, she is REALLY dumbed down. I'm sure she's a lovely person etc, but her shows are awful trite low-IQ bollocks and - personal gripe here - she has no clue as to the enormous significance of Gobekli Tepe and the Tas Tepeler. She just doesn't get it
But, good luck to her. Better some archaeology on TV than none. Yet there really is room for a new, exciting voice ready to challenge and explore the tedious consensus. I think this is one reason Gobekli Tepe is politely ignored or glossed over by so many - including her. It overturns the happy consensus. It is a lost civilisation from 10,000 years ago, it has evidence of advanced architecture, yet it is obviously phallocratic and masculine, and it is streaked with implicit violence - human sacrifice etc
Not very Woke; doesn't fit the narrative; too complicated to understand; just don't mention it
Mate not everything is about woke/not woke, seriously. I know you enjoy being provocative but saying Gobekli Tepe is 'ignored' because men were probably in charge and there was violence (see also: most societies ever) is just silly.
Alice Roberts is a TV presenter, not really an archaeologist any more. In any case, she's an osteoarchaeologist not a cultural specialist. It's pop stuff hence the focus on well-trodden and proven popular subjects like Celts, Egyptians and human evolution.
I'd love to see something in depth on the Indus Valley civilisation; another mysterious and advanced civilisation with extraordinary urban planning, art and a still-untranslated script (prejudices declared, this was also the subject of my undergrad dissertation).
I do a cracking talk on the Indus Valley Civilisation. One of my favourite topics.
But you are right about the pop stuff. Sadly it is necessary if we are going to get any archaeology or history on TV these days. The days of AJP Taylor talking in depth about the origins of the First World War, live and with no notes, on national TV are long gone.
I miss Michael Wood.
Michael Wood was great!
Swanning about in his leather jacket, waffling entertaingly about Harthacnut, Vortigern and Hereward the Wake. Brilliant
Where is his equivalent today?
I love the way he would quote something in Anglo-Saxon and then not even bother to translate it. It just sounded so good.
He was so good he was a structured part of my Medieval History A Level at Hereford VI Form College. We got to just sit there and watch him for an hour, every few weeks. Fantastic. The only awkward part was the fact my tutor (a lovely guy absolutely obsessed wiht the Anglo-Saxon history of Hereford) was clearly envious of Wood's sex appeal, as the 17 year old girls in my class ogled Wood's hairy exposed chest. The tutor would make short, seriously bitter remarks about Wood being a "bit of a diva"
I’m calling it . We’re going to see Labours lead over the next few weeks cut to single digits.
Most of the pubic aren’t into detail and want any alleged economic pain kicked into the long grass . Labour should have gotten onto the front foot , called a news conference and given Sunak both barrels . Instead they’ve allowed Sunaks party political broadcast to go unchallenged .
I agree.
The understanding by the terminally stupid is thus: Labour want to take away your car, and you can't afford an electric car, because Gordon Brown sold all the gold.
The Tories should put that statement on the side of a bus
Electric cars are so expensive most people can't afford them, unless the price is suddenly going to come down in the next couple of years.
Well surely that was the point of our push towards the banning of NEW ICE cars after 2030. Economies of scale would make your MG4 or your Funky Cat even more competitive. I suspect that by 203 ,new ICE cars will be niche and more expensive than new electric cars anyway. It's going to happen despite Rishi's false flag operation yesterday.
Most people buy used cars. You would still have been be able to buy a used BMW M4 or Ford Mustang GT500 post 2030 if you want the exhilaration of phenomenal acceleration off the line, although haven't MG brought out a performance electric car that would blow the socks off either?
We don't need electric vehicles to be more competitive because petrol vehicles that would be half the price are now illegal.
We need electric vehicles to be more competitive because they're the same price or cheaper than petrol vehicles so ICE vehicles are now obsolete.
Alexa, please translate that post into basic English.
If a petrol car is £13k and an electric car is £27k then banning the petrol car may make the electric car "competitive" but its not positive progress.
Getting the electric car down to £13k so that it is the same price as the petrol car is positive progress and will make the petrol (ICE) car obsolete.
I note that the EV vs ICE comparison above ignores the cost of actually running the vehicle for X years, which will be most crucially affected by differential tax levels and fuel prices, and Sunak has kicked that out beyond the next election because he's too scared to deal with it.
A tax settlement can tip it whichever way is desired. In recent years the current Govt has been reducing grants on EVs whilst cutting Fuel Excise Duty by nearly half in real terms since 2010.
Whoever wins the next General Election will have to face a lot of things that the current Govt are running away from. Even cowardly Rishi.
Running a vehicle for X years doesn't help you if you can't get the credit to get the vehicle in the first place.
Just as paying a mortgage for X years is cheaper than renting, but that doesn't help if you can't get the credit to buy the property in the first place.
Its easy for the well off to take for granted how fortunate they are compared to others.
The last number I saw was that around 90% of new cars are bought on finance.
So not a major issue for the large majority of the market.
You do realise don't you that people are eligible for differing amounts of finance?
If you have a £3k deposit and can get £10k in finance to make the difference to £13k, then do you think that automatically guarantees you can also get £24k in finance to make the difference to £27k?
Don't let great be the enemy of good.
Exactly my point, if you can't afford great (BEV, £27k), you might only be able to afford good (Petrol, £13k).
Want BEV to be affordable, bring capital costs down to ICE capital costs.
People with less money will buy used ICE vehicles. And they will be able to get them cheaper because the ICE owners will be upgrading to BEVs because of subsidies.
So your solution is that people who previously could afford new vehicles shouldn't be able to afford a new vehicle anymore by eliminating that section of the new market and should compete for used vehicles instead?
So there'd be increasing demand for used vehicles (those who would anyone have bought used, plus those who would have bought affordable new) and the supply of used vehicles would be going down as nobody would be buying affordable vehicles anymore and selling them after 2-3 years.
Today you can get a 3 year old used Picanto for £8.5k. If Picantos are made illegal, then 3 years later what used vehicles do people buy?
Eh?
I'm not suggesting banning ICE sales, so I don't see why anyone is disadvantaged. I'm merely suggesting that we make it cheaper to buy BEVs.
Never bought a car on finance. Never will. We shouldn’t encourage it. If anything we should make it harder.
Why not and why?
Because there is no need to. Everyone (well everyone who can afford to run one) can afford a car somewhere in the value chain. Car finance is encouraging you to spend money you don’t have on a luxury you don’t need.
A very hair shirt approach to life is that
No, a practical one. Don’t ish to ever be debt other my mortgage. With a little patience, you can have nice things, you just need to wait.
I accept it’s easier for me to say that with a decent wage, but personal debt is the scourge of British society.
A banker I know used to say that the secret to success in life is “never a borrower or a lender be”
Is this a tangential comment on your Ideal Threesome?
Having done a quick scan of the thread I see that there is no reference to a ban on female PB'ers having a threesome with whoever they want.
This is a relief.
OK, so who would you choose for your ideal threesome? Would you go classic female desire: FMM, or the more exotic FFM?
I hesitate to ask you about positions, but you did start this
I love your assumption that this is something for the future rather than in - or in addition to - my past.
I did not start this, btw. There was something earlier about @Richard_Tyndall and Holly Willoughby (and she'd certainly not be on the list) and then some dreary Alice woman I've never heard of.
Plus I never realised that FFM was the more exotic choice.
You learn something new on here every day.
When I say "exotic" I am using the strict, but lesser-known definition of "this makes me feel more tinglez down there"
My ideal threesome would be my ex wife and Meghan Markle. And me, obvs
Markle, really?
Yeah, I find her deeply attractive, Soz. Also I find her deeply annoying. The combination is intoxicating - as I have discovered in my overlong life. I would want to REDACTED REDACTED
I’m calling it . We’re going to see Labours lead over the next few weeks cut to single digits.
Most of the pubic aren’t into detail and want any alleged economic pain kicked into the long grass . Labour should have gotten onto the front foot , called a news conference and given Sunak both barrels . Instead they’ve allowed Sunaks party political broadcast to go unchallenged .
I agree.
The understanding by the terminally stupid is thus: Labour want to take away your car, and you can't afford an electric car, because Gordon Brown sold all the gold.
The Tories should put that statement on the side of a bus
Electric cars are so expensive most people can't afford them, unless the price is suddenly going to come down in the next couple of years.
Well surely that was the point of our push towards the banning of NEW ICE cars after 2030. Economies of scale would make your MG4 or your Funky Cat even more competitive. I suspect that by 203 ,new ICE cars will be niche and more expensive than new electric cars anyway. It's going to happen despite Rishi's false flag operation yesterday.
Most people buy used cars. You would still have been be able to buy a used BMW M4 or Ford Mustang GT500 post 2030 if you want the exhilaration of phenomenal acceleration off the line, although haven't MG brought out a performance electric car that would blow the socks off either?
We don't need electric vehicles to be more competitive because petrol vehicles that would be half the price are now illegal.
We need electric vehicles to be more competitive because they're the same price or cheaper than petrol vehicles so ICE vehicles are now obsolete.
Alexa, please translate that post into basic English.
If a petrol car is £13k and an electric car is £27k then banning the petrol car may make the electric car "competitive" but its not positive progress.
Getting the electric car down to £13k so that it is the same price as the petrol car is positive progress and will make the petrol (ICE) car obsolete.
I note that the EV vs ICE comparison above ignores the cost of actually running the vehicle for X years, which will be most crucially affected by differential tax levels and fuel prices, and Sunak has kicked that out beyond the next election because he's too scared to deal with it.
A tax settlement can tip it whichever way is desired. In recent years the current Govt has been reducing grants on EVs whilst cutting Fuel Excise Duty by nearly half in real terms since 2010.
Whoever wins the next General Election will have to face a lot of things that the current Govt are running away from. Even cowardly Rishi.
Running a vehicle for X years doesn't help you if you can't get the credit to get the vehicle in the first place.
Just as paying a mortgage for X years is cheaper than renting, but that doesn't help if you can't get the credit to buy the property in the first place.
Its easy for the well off to take for granted how fortunate they are compared to others.
The last number I saw was that around 90% of new cars are bought on finance.
So not a major issue for the large majority of the market.
You do realise don't you that people are eligible for differing amounts of finance?
If you have a £3k deposit and can get £10k in finance to make the difference to £13k, then do you think that automatically guarantees you can also get £24k in finance to make the difference to £27k?
Don't let great be the enemy of good.
Exactly my point, if you can't afford great (BEV, £27k), you might only be able to afford good (Petrol, £13k).
Want BEV to be affordable, bring capital costs down to ICE capital costs.
People with less money will buy used ICE vehicles. And they will be able to get them cheaper because the ICE owners will be upgrading to BEVs because of subsidies.
So your solution is that people who previously could afford new vehicles shouldn't be able to afford a new vehicle anymore by eliminating that section of the new market and should compete for used vehicles instead?
So there'd be increasing demand for used vehicles (those who would anyone have bought used, plus those who would have bought affordable new) and the supply of used vehicles would be going down as nobody would be buying affordable vehicles anymore and selling them after 2-3 years.
Today you can get a 3 year old used Picanto for £8.5k. If Picantos are made illegal, then 3 years later what used vehicles do people buy?
Eh?
I'm not suggesting banning ICE sales, so I don't see why anyone is disadvantaged. I'm merely suggesting that we make it cheaper to buy BEVs.
Never bought a car on finance. Never will. We shouldn’t encourage it. If anything we should make it harder.
Why not and why?
Because there is no need to. Everyone (well everyone who can afford to run one) can afford a car somewhere in the value chain. Car finance is encouraging you to spend money you don’t have on a luxury you don’t need.
A very hair shirt approach to life is that
No, a practical one. Don’t ish to ever be debt other my mortgage. With a little patience, you can have nice things, you just need to wait.
I accept it’s easier for me to say that with a decent wage, but personal debt is the scourge of British society.
A banker I know used to say that the secret to success in life is “never a borrower or a lender be”
Neither a borrower nor a lender be, For loan oft loses both itself and friend, And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry. Hamlet
He was quite the autodidact. Left school at 17 to explore the world and built a rather successful career in his later years
Having done a quick scan of the thread I see that there is no reference to a ban on female PB'ers having a threesome with whoever they want.
This is a relief.
OK, so who would you choose for your ideal threesome? Would you go classic female desire: FMM, or the more exotic FFM?
I hesitate to ask you about positions, but you did start this
I love your assumption that this is something for the future rather than in - or in addition to - my past.
I did not start this, btw. There was something earlier about @Richard_Tyndall and Holly Willoughby (and she'd certainly not be on the list) and then some dreary Alice woman I've never heard of.
Plus I never realised that FFM was the more exotic choice.
You learn something new on here every day.
When I say "exotic" I am using the strict, but lesser-known definition of "this makes me feel more tinglez down there"
My ideal threesome would be my ex wife and Meghan Markle. And me, obvs
Markle, really?
Yeah, I find her deeply attractive, Soz. Also I find her deeply annoying. The combination is intoxicating - as I have discovered in my overlong life. I would want to REDACTED REDACTED
You can get her (and her husband) to come to a party for a suitable fee
I’m calling it . We’re going to see Labours lead over the next few weeks cut to single digits.
Most of the pubic aren’t into detail and want any alleged economic pain kicked into the long grass . Labour should have gotten onto the front foot , called a news conference and given Sunak both barrels . Instead they’ve allowed Sunaks party political broadcast to go unchallenged .
I agree.
The understanding by the terminally stupid is thus: Labour want to take away your car, and you can't afford an electric car, because Gordon Brown sold all the gold.
The Tories should put that statement on the side of a bus
Electric cars are so expensive most people can't afford them, unless the price is suddenly going to come down in the next couple of years.
Well surely that was the point of our push towards the banning of NEW ICE cars after 2030. Economies of scale would make your MG4 or your Funky Cat even more competitive. I suspect that by 203 ,new ICE cars will be niche and more expensive than new electric cars anyway. It's going to happen despite Rishi's false flag operation yesterday.
Most people buy used cars. You would still have been be able to buy a used BMW M4 or Ford Mustang GT500 post 2030 if you want the exhilaration of phenomenal acceleration off the line, although haven't MG brought out a performance electric car that would blow the socks off either?
We don't need electric vehicles to be more competitive because petrol vehicles that would be half the price are now illegal.
We need electric vehicles to be more competitive because they're the same price or cheaper than petrol vehicles so ICE vehicles are now obsolete.
Alexa, please translate that post into basic English.
If a petrol car is £13k and an electric car is £27k then banning the petrol car may make the electric car "competitive" but its not positive progress.
Getting the electric car down to £13k so that it is the same price as the petrol car is positive progress and will make the petrol (ICE) car obsolete.
I note that the EV vs ICE comparison above ignores the cost of actually running the vehicle for X years, which will be most crucially affected by differential tax levels and fuel prices, and Sunak has kicked that out beyond the next election because he's too scared to deal with it.
A tax settlement can tip it whichever way is desired. In recent years the current Govt has been reducing grants on EVs whilst cutting Fuel Excise Duty by nearly half in real terms since 2010.
Whoever wins the next General Election will have to face a lot of things that the current Govt are running away from. Even cowardly Rishi.
Running a vehicle for X years doesn't help you if you can't get the credit to get the vehicle in the first place.
Just as paying a mortgage for X years is cheaper than renting, but that doesn't help if you can't get the credit to buy the property in the first place.
Its easy for the well off to take for granted how fortunate they are compared to others.
The last number I saw was that around 90% of new cars are bought on finance.
So not a major issue for the large majority of the market.
You do realise don't you that people are eligible for differing amounts of finance?
If you have a £3k deposit and can get £10k in finance to make the difference to £13k, then do you think that automatically guarantees you can also get £24k in finance to make the difference to £27k?
Don't let great be the enemy of good.
Exactly my point, if you can't afford great (BEV, £27k), you might only be able to afford good (Petrol, £13k).
Want BEV to be affordable, bring capital costs down to ICE capital costs.
People with less money will buy used ICE vehicles. And they will be able to get them cheaper because the ICE owners will be upgrading to BEVs because of subsidies.
So your solution is that people who previously could afford new vehicles shouldn't be able to afford a new vehicle anymore by eliminating that section of the new market and should compete for used vehicles instead?
So there'd be increasing demand for used vehicles (those who would anyone have bought used, plus those who would have bought affordable new) and the supply of used vehicles would be going down as nobody would be buying affordable vehicles anymore and selling them after 2-3 years.
Today you can get a 3 year old used Picanto for £8.5k. If Picantos are made illegal, then 3 years later what used vehicles do people buy?
Eh?
I'm not suggesting banning ICE sales, so I don't see why anyone is disadvantaged. I'm merely suggesting that we make it cheaper to buy BEVs.
Never bought a car on finance. Never will. We shouldn’t encourage it. If anything we should make it harder.
Why not and why?
Because there is no need to. Everyone (well everyone who can afford to run one) can afford a car somewhere in the value chain. Car finance is encouraging you to spend money you don’t have on a luxury you don’t need.
A very hair shirt approach to life is that
No, a practical one. Don’t ish to ever be debt other my mortgage. With a little patience, you can have nice things, you just need to wait.
I accept it’s easier for me to say that with a decent wage, but personal debt is the scourge of British society.
A banker I know used to say that the secret to success in life is “never a borrower or a lender be”
Neither a borrower nor a lender be, For loan oft loses both itself and friend, And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry. Hamlet
Reminds me of an old joke. Post watershed. A beggar bangs on the window of a Rolls Royce. Can you lend me £5? Rich driver says: Neither a borrower nor a lender be: William Shakespeare. Winds window up and drives off. Beggar chases Rolls to the next set of traffic lights and knocks on the window again. Rich man winds it down - What now? Beggar says: "C**t": D. H. Lawrence.
Today I’ll repeal the ban on PBers having menages a trois with Angela Rayner and Holly Willoughby.
If you could throw Alice Roberts into the mix you get my vote. I am sure the only reason I have not been able to sweep her off her feet is a ban I never heard of.
She's quite attractive but Woke Archaeology is NOT
Not to you maybe, but clearly to many, given she keeps having books published and presumably bought.
I find her TV programmes rather dumbed down tbh but that's true of lots of TV these days, sadly.
Yes, she is REALLY dumbed down. I'm sure she's a lovely person etc, but her shows are awful trite low-IQ bollocks and - personal gripe here - she has no clue as to the enormous significance of Gobekli Tepe and the Tas Tepeler. She just doesn't get it
But, good luck to her. Better some archaeology on TV than none. Yet there really is room for a new, exciting voice ready to challenge and explore the tedious consensus. I think this is one reason Gobekli Tepe is politely ignored or glossed over by so many - including her. It overturns the happy consensus. It is a lost civilisation from 10,000 years ago, it has evidence of advanced architecture, yet it is obviously phallocratic and masculine, and it is streaked with implicit violence - human sacrifice etc
Not very Woke; doesn't fit the narrative; too complicated to understand; just don't mention it
Mate not everything is about woke/not woke, seriously. I know you enjoy being provocative but saying Gobekli Tepe is 'ignored' because men were probably in charge and there was violence (see also: most societies ever) is just silly.
Alice Roberts is a TV presenter, not really an archaeologist any more. In any case, she's an osteoarchaeologist not a cultural specialist. It's pop stuff hence the focus on well-trodden and proven popular subjects like Celts, Egyptians and human evolution.
I'd love to see something in depth on the Indus Valley civilisation; another mysterious and advanced civilisation with extraordinary urban planning, art and a still-untranslated script (prejudices declared, this was also the subject of my undergrad dissertation).
I do a cracking talk on the Indus Valley Civilisation. One of my favourite topics.
But you are right about the pop stuff. Sadly it is necessary if we are going to get any archaeology or history on TV these days. The days of AJP Taylor talking in depth about the origins of the First World War, live and with no notes, on national TV are long gone.
I miss Michael Wood.
Michael Wood was great!
Swanning about in his leather jacket, waffling entertaingly about Harthacnut, Vortigern and Hereward the Wake. Brilliant
Where is his equivalent today?
I love the way he would quote something in Anglo-Saxon and then not even bother to translate it. It just sounded so good.
He was so good he was a structured part of my Medieval History A Level at Hereford VI Form College...
I have to ask. What colour was the boathouse door?
Today I’ll repeal the ban on PBers having menages a trois with Angela Rayner and Holly Willoughby.
If you could throw Alice Roberts into the mix you get my vote. I am sure the only reason I have not been able to sweep her off her feet is a ban I never heard of.
She's quite attractive but Woke Archaeology is NOT
Not to you maybe, but clearly to many, given she keeps having books published and presumably bought.
I find her TV programmes rather dumbed down tbh but that's true of lots of TV these days, sadly.
Yes, she is REALLY dumbed down. I'm sure she's a lovely person etc, but her shows are awful trite low-IQ bollocks and - personal gripe here - she has no clue as to the enormous significance of Gobekli Tepe and the Tas Tepeler. She just doesn't get it
But, good luck to her. Better some archaeology on TV than none. Yet there really is room for a new, exciting voice ready to challenge and explore the tedious consensus. I think this is one reason Gobekli Tepe is politely ignored or glossed over by so many - including her. It overturns the happy consensus. It is a lost civilisation from 10,000 years ago, it has evidence of advanced architecture, yet it is obviously phallocratic and masculine, and it is streaked with implicit violence - human sacrifice etc
Not very Woke; doesn't fit the narrative; too complicated to understand; just don't mention it
Mate not everything is about woke/not woke, seriously. I know you enjoy being provocative but saying Gobekli Tepe is 'ignored' because men were probably in charge and there was violence (see also: most societies ever) is just silly.
Alice Roberts is a TV presenter, not really an archaeologist any more. In any case, she's an osteoarchaeologist not a cultural specialist. It's pop stuff hence the focus on well-trodden and proven popular subjects like Celts, Egyptians and human evolution.
I'd love to see something in depth on the Indus Valley civilisation; another mysterious and advanced civilisation with extraordinary urban planning, art and a still-untranslated script (prejudices declared, this was also the subject of my undergrad dissertation).
Having done a quick scan of the thread I see that there is no reference to a ban on female PB'ers having a threesome with whoever they want.
This is a relief.
OK, so who would you choose for your ideal threesome? Would you go classic female desire: FMM, or the more exotic FFM?
I hesitate to ask you about positions, but you did start this
I love your assumption that this is something for the future rather than in - or in addition to - my past.
I did not start this, btw. There was something earlier about @Richard_Tyndall and Holly Willoughby (and she'd certainly not be on the list) and then some dreary Alice woman I've never heard of.
Plus I never realised that FFM was the more exotic choice.
You learn something new on here every day.
When I say "exotic" I am using the strict, but lesser-known definition of "this makes me feel more tinglez down there"
My ideal threesome would be my ex wife and Meghan Markle. And me, obvs
Markle, really?
Yeah, I find her deeply attractive, Soz. Also I find her deeply annoying. The combination is intoxicating - as I have discovered in my overlong life. I would want to REDACTED REDACTED
And you’d never hear the end of it from her, so you’ve have to REDACTED REDACTED again but this time with REDACTED REDACTED and a gerbil.
Comments
Anyone expecting intelligent debate about the direction of the country or the serious issues facing the country should turn away now.
For a start it puts an end to kids at 16 being pushed into certain combinations of A levels because otherwise they won’t get into something like medicine, or engineering. It also tackles the cultural schism we have between arts and sciences. People should feel confident in both.
After a landslide election defeat though, we’ll see what the remaining MP makeup looks like. Might get easier.
"Big majorities of Americans continue to support economic sanctions on Russia and sending aid and supplies to Ukraine. A smaller majority also would keep sending weapons.
But Republicans have become increasingly divided over this.
Republicans have become more resistant to sending aid, which they favored back in February, and they have become more opposed to sending weapons, specifically. And most of them say the administration should generally be doing less to help Ukraine."
source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-americans-aid-poll-2023-09-10/
And a majority of House Republicans still support Ukraine:
https://gopforukraine.com/ukraine-report-card/
The Republicans who made that report card have raised a little money to run ads in Republican House districts.
(In general, Americans grow less supportive of any war the longer it lasts. I fear that we may be even worse than the world average in wanting quick solutions.)
😘
It might well make sense to stall on Sizewell C if we think we can get away without it. But if we're not absolutely certain about that (particularly with the grid storage, which I suspect is the bit with the biggest question marks against it), then we risk having a fairly shitty decade from about 2040 onwards if we don't get started on Sizewell in the next couple of years.
The RR SMR stuff looks like a bit of a red herring to me. They've been talking about it for a decade and don't even have a prototype yet. Nothing seems to be happening other than holding out the begging bowl again and again and again. Surely they've missed the boat?
This would - again - require a whole new syllabus. And would have the same people in charge. Who have failed at everything they have ever attempted because they are utterly useless.
That said, it is not necessarily a stupid idea, as the current exams are so badly written as to be more or less entirely meaningless. There are also far too many of them, most of them having no value even if they were properly assessed rather than pandering to the prejudices of a bunch of intellectually underpowered posh drunks at the DfE. If it was accompanied by the scrapping of GCSEs and SATs which are as much use as Dominic Cummings' brain cell, it might even be a good move.
But it would be expensive and difficult.
And it would also mean admitting Gove's reforms were a complete failure.
I find her TV programmes rather dumbed down tbh but that's true of lots of TV these days, sadly.
Betrays such a staggering failure to understand our education system it's unreal. You'd have to redo the entire national curriculum and change university course structures. Nor do we have anywhere near enough teachers for it to be plausible.
This is an idea entirely formed within No 10 where no-one has any education expertise. DfE not involved.
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1704946445097316749
I'm getting faint whiffs of Rishi in a Berlin bunker in 1945, moving imaginary armies round.
And if the DfE are not involved, that's kept one further group lacking all expertise away from it. Now just to get rid of the useless drunken losers entirely.
But, good luck to her. Better some archaeology on TV than none. Yet there really is room for a new, exciting voice ready to challenge and explore the tedious consensus. I think this is one reason Gobekli Tepe is politely ignored or glossed over by so many - including her. It overturns the happy consensus. It is a lost civilisation from 10,000 years ago, it has evidence of advanced architecture, yet it is obviously phallocratic and masculine, and it is streaked with implicit violence - human sacrifice etc
Not very Woke; doesn't fit the narrative; too complicated to understand; just don't mention it
And in the fullness of time, we'll have so many batteries we won't know what to do with them. But for now, it's a great bridge fuel.
(FWIW, I really don't see where nuclear fits in. If the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, then there simply is no demand for baseload power.)
But the system doesn't have the capacity to think about this right now- it's all keeping heads only a little bit below water for another day. It doesn't have the staff to teach more and different programmes. And if the end point of school courses is different, that's going to affect what universities do, and many of them are drowning even more badly than schools are.
It's just not gonna happen. And it does alarm me that this all seems to be coming out of Number Ten. The transport sec didn't seem to know much about yesterday's announcement. Did the ed sec even know if this was coming out today?
However, at this moment we do not have a functioning assessment system due largely to Gove/Cummings/Spielman/Gibb and their extraordinary ability to cock everything up through ignorance and incompetence.
If sensible proposals to address that were put forward it might be worth listening.
That automatically fails as we're talking about Sunak here.
It's like OFSTED accusing an organisation of having inadequate safeguarding procedures while failing to do basic due diligence on their inspectors or train them in GDPR.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-enormity-of-the-migrant-crisis-will-upend-european-politics/
They will probably fail, that said. This may be an epochal change beyond the wit of democratic man to halt. But someone will have a bash. Ditto America. If Trump doesn't get in next year, a new, younger Trump will succeed in 2028
Fujitsu will be attending but their witness attendance had to be delayed because - you guessed it - the Post Office had not complied properly with various disclosure orders.
It is really interesting reading the correspondence between Harriet Hartman and Tony Blair. They were concerned about some problems with Horizon at the start and any delay to the project because - and this is key, I think - it would delay the savings they anticipated from discovering all the fraud they thought was going on.Right from the start they assumed there was fraud (Why? On what basis?) and so when discrepancies were found they assumed that it must be fraud and didn't do any proper investigation. The problems with Horizon might not have mattered if there had been a proper separate investigation into the discrepancies which did not depend into accepting as true what Horizon said. But they didn't because they thought fraud was happening and so simply believed that they were finding what they knew was there. They did not look at the evidence with an open mind. This is a basic investigation failure.
It also explains in part the Post Office's attitude since. I suspect that many of the officials and their advisors still think these subpostmasters are guilty and only getting off on a technicality. This would explain why they have been so reluctant to do proper disclosure etc - they think they are in the right and these poor people are guilty crooks who do not deserve the benefit of all these legal rights.
As for Helen Rose - yes she should be done for perjury.
The fact that civilisation 10,000 years ago was violent and patriarchal is hardly a surprise to anyone surely, and not something that is going to prevent it being shown on 'woke' TV today. Any history more than 50/100/200* years ago (*delete as you choose) falls foul of the same issues but to a lefty like me it all just goes to prove how much the relentless journey to 'woke' has improved society immeasurably.
Bring it on!
Alice Roberts is a TV presenter, not really an archaeologist any more. In any case, she's an osteoarchaeologist not a cultural specialist. It's pop stuff hence the focus on well-trodden and proven popular subjects like Celts, Egyptians and human evolution.
I'd love to see something in depth on the Indus Valley civilisation; another mysterious and advanced civilisation with extraordinary urban planning, art and a still-untranslated script (prejudices declared, this was also the subject of my undergrad dissertation).
The idea behind EPR wasn't terrible a decade or two ago - but, in retrospect, a gleaming 3.2 GW monster with a 100 year service life is simply a terrible fit for a world in which the cost of renewables is plummeting.
We'd perhaps have been better building a few clones of Sizewell B as a stopgap, but the time for that has long passed.
I have bought Nick Wallis's book and am looking forward to reading it.
It all got green lights until it was felt that a more "feminine" and "sensitive" account of Gobekli Tepe was needed. Eventually I was completely ousted and they produced a documentary so laughably neutered it literally didn't mention Gobekli Tepe AT ALL (even though it was the seed of the whole idea), and, naturally, no one watched it because it was so boring, effete and predictable
I carry no sour grapes, I've had a gas doing my own thing, and I am hardly the first person to be screwed over in the absurd world of British TV commissioning (it is, notoriously, even worse and nastier than Hollywood). But what I say is true
But migrants will keep coming. Populations in West Africa are rising faster than almost anywhere else, environmental crises are pushing people off the land into cities and onwards, and the Sahel with its toxic cocktail of French alienation, Russian meddling and Jihadist gangs is turning into a lawless terra incognita. In contrast I wouldn’t be surprised if migration flows from the Middle East subside as the region settles into a (relatively) calm period.
The only long term solution is economic prosperity in West Africa and the Sahel. Medium term it’s surely about kicking out Wagner and the juntas from the Sahel, someone getting a grip on Libya and some meaningful, managed legal migration policies (the bit so many in Europe will oppose - but the alternative is boat crossings).
Another Populist fails when rhetoric comes into contact with reality.
Putting titles in Twitter names equally so. Eminent academics on twitter almost never do it.
I accept it’s easier for me to say that with a decent wage, but personal debt is the scourge of British society.
However, just to please you:
Cash is an outdated waste of space, time, materials, energy and money. That’s it. I’ve bitten for you. Must we go over this yet
again?
But you are right about the pop stuff. Sadly it is necessary if we are going to get any archaeology or history on TV these days. The days of AJP Taylor talking in depth about the origins of the First World War, live and with no notes, on national TV are long gone.
This is a relief.
Even with my house I borrowed less than I could by maybe 20%, because prudence is sensible.
enough. Cashless makes a lot of sense for most.
I hesitate to ask you about positions, but you did start this
I did not start this, btw. There was something earlier about @Richard_Tyndall and Holly Willoughby (and she'd certainly not be on the list) and then some dreary Alice woman I've never heard of.
Plus I never realised that FFM was the more exotic choice.
You learn something new on here every day.
My ideal threesome would be my ex wife and Meghan Markle. And me, obvs
Idea seeded by Nick Palmer, the ex-MP for The Love Hotel, Geneva
I am a big fan of the 'pop archaeology' programmes partly because I like anything that promiotes archaeology and history to the widr public but mostly because they give me occasional bits of work and even, rarely, allow me to actually speak in front of the camera.
I was not the one promoting Holly Willoughby (who also wouldn't be on my list) but I must say Alice Roberts is certainly not 'dreary'.
Swanning about in his leather jacket, waffling entertaingly about Harthacnut, Vortigern and Hereward the Wake. Brilliant
Where is his equivalent today?
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
Hamlet
lol. Happy, innocent days
A beggar bangs on the window of a Rolls Royce.
Can you lend me £5?
Rich driver says: Neither a borrower nor a lender be: William Shakespeare.
Winds window up and drives off. Beggar chases Rolls to the next set of traffic lights and knocks on the window again. Rich man winds it down - What now?
Beggar says: "C**t": D. H. Lawrence.