That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
A compelling argument. However I do query exactly what happens at the point where any court gets close to convicting Trump, never mind sentencing him to the big house.
There would be an absolute fucking riot. Jurors, prosecutors, the judge - all of them having to go into witness protection as the lunatics demand their deaths. Would be a brave person willing to do what is right...
Apart from the non-trivial chance of an armed insurrection there just isn't enough time to get a conviction and sentencing before the 2024 campaign starts.
I think there's more chance of Biden dropping dead than Trump getting locked up. He looked like he was either fucked or buggered in Tall Abib and couldn't work out which it was.
Not everyone enjoys flying, strangely enough. Biden's preferred transport is Amtrak.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
I wouldn't object to that outcome. I wonder if Hillary or Michelle are still available?
I have Michelle at 120. Maybe the best 'amateur hour' bet I've ever done.
“I’ve never expressed any interest in politics. Ever,” admits Michelle. “I mean, I agreed to support my husband. He wanted to do it, and he was great at it. But at no point have I ever said, ‘I think I want to run.’ Ever. So, I’m just wondering: Does what I want have anything to do with anything? Does who I choose to be have anything to do with it?”
She continues: “Politics is hard. And the people who get into it — it’s just like marriage, it’s just like kids — you’ve got to want it. It’s got to be in your soul, because it is so important. It is not in my soul. Service is in my soul. Helping people is in my soul. Working with kids? I will spend my lifetime trying to make kids feel seen and find their light. That I will do. I don’t have to hold office to do that. In fact, I think I’m actually more effective outside of politics, because sadly, politics has become so divided. The minute you declare a party, you’ve alienated the other half of the country. Now, maybe some people who don’t agree with me politically can still gain some tools that can help them. Maybe I can help a kid who’s a Republican, because maybe they’ll listen to me.”
NYT ($) - Jordan Won’t Force Third Vote and Endorses Empowering Temporary Speaker
The hard-line Republican from Ohio has run headlong into opposition from a bloc of mainstream G.O.P. holdouts.
Representative Jim Jordan, the hard-line Republican from Ohio, does not plan to force a third vote on Thursday on his bid to become speaker after running headlong into opposition from a bloc of mainstream G.O.P. holdouts, according to two people familiar with his decision.
Instead, Mr. Jordan will endorse a plan to empower Representative Patrick T. McHenry of North Carolina — the temporary speaker whose role is primarily to hold an election for a speaker — to carry out the chamber’s work through Jan. 3. In the meantime, Mr. Jordan will continue trying to build support to become speaker.
The people spoke on the condition of anonymity in advance of Mr. Jordan’s announcement.
SSI - Giving JJ's fellow brownshirts more time to ramp up death threats, etc. versus GOP holdouts.''
However, also reckon this has already proven to be far less effective that Coach Jockstrap and his fellow would-be gauleiters fondly imagined a day or so ago.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
A compelling argument. However I do query exactly what happens at the point where any court gets close to convicting Trump, never mind sentencing him to the big house.
There would be an absolute fucking riot. Jurors, prosecutors, the judge - all of them having to go into witness protection as the lunatics demand their deaths. Would be a brave person willing to do what is right...
Yes the path to No Trump will be rocky indeed. But I'm backing America to take it. The alternative being not a path but a deep dark pit.
ATACMS+Crimean Channel. The General Staff confirmed the presence of the Armed Forces on the Left Bank. Having returned the west of the Kherson oblast and secured a foothold along the canal, the capabilities of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Crimea are changing. All (Russian) air bases are (potentially) under attack https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPR/status/1714992859839877224
Where is "the Left Blank" in this context?
No clue what "Left Blank" means!
However, the Left Bank of a river, is the side that's on the left when you (or a boat, or drop of water) is heading downstream.
Thus (for example) in Paris, the Left Bank is south of the Seine, while Right Bank is to North.
"When you ... is " ??
A shocking lapse from so erudite a contributor.
Am speaking/writing in the (late) Queen's West Virginian - kindly show some respect!
ATACMS+Crimean Channel. The General Staff confirmed the presence of the Armed Forces on the Left Bank. Having returned the west of the Kherson oblast and secured a foothold along the canal, the capabilities of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Crimea are changing. All (Russian) air bases are (potentially) under attack https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPR/status/1714992859839877224
Where is "the Left Blank" in this context?
No clue what "Left Blank" means!
However, the Left Bank of a river, is the side that's on the left when you (or a boat, or drop of water) is heading downstream.
Thus (for example) in Paris, the Left Bank is south of the Seine, while Right Bank is to North.
I see Sunak has unambiguously stood next to Netanyahu and said "we want you to win".
Good for him.
I've been a major critic of Sunak since he put up NI onwards, but credit where credit is due. He is showing some good principles and standing for that which is righteous here. 👍
What does "win" mean?
The only ways that Israel can "win" are to:
1) expel the Palestinian people from Gaza 2) run Gaza as a police state, with full occupation by a large number of soldiers, or 3) negotiate some sort of peace agreement that gives the Palestinians a better life than they have had to endure over the past couple of decades.
You can't eliminate Hamas and expect that to be job done. When people are kept under oppression, the most violent and radical elements will tend to rise to the top. Hamas is a symptom of the conditions under which the Gazans have had to live; if Hamas is eliminated and nothing else changes, Gaza will just end up being run by another similarly ruthless bunch bent on revenge.
I suspect we are looking at 2. I don’t think the Biden Administration will support 1 at all.
Although I have my doubts that 2 will work, maybe 2 can eventually lead to 3 in the fullness of time rather than further enmity and destruction. The only way that will come about is if Israel is prepared to support the development of Gaza. Do I think that’s likely? Sadly, no.
I wonder about 2 with huge amounts of aid going into Gaza. In my view, as you say, the only way to defeat Hamas is through Gazan prosperity.
If I was Biden I’d be using my political weight to persuade Israel of the benefits of such an aid package, and create a coalition of the wiling to fund it.
I think step one is for Netanyahu to go. He has fostered Hamas in order to have an implacable opponent who will not reach a peace agreement so Israel could continue creating "facts on the ground". Netanyahu was already on shaky ground. I think some of his coalition will abandon him resulting in new Israeli leadership.
Step two is to review the intelligence failure and make sure it never happens again. Contain Hamas as total eliminanation is probably not possible
I think step three is to abandon the two state solution. It's clearly not going to work.
The concern Israel has with step 4 is the potential that it becomes a Jewish minority state in the long term, I think.
It feels to me like the only option other than the 2 state solution is some form of Bosnia and Herzegovina-type arrangement where you have a single polity made up of separate states (Israel and Palestine, or Israel/WB/Gaza) each of which is responsible for its own affairs largely (inc movement in/out) but that has a joint leadership council at the top drawn from each, and perhaps even a UN appointed Chair. Great care would have to be taken as to what matters are reserved to the council and what are the responsibilities of the states. One would probably be defence, because I can’t see how both states can continue to separately arm themselves.
But clearly that’s just my musings and I can’t profess to be an expert on the conflict.
I see Sunak has unambiguously stood next to Netanyahu and said "we want you to win".
Good for him.
I've been a major critic of Sunak since he put up NI onwards, but credit where credit is due. He is showing some good principles and standing for that which is righteous here. 👍
What does "win" mean?
The only ways that Israel can "win" are to:
1) expel the Palestinian people from Gaza 2) run Gaza as a police state, with full occupation by a large number of soldiers, or 3) negotiate some sort of peace agreement that gives the Palestinians a better life than they have had to endure over the past couple of decades.
You can't eliminate Hamas and expect that to be job done. When people are kept under oppression, the most violent and radical elements will tend to rise to the top. Hamas is a symptom of the conditions under which the Gazans have had to live; if Hamas is eliminated and nothing else changes, Gaza will just end up being run by another similarly ruthless bunch bent on revenge.
I suspect we are looking at 2. I don’t think the Biden Administration will support 1 at all.
Although I have my doubts that 2 will work, maybe 2 can eventually lead to 3 in the fullness of time rather than further enmity and destruction. The only way that will come about is if Israel is prepared to support the development of Gaza. Do I think that’s likely? Sadly, no.
I wonder about 2 with huge amounts of aid going into Gaza. In my view, as you say, the only way to defeat Hamas is through Gazan prosperity.
If I was Biden I’d be using my political weight to persuade Israel of the benefits of such an aid package, and create a coalition of the wiling to fund it.
I think step one is for Netanyahu to go. He has fostered Hamas in order to have an implacable opponent who will not reach a peace agreement so Israel could continue creating "facts on the ground". Netanyahu was already on shaky ground. I think some of his coalition will abandon him resulting in new Israeli leadership.
Step two is to review the intelligence failure and make sure it never happens again. Contain Hamas as total eliminanation is probably not possible
I think step three is to abandon the two state solution. It's clearly not going to work.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
I wouldn't object to that outcome. I wonder if Hillary or Michelle are still available?
I have Michelle at 120. Maybe the best 'amateur hour' bet I've ever done.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
I wouldn't object to that outcome. I wonder if Hillary or Michelle are still available?
I have Michelle at 120. Maybe the best 'amateur hour' bet I've ever done.
IF your intent is to piss away your pounds sterling.
Michelle Obama being as likely to be nominated by Democrats in 2024 (or subsequently) as Eleanor Roosevelt was in 1948 (ditto).
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
I wouldn't object to that outcome. I wonder if Hillary or Michelle are still available?
I have Michelle at 120. Maybe the best 'amateur hour' bet I've ever done.
“I’ve never expressed any interest in politics. Ever,” admits Michelle. “I mean, I agreed to support my husband. He wanted to do it, and he was great at it. But at no point have I ever said, ‘I think I want to run.’ Ever. So, I’m just wondering: Does what I want have anything to do with anything? Does who I choose to be have anything to do with it?”
She continues: “Politics is hard. And the people who get into it — it’s just like marriage, it’s just like kids — you’ve got to want it. It’s got to be in your soul, because it is so important. It is not in my soul. Service is in my soul. Helping people is in my soul. Working with kids? I will spend my lifetime trying to make kids feel seen and find their light. That I will do. I don’t have to hold office to do that. In fact, I think I’m actually more effective outside of politics, because sadly, politics has become so divided. The minute you declare a party, you’ve alienated the other half of the country. Now, maybe some people who don’t agree with me politically can still gain some tools that can help them. Maybe I can help a kid who’s a Republican, because maybe they’ll listen to me.”
Totally agree with this.
There's some logic in Michelle Obama as a trading bet - get in at long odds and sell when the occasional stories about it emerge.
But in terms of the reality of it... it's never been more, and never will be more, than a liberal daydream and easy filler for the political editor who has some column inches to fill on a quiet Tuesday. She's not lying when she says she's not interested.
ATACMS+Crimean Channel. The General Staff confirmed the presence of the Armed Forces on the Left Bank. Having returned the west of the Kherson oblast and secured a foothold along the canal, the capabilities of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Crimea are changing. All (Russian) air bases are (potentially) under attack https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPR/status/1714992859839877224
Where is "the Left Blank" in this context?
It’s an effect of the Lepage 344mm Crème Brûlée gun. It turns everyone into Left Bank Intellectuals.
One hit… One moment a battalion of Russian soldiers are raping, torturing and riding horses shirtless.
Next they are sipping tiny cups of coffee, wearing black polo neck sweaters, listening to bebop jazz and arguing if they exist or not.
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Mm, a whole lot better than fracking as demonstrated on even the most optimal UK sites, too. And the pollution problem is different (original production costs aside). You just clean up the bird crap every now and then.
It has absolutely nothing to do with fracking, God alone knows why you brought that up. Applications like that mentioned above are fine, but they aren't what's driving solar to become the world's biggest form of electricity generation. This piece on the abandonment of solar by India's Greenpeace-installed 'solar village' is a vignette of the whole issue. These things are put in with grand fanfare, but are not great or particularly reliable forms of generation, and when the subsidies stop, people stop using them. https://india.mongabay.com/2021/12/solar-power-station-at-bihars-first-solar-village-is-now-a-makeshift-cattle-shed/?amp=1
ATACMS+Crimean Channel. The General Staff confirmed the presence of the Armed Forces on the Left Bank. Having returned the west of the Kherson oblast and secured a foothold along the canal, the capabilities of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Crimea are changing. All (Russian) air bases are (potentially) under attack https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPR/status/1714992859839877224
Where is "the Left Blank" in this context?
The left bank as you go downstream; i.e. the currently Russian-held territory, on the opposite side of the river to Kherson city. There have been reports for a couple of days that Ukraine has taken a couple of villages there. The reports have been taken with a few pinches of salt, partly because they came from Russian sources, and also because the Ukrainians have been making occasional cross-river raids.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
I wouldn't object to that outcome. I wonder if Hillary or Michelle are still available?
I have Michelle at 120. Maybe the best 'amateur hour' bet I've ever done.
“I’ve never expressed any interest in politics. Ever,” admits Michelle. “I mean, I agreed to support my husband. He wanted to do it, and he was great at it. But at no point have I ever said, ‘I think I want to run.’ Ever. So, I’m just wondering: Does what I want have anything to do with anything? Does who I choose to be have anything to do with it?”
She continues: “Politics is hard. And the people who get into it — it’s just like marriage, it’s just like kids — you’ve got to want it. It’s got to be in your soul, because it is so important. It is not in my soul. Service is in my soul. Helping people is in my soul. Working with kids? I will spend my lifetime trying to make kids feel seen and find their light. That I will do. I don’t have to hold office to do that. In fact, I think I’m actually more effective outside of politics, because sadly, politics has become so divided. The minute you declare a party, you’ve alienated the other half of the country. Now, maybe some people who don’t agree with me politically can still gain some tools that can help them. Maybe I can help a kid who’s a Republican, because maybe they’ll listen to me.”
Well sometimes needs must. Although I have laid back at 25.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
I wouldn't object to that outcome. I wonder if Hillary or Michelle are still available?
I have Michelle at 120. Maybe the best 'amateur hour' bet I've ever done.
IF your intent is to piss away your pounds sterling.
Michelle Obama being as likely to be nominated by Democrats in 2024 (or subsequently) as Eleanor Roosevelt was in 1948 (ditto).
She can be laid for the nomination at 15. Which I have done.
NYT ($) - Jordan Won’t Force Third Vote and Endorses Empowering Temporary Speaker
The hard-line Republican from Ohio has run headlong into opposition from a bloc of mainstream G.O.P. holdouts.
Representative Jim Jordan, the hard-line Republican from Ohio, does not plan to force a third vote on Thursday on his bid to become speaker after running headlong into opposition from a bloc of mainstream G.O.P. holdouts, according to two people familiar with his decision.
Instead, Mr. Jordan will endorse a plan to empower Representative Patrick T. McHenry of North Carolina — the temporary speaker whose role is primarily to hold an election for a speaker — to carry out the chamber’s work through Jan. 3. In the meantime, Mr. Jordan will continue trying to build support to become speaker.
The people spoke on the condition of anonymity in advance of Mr. Jordan’s announcement.
SSI - Giving JJ's fellow brownshirts more time to ramp up death threats, etc. versus GOP holdouts.''
However, also reckon this has already proven to be far less effective that Coach Jockstrap and his fellow would-be gauleiters fondly imagined a day or so ago.
No real option but to maintain a temp Speaker I suppose. Jordan seems to be more overtly nasty than most, why such people think they can rely on the cooperation of colleagues is a mystery - it's not like Trump, who could use his mass base support to bully everyone below him.
I see Sunak has unambiguously stood next to Netanyahu and said "we want you to win".
Good for him.
I've been a major critic of Sunak since he put up NI onwards, but credit where credit is due. He is showing some good principles and standing for that which is righteous here. 👍
What does "win" mean?
The only ways that Israel can "win" are to:
1) expel the Palestinian people from Gaza 2) run Gaza as a police state, with full occupation by a large number of soldiers, or 3) negotiate some sort of peace agreement that gives the Palestinians a better life than they have had to endure over the past couple of decades.
You can't eliminate Hamas and expect that to be job done. When people are kept under oppression, the most violent and radical elements will tend to rise to the top. Hamas is a symptom of the conditions under which the Gazans have had to live; if Hamas is eliminated and nothing else changes, Gaza will just end up being run by another similarly ruthless bunch bent on revenge.
I suspect we are looking at 2. I don’t think the Biden Administration will support 1 at all.
Although I have my doubts that 2 will work, maybe 2 can eventually lead to 3 in the fullness of time rather than further enmity and destruction. The only way that will come about is if Israel is prepared to support the development of Gaza. Do I think that’s likely? Sadly, no.
I wonder about 2 with huge amounts of aid going into Gaza. In my view, as you say, the only way to defeat Hamas is through Gazan prosperity.
If I was Biden I’d be using my political weight to persuade Israel of the benefits of such an aid package, and create a coalition of the wiling to fund it.
I think step one is for Netanyahu to go. He has fostered Hamas in order to have an implacable opponent who will not reach a peace agreement so Israel could continue creating "facts on the ground". Netanyahu was already on shaky ground. I think some of his coalition will abandon him resulting in new Israeli leadership.
Step two is to review the intelligence failure and make sure it never happens again. Contain Hamas as total eliminanation is probably not possible
I think step three is to abandon the two state solution. It's clearly not going to work.
The concern Israel has with step 4 is the potential that it becomes a Jewish minority state in the long term, I think.
It feels to me like the only option other than the 2 state solution is some form of Bosnia and Herzegovina-type arrangement where you have a single polity made up of separate states (Israel and Palestine, or Israel/WB/Gaza) each of which is responsible for its own affairs largely (inc movement in/out) but that has a joint leadership council at the top drawn from each, and perhaps even a UN appointed Chair. Great care would have to be taken as to what matters are reserved to the council and what are the responsibilities of the states. One would probably be defence, because I can’t see how both states can continue to separately arm themselves.
But clearly that’s just my musings and I can’t profess to be an expert on the conflict.
Europeans, and other democratic countries, also need a plan B. We've got time, still, to prepare so that we aren't left impotently despairing is the worst happens.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
A compelling argument. However I do query exactly what happens at the point where any court gets close to convicting Trump, never mind sentencing him to the big house.
There would be an absolute fucking riot. Jurors, prosecutors, the judge - all of them having to go into witness protection as the lunatics demand their deaths. Would be a brave person willing to do what is right...
Apart from the non-trivial chance of an armed insurrection there just isn't enough time to get a conviction and sentencing before the 2024 campaign starts.
I think there's more chance of Biden dropping dead than Trump getting locked up. He looked like he was either fucked or buggered in Tall Abib and couldn't work out which it was.
I actually agree entirely with this, despite the lame attempt at a jibe at the end.
The simplest case has the most accomodating to Trump judge, so no guarantee yet that it won't be pushed back further than May, and the others being more complex a) it is at least possible he is not convicted, b) appeals mean he won't be behind bars by the time of the election.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
I wouldn't object to that outcome. I wonder if Hillary or Michelle are still available?
I have Michelle at 120. Maybe the best 'amateur hour' bet I've ever done.
“I’ve never expressed any interest in politics. Ever,” admits Michelle. “I mean, I agreed to support my husband. He wanted to do it, and he was great at it. But at no point have I ever said, ‘I think I want to run.’ Ever. So, I’m just wondering: Does what I want have anything to do with anything? Does who I choose to be have anything to do with it?”
She continues: “Politics is hard. And the people who get into it — it’s just like marriage, it’s just like kids — you’ve got to want it. It’s got to be in your soul, because it is so important. It is not in my soul. Service is in my soul. Helping people is in my soul. Working with kids? I will spend my lifetime trying to make kids feel seen and find their light. That I will do. I don’t have to hold office to do that. In fact, I think I’m actually more effective outside of politics, because sadly, politics has become so divided. The minute you declare a party, you’ve alienated the other half of the country. Now, maybe some people who don’t agree with me politically can still gain some tools that can help them. Maybe I can help a kid who’s a Republican, because maybe they’ll listen to me.”
Totally agree with this.
There's some logic in Michelle Obama as a trading bet - get in at long odds and sell when the occasional stories about it emerge.
But in terms of the reality of it... it's never been more, and never will be more, than a liberal daydream and easy filler for the political editor who has some column inches to fill on a quiet Tuesday. She's not lying when she says she's not interested.
Problem is that Trump would love Michelle as an opponent. Just as he did Hillary. I think he'd lose - Michelle infinitely stronger opponent - but it would be grisly.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
I wouldn't object to that outcome. I wonder if Hillary or Michelle are still available?
I have Michelle at 120. Maybe the best 'amateur hour' bet I've ever done.
IF your intent is to piss away your pounds sterling.
Michelle Obama being as likely to be nominated by Democrats in 2024 (or subsequently) as Eleanor Roosevelt was in 1948 (ditto).
I think Eleanor Roosevelt was a good deal more political than Michelle Obama, and was very active in politics both in the White House years and for many years after her husband died (including as a UN representative).
Against that, it was relatively early days for women in politics in the US - it wouldn't be surprising to have a woman on a Presidential ticket these days (indeed Palin, Clinton and Harris have appeared quite recently) whereas it would have been remarkable in the 1940s/50s.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
We certainly should contemplate the possibility of one or both of the 2020 candidates not re-running for a number of reasons.
However, voluntarily backing out is difficult once the primaries are well under way - and gets harder the further through the process the withdrawal (or removal by events) takes place. There are plenty of constraints placed on many actors in the process, and many barriers to new ones joining in. Understanding the possibilities within the process, and the ease or otherwise of using those possibilities, is critical in assessing the probabilities of those outcomes.
I did think Biden looked old in Israel this week (which of course he is: 81 next month, older than all but one of any leader of any G7 country since WW2).
He did. To me he's ok now, and I think he's been a good and effective president, but a 2nd term looks unwise - unless he's needed to beat Trump.
Re Trump, what I'm foreseeing* is his 'numbers' sliding as the legal noose tightens and enough of the GOP electors realizing this, that he's just not tenable as a candidate, to pick someone else, some reluctantly, some with gusto.
* course there's a bit of 'hoping' in there along with the 'foreseeing'.
If he was up against one candidate that might happen, but against ten or so their support is fractured and as soon as any of them pop their heads above the parapet an easy target for Trump to declare a RINO.
But as his polling slips there'll be energy and traction created on the Not Trump side. Non MAGA + halfway pragmatic non cult MAGA = enough for the nomination. It'll be so so messy but I hope and foresee he doesn't make it through onto the November ballot.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
I wouldn't object to that outcome. I wonder if Hillary or Michelle are still available?
I have Michelle at 120. Maybe the best 'amateur hour' bet I've ever done.
IF your intent is to piss away your pounds sterling.
Michelle Obama being as likely to be nominated by Democrats in 2024 (or subsequently) as Eleanor Roosevelt was in 1948 (ditto).
She can be laid for the nomination at 15. Which I have done.
I think Michelle at 120 is not bad value. Michelle at 15s however is terrible value.
"Gove to bring bill banning public bodies from boycotting Israel next week Exclusive: Bill to be brought for third reading but some Tories say it could heighten community tensions"
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
I wouldn't object to that outcome. I wonder if Hillary or Michelle are still available?
I have Michelle at 120. Maybe the best 'amateur hour' bet I've ever done.
“I’ve never expressed any interest in politics. Ever,” admits Michelle. “I mean, I agreed to support my husband. He wanted to do it, and he was great at it. But at no point have I ever said, ‘I think I want to run.’ Ever. So, I’m just wondering: Does what I want have anything to do with anything? Does who I choose to be have anything to do with it?”
She continues: “Politics is hard. And the people who get into it — it’s just like marriage, it’s just like kids — you’ve got to want it. It’s got to be in your soul, because it is so important. It is not in my soul. Service is in my soul. Helping people is in my soul. Working with kids? I will spend my lifetime trying to make kids feel seen and find their light. That I will do. I don’t have to hold office to do that. In fact, I think I’m actually more effective outside of politics, because sadly, politics has become so divided. The minute you declare a party, you’ve alienated the other half of the country. Now, maybe some people who don’t agree with me politically can still gain some tools that can help them. Maybe I can help a kid who’s a Republican, because maybe they’ll listen to me.”
Totally agree with this.
There's some logic in Michelle Obama as a trading bet - get in at long odds and sell when the occasional stories about it emerge.
But in terms of the reality of it... it's never been more, and never will be more, than a liberal daydream and easy filler for the political editor who has some column inches to fill on a quiet Tuesday. She's not lying when she says she's not interested.
Problem is that Trump would love Michelle as an opponent. Just as he did Hillary. I think he'd lose - Michelle infinitely stronger opponent - but it would be grisly.
The "problem" is simply that Michelle Obama definitely doesn't want to do it. Not against Trump, nor against anyone else.
meanwhile, back under the Big Top, it appears the House will (or rather may) convene sometime this afternoon (it's just past noon now DC-time) to consider resolution empowering Speaker Pro Tem to preside over actual legislative business, at least until mid-November (when govt funding set to expire) or maybe end of December.
Overall, slightly more sympathise with Israel than Palestine but with big differences by party. Scotland stands out as being much more pro-Palestine than anywhere else in the UK, as are 18-24 year olds.
"Gove to bring bill banning public bodies from boycotting Israel next week Exclusive: Bill to be brought for third reading but some Tories say it could heighten community tensions"
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
I wouldn't object to that outcome. I wonder if Hillary or Michelle are still available?
I have Michelle at 120. Maybe the best 'amateur hour' bet I've ever done.
“I’ve never expressed any interest in politics. Ever,” admits Michelle. “I mean, I agreed to support my husband. He wanted to do it, and he was great at it. But at no point have I ever said, ‘I think I want to run.’ Ever. So, I’m just wondering: Does what I want have anything to do with anything? Does who I choose to be have anything to do with it?”
She continues: “Politics is hard. And the people who get into it — it’s just like marriage, it’s just like kids — you’ve got to want it. It’s got to be in your soul, because it is so important. It is not in my soul. Service is in my soul. Helping people is in my soul. Working with kids? I will spend my lifetime trying to make kids feel seen and find their light. That I will do. I don’t have to hold office to do that. In fact, I think I’m actually more effective outside of politics, because sadly, politics has become so divided. The minute you declare a party, you’ve alienated the other half of the country. Now, maybe some people who don’t agree with me politically can still gain some tools that can help them. Maybe I can help a kid who’s a Republican, because maybe they’ll listen to me.”
Totally agree with this.
There's some logic in Michelle Obama as a trading bet - get in at long odds and sell when the occasional stories about it emerge.
But in terms of the reality of it... it's never been more, and never will be more, than a liberal daydream and easy filler for the political editor who has some column inches to fill on a quiet Tuesday. She's not lying when she says she's not interested.
Problem is that Trump would love Michelle as an opponent. Just as he did Hillary. I think he'd lose - Michelle infinitely stronger opponent - but it would be grisly.
How can you say that when she's never run for election? She could well be monstered.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
A compelling argument. However I do query exactly what happens at the point where any court gets close to convicting Trump, never mind sentencing him to the big house.
There would be an absolute fucking riot. Jurors, prosecutors, the judge - all of them having to go into witness protection as the lunatics demand their deaths. Would be a brave person willing to do what is right...
And it only takes one person to hang a jury in the US. Can you really find 12 people who are able to impartially judge Trump?
I think a mistrial is almost inevitable.
UNLESS pretty much everyone flips. In that event, it could be very interesting.
That said, it doesn't solve the fundamental problem. Around 35% of Americans think that the US election in 2024 was rigged. That's a massive fucking problem, and sure Donald is responsible for the problem existing, but unless we can deprogramme people who believe something batshit, then the US is in for a world of hurt.
And those people who enabled the lies - Jim Jordan, Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz - have done the world and the US a massive disservice.
I do think those of us who are very politically interested tend to overestimate the problem of getting a reasonably impartial jury in these cases. One in three eligible Americans didn't bother voting in 2020, and many of those who did won't have had as strong an opinion on the candidates as we tend to imagine. There's also a jury selection process with questioning of prospective jurors, and judges will tend to err on the side of caution regarding potential partisans.
I'd not rule out what you describe happening, and of course there could be a hung jury simply because a genuinely reasonably impartial juror or two disagree with most fellow jurors on relevant points - it needn't necessarily be that a dedicated Trump-cheerleader has evaded detection at selection. I just don't think it's as likely as you suggest.
I agree. There's a gravitas to the jury room. A Trumper could start giving it the Henry Fonda but it's not something I'd say is inevitable or even that likely.
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Mm, a whole lot better than fracking as demonstrated on even the most optimal UK sites, too. And the pollution problem is different (original production costs aside). You just clean up the bird crap every now and then.
It has absolutely nothing to do with fracking, God alone knows why you brought that up. Applications like that mentioned above are fine, but they aren't what's driving solar to become the world's biggest form of electricity generation. This piece on the abandonment of solar by India's Greenpeace-installed 'solar village' is a vignette of the whole issue. These things are put in with grand fanfare, but are not great or particularly reliable forms of generation, and when the subsidies stop, people stop using them. https://india.mongabay.com/2021/12/solar-power-station-at-bihars-first-solar-village-is-now-a-makeshift-cattle-shed/?amp=1
Can I ask you a question?
Is there any information or data that might make you change your mind?
So, if - for example - I were to show that 90% of German or Australian solar installations in 2022 were done without any subsidies whatsoever, would that make you change your mind?
Overall, slightly more sympathise with Israel than Palestine but with big differences by party. Scotland stands out as being much more pro-Palestine than anywhere else in the UK, as are 18-24 year olds.
I see Sunak has unambiguously stood next to Netanyahu and said "we want you to win".
Good for him.
I've been a major critic of Sunak since he put up NI onwards, but credit where credit is due. He is showing some good principles and standing for that which is righteous here. 👍
What does "win" mean?
The only ways that Israel can "win" are to:
1) expel the Palestinian people from Gaza 2) run Gaza as a police state, with full occupation by a large number of soldiers, or 3) negotiate some sort of peace agreement that gives the Palestinians a better life than they have had to endure over the past couple of decades.
You can't eliminate Hamas and expect that to be job done. When people are kept under oppression, the most violent and radical elements will tend to rise to the top. Hamas is a symptom of the conditions under which the Gazans have had to live; if Hamas is eliminated and nothing else changes, Gaza will just end up being run by another similarly ruthless bunch bent on revenge.
I suspect we are looking at 2. I don’t think the Biden Administration will support 1 at all.
Although I have my doubts that 2 will work, maybe 2 can eventually lead to 3 in the fullness of time rather than further enmity and destruction. The only way that will come about is if Israel is prepared to support the development of Gaza. Do I think that’s likely? Sadly, no.
I wonder about 2 with huge amounts of aid going into Gaza. In my view, as you say, the only way to defeat Hamas is through Gazan prosperity.
If I was Biden I’d be using my political weight to persuade Israel of the benefits of such an aid package, and create a coalition of the wiling to fund it.
I think step one is for Netanyahu to go. He has fostered Hamas in order to have an implacable opponent who will not reach a peace agreement so Israel could continue creating "facts on the ground". Netanyahu was already on shaky ground. I think some of his coalition will abandon him resulting in new Israeli leadership.
Step two is to review the intelligence failure and make sure it never happens again. Contain Hamas as total eliminanation is probably not possible
I think step three is to abandon the two state solution. It's clearly not going to work.
The concern Israel has with step 4 is the potential that it becomes a Jewish minority state in the long term, I think.
It feels to me like the only option other than the 2 state solution is some form of Bosnia and Herzegovina-type arrangement where you have a single polity made up of separate states (Israel and Palestine, or Israel/WB/Gaza) each of which is responsible for its own affairs largely (inc movement in/out) but that has a joint leadership council at the top drawn from each, and perhaps even a UN appointed Chair. Great care would have to be taken as to what matters are reserved to the council and what are the responsibilities of the states. One would probably be defence, because I can’t see how both states can continue to separately arm themselves.
But clearly that’s just my musings and I can’t profess to be an expert on the conflict.
The strange case of the Asian Shopping Mall in Romford that advertised for an Imam, but wasn’t a mosque, continues. After applying for use for one of the floors as a community banqueting/wedding venue, they’re letting the lease run out in December
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Mm, a whole lot better than fracking as demonstrated on even the most optimal UK sites, too. And the pollution problem is different (original production costs aside). You just clean up the bird crap every now and then.
It has absolutely nothing to do with fracking, God alone knows why you brought that up. Applications like that mentioned above are fine, but they aren't what's driving solar to become the world's biggest form of electricity generation. This piece on the abandonment of solar by India's Greenpeace-installed 'solar village' is a vignette of the whole issue. These things are put in with grand fanfare, but are not great or particularly reliable forms of generation, and when the subsidies stop, people stop using them. https://india.mongabay.com/2021/12/solar-power-station-at-bihars-first-solar-village-is-now-a-makeshift-cattle-shed/?amp=1
Can I ask you a question?
Is there any information or data that might make you change your mind?
So, if - for example - I were to show that 90% of German or Australian solar installations in 2022 were done without any subsidies whatsoever, would that make you change your mind?
I would want to look for the legislative incentives/push/compulsion and I suspect that I would find them.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
I wouldn't object to that outcome. I wonder if Hillary or Michelle are still available?
I have Michelle at 120. Maybe the best 'amateur hour' bet I've ever done.
“I’ve never expressed any interest in politics. Ever,” admits Michelle. “I mean, I agreed to support my husband. He wanted to do it, and he was great at it. But at no point have I ever said, ‘I think I want to run.’ Ever. So, I’m just wondering: Does what I want have anything to do with anything? Does who I choose to be have anything to do with it?”
She continues: “Politics is hard. And the people who get into it — it’s just like marriage, it’s just like kids — you’ve got to want it. It’s got to be in your soul, because it is so important. It is not in my soul. Service is in my soul. Helping people is in my soul. Working with kids? I will spend my lifetime trying to make kids feel seen and find their light. That I will do. I don’t have to hold office to do that. In fact, I think I’m actually more effective outside of politics, because sadly, politics has become so divided. The minute you declare a party, you’ve alienated the other half of the country. Now, maybe some people who don’t agree with me politically can still gain some tools that can help them. Maybe I can help a kid who’s a Republican, because maybe they’ll listen to me.”
Totally agree with this.
There's some logic in Michelle Obama as a trading bet - get in at long odds and sell when the occasional stories about it emerge.
But in terms of the reality of it... it's never been more, and never will be more, than a liberal daydream and easy filler for the political editor who has some column inches to fill on a quiet Tuesday. She's not lying when she says she's not interested.
Problem is that Trump would love Michelle as an opponent. Just as he did Hillary. I think he'd lose - Michelle infinitely stronger opponent - but it would be grisly.
How can you say that when she's never run for election? She could well be monstered.
Comparing her to Hillary. She was a gift to Trump. Michelle much more sympathetic figure. She could be monstered as you suggest but she's had the experience of being First Lady, is an experienced public speaker, and is composed. Personal attacks on her by Trump may well misfire. But I'd be amazed if she ran.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
I wouldn't object to that outcome. I wonder if Hillary or Michelle are still available?
I have Michelle at 120. Maybe the best 'amateur hour' bet I've ever done.
IF your intent is to piss away your pounds sterling.
Michelle Obama being as likely to be nominated by Democrats in 2024 (or subsequently) as Eleanor Roosevelt was in 1948 (ditto).
I think Eleanor Roosevelt was a good deal more political than Michelle Obama, and was very active in politics both in the White House years and for many years after her husband died (including as a UN representative).
Against that, it was relatively early days for women in politics in the US - it wouldn't be surprising to have a woman on a Presidential ticket these days (indeed Palin, Clinton and Harris have appeared quite recently) whereas it would have been remarkable in the 1940s/50s.
Agree, though, it's not happening with Obama.
True that Mrs Roosevelt was VERY political. Also that she was NEVER a candidate for elected office.
As for your point re: women in politics, the first semi-serious female candidate for the presidency was US Senator Margaret Chase Smith (R-Maine) who ran for GOP nomination in 1964.
from her Wiki page;
On January 27, 1964, Smith announced her candidacy for President of the United States. She declared, "I have few illusions and no money, but I'm staying for the finish. When people keep telling you you can't do a thing, you kind of like to try."
Gladys Shelley wrote her a presidential nomination campaign song, "Leave It to the Girls", which was sung by Hildegarde.
Smith lost every single primary election, but did manage to win 25% of the vote in Illinois. At the 1964 Republican National Convention in San Francisco, she became the first woman to have her name be placed in nomination for the presidency at a major political party's convention. She placed fifth in the initial balloting, and denied unanimous consent for Senator Barry Goldwater from Arizona after refusing to withdraw her name from the final ballot.
She nevertheless campaigned for Goldwater in the general election, appearing in a television ad in which she defended his position on Social Security.
SSI - My guess is that her belated backing of AuH2O was done in interests of political fence-mending in Maine, where she was up for re-election to Senate in 1966 (she won re-nomination and the election).
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Hold on. 1) If you borrow £1,000 you have to take the cost of borrowing into account and 2) in any case you can't compare to a bank account as you can't get your capital back.
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Hold on. 1) If you borrow £1,000 you have to take the cost of borrowing into account and 2) in any case you can't compare to a bank account as you can't get your capital back.
But you do improve the value of your home by £1000, all other things being equal.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
I wouldn't object to that outcome. I wonder if Hillary or Michelle are still available?
I have Michelle at 120. Maybe the best 'amateur hour' bet I've ever done.
“I’ve never expressed any interest in politics. Ever,” admits Michelle. “I mean, I agreed to support my husband. He wanted to do it, and he was great at it. But at no point have I ever said, ‘I think I want to run.’ Ever. So, I’m just wondering: Does what I want have anything to do with anything? Does who I choose to be have anything to do with it?”
She continues: “Politics is hard. And the people who get into it — it’s just like marriage, it’s just like kids — you’ve got to want it. It’s got to be in your soul, because it is so important. It is not in my soul. Service is in my soul. Helping people is in my soul. Working with kids? I will spend my lifetime trying to make kids feel seen and find their light. That I will do. I don’t have to hold office to do that. In fact, I think I’m actually more effective outside of politics, because sadly, politics has become so divided. The minute you declare a party, you’ve alienated the other half of the country. Now, maybe some people who don’t agree with me politically can still gain some tools that can help them. Maybe I can help a kid who’s a Republican, because maybe they’ll listen to me.”
Totally agree with this.
There's some logic in Michelle Obama as a trading bet - get in at long odds and sell when the occasional stories about it emerge.
But in terms of the reality of it... it's never been more, and never will be more, than a liberal daydream and easy filler for the political editor who has some column inches to fill on a quiet Tuesday. She's not lying when she says she's not interested.
Problem is that Trump would love Michelle as an opponent. Just as he did Hillary. I think he'd lose - Michelle infinitely stronger opponent - but it would be grisly.
How can you say that when she's never run for election? She could well be monstered.
Comparing her to Hillary. She was a gift to Trump. Michelle much more sympathetic figure. She could be monstered as you suggest but she's had the experience of being First Lady, is an experienced public speaker, and is composed. Personal attacks on her by Trump may well misfire. But I'd be amazed if she ran.
Whilst I think she would be mad to run, and she clearly doesn’t want to run, the big advantage she has is that the GOP muck-rakers have nothing on her. Everything they thought they could throw was flung when B Obama ran and so there are no tales to tell that aren’t already out there, and weren’t there anyway.
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Mm, a whole lot better than fracking as demonstrated on even the most optimal UK sites, too. And the pollution problem is different (original production costs aside). You just clean up the bird crap every now and then.
It has absolutely nothing to do with fracking, God alone knows why you brought that up. Applications like that mentioned above are fine, but they aren't what's driving solar to become the world's biggest form of electricity generation. This piece on the abandonment of solar by India's Greenpeace-installed 'solar village' is a vignette of the whole issue. These things are put in with grand fanfare, but are not great or particularly reliable forms of generation, and when the subsidies stop, people stop using them. https://india.mongabay.com/2021/12/solar-power-station-at-bihars-first-solar-village-is-now-a-makeshift-cattle-shed/?amp=1
Can I ask you a question?
Is there any information or data that might make you change your mind?
So, if - for example - I were to show that 90% of German or Australian solar installations in 2022 were done without any subsidies whatsoever, would that make you change your mind?
I would want to look for the legislative incentives/push/compulsion and I suspect that I would find them.
There are incentives in all energy markets. How do you think a nation's electricity grid can operate effectively and reliably ?
Robert is quite correct, and you are in denial.
The point is that solar is now cheap enough to pay for itself - and it is distributed power, so can operate independently of the grid. But the rapid growth in solar is going to bring with it considerable problems if we don't plan for them. Less of an issue in the UK, where wind dominates, but a serious policy issue globally.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
We certainly should contemplate the possibility of one or both of the 2020 candidates not re-running for a number of reasons.
However, voluntarily backing out is difficult once the primaries are well under way - and gets harder the further through the process the withdrawal (or removal by events) takes place. There are plenty of constraints placed on many actors in the process, and many barriers to new ones joining in. Understanding the possibilities within the process, and the ease or otherwise of using those possibilities, is critical in assessing the probabilities of those outcomes.
I did think Biden looked old in Israel this week (which of course he is: 81 next month, older than all but one of any leader of any G7 country since WW2).
He did. To me he's ok now, and I think he's been a good and effective president, but a 2nd term looks unwise - unless he's needed to beat Trump.
Re Trump, what I'm foreseeing* is his 'numbers' sliding as the legal noose tightens and enough of the GOP electors realizing this, that he's just not tenable as a candidate, to pick someone else, some reluctantly, some with gusto.
* course there's a bit of 'hoping' in there along with the 'foreseeing'.
Maybe. But unless those numbers slide before the primaries start - and they haven't yet; indeed, they've gone the other way - the Biden will be committed to run, which means that other credible Democrats won't be registered for the primaries, which would produce all sorts of problems if Biden then dropped out.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
We certainly should contemplate the possibility of one or both of the 2020 candidates not re-running for a number of reasons.
However, voluntarily backing out is difficult once the primaries are well under way - and gets harder the further through the process the withdrawal (or removal by events) takes place. There are plenty of constraints placed on many actors in the process, and many barriers to new ones joining in. Understanding the possibilities within the process, and the ease or otherwise of using those possibilities, is critical in assessing the probabilities of those outcomes.
I did think Biden looked old in Israel this week (which of course he is: 81 next month, older than all but one of any leader of any G7 country since WW2).
He did. To me he's ok now, and I think he's been a good and effective president, but a 2nd term looks unwise - unless he's needed to beat Trump.
Re Trump, what I'm foreseeing* is his 'numbers' sliding as the legal noose tightens and enough of the GOP electors realizing this, that he's just not tenable as a candidate, to pick someone else, some reluctantly, some with gusto.
* course there's a bit of 'hoping' in there along with the 'foreseeing'.
Very hard to see Trump's base abandoning him I think.
So not super quick either way, but with lower turnout possibly sooner than that if counting overnight, since election officials don't under staff parliamentary by-election counts.
Tamworth did count their locals overnight back in May, which is a good sign, but it is frustratingly hard to tell quickly what plans are.
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Mm, a whole lot better than fracking as demonstrated on even the most optimal UK sites, too. And the pollution problem is different (original production costs aside). You just clean up the bird crap every now and then.
It has absolutely nothing to do with fracking, God alone knows why you brought that up. Applications like that mentioned above are fine, but they aren't what's driving solar to become the world's biggest form of electricity generation. This piece on the abandonment of solar by India's Greenpeace-installed 'solar village' is a vignette of the whole issue. These things are put in with grand fanfare, but are not great or particularly reliable forms of generation, and when the subsidies stop, people stop using them. https://india.mongabay.com/2021/12/solar-power-station-at-bihars-first-solar-village-is-now-a-makeshift-cattle-shed/?amp=1
Can I ask you a question?
Is there any information or data that might make you change your mind?
So, if - for example - I were to show that 90% of German or Australian solar installations in 2022 were done without any subsidies whatsoever, would that make you change your mind?
I would want to look for the legislative incentives/push/compulsion and I suspect that I would find them.
Historically, you certainly would. Germany had the Feed in Tariff, where they would pay people for the electricity generated. But they've cut and cut and cut it, so that now it is way below the retail cost of electricity.
The result is that no-one doing residential solar in Germany signs up for the feed in tariff any more. Indeed, if you look at the public statements from the CEOs of RWE and other German power companies, they will tell you that they only see solar appearing via demand destruction these days.
Look at my numbers from before (and I appreciate you're in Scotland, and there's a lot less sun there and therefore the economics are different), but if you are in England and you spend £1,000 on solar panels today, and assuming you do not sell any electricity back to the grid, you will reduce your electricity bill by around £190.
Now, for some people that won't make financial sense. But for others it will. And as panel prices continue to fall, and they fall every year, the number of people for whom it makes sense rises.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
The bit in bold is the bit of your chain of reasoning I take issue with. Trump has such a hold on his supporters that he has convinced them he won the 2020 election and that the Democrats have politicised the justice system. Being jailed will only convince them that the problem is worse than they feared and they need to elect Trump to fix it more than ever.
And the GOP hierarchy is a prisoner of Trump's supporters. They won't block him from the ballot.
There's no lack of evidence for this view. And I agree about him not being blocked by the party. That boat has sailed. However I think there's a good chance a chunk of the GOP electors will wake up and forsake him (as the criminal stuff gains colour and attention and his polling suffers and the election becomes here and now and real rather than a prospect) and that this number, together with those who aren't with him in the first place, will be sufficient to coalesce successfully around someone else.
I see Sunak has unambiguously stood next to Netanyahu and said "we want you to win".
Good for him.
I've been a major critic of Sunak since he put up NI onwards, but credit where credit is due. He is showing some good principles and standing for that which is righteous here. 👍
What does "win" mean?
The only ways that Israel can "win" are to:
1) expel the Palestinian people from Gaza 2) run Gaza as a police state, with full occupation by a large number of soldiers, or 3) negotiate some sort of peace agreement that gives the Palestinians a better life than they have had to endure over the past couple of decades.
You can't eliminate Hamas and expect that to be job done. When people are kept under oppression, the most violent and radical elements will tend to rise to the top. Hamas is a symptom of the conditions under which the Gazans have had to live; if Hamas is eliminated and nothing else changes, Gaza will just end up being run by another similarly ruthless bunch bent on revenge.
I suspect we are looking at 2. I don’t think the Biden Administration will support 1 at all.
Although I have my doubts that 2 will work, maybe 2 can eventually lead to 3 in the fullness of time rather than further enmity and destruction. The only way that will come about is if Israel is prepared to support the development of Gaza. Do I think that’s likely? Sadly, no.
I wonder about 2 with huge amounts of aid going into Gaza. In my view, as you say, the only way to defeat Hamas is through Gazan prosperity.
If I was Biden I’d be using my political weight to persuade Israel of the benefits of such an aid package, and create a coalition of the wiling to fund it.
I think step one is for Netanyahu to go. He has fostered Hamas in order to have an implacable opponent who will not reach a peace agreement so Israel could continue creating "facts on the ground". Netanyahu was already on shaky ground. I think some of his coalition will abandon him resulting in new Israeli leadership.
Step two is to review the intelligence failure and make sure it never happens again. Contain Hamas as total eliminanation is probably not possible
I think step three is to abandon the two state solution. It's clearly not going to work.
The concern Israel has with step 4 is the potential that it becomes a Jewish minority state in the long term, I think.
It feels to me like the only option other than the 2 state solution is some form of Bosnia and Herzegovina-type arrangement where you have a single polity made up of separate states (Israel and Palestine, or Israel/WB/Gaza) each of which is responsible for its own affairs largely (inc movement in/out) but that has a joint leadership council at the top drawn from each, and perhaps even a UN appointed Chair. Great care would have to be taken as to what matters are reserved to the council and what are the responsibilities of the states. One would probably be defence, because I can’t see how both states can continue to separately arm themselves.
But clearly that’s just my musings and I can’t profess to be an expert on the conflict.
Why would eg the Iranian Government permit peace to exist in a reformed Israel?
I'd say that if there were any settlement, then Iran would treat Israel as it has treated Lebanon and/or Syria. The lives of the people there, whether Jew or Palestinian, are worth nothing to them, and a war outside Iran is convenient.
Plus remember that several decades ago the Palestinian leadership launched a war attempting to depose the Government of Jordan, when the 'refugees' were in camps in Jordan. That was 1970 - the other Black September. 4000 killed in a short war until the Jordanian Armed Forces put them back in their box. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September
The latter is the type of circumstance I suggest Egypt is nervous about.
Overall, slightly more sympathise with Israel than Palestine but with big differences by party. Scotland stands out as being much more pro-Palestine than anywhere else in the UK, as are 18-24 year olds.
Israel v Palestine is a football matter in Scotland. Rangers supporters are pro Israel. Therefore Celtic supporters are pro Palestine.
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Hold on. 1) If you borrow £1,000 you have to take the cost of borrowing into account and 2) in any case you can't compare to a bank account as you can't get your capital back.
But you do improve the value of your home by £1000, all other things being equal.
That's a big 'if' and in any case that's not what Robert was arguing.
If I were looking for a house the sight of solar panels, especially if retro-fitted, would just as likely disincentive me.
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Mm, a whole lot better than fracking as demonstrated on even the most optimal UK sites, too. And the pollution problem is different (original production costs aside). You just clean up the bird crap every now and then.
It has absolutely nothing to do with fracking, God alone knows why you brought that up. Applications like that mentioned above are fine, but they aren't what's driving solar to become the world's biggest form of electricity generation. This piece on the abandonment of solar by India's Greenpeace-installed 'solar village' is a vignette of the whole issue. These things are put in with grand fanfare, but are not great or particularly reliable forms of generation, and when the subsidies stop, people stop using them. https://india.mongabay.com/2021/12/solar-power-station-at-bihars-first-solar-village-is-now-a-makeshift-cattle-shed/?amp=1
Can I ask you a question?
Is there any information or data that might make you change your mind?
So, if - for example - I were to show that 90% of German or Australian solar installations in 2022 were done without any subsidies whatsoever, would that make you change your mind?
I would want to look for the legislative incentives/push/compulsion and I suspect that I would find them.
...Now, for some people that won't make financial sense. But for others it will. And as panel prices continue to fall, and they fall every year....
...along with the associated power inverters and controls, which are also seeing considerable innovation.
So not super quick either way, but with lower turnout possibly sooner than that if counting overnight, since election officials don't under staff parliamentary by-election counts.
Tamworth did count their locals overnight back in May, which is a good sign, but it is frustratingly hard to tell quickly what plans are.
BBC says "...results expected from early on Friday morning."
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
We certainly should contemplate the possibility of one or both of the 2020 candidates not re-running for a number of reasons.
However, voluntarily backing out is difficult once the primaries are well under way - and gets harder the further through the process the withdrawal (or removal by events) takes place. There are plenty of constraints placed on many actors in the process, and many barriers to new ones joining in. Understanding the possibilities within the process, and the ease or otherwise of using those possibilities, is critical in assessing the probabilities of those outcomes.
I did think Biden looked old in Israel this week (which of course he is: 81 next month, older than all but one of any leader of any G7 country since WW2).
He did. To me he's ok now, and I think he's been a good and effective president, but a 2nd term looks unwise - unless he's needed to beat Trump.
Re Trump, what I'm foreseeing* is his 'numbers' sliding as the legal noose tightens and enough of the GOP electors realizing this, that he's just not tenable as a candidate, to pick someone else, some reluctantly, some with gusto.
* course there's a bit of 'hoping' in there along with the 'foreseeing'.
Very hard to see Trump's base abandoning him I think.
Yep. But it doesn't take all (or even most) of them. Just a slippage.
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Hold on. 1) If you borrow £1,000 you have to take the cost of borrowing into account and 2) in any case you can't compare to a bank account as you can't get your capital back.
But you do improve the value of your home by £1000, all other things being equal.
That's a big 'if' and in any case that's not what Robert was arguing.
If I were looking for a house the sight of solar panels, especially if retro-fitted, would just as likely disincentive me.
ISTR (where, Cookie? Dunno) that it used to be the case that solar panels didn't really add to the value of your house, but now do - any perceived aesthetic disadvantage is more than offset by the reduced-fuel-bills advantage.
There are exactly three things 'Republicans against Trump' can do to ensure that a candidate with fascist tendencies is not elected POTUS. Firstly they can seek a better and more popular candidate for the Republican cause than Trump to be their candidate.
If that fails they must put up a 'New Republicans' candidate to split the vote so that neither can win.
And thirdly, where relevant, they can vote Democrat so that Trump loses.
The government’s chief scientific adviser sent a secret message calling Rishi Sunak “Dr Death the chancellor” during a meeting attended by both in the Covid crisis, the official inquiry into the pandemic has been told.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
The bit in bold is the bit of your chain of reasoning I take issue with. Trump has such a hold on his supporters that he has convinced them he won the 2020 election and that the Democrats have politicised the justice system. Being jailed will only convince them that the problem is worse than they feared and they need to elect Trump to fix it more than ever.
And the GOP hierarchy is a prisoner of Trump's supporters. They won't block him from the ballot.
There's no lack of evidence for this view. And I agree about him not being blocked by the party. That boat has sailed. However I think there's a good chance a chunk of the GOP electors will wake up and forsake him (as the criminal stuff gains colour and attention and his polling suffers and the election becomes here and now and real rather than a prospect) and that this number, together with those who aren't with him in the first place, will be sufficient to coalesce successfully around someone else.
Very sadly I don't see this. Trump is a preening narcissist and will never step down. None of the other GOP candidates are remotely strong enough. He will be the candidate.
It is if it didn’t have to go through the same checks as anyone else applying. If she used her position to get the funding when it wasn’t justified then it’s terrible and Sunak has to go but if not then ok.
Otherwise we have to accept that any future spouse of a senior politician cannot have their own business interests at all in order to make things squeaky clean just in case they benefit in any remote way from government policy. I’m guessing it might put more people off from politics and the cycle of reduction to career politicians will continue in a worse direction.
But it’s all good in terms of politics to attack Sunak through his wife in the 2020s.
On declining marriages and birth rates in the US: Nicholas Eberstadt's little book, "Men Without Work", has some numbers that help explain it: "Between the end of World War II and the mid-1960s, work rates for prime-age men average around 94 percent. . . . In the 2010s, a monthly average of 16 percent--nearly 1 in 6 prime-age men--were earning no wages" (p. 7 in the revised edition)
He defines prime-age as 25-54.
A few years ago, one of my nieces recounted a conversation she had had with girl friends. They wondered what had happened to all the good men. They were on to something.
Overall, slightly more sympathise with Israel than Palestine but with big differences by party. Scotland stands out as being much more pro-Palestine than anywhere else in the UK, as are 18-24 year olds.
Goodness knows what the question will mean to those being asked. At this moment it takes a fair amount of cool rational consideration to distinguish between 'The Palestinian side' and Hamas's desire to massacre children in their beds and 'The Israeli side' and the current bombardment.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
We certainly should contemplate the possibility of one or both of the 2020 candidates not re-running for a number of reasons.
However, voluntarily backing out is difficult once the primaries are well under way - and gets harder the further through the process the withdrawal (or removal by events) takes place. There are plenty of constraints placed on many actors in the process, and many barriers to new ones joining in. Understanding the possibilities within the process, and the ease or otherwise of using those possibilities, is critical in assessing the probabilities of those outcomes.
I did think Biden looked old in Israel this week (which of course he is: 81 next month, older than all but one of any leader of any G7 country since WW2).
He did. To me he's ok now, and I think he's been a good and effective president, but a 2nd term looks unwise - unless he's needed to beat Trump.
Re Trump, what I'm foreseeing* is his 'numbers' sliding as the legal noose tightens and enough of the GOP electors realizing this, that he's just not tenable as a candidate, to pick someone else, some reluctantly, some with gusto.
* course there's a bit of 'hoping' in there along with the 'foreseeing'.
Maybe. But unless those numbers slide before the primaries start - and they haven't yet; indeed, they've gone the other way - the Biden will be committed to run, which means that other credible Democrats won't be registered for the primaries, which would produce all sorts of problems if Biden then dropped out.
Yes the timing is cramped and convoluted. I know I oughtn't to be so confident of an outcome (esp No Trump) whilst not being able to map exactly how we get there, but nevertheless I am. This is such an unusual situation and I'm expecting unusual things to happen. Despite how it looks right now I'll be surprised if Joe Biden ends up on the WH24 ballot and VERY surprised if Donald Trump does.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
I wouldn't object to that outcome. I wonder if Hillary or Michelle are still available?
I have Michelle at 120. Maybe the best 'amateur hour' bet I've ever done.
“I’ve never expressed any interest in politics. Ever,” admits Michelle. “I mean, I agreed to support my husband. He wanted to do it, and he was great at it. But at no point have I ever said, ‘I think I want to run.’ Ever. So, I’m just wondering: Does what I want have anything to do with anything? Does who I choose to be have anything to do with it?”
She continues: “Politics is hard. And the people who get into it — it’s just like marriage, it’s just like kids — you’ve got to want it. It’s got to be in your soul, because it is so important. It is not in my soul. Service is in my soul. Helping people is in my soul. Working with kids? I will spend my lifetime trying to make kids feel seen and find their light. That I will do. I don’t have to hold office to do that. In fact, I think I’m actually more effective outside of politics, because sadly, politics has become so divided. The minute you declare a party, you’ve alienated the other half of the country. Now, maybe some people who don’t agree with me politically can still gain some tools that can help them. Maybe I can help a kid who’s a Republican, because maybe they’ll listen to me.”
Totally agree with this.
There's some logic in Michelle Obama as a trading bet - get in at long odds and sell when the occasional stories about it emerge.
But in terms of the reality of it... it's never been more, and never will be more, than a liberal daydream and easy filler for the political editor who has some column inches to fill on a quiet Tuesday. She's not lying when she says she's not interested.
Problem is that Trump would love Michelle as an opponent. Just as he did Hillary. I think he'd lose - Michelle infinitely stronger opponent - but it would be grisly.
How can you say that when she's never run for election? She could well be monstered.
Comparing her to Hillary. She was a gift to Trump. Michelle much more sympathetic figure. She could be monstered as you suggest but she's had the experience of being First Lady, is an experienced public speaker, and is composed. Personal attacks on her by Trump may well misfire. But I'd be amazed if she ran.
Whilst I think she would be mad to run, and she clearly doesn’t want to run, the big advantage she has is that the GOP muck-rakers have nothing on her. Everything they thought they could throw was flung when B Obama ran and so there are no tales to tell that aren’t already out there, and weren’t there anyway.
Very good point. You can't help thinking that if it is put to her, you may be the only thing that can prevent Trump 47, just maybe?
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Mm, a whole lot better than fracking as demonstrated on even the most optimal UK sites, too. And the pollution problem is different (original production costs aside). You just clean up the bird crap every now and then.
It has absolutely nothing to do with fracking, God alone knows why you brought that up. Applications like that mentioned above are fine, but they aren't what's driving solar to become the world's biggest form of electricity generation. This piece on the abandonment of solar by India's Greenpeace-installed 'solar village' is a vignette of the whole issue. These things are put in with grand fanfare, but are not great or particularly reliable forms of generation, and when the subsidies stop, people stop using them. https://india.mongabay.com/2021/12/solar-power-station-at-bihars-first-solar-village-is-now-a-makeshift-cattle-shed/?amp=1
Can I ask you a question?
Is there any information or data that might make you change your mind?
So, if - for example - I were to show that 90% of German or Australian solar installations in 2022 were done without any subsidies whatsoever, would that make you change your mind?
I would want to look for the legislative incentives/push/compulsion and I suspect that I would find them.
...Now, for some people that won't make financial sense. But for others it will. And as panel prices continue to fall, and they fall every year....
...along with the associated power inverters and controls, which are also seeing considerable innovation.
I think it's easy to miss just how much solar prices have collapsed:
And so while something might have been true when panel prices were $2 or even $1 per watt, it can now be not true with prices down at $0.27/watt or thereabouts
So not super quick either way, but with lower turnout possibly sooner than that if counting overnight, since election officials don't under staff parliamentary by-election counts.
Tamworth did count their locals overnight back in May, which is a good sign, but it is frustratingly hard to tell quickly what plans are.
First time I was an agent, back in Feb 74, the Returning Officer told us that if we needed a recount he’d lock everything down and we’d come back in the morning! I, as Liberal Party agent, asked what would happen if we needed a recount to save our deposit. He was non-plussed; never thought of it. I didn’t think we would, the way things were going, but we had in 1970!
It is if it didn’t have to go through the same checks as anyone else applying. If she used her position to get the funding when it wasn’t justified then it’s terrible and Sunak has to go but if not then ok.
Otherwise we have to accept that any future spouse of a senior politician cannot have their own business interests at all in order to make things squeaky clean just in case they benefit in any remote way from government policy. I’m guessing it might put more people off from politics and the cycle of reduction to career politicians will continue in a worse direction.
But it’s all good in terms of politics to attack Sunak through his wife in the 2020s.
It just seems a bit of a coincidence doesn't it? I don't know how many firms received government money and how many firms are linked to Sunak's wife but four seperate firms linked to his family receiving government cash sounds like quite a lot.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
The bit in bold is the bit of your chain of reasoning I take issue with. Trump has such a hold on his supporters that he has convinced them he won the 2020 election and that the Democrats have politicised the justice system. Being jailed will only convince them that the problem is worse than they feared and they need to elect Trump to fix it more than ever.
And the GOP hierarchy is a prisoner of Trump's supporters. They won't block him from the ballot.
There's no lack of evidence for this view. And I agree about him not being blocked by the party. That boat has sailed. However I think there's a good chance a chunk of the GOP electors will wake up and forsake him (as the criminal stuff gains colour and attention and his polling suffers and the election becomes here and now and real rather than a prospect) and that this number, together with those who aren't with him in the first place, will be sufficient to coalesce successfully around someone else.
Very sadly I don't see this. Trump is a preening narcissist and will never step down. None of the other GOP candidates are remotely strong enough. He will be the candidate.
I know that's THE view - that he's nailed on - and I'm not so much trying to talk people out of it as lodging a Minority Report.
Just had this message (reproduced and modified) from Tamworth:
Labour should win but Labour has made a real mess of the campaign, lying about where their candidate lives and lying by saying they will stop green space house building which is national labour policy. Given what’s happened it’s shocking if conservatives hold but they have the far more credible candidate now.
It is if it didn’t have to go through the same checks as anyone else applying. If she used her position to get the funding when it wasn’t justified then it’s terrible and Sunak has to go but if not then ok.
Otherwise we have to accept that any future spouse of a senior politician cannot have their own business interests at all in order to make things squeaky clean just in case they benefit in any remote way from government policy. I’m guessing it might put more people off from politics and the cycle of reduction to career politicians will continue in a worse direction.
But it’s all good in terms of politics to attack Sunak through his wife in the 2020s.
It just seems a bit of a coincidence doesn't it? I don't know how many firms received government money and how many firms are linked to Sunak's wife but four seperate firms linked to his family receiving government cash sounds like quite a lot.
Sunak's wife is from an incredibly wealthy family, whose companies employ hundreds of thousands of people.
Given the way Covid money was being splashed around, it's not surprising some of it ended up there.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
A compelling argument. However I do query exactly what happens at the point where any court gets close to convicting Trump, never mind sentencing him to the big house.
There would be an absolute fucking riot. Jurors, prosecutors, the judge - all of them having to go into witness protection as the lunatics demand their deaths. Would be a brave person willing to do what is right...
Apart from the non-trivial chance of an armed insurrection there just isn't enough time to get a conviction and sentencing before the 2024 campaign starts.
I think there's more chance of Biden dropping dead than Trump getting locked up. He looked like he was either fucked or buggered in Tall Abib and couldn't work out which it was.
I actually agree entirely with this, despite the lame attempt at a jibe at the end.
The simplest case has the most accomodating to Trump judge, so no guarantee yet that it won't be pushed back further than May, and the others being more complex a) it is at least possible he is not convicted, b) appeals mean he won't be behind bars by the time of the election.
Trump will never serve a day in prison.
I'm inclined to call that one the other way.
Today's guilty plea is from an attorney who ran dozens of lawsuits for Trump trying to overturn Elections. Her co-defendant in this trial - Ken Chessborough (spelling?) is a bigger fish lawyer who I think may himself flip - especially if the Prosecutor is offering "No jail time" deals.
Sidney Powell who flipped today has been throwing everything except the kitchen sink at it, and nothing worked. I think this was the kitchen sink, and her Plan Z.
If Chessborough flips, this trial does not happen, the calendar opens up and trials can be pulled forward or dates maintained.
The other Prosecutors are on win:win deals - they either get to see evidence rehearsed and put on the public record which they can use as a mine if the co-defendant opts for trial, or they get co-operating witnesses who they can get to testify. I think a plea deal will be for co-operation in any trials.
Trump's activities resulted in deaths of multiple police officers, and politicians' lives being risked.
If I had to call-it, I'd say that others will fall like dominoes - especially in charges around the Coffee County Election Date breach and theft, and Trump himself may end up asking for a deal. Perhaps a Guilty Plea in exchange for 5 years behind bars.
The Prosecutors want Trump and Giuliani and a few others.
It's also worth a note that the Department of Justice has indicated it may appeal the sentences for some of the top foot-soldiers (eg Leaders of Proud Boys - eg one who got 22 years when they asked for 33 years). They haven't even started on the animators such as Trump or his minions yet.
Finally, this is the Georgia Trial, and one of two (iirc) which are not amenable to Presidential Pardons to get them off after the fact.
Overall, slightly more sympathise with Israel than Palestine but with big differences by party. Scotland stands out as being much more pro-Palestine than anywhere else in the UK, as are 18-24 year olds.
Goodness knows what the question will mean to those being asked. At this moment it takes a fair amount of cool rational consideration to distinguish between 'The Palestinian side' and Hamas's desire to massacre children in their beds and 'The Israeli side' and the current bombardment.
The option of 'neither' was not given.
Isn't that the 33% saying Don't Know and 29% Both Equally?
If that is in any way near true then the BBC and Sky need to make headline, unconditional retractions and commit to reviewing their reporting policies. This isn’t one they should be able to just quietly sweep under the carpet.
Just had this message (reproduced and modified) from Tamworth:
Labour should win but Labour has made a real mess of the campaign, lying about where their candidate lives and lying by saying they will stop green space house building which is national labour policy. Given what’s happened it’s shocking if conservatives hold but they have the far more credible candidate now.
Local candidates going against national policy on house building, especially at a by-election, seems like a real dog bites man story.
The Libs are now so long on BX (12) that they are almost worth a saver, lest the unvarnished propaganda we've been subjected to by @theakes all week proves to contain a grain of truth.
I see no good evidenced-based reason why the Lib Dems should go out so far so fast today. Even if someone has (very naughtily) let on about postal vote returns, these are difficult to verify with any accuracy as they're all done upside-down and there's no idea about relative (or indeed absolute) turnout until the count, so such a leak would be unreliable as well as illegal.
I wondered whether it is more to do with hanging round polling stations and getting a feel for how things are going.
You don’t get much intelligence of any use at either the PV verifications or at a polling station. The intelligence comes from knocking up voters previously canvassed as definite or probable, usually days or weeks prior, and then hearing what they are saying on the day. If the zeitgeist that the LibDems have been overtaken by Labour is correct, then their people will be calling on voters who aren’t as enthusiastic as they were two weeks ago, and you don’t need to knock on the doors of many of those before the pattern becomes clear.
Just had this message (reproduced and modified) from Tamworth:
Labour should win but Labour has made a real mess of the campaign, lying about where their candidate lives and lying by saying they will stop green space house building which is national labour policy. Given what’s happened it’s shocking if conservatives hold but they have the far more credible candidate now.
Local candidates going against national policy on house building, especially at a by-election, seems like a real dog bites man story.
Always respect the power of the NIMBY vote.
Lying about where their candidate lives in a seat as parochial as Tamworth was probably rather less smart.
Edit - it does however give Starmer an alibi if Labour lose.
If that is in any way near true then the BBC and Sky need to make headline, unconditional retractions and commit to reviewing their reporting policies. This isn’t one they should be able to just quietly sweep under the carpet.
I confess whilst the issue of responsibility was in question immediately that they immediately led on the matter of hundreds led me to assume they must have verified that at least.
Here's a puzzle for all of you, but especially rcs1000: In two years after George W. Bush was re-elected (2006 and 2007), the US total fertility rate rose above the 2.1 replacement rate, barely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
Are there any other advanced nations where that has happened since 2000? (Or start even earlier, even earlier, if you like.)
Why did that happen, then? (Bush did pursue a number of family-friendly policies, including education reforms.)
(Speculation: Morale may be part of the answer. I have long thought that the population spurt in Imperial Germany after the Franco-Prussian War can be partly explained by high morale. Low morale would also help the almost static French population druing the same period.)
The Libs are now so long on BX (12) that they are almost worth a saver, lest the unvarnished propaganda we've been subjected to by @theakes all week proves to contain a grain of truth.
I see no good evidenced-based reason why the Lib Dems should go out so far so fast today. Even if someone has (very naughtily) let on about postal vote returns, these are difficult to verify with any accuracy as they're all done upside-down and there's no idea about relative (or indeed absolute) turnout until the count, so such a leak would be unreliable as well as illegal.
I wondered whether it is more to do with hanging round polling stations and getting a feel for how things are going.
Anyone who believes they are getting useful information from that, or as IanB2 notes postal vote verification, is fooling themselves. Or stuck on crap duty and trying to believe it is more valuable than it is.
Just had this message (reproduced and modified) from Tamworth:
Labour should win but Labour has made a real mess of the campaign, lying about where their candidate lives and lying by saying they will stop green space house building which is national labour policy. Given what’s happened it’s shocking if conservatives hold but they have the far more credible candidate now.
Local candidates going against national policy on house building, especially at a by-election, seems like a real dog bites man story.
Always respect the power of the NIMBY vote.
Does anyone know who Starmer delegates this sort of stuff to? It's going to be a real problem area for him at the worst possible time assuming he becomes PM. He'll have maybe 200 new MPs, and some of those will be quite alarming on the sense detector.
If that is in any way near true then the BBC and Sky need to make headline, unconditional retractions and commit to reviewing their reporting policies. This isn’t one they should be able to just quietly sweep under the carpet.
I confess whilst the issue of responsibility was in question immediately that they immediately led on the matter of hundreds led me to assume they must have verified that at least.
Can we make jokes about Chris Williamson’s ability to be taken seriously has forfeited any right to exist?
It is if it didn’t have to go through the same checks as anyone else applying. If she used her position to get the funding when it wasn’t justified then it’s terrible and Sunak has to go but if not then ok.
Otherwise we have to accept that any future spouse of a senior politician cannot have their own business interests at all in order to make things squeaky clean just in case they benefit in any remote way from government policy. I’m guessing it might put more people off from politics and the cycle of reduction to career politicians will continue in a worse direction.
But it’s all good in terms of politics to attack Sunak through his wife in the 2020s.
It just seems a bit of a coincidence doesn't it? I don't know how many firms received government money and how many firms are linked to Sunak's wife but four seperate firms linked to his family receiving government cash sounds like quite a lot.
Do you think Mr S and Mrs M are sitting there at home cackling away at night where they are coming up with schemes to gouge a few mil from the tax payer for her related business ventures? Do you think they are grifters trying to scam money out of the tax payer?
They are seriously wealthy and Mrs M, unless I’m wrong, isn’t sitting in a Bond villain boardroom directing the investments and applications of her many businesses in which she is a shareholder.
There will be teams of people like you who are looking at policies and tax breaks in many financial industries and seeing if it’s suitable or they are applicable and going for it.
If anything Sunak has probably spoken to her and her people as well as others and asked what can be done to stimulate investment. We can’t on one hand bemoan that politicians don’t know what happens in the real world of business then hammer those who actually are balls deep in business.
It would be no different if a PM whose husband or wife was a doctor and spoke to their work colleagues about what could help. There will be many ideas, wants and requests and some will be good, some bad, some indifferent but nothing wrong with asking for opinions and ideas outside of civil servants and spads.
So it’s likely something that’s considered a good idea for investment, people who work in Mrs M team see they can use it and apply.
I don’t think the Sunak family is high fiving over the returns they will get from it thinking “we’ve made it”. They will believe rightly or wrongly that it’s a good scheme and they apply like everyone else - and as I said, if they didn’t apply like everyone else and pass the same tests, then he would have to go.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
A compelling argument. However I do query exactly what happens at the point where any court gets close to convicting Trump, never mind sentencing him to the big house.
There would be an absolute fucking riot. Jurors, prosecutors, the judge - all of them having to go into witness protection as the lunatics demand their deaths. Would be a brave person willing to do what is right...
Apart from the non-trivial chance of an armed insurrection there just isn't enough time to get a conviction and sentencing before the 2024 campaign starts.
I think there's more chance of Biden dropping dead than Trump getting locked up. He looked like he was either fucked or buggered in Tall Abib and couldn't work out which it was.
I actually agree entirely with this, despite the lame attempt at a jibe at the end.
The simplest case has the most accomodating to Trump judge, so no guarantee yet that it won't be pushed back further than May, and the others being more complex a) it is at least possible he is not convicted, b) appeals mean he won't be behind bars by the time of the election.
Trump will never serve a day in prison.
I'm inclined to call that one the other way.
Today's guilty plea is from an attorney who ran dozens of lawsuits for Trump trying to overturn Elections. Her co-defendant in this trial - Ken Chessborough (spelling?) is a bigger fish lawyer who I think may himself flip - especially if the Prosecutor is offering "No jail time" deals.
Sidney Powell who flipped today has been throwing everything except the kitchen sink at it, and nothing worked. I think this was the kitchen sink, and her Plan Z.
If Chessborough flips, this trial does not happen, the calendar opens up and trials can be pulled forward or dates maintained.
The other Prosecutors are on win:win deals - they either get to see evidence rehearsed and put on the public record which they can use as a mine if the co-defendant opts for trial, or they get co-operating witnesses who they can get to testify. I think a plea deal will be for co-operation in any trials.
Trump's activities resulted in deaths of multiple police officers, and politicians' lives being risked.
If I had to call-it, I'd say that others will fall like dominoes - especially in charges around the Coffee County Election Date breach and theft, and Trump himself may end up asking for a deal. Perhaps a Guilty Plea in exchange for 5 years behind bars.
The Prosecutors want Trump and Giuliani and a few others.
It's also worth a note that the Department of Justice has indicated it may appeal the sentences for some of the top foot-soldiers (eg Leaders of Proud Boys - eg one who got 22 years when they asked for 33 years). They haven't even started on the animators such as Trump or his minions yet.
Finally, this is the Georgia Trial, and one of two (iirc) which are not amenable to Presidential Pardons to get them off after the fact.
It is surprising how many people appear to be counting on a Trump win in 2024 so they can get pardons, as they are far more vulnerable than he is in some cases. It is a big gamble to take with your future.
It is, as you note, perhaps not a coincidence that this flip is in a state where neither Trump nor even the Governor could pardon.
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Mm, a whole lot better than fracking as demonstrated on even the most optimal UK sites, too. And the pollution problem is different (original production costs aside). You just clean up the bird crap every now and then.
It has absolutely nothing to do with fracking, God alone knows why you brought that up. Applications like that mentioned above are fine, but they aren't what's driving solar to become the world's biggest form of electricity generation. This piece on the abandonment of solar by India's Greenpeace-installed 'solar village' is a vignette of the whole issue. These things are put in with grand fanfare, but are not great or particularly reliable forms of generation, and when the subsidies stop, people stop using them. https://india.mongabay.com/2021/12/solar-power-station-at-bihars-first-solar-village-is-now-a-makeshift-cattle-shed/?amp=1
Can I ask you a question?
Is there any information or data that might make you change your mind?
So, if - for example - I were to show that 90% of German or Australian solar installations in 2022 were done without any subsidies whatsoever, would that make you change your mind?
I would want to look for the legislative incentives/push/compulsion and I suspect that I would find them.
Historically, you certainly would. Germany had the Feed in Tariff, where they would pay people for the electricity generated. But they've cut and cut and cut it, so that now it is way below the retail cost of electricity.
The result is that no-one doing residential solar in Germany signs up for the feed in tariff any more. Indeed, if you look at the public statements from the CEOs of RWE and other German power companies, they will tell you that they only see solar appearing via demand destruction these days.
Look at my numbers from before (and I appreciate you're in Scotland, and there's a lot less sun there and therefore the economics are different), but if you are in England and you spend £1,000 on solar panels today, and assuming you do not sell any electricity back to the grid, you will reduce your electricity bill by around £190.
Now, for some people that won't make financial sense. But for others it will. And as panel prices continue to fall, and they fall every year, the number of people for whom it makes sense rises.
I'd love to have solar panels, but I'm curious about your Maths. Unless you have an EV, I don't understand how your Maths works.
I haven't had a quotation for my home, but have been looking online as I'm interested and it seems a typical Solar installation today costs about £5-6k including parts and labour. More if you want a battery to go with it.
So based on your theory that £1k = £190 in savings then should expect ~£1k - £1.2k in cost savings.
But my total annual electricity bill is only £1k. So I'd have to have to come in on the low-end of the quote range, and have all my bill wiped out in order to meet the ratio you named.
And since the cost of electricity is due to come back down off its peak, even then a 100% cost reduction wouldn't meet your quoted numbers.
So where are your numbers coming from? Unless you can get an installation done for £1k - in which case great, how?
OK, I’ve been confirmed in my view that London is not only a dump but also the most boring city in the world especially in its endlessly tedious rush hour traffic.
"The former prime minister does not shy away from how difficult a ground invasion would be for Israeli forces.
“We would love to have it [the incursion] in the meadows of Oxfordshire,” he said, referring to a county in rural England, “but it’s not; it’s Gaza. It’s a built-up area with fighters there, and they will fight back. I don’t want to idealize it or say it’s going to be a cakewalk. But with enough force and enough enthusiasm, we will win.”"
OK, I’ve been confirmed in my view that London is not only a dump but also the most boring city in the world especially in its endlessly tedious rush hour traffic.
If you want excitement, treat yourself to a trip on the Elizabeth Line.
OK, I’ve been confirmed in my view that London is not only a dump but also the most boring city in the world especially in its endlessly tedious rush hour traffic.
If you want excitement, treat yourself to a trip on the Elizabeth Line.
Comments
She continues: “Politics is hard. And the people who get into it — it’s just like marriage, it’s just like kids — you’ve got to want it. It’s got to be in your soul, because it is so important. It is not in my soul. Service is in my soul. Helping people is in my soul. Working with kids? I will spend my lifetime trying to make kids feel seen and find their light. That I will do. I don’t have to hold office to do that. In fact, I think I’m actually more effective outside of politics, because sadly, politics has become so divided. The minute you declare a party, you’ve alienated the other half of the country. Now, maybe some people who don’t agree with me politically can still gain some tools that can help them. Maybe I can help a kid who’s a Republican, because maybe they’ll listen to me.”
The hard-line Republican from Ohio has run headlong into opposition from a bloc of mainstream G.O.P. holdouts.
Representative Jim Jordan, the hard-line Republican from Ohio, does not plan to force a third vote on Thursday on his bid to become speaker after running headlong into opposition from a bloc of mainstream G.O.P. holdouts, according to two people familiar with his decision.
Instead, Mr. Jordan will endorse a plan to empower Representative Patrick T. McHenry of North Carolina — the temporary speaker whose role is primarily to hold an election for a speaker — to carry out the chamber’s work through Jan. 3. In the meantime, Mr. Jordan will continue trying to build support to become speaker.
The people spoke on the condition of anonymity in advance of Mr. Jordan’s announcement.
SSI - Giving JJ's fellow brownshirts more time to ramp up death threats, etc. versus GOP holdouts.''
However, also reckon this has already proven to be far less effective that Coach Jockstrap and his fellow would-be gauleiters fondly imagined a day or so ago.
It feels to me like the only option other than the 2 state solution is some form of Bosnia and Herzegovina-type arrangement where you have a single polity made up of separate states (Israel and Palestine, or Israel/WB/Gaza) each of which is responsible for its own affairs largely (inc movement in/out) but that has a joint leadership council at the top drawn from each, and perhaps even a UN appointed Chair. Great care would have to be taken as to what matters are reserved to the council and what are the responsibilities of the states. One would probably be defence, because I can’t see how both states can continue to separately arm themselves.
But clearly that’s just my musings and I can’t profess to be an expert on the conflict.
Israel is becoming more orthodox, and more hardline. The number of highly religious people is rising, and they are flexing their political muscle.
That makes any kind of accomodation hard to reach.
(And yes, you are correct that Netanyahu encouraged the growth of Hamas for political reasons. For that he needs to go.)
Michelle Obama being as likely to be nominated by Democrats in 2024 (or subsequently) as Eleanor Roosevelt was in 1948 (ditto).
There's some logic in Michelle Obama as a trading bet - get in at long odds and sell when the occasional stories about it emerge.
But in terms of the reality of it... it's never been more, and never will be more, than a liberal daydream and easy filler for the political editor who has some column inches to fill on a quiet Tuesday. She's not lying when she says she's not interested.
One hit… One moment a battalion of Russian soldiers are raping, torturing and riding horses shirtless.
Next they are sipping tiny cups of coffee, wearing black polo neck sweaters, listening to bebop jazz and arguing if they exist or not.
(All AIUI, IANAE etc).
But still - only the stake.
Which I have done.
Should Democrats have a plan B? A different candidate?
A new Morning Consult/Bloomberg poll shows Trump leads Biden in most swing states:
Arizona: Trump 47% Biden 43%
Georgia: Trump 48% Biden 43%
Wisconsin: Trump 46% Biden 44%
PA: Trump 46% Biden 45%
NC: Trump 47% Biden 43% ~~
Michigan: Trump 44% Biden 44%
I don't care who's the democratic nominee. We must do everything we can to stop Trump from returning to the Oval Office. I'm alarmed.
https://nitter.net/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1715000171547750567#m
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4562198/#Comment_4562198
For shame...
God Bless.
The simplest case has the most accomodating to Trump judge, so no guarantee yet that it won't be pushed back further than May, and the others being more complex a) it is at least possible he is not convicted, b) appeals mean he won't be behind bars by the time of the election.
Trump will never serve a day in prison.
Against that, it was relatively early days for women in politics in the US - it wouldn't be surprising to have a woman on a Presidential ticket these days (indeed Palin, Clinton and Harris have appeared quite recently) whereas it would have been remarkable in the 1940s/50s.
Agree, though, it's not happening with Obama.
Dems operatives will say 'dont panic'. Ages until election. Polls now tell you little etc etc.
But it is very alarming.
"Gove to bring bill banning public bodies from boycotting Israel next week
Exclusive: Bill to be brought for third reading but some Tories say it could heighten community tensions"
Overall, slightly more sympathise with Israel than Palestine but with big differences by party. Scotland stands out as being much more pro-Palestine than anywhere else in the UK, as are 18-24 year olds.
Is there any information or data that might make you change your mind?
So, if - for example - I were to show that 90% of German or Australian solar installations in 2022 were done without any subsidies whatsoever, would that make you change your mind?
https://x.com/romfordrecorder/status/1714658877793611822?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Are both byelections being counted tonight? And assuming yes, what time do we expect declarations?
As for your point re: women in politics, the first semi-serious female candidate for the presidency was US Senator Margaret Chase Smith (R-Maine) who ran for GOP nomination in 1964.
from her Wiki page;
On January 27, 1964, Smith announced her candidacy for President of the United States. She declared, "I have few illusions and no money, but I'm staying for the finish. When people keep telling you you can't do a thing, you kind of like to try."
Gladys Shelley wrote her a presidential nomination campaign song, "Leave It to the Girls", which was sung by Hildegarde.
Smith lost every single primary election, but did manage to win 25% of the vote in Illinois. At the 1964 Republican National Convention in San Francisco, she became the first woman to have her name be placed in nomination for the presidency at a major political party's convention. She placed fifth in the initial balloting, and denied unanimous consent for Senator Barry Goldwater from Arizona after refusing to withdraw her name from the final ballot.
She nevertheless campaigned for Goldwater in the general election, appearing in a television ad in which she defended his position on Social Security.
SSI - My guess is that her belated backing of AuH2O was done in interests of political fence-mending in Maine, where she was up for re-election to Senate in 1966 (she won re-nomination and the election).
How do you think a nation's electricity grid can operate effectively and reliably ?
Robert is quite correct, and you are in denial.
The point is that solar is now cheap enough to pay for itself - and it is distributed power, so can operate independently of the grid. But the rapid growth in solar is going to bring with it considerable problems if we don't plan for them.
Less of an issue in the UK, where wind dominates, but a serious policy issue globally.
In the end the House of Commons Library report Tamworth declared at 03:40 and Mid Bedfordshire at 03:09.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8749/
So not super quick either way, but with lower turnout possibly sooner than that if counting overnight, since election officials don't under staff parliamentary by-election counts.
Tamworth did count their locals overnight back in May, which is a good sign, but it is frustratingly hard to tell quickly what plans are.
The result is that no-one doing residential solar in Germany signs up for the feed in tariff any more. Indeed, if you look at the public statements from the CEOs of RWE and other German power companies, they will tell you that they only see solar appearing via demand destruction these days.
Look at my numbers from before (and I appreciate you're in Scotland, and there's a lot less sun there and therefore the economics are different), but if you are in England and you spend £1,000 on solar panels today, and assuming you do not sell any electricity back to the grid, you will reduce your electricity bill by around £190.
Now, for some people that won't make financial sense. But for others it will. And as panel prices continue to fall, and they fall every year, the number of people for whom it makes sense rises.
Why would eg the Iranian Government permit peace to exist in a reformed Israel?
I'd say that if there were any settlement, then Iran would treat Israel as it has treated Lebanon and/or Syria. The lives of the people there, whether Jew or Palestinian, are worth nothing to them, and a war outside Iran is convenient.
Plus remember that several decades ago the Palestinian leadership launched a war attempting to depose the Government of Jordan, when the 'refugees' were in camps in Jordan. That was 1970 - the other Black September. 4000 killed in a short war until the Jordanian Armed Forces put them back in their box.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September
The latter is the type of circumstance I suggest Egypt is nervous about.
If I were looking for a house the sight of solar panels, especially if retro-fitted, would just as likely disincentive me.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67150705
This looks a bit iffy, no?
If that fails they must put up a 'New Republicans' candidate to split the vote so that neither can win.
And thirdly, where relevant, they can vote Democrat so that Trump loses.
The government’s chief scientific adviser sent a secret message calling Rishi Sunak “Dr Death the chancellor” during a meeting attended by both in the Covid crisis, the official inquiry into the pandemic has been told.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/19/science-adviser-referred-to-rishi-sunak-as-dr-death-covid-inquiry-hears
Otherwise we have to accept that any future spouse of a senior politician cannot have their own business interests at all in order to make things squeaky clean just in case they benefit in any remote way from government policy. I’m guessing it might put more people off from politics and the cycle of reduction to career politicians will continue in a worse direction.
But it’s all good in terms of politics to attack Sunak through his wife in the 2020s.
"Between the end of World War II and the mid-1960s, work rates for prime-age men average around 94 percent.
. . .
In the 2010s, a monthly average of 16 percent--nearly 1 in 6 prime-age men--were earning no wages"
(p. 7 in the revised edition)
He defines prime-age as 25-54.
A few years ago, one of my nieces recounted a conversation she had had with girl friends. They wondered what had happened to all the good men. They were on to something.
The option of 'neither' was not given.
I know this is still not good but it does seem that this whole story was a very big lie from the beginning.
AFP citing senior European intelligence official: between 10 and 50 people died in the al Ahli hospital in Gaza.
https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1715029129685270690
And so while something might have been true when panel prices were $2 or even $1 per watt, it can now be not true with prices down at $0.27/watt or thereabouts
I, as Liberal Party agent, asked what would happen if we needed a recount to save our deposit. He was non-plussed; never thought of it. I didn’t think we would, the way things were going, but we had in 1970!
Labour should win but Labour has made a real mess of the campaign, lying about where their candidate lives and lying by saying they will stop green space house building which is national labour policy. Given what’s happened it’s shocking if conservatives hold but they have the far more credible candidate now.
Given the way Covid money was being splashed around, it's not surprising some of it ended up there.
Today's guilty plea is from an attorney who ran dozens of lawsuits for Trump trying to overturn Elections. Her co-defendant in this trial - Ken Chessborough (spelling?) is a bigger fish lawyer who I think may himself flip - especially if the Prosecutor is offering "No jail time" deals.
Sidney Powell who flipped today has been throwing everything except the kitchen sink at it, and nothing worked. I think this was the kitchen sink, and her Plan Z.
If Chessborough flips, this trial does not happen, the calendar opens up and trials can be pulled forward or dates maintained.
The other Prosecutors are on win:win deals - they either get to see evidence rehearsed and put on the public record which they can use as a mine if the co-defendant opts for trial, or they get co-operating witnesses who they can get to testify. I think a plea deal will be for co-operation in any trials.
Trump's activities resulted in deaths of multiple police officers, and politicians' lives being risked.
If I had to call-it, I'd say that others will fall like dominoes - especially in charges around the Coffee County Election Date breach and theft, and Trump himself may end up asking for a deal. Perhaps a Guilty Plea in exchange for 5 years behind bars.
The Prosecutors want Trump and Giuliani and a few others.
It's also worth a note that the Department of Justice has indicated it may appeal the sentences for some of the top foot-soldiers (eg Leaders of Proud Boys - eg one who got 22 years when they asked for 33 years). They haven't even started on the animators such as Trump or his minions yet.
Finally, this is the Georgia Trial, and one of two (iirc) which are not amenable to Presidential Pardons to get them off after the fact.
Always respect the power of the NIMBY vote.
Edit - it does however give Starmer an alibi if Labour lose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
Are there any other advanced nations where that has happened since 2000? (Or start even earlier, even earlier, if you like.)
Why did that happen, then? (Bush did pursue a number of family-friendly policies, including education reforms.)
(Speculation: Morale may be part of the answer. I have long thought that the population spurt in Imperial Germany after the Franco-Prussian War can be partly explained by high morale. Low morale would also help the almost static French population druing the same period.)
Oh actually, no - he never had it.
They are seriously wealthy and Mrs M, unless I’m wrong, isn’t sitting in a Bond villain boardroom directing the investments and applications of her many businesses in which she is a shareholder.
There will be teams of people like you who are looking at policies and tax breaks in many financial industries and seeing if it’s suitable or they are applicable and going for it.
If anything Sunak has probably spoken to her and her people as well as others and asked what can be done to stimulate investment. We can’t on one hand bemoan that politicians don’t know what happens in the real world of business then hammer those who actually are balls deep in business.
It would be no different if a PM whose husband or wife was a doctor and spoke to their work colleagues about what could help. There will be many ideas, wants and requests and some will be good, some bad, some indifferent but nothing wrong with asking for opinions and ideas outside of civil servants and spads.
So it’s likely something that’s considered a good idea for investment, people who work in Mrs M team see they can use it and apply.
I don’t think the Sunak family is high fiving over the returns they will get from it thinking “we’ve made it”. They will believe rightly or wrongly that it’s a good scheme and they apply like everyone else - and as I said, if they didn’t apply like everyone else and pass the same tests, then he would have to go.
It is, as you note, perhaps not a coincidence that this flip is in a state where neither Trump nor even the Governor could pardon.
I haven't had a quotation for my home, but have been looking online as I'm interested and it seems a typical Solar installation today costs about £5-6k including parts and labour. More if you want a battery to go with it.
So based on your theory that £1k = £190 in savings then should expect ~£1k - £1.2k in cost savings.
But my total annual electricity bill is only £1k. So I'd have to have to come in on the low-end of the quote range, and have all my bill wiped out in order to meet the ratio you named.
And since the cost of electricity is due to come back down off its peak, even then a 100% cost reduction wouldn't meet your quoted numbers.
So where are your numbers coming from? Unless you can get an installation done for £1k - in which case great, how?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-gaza-ground-assault-delay-hamas-ehud-barak-rcna121174
"The former prime minister does not shy away from how difficult a ground invasion would be for Israeli forces.
“We would love to have it [the incursion] in the meadows of Oxfordshire,” he said, referring to a county in rural England, “but it’s not; it’s Gaza. It’s a built-up area with fighters there, and they will fight back. I don’t want to idealize it or say it’s going to be a cakewalk. But with enough force and enough enthusiasm, we will win.”"