@Luckyguy1983@DavidL (I think!) and others who are in favour of new extraction licenses for oil and gas from the North Sea…
Can you give a better answer than Mercer’s woeful attempt on QT as to why the extracted fossil fuels won’t simply be sold to the highest bidder and do nothing for energy security (nor anything meaningful on the cost of living). Link here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001t4t5 (46 mins in)
Genuine question - this is an area where my instincts lie with Monbiot and on the face of it it looks like a simple case of the Tory party being captured by business interests that conflict with humanity’s interests. However I am also open to the idea that it is a nuanced question without simple answers. I’d appreciate an answer that avoids the canard that because we are small anything we do is pointless.
If we generate our own oil and gas then we have the option of preventing its export in extremis. One of the reasons we did not need the same storage facilities as those on the continent is that we had a (diminishing) reserve in the north sea.
We have also seen the catastrophic closure of Grangemouth which is being denied its feedstock which it was built to process. So the issues are: (a) our balance of payments (b) the knock on consequences for industry and employment, specifically in Scotland. (c) the reduction in our energy security.
I completely agree that we need to reduce our consumption of carbon based fuels. We want to cut these back as fast as we can. Until we achieve that I would much rather use our own fuel from the north sea than pretty much any supplier of carbon based fuels on the planet.
Thanks, makes more sense than Mercer did.
First paragraph is interesting. In your view would much larger storage facilities for imported gas provide a similar energy security function?
I buy the balance of payments and industry/employment arguments though feel (in abstract) that we are better to embrace the future than to try to preserve the past in this instance ie achieving similar BoP benefits from exporting clean tech, if possible, is far preferable than hanging on to obsolete tech.
Agreed on your last paragraph - any reduction in use of carbon-based fuels clearly needs to be driven by a relative lack of demand for them due to price and availability of renewables. (Though I’d argue the system has feedbacks within it so eg providing a clear and consistent investment environment for renewables is crucial).
I do think Monboit’s point, that he has been banging on about for years, is pretty irrefutable: unless we leave the stuff in the ground we will use it. But that’s clearly a global argument not a national one.
In any case, thanks, I knew I’d get a thoughtful answer from you.
The offshore wind auction failure and the delay of the 2030 phasing out of ICE is important context though.
I remain optimistic because after Ukraine, people associate fossil fuels with energy insecurity. If we'd managed to get more wind going before 2022 we would have weathered the energy crisis much better. The crisis DavidL describes (where the UK is entirely isolated from the world energy markets) seems very unlikely - pretty much WW3.
Leith echoes to the sound of the piling for the new renewables facilities.
I’ve been arguing for many years that Ending Oil would pay for itself in not having recessions every time some nutter gets the hiccups… In not sending container ship loads of cash to people who are quite upfront about hating us.
Slowing Global Warming to a stop is a free extra.
Happy to be proven wrong on this by people who know more, but...
The energy security argument for offshore wind has always seemed a bit barmy to me. One quick snip of the cable via undersea sub and the lights go out. Surely a distributed onshore wind / solar / nuclear mix makes more sense from an energy perspective. Plus a bit of tidal.
I think we need a distinction between the two types of security:
1) Exposure to Putin/MBS etc various nonsense 2) WAR
Tory MPs are convinced they're facing oblivion. And some now believe a "Dream Ticket" of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage represents their final chance > Mail On Sunday >
Given Sunak's CCHQ will block Johnson and Farage from getting on the Tory parlamentary candidates list even if they wanted to run, that looks more like the Reform 'dream ticket' than Tory one
I would still like to know what deal Starmer signed with Satan.
The Tories have gone in less than two years from increasing their majority to complete implosion.
The SNP are weirdly obsessed with trans rights, are clearly clueless and hopelessly confused on their main selling point, their two former leaders arrested and their current one so incompetent even his own colleagues criticise him (even discounting current rumours).
Welsh Labour are completely hopeless to the extent Drakeford endorses criminal behaviour by motorcyclists while cutting speed limits more or less randomly for everyone else, but few people care.
Khan is inept but somehow the Tories have selected a candidate who would make Trump look mainstream to challenge him.
And while doing absolutely nothing except crack the odd joke and have a couple of curries, suddenly Starmer's dominating politics.
Whatever deal he signed, Satan must feel swindled. I'd like Starmer drawing up my next contract, that's for sure.
You realise that, given the proximity of the election and the polls, that Starmer *will* be drawing up your next contract?
As an employer….
Not unless I start working for the government again he won't.
And the only jobs I'd accept from that lot right now are Chief of OFSTED or PUS at the DfE.
I am convinced that Musk is bipolar or worse. We have the Musk who leads Tesla and SpaceX, and the lunatic who owns X. How can they possibly be the same person?
He has admitted he is autistic - at the Aspie end of things. That is probably sufficient to explain his high intellect combined with intense social awkwardness and - often - weird prickliness. And a peculiar, sometimes maladroit sense of humour
A high-IQ Aspie personality might be seen as ideal for creating and pushing techie companies like SpaceX and Tesla. Less so - to put it mildly - for owning a social media company. Indeed it is hard to think of a worse mix than Social Media plus Asperger's
Musk should set some free speech ground rules for TwiX, then let someone else run the show, and let someone else audit his tweets first. I do believe he has good intentions, he's just incredibly clumsy and prone to tantrums
Forget about the “autism”
There are a vast number of examples in history of people who were top of one field and utters clowns or monsters in another.
Read the correspondence between Sidney Hook and Einstein. At one point Einstein refused to condemn the use of torture to extract false confessions - because the false confessions brought prominence to an important issue.
Except, of course, many have claimed that Einstein was clearly autistic
Tho I tend to think these historical, after-the-fact diagnoses have limited utility
If the definition of autism is just being highly intelligent, lacking in social skills, and obsessed with fringe issues to the point of monomania, 90% of PB qualifies.
I suspect like ADHD, PTSD, etc, it's just become a bit of a catch-all for people with a certain personality type.
Even on the strictest medical definitions I strongly suspect 90% of PB commenters qualify as autistic
I am one of the rare exceptions, but I am a bipolar alcoholic with hints of NPD. You do what you can!
My therapist gave me "unspecified cluster B personality disorder" which means a little from column A, a little from column B, essentially meaning I'm mad as a box of frogs.
I actually think in moderation, narcissism and machaiavellianism for example are probably healthy personality traits. How many of history's great leaders would be diagnosed thusly? Napoleon for sure, Alexander the Great... heck, add Elon Musk to the mix - who I see as a classic narcissist, not an autist.
The problem today is we try to pathologise and medicate what are seen as "extreme" ends of the personality trait spectrum. We're *all* a bit narcissistic, but only the top 1%ish qualify for NPD. Yet we don't do the same, for say, intelligence. Was Einsten suffering from Too-brainy-for-his-boots-disorder, being in the top 1% of intelligences? I'm sure modern psychiatry would say so.
@Luckyguy1983@DavidL (I think!) and others who are in favour of new extraction licenses for oil and gas from the North Sea…
Can you give a better answer than Mercer’s woeful attempt on QT as to why the extracted fossil fuels won’t simply be sold to the highest bidder and do nothing for energy security (nor anything meaningful on the cost of living). Link here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001t4t5 (46 mins in)
Genuine question - this is an area where my instincts lie with Monbiot and on the face of it it looks like a simple case of the Tory party being captured by business interests that conflict with humanity’s interests. However I am also open to the idea that it is a nuanced question without simple answers. I’d appreciate an answer that avoids the canard that because we are small anything we do is pointless.
If we generate our own oil and gas then we have the option of preventing its export in extremis. One of the reasons we did not need the same storage facilities as those on the continent is that we had a (diminishing) reserve in the north sea.
We have also seen the catastrophic closure of Grangemouth which is being denied its feedstock which it was built to process. So the issues are: (a) our balance of payments (b) the knock on consequences for industry and employment, specifically in Scotland. (c) the reduction in our energy security.
I completely agree that we need to reduce our consumption of carbon based fuels. We want to cut these back as fast as we can. Until we achieve that I would much rather use our own fuel from the north sea than pretty much any supplier of carbon based fuels on the planet.
Thanks, makes more sense than Mercer did.
First paragraph is interesting. In your view would much larger storage facilities for imported gas provide a similar energy security function?
I buy the balance of payments and industry/employment arguments though feel (in abstract) that we are better to embrace the future than to try to preserve the past in this instance ie achieving similar BoP benefits from exporting clean tech, if possible, is far preferable than hanging on to obsolete tech.
Agreed on your last paragraph - any reduction in use of carbon-based fuels clearly needs to be driven by a relative lack of demand for them due to price and availability of renewables. (Though I’d argue the system has feedbacks within it so eg providing a clear and consistent investment environment for renewables is crucial).
I do think Monboit’s point, that he has been banging on about for years, is pretty irrefutable: unless we leave the stuff in the ground we will use it. But that’s clearly a global argument not a national one.
In any case, thanks, I knew I’d get a thoughtful answer from you.
The offshore wind auction failure and the delay of the 2030 phasing out of ICE is important context though.
I remain optimistic because after Ukraine, people associate fossil fuels with energy insecurity. If we'd managed to get more wind going before 2022 we would have weathered the energy crisis much better. The crisis DavidL describes (where the UK is entirely isolated from the world energy markets) seems very unlikely - pretty much WW3.
Leith echoes to the sound of the piling for the new renewables facilities.
I’ve been arguing for many years that Ending Oil would pay for itself in not having recessions every time some nutter gets the hiccups… In not sending container ship loads of cash to people who are quite upfront about hating us.
Slowing Global Warming to a stop is a free extra.
Happy to be proven wrong on this by people who know more, but...
The energy security argument for offshore wind has always seemed a bit barmy to me. One quick snip of the cable via undersea sub and the lights go out. Surely a distributed onshore wind / solar / nuclear mix makes more sense from an energy perspective. Plus a bit of tidal.
Offshore wind is distributed over areas of many miles. The water is too shallow for major subs to operate. Mini subs can only crawl around at 2-3 knots.
Tidal makes sense, most, from the grid stabilisation and storage potential.
@Luckyguy1983@DavidL (I think!) and others who are in favour of new extraction licenses for oil and gas from the North Sea…
Can you give a better answer than Mercer’s woeful attempt on QT as to why the extracted fossil fuels won’t simply be sold to the highest bidder and do nothing for energy security (nor anything meaningful on the cost of living). Link here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001t4t5 (46 mins in)
Genuine question - this is an area where my instincts lie with Monbiot and on the face of it it looks like a simple case of the Tory party being captured by business interests that conflict with humanity’s interests. However I am also open to the idea that it is a nuanced question without simple answers. I’d appreciate an answer that avoids the canard that because we are small anything we do is pointless.
If we generate our own oil and gas then we have the option of preventing its export in extremis. One of the reasons we did not need the same storage facilities as those on the continent is that we had a (diminishing) reserve in the north sea.
We have also seen the catastrophic closure of Grangemouth which is being denied its feedstock which it was built to process. So the issues are: (a) our balance of payments (b) the knock on consequences for industry and employment, specifically in Scotland. (c) the reduction in our energy security.
I completely agree that we need to reduce our consumption of carbon based fuels. We want to cut these back as fast as we can. Until we achieve that I would much rather use our own fuel from the north sea than pretty much any supplier of carbon based fuels on the planet.
Thanks, makes more sense than Mercer did.
First paragraph is interesting. In your view would much larger storage facilities for imported gas provide a similar energy security function?
I buy the balance of payments and industry/employment arguments though feel (in abstract) that we are better to embrace the future than to try to preserve the past in this instance ie achieving similar BoP benefits from exporting clean tech, if possible, is far preferable than hanging on to obsolete tech.
Agreed on your last paragraph - any reduction in use of carbon-based fuels clearly needs to be driven by a relative lack of demand for them due to price and availability of renewables. (Though I’d argue the system has feedbacks within it so eg providing a clear and consistent investment environment for renewables is crucial).
I do think Monbiot’s point, that he has been banging on about for years, is pretty irrefutable: unless we leave the stuff in the ground we will use it. But that’s clearly a global argument not a national one.
In any case, thanks, I knew I’d get a thoughtful answer from you.
A further thought on the energy security question-if that’s part of the argument would it not be better to leave the gas in the North Sea until we find ourselves in extremis? Even if it’s there for the next 50 years, it only provides security until we extract and sell it surely? I realise there are some questions here about extraction infrastructure and readiness.
I would suspect that reducing to a very low rate of production on existing fields would work better than shut in.
It would be pretty much impossible to stockpile knowledge. Even infrastructure would be hard, since it evolves and improves over time. So a future re-start in the North Sea would, certainly, require importing the skills and equipment. Which kills a chunk of the energy security argument.
Unless you did something truly strange, like pay to drill wells and then immediately close them off, permanently. While building and rebuilding pipelines that don’t carry anything to refineries that don’t refine. Except for small test amounts.
Yes that’s what I mean essentially-license extraction but at very low rates. Though it would make no economic sense for a private company-perhaps a good argument for a nationalised industry with subsidies to keep the gas (very slowly) flowing and with capacity to scale up at short notice.
Something else to put on labour’s shopping list eh?
Consider decommissioning - a big employer in Aberdeen and a major ongoing cost for O&G firms. We wouldn't want that to end up being the Gov's responsibility.
(We need to Mr Tyndall to confirm - my understanding of it is about 10 years out of date)
I suspect we’ll get the costs of that anyway after the companies involved transfer out assets and declare bankruptcy. Might as well have it in the books from the start.
This may help to make the story a little sexier for those that can't cope with the tedious facts of the Post Office scandal.
It's got to be the most boring political scandal of all time, fusing the unholy trifecta of tedium: lawyers, IT wankers and the type of people who want to measure out the precious days of their mortal span running a sub post office in Jaywick.
"A very British scandal"
Outside pb.com I have never heard anybody mention it, let alone breathlessly analyse a 13 year old Royal Mail email about some database shit.
The difference in polling against Biden is quite remarkable.
If Haley is the candidate, the Democrats have a real problem in what to do about Biden. He has, IMO, been a very good president, but he'd very likely lose to Haley now.
So Trump actually gets a higher voteshare than Haley (but still only roughly what he got in 2016 and 2020) just Biden also does better against Trump than Haley. Plus a lot of undecideds.
Factor in Trump almost certainly going Independent if not nominee and on the ballot in many swing states then Biden could beat Haley even with just the 40% of the vote he is now on
This may help to make the story a little sexier for those that can't cope with the tedious facts of the Post Office scandal.
I see former Hollyoaks and 2 Pints star Will Mellor has a part, so I suspect it will be slightly more populist and drama filled and rather less legal and technical than the latest Cyclefree post on the matter
It probably needs to be if it is not to prejudice the coming Court cases.
Rishi Sunak is the most politically inept PM I think we have ever had. He seems to have a unique ability to make every call wrong and to dig himself further and further into a hole. It is actually quite extraordinary to watch.
Of course, this was plainly obvious during his "eat out to spread COVID about" phase but people seemed to think he was some kind of amazing politician for no apparent reason.
Welcome
1) What is an average mark on Ninja Studies? 2) A plane crashes on the Ukrainian/Republic Of China border. Which side do you bury the survivors?
This may help to make the story a little sexier for those that can't cope with the tedious facts of the Post Office scandal.
I see former Hollyoaks and 2 Pints star Will Mellor has a part, so I suspect it will be slightly more populist and drama filled and rather less legal and technical than the latest Cyclefree post on the matter
Rishi Sunak is the most politically inept PM I think we have ever had. He seems to have a unique ability to make every call wrong and to dig himself further and further into a hole. It is actually quite extraordinary to watch.
Of course, this was plainly obvious during his "eat out to spread COVID about" phase but people seemed to think he was some kind of amazing politician for no apparent reason.
Welcome
1) What is an average mark on Ninja Studies? 2) A plane crashes on the Ukrainian/Republic Of China border. Which side do you bury the survivors?
WTF is the border the between the Ukraine and China?
I would still like to know what deal Starmer signed with Satan.
The Tories have gone in less than two years from increasing their majority to complete implosion.
The SNP are weirdly obsessed with trans rights, are clearly clueless and hopelessly confused on their main selling point, their two former leaders arrested and their current one so incompetent even his own colleagues criticise him (even discounting current rumours).
Welsh Labour are completely hopeless to the extent Drakeford endorses criminal behaviour by motorcyclists while cutting speed limits more or less randomly for everyone else, but few people care.
Khan is inept but somehow the Tories have selected a candidate who would make Trump look mainstream to challenge him.
And while doing absolutely nothing except crack the odd joke and have a couple of curries, suddenly Starmer's dominating politics.
Whatever deal he signed, Satan must feel swindled. I'd like Starmer drawing up my next contract, that's for sure.
You realise that, given the proximity of the election and the polls, that Starmer *will* be drawing up your next contract?
As an employer….
Not unless I start working for the government again he won't.
And the only jobs I'd accept from that lot right now are Chief of OFSTED or PUS at the DfE.
Why would you want to be head of OFSTED? You would be on gardening leave on day one, since you would attempt to fire all the incompetent and criminal members of staff.
Your successor would reinstate them all.
Having a job for one day and not achieving much sounds like a waste.
I would still like to know what deal Starmer signed with Satan.
The Tories have gone in less than two years from increasing their majority to complete implosion.
The SNP are weirdly obsessed with trans rights, are clearly clueless and hopelessly confused on their main selling point, their two former leaders arrested and their current one so incompetent even his own colleagues criticise him (even discounting current rumours).
Welsh Labour are completely hopeless to the extent Drakeford endorses criminal behaviour by motorcyclists while cutting speed limits more or less randomly for everyone else, but few people care.
Khan is inept but somehow the Tories have selected a candidate who would make Trump look mainstream to challenge him.
And while doing absolutely nothing except crack the odd joke and have a couple of curries, suddenly Starmer's dominating politics.
Whatever deal he signed, Satan must feel swindled. I'd like Starmer drawing up my next contract, that's for sure.
You realise that, given the proximity of the election and the polls, that Starmer *will* be drawing up your next contract?
As an employer….
Not unless I start working for the government again he won't.
And the only jobs I'd accept from that lot right now are Chief of OFSTED or PUS at the DfE.
Why would you want to be head of OFSTED? You would be on gardening leave on day one, since you would attempt to fire all the incompetent and criminal members of staff.
Your successor would reinstate them all.
Having a job for one day and not achieving much sounds like a waste.
This may help to make the story a little sexier for those that can't cope with the tedious facts of the Post Office scandal.
It's got to be the most boring political scandal of all time, fusing the unholy trifecta of tedium: lawyers, IT wankers and the type of people who want to measure out the precious days of their mortal span running a sub post office in Jaywick.
"A very British scandal"
Outside pb.com I have never heard anybody mention it, let alone breathlessly analyse a 13 year old Royal Mail email about some database shit.
Don’t worry. The minds behind the PO debacle are working this very minute to create another miscarriage of justice. One specially for you, possibly.
I would still like to know what deal Starmer signed with Satan.
The Tories have gone in less than two years from increasing their majority to complete implosion.
The SNP are weirdly obsessed with trans rights, are clearly clueless and hopelessly confused on their main selling point, their two former leaders arrested and their current one so incompetent even his own colleagues criticise him (even discounting current rumours).
Welsh Labour are completely hopeless to the extent Drakeford endorses criminal behaviour by motorcyclists while cutting speed limits more or less randomly for everyone else, but few people care.
Khan is inept but somehow the Tories have selected a candidate who would make Trump look mainstream to challenge him.
And while doing absolutely nothing except crack the odd joke and have a couple of curries, suddenly Starmer's dominating politics.
Whatever deal he signed, Satan must feel swindled. I'd like Starmer drawing up my next contract, that's for sure.
You realise that, given the proximity of the election and the polls, that Starmer *will* be drawing up your next contract?
As an employer….
Not unless I start working for the government again he won't.
And the only jobs I'd accept from that lot right now are Chief of OFSTED or PUS at the DfE.
Why would you want to be head of OFSTED? You would be on gardening leave on day one, since you would attempt to fire all the incompetent and criminal members of staff.
Your successor would reinstate them all.
Having a job for one day and not achieving much sounds like a waste.
Have you met Liz Truss?
No. But I’ve met a lettuce. So I move in more exulted circles.
The only SNP figure that I have seen acknowledge this is Kate Forbes who, of course, had to deal with this in detail during her period as Finance Minister. She is also the only one who seems to acknowledge the implications: if Scotland wants to be an independent country with its current, let alone improved, standard of living the absolute priority is the growth of the Scottish economy.
This was going to be challenging enough because growth policies tend to run contrary to the policies that the SNP have followed over the last 15 years with its emphasis on "free" stuff, higher taxes, its hostility towards the private sector which constantly needs ever more regulation and supervision by well paid civil servants, the declining contribution of the North Sea (despite better figures in 2022 and probably this year given high oil prices), the massive clean up costs that are coming from that and, dare I mention it once again, the catastrophe of Grangemouth which will knock 5% off our industrial production on its own.
The irony of a growth driven agenda by the likes of Forbes is that it would be highly attractive to the likes of me and many Tories who would find common ground, as many Tartan Tories did with Salmond. The problem with this delusion, constantly supported by the likes of Sturgeon and now her successor, is that they simply do not see the need to make Scotland an attractive place to do business in.
@Luckyguy1983@DavidL (I think!) and others who are in favour of new extraction licenses for oil and gas from the North Sea…
Can you give a better answer than Mercer’s woeful attempt on QT as to why the extracted fossil fuels won’t simply be sold to the highest bidder and do nothing for energy security (nor anything meaningful on the cost of living). Link here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001t4t5 (46 mins in)
Genuine question - this is an area where my instincts lie with Monbiot and on the face of it it looks like a simple case of the Tory party being captured by business interests that conflict with humanity’s interests. However I am also open to the idea that it is a nuanced question without simple answers. I’d appreciate an answer that avoids the canard that because we are small anything we do is pointless.
If we generate our own oil and gas then we have the option of preventing its export in extremis. One of the reasons we did not need the same storage facilities as those on the continent is that we had a (diminishing) reserve in the north sea.
We have also seen the catastrophic closure of Grangemouth which is being denied its feedstock which it was built to process. So the issues are: (a) our balance of payments (b) the knock on consequences for industry and employment, specifically in Scotland. (c) the reduction in our energy security.
I completely agree that we need to reduce our consumption of carbon based fuels. We want to cut these back as fast as we can. Until we achieve that I would much rather use our own fuel from the north sea than pretty much any supplier of carbon based fuels on the planet.
Thanks, makes more sense than Mercer did.
First paragraph is interesting. In your view would much larger storage facilities for imported gas provide a similar energy security function?
I buy the balance of payments and industry/employment arguments though feel (in abstract) that we are better to embrace the future than to try to preserve the past in this instance ie achieving similar BoP benefits from exporting clean tech, if possible, is far preferable than hanging on to obsolete tech.
Agreed on your last paragraph - any reduction in use of carbon-based fuels clearly needs to be driven by a relative lack of demand for them due to price and availability of renewables. (Though I’d argue the system has feedbacks within it so eg providing a clear and consistent investment environment for renewables is crucial).
I do think Monboit’s point, that he has been banging on about for years, is pretty irrefutable: unless we leave the stuff in the ground we will use it. But that’s clearly a global argument not a national one.
In any case, thanks, I knew I’d get a thoughtful answer from you.
The offshore wind auction failure and the delay of the 2030 phasing out of ICE is important context though.
I remain optimistic because after Ukraine, people associate fossil fuels with energy insecurity. If we'd managed to get more wind going before 2022 we would have weathered the energy crisis much better. The crisis DavidL describes (where the UK is entirely isolated from the world energy markets) seems very unlikely - pretty much WW3.
Leith echoes to the sound of the piling for the new renewables facilities.
I’ve been arguing for many years that Ending Oil would pay for itself in not having recessions every time some nutter gets the hiccups… In not sending container ship loads of cash to people who are quite upfront about hating us.
Slowing Global Warming to a stop is a free extra.
Happy to be proven wrong on this by people who know more, but...
The energy security argument for offshore wind has always seemed a bit barmy to me. One quick snip of the cable via undersea sub and the lights go out. Surely a distributed onshore wind / solar / nuclear mix makes more sense from an energy perspective. Plus a bit of tidal.
I think we need a distinction between the two types of security:
1) Exposure to Putin/MBS etc various nonsense 2) WAR
One of the things I find quite extraordinary (and wonderful) about the Ukraine war is how they've managed to keep the lights on (and perhaps more importantly, the heating on).
If I were Putin, which thankfully I'm not, I'd aim every missile salvo at power generation and distribution points and plunge Ukraine into frozen darkness. Sod lobbing the occasional V-rocket at a tower block or shopping centre. Just take out the heating and the lights. Given the centralisation of electricity distribution you'd assume it would be fairly easy to do.
This may help to make the story a little sexier for those that can't cope with the tedious facts of the Post Office scandal.
Mm, was wondering about the often-stated impact of 'Cathy Come Home' on the BBC as regarded the homelessness issue (was too youing or not interested at the time so can't speak from first person).
Though as we still have homelessness perhaps it's not such a happy precedent!
A better example might be the film Scum, which made Ray Winstone a star, but equally importantly led to a huge improvement in the treatment of young offenders.
Rishi Sunak is the most politically inept PM I think we have ever had. He seems to have a unique ability to make every call wrong and to dig himself further and further into a hole. It is actually quite extraordinary to watch.
Of course, this was plainly obvious during his "eat out to spread COVID about" phase but people seemed to think he was some kind of amazing politician for no apparent reason.
Welcome
1) What is an average mark on Ninja Studies? 2) A plane crashes on the Ukrainian/Republic Of China border. Which side do you bury the survivors?
WTF is the border the between the Ukraine and China?
I decided that since Irredentism is the fashion, and that being crazier than the next Irredentist how you win, I would become the Ultimate Ukrainian Irredentist.
From Poland to the Taiwan Straits…
Makes From The River To The Sea seem so unambiguous.
I would still like to know what deal Starmer signed with Satan.
The Tories have gone in less than two years from increasing their majority to complete implosion.
The SNP are weirdly obsessed with trans rights, are clearly clueless and hopelessly confused on their main selling point, their two former leaders arrested and their current one so incompetent even his own colleagues criticise him (even discounting current rumours).
Welsh Labour are completely hopeless to the extent Drakeford endorses criminal behaviour by motorcyclists while cutting speed limits more or less randomly for everyone else, but few people care.
Khan is inept but somehow the Tories have selected a candidate who would make Trump look mainstream to challenge him.
And while doing absolutely nothing except crack the odd joke and have a couple of curries, suddenly Starmer's dominating politics.
Whatever deal he signed, Satan must feel swindled. I'd like Starmer drawing up my next contract, that's for sure.
You realise that, given the proximity of the election and the polls, that Starmer *will* be drawing up your next contract?
As an employer….
Not unless I start working for the government again he won't.
And the only jobs I'd accept from that lot right now are Chief of OFSTED or PUS at the DfE.
Why would you want to be head of OFSTED? You would be on gardening leave on day one, since you would attempt to fire all the incompetent and criminal members of staff.
Your successor would reinstate them all.
Having a job for one day and not achieving much sounds like a waste.
Look, having a job for one day and then five years' pay for doing nothing is OK.
But I would not need a day. Two hours would be enough. Just to tell them what I REALLY think of them...
Rishi Sunak is the most politically inept PM I think we have ever had. He seems to have a unique ability to make every call wrong and to dig himself further and further into a hole. It is actually quite extraordinary to watch.
Of course, this was plainly obvious during his "eat out to spread COVID about" phase but people seemed to think he was some kind of amazing politician for no apparent reason.
Welcome
1) What is an average mark on Ninja Studies? 2) A plane crashes on the Ukrainian/Republic Of China border. Which side do you bury the survivors?
WTF is the border the between the Ukraine and China?
I decided that since Irredentism is the fashion, and that being crazier than the next Irredentist how you win, I would become the Ultimate Ukrainian Irredentist.
From Poland to the Taiwan Straits…
Makes From The River To The Sea seem so unambiguous.
Rishi Sunak is the most politically inept PM I think we have ever had. He seems to have a unique ability to make every call wrong and to dig himself further and further into a hole. It is actually quite extraordinary to watch.
Of course, this was plainly obvious during his "eat out to spread COVID about" phase but people seemed to think he was some kind of amazing politician for no apparent reason.
According to Nadine Dorries, Rishi was the chosen weapon of "the movement" to remove Boris.
Although also according to Nad, "the movement" had to dissuade Rishi from resigning over his Partygate FPN because that would precipitate Boris's own departure.
It's like 3d-chess. I can't wait to see how it ends.
@Luckyguy1983@DavidL (I think!) and others who are in favour of new extraction licenses for oil and gas from the North Sea…
Can you give a better answer than Mercer’s woeful attempt on QT as to why the extracted fossil fuels won’t simply be sold to the highest bidder and do nothing for energy security (nor anything meaningful on the cost of living). Link here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001t4t5 (46 mins in)
Genuine question - this is an area where my instincts lie with Monbiot and on the face of it it looks like a simple case of the Tory party being captured by business interests that conflict with humanity’s interests. However I am also open to the idea that it is a nuanced question without simple answers. I’d appreciate an answer that avoids the canard that because we are small anything we do is pointless.
If we generate our own oil and gas then we have the option of preventing its export in extremis. One of the reasons we did not need the same storage facilities as those on the continent is that we had a (diminishing) reserve in the north sea.
We have also seen the catastrophic closure of Grangemouth which is being denied its feedstock which it was built to process. So the issues are: (a) our balance of payments (b) the knock on consequences for industry and employment, specifically in Scotland. (c) the reduction in our energy security.
I completely agree that we need to reduce our consumption of carbon based fuels. We want to cut these back as fast as we can. Until we achieve that I would much rather use our own fuel from the north sea than pretty much any supplier of carbon based fuels on the planet.
Thanks, makes more sense than Mercer did.
First paragraph is interesting. In your view would much larger storage facilities for imported gas provide a similar energy security function?
I buy the balance of payments and industry/employment arguments though feel (in abstract) that we are better to embrace the future than to try to preserve the past in this instance ie achieving similar BoP benefits from exporting clean tech, if possible, is far preferable than hanging on to obsolete tech.
Agreed on your last paragraph - any reduction in use of carbon-based fuels clearly needs to be driven by a relative lack of demand for them due to price and availability of renewables. (Though I’d argue the system has feedbacks within it so eg providing a clear and consistent investment environment for renewables is crucial).
I do think Monboit’s point, that he has been banging on about for years, is pretty irrefutable: unless we leave the stuff in the ground we will use it. But that’s clearly a global argument not a national one.
In any case, thanks, I knew I’d get a thoughtful answer from you.
The offshore wind auction failure and the delay of the 2030 phasing out of ICE is important context though.
I remain optimistic because after Ukraine, people associate fossil fuels with energy insecurity. If we'd managed to get more wind going before 2022 we would have weathered the energy crisis much better. The crisis DavidL describes (where the UK is entirely isolated from the world energy markets) seems very unlikely - pretty much WW3.
Leith echoes to the sound of the piling for the new renewables facilities.
I’ve been arguing for many years that Ending Oil would pay for itself in not having recessions every time some nutter gets the hiccups… In not sending container ship loads of cash to people who are quite upfront about hating us.
Slowing Global Warming to a stop is a free extra.
Happy to be proven wrong on this by people who know more, but...
The energy security argument for offshore wind has always seemed a bit barmy to me. One quick snip of the cable via undersea sub and the lights go out. Surely a distributed onshore wind / solar / nuclear mix makes more sense from an energy perspective. Plus a bit of tidal.
Offshore wind is distributed over areas of many miles. The water is too shallow for major subs to operate. Mini subs can only crawl around at 2-3 knots.
Tidal makes sense, most, from the grid stabilisation and storage potential.
Ever hear of a guy named Rod Rainey? Was involved in Pelamis, came up with a cost-effective water wheel design for a Severn barrage.
Seen as a crank by the establishment, but I've run the numbers on his ideas and they seem to check out based on my limited, amateurish knowledge. It seems like a no-brainer to me compared to, say, Hinckley Point C.
The only SNP figure that I have seen acknowledge this is Kate Forbes who, of course, had to deal with this in detail during her period as Finance Minister. She is also the only one who seems to acknowledge the implications: if Scotland wants to be an independent country with its current, let alone improved, standard of living the absolute priority is the growth of the Scottish economy.
This was going to be challenging enough because growth policies tend to run contrary to the policies that the SNP have followed over the last 15 years with its emphasis on "free" stuff, higher taxes, its hostility towards the private sector which constantly needs ever more regulation and supervision by well paid civil servants, the declining contribution of the North Sea (despite better figures in 2022 and probably this year given high oil prices), the massive clean up costs that are coming from that and, dare I mention it once again, the catastrophe of Grangemouth which will knock 5% off our industrial production on its own.
The irony of a growth driven agenda by the likes of Forbes is that it would be highly attractive to the likes of me and many Tories who would find common ground, as many Tartan Tories did with Salmond. The problem with this delusion, constantly supported by the likes of Sturgeon and now her successor, is that they simply do not see the need to make Scotland an attractive place to do business in.
How strongly were you tempted to vote for Salmond’s ‘growth driven agenda’ on a percentage scale? Anything above a fraction of 1%?
@Luckyguy1983@DavidL (I think!) and others who are in favour of new extraction licenses for oil and gas from the North Sea…
Can you give a better answer than Mercer’s woeful attempt on QT as to why the extracted fossil fuels won’t simply be sold to the highest bidder and do nothing for energy security (nor anything meaningful on the cost of living). Link here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001t4t5 (46 mins in)
Genuine question - this is an area where my instincts lie with Monbiot and on the face of it it looks like a simple case of the Tory party being captured by business interests that conflict with humanity’s interests. However I am also open to the idea that it is a nuanced question without simple answers. I’d appreciate an answer that avoids the canard that because we are small anything we do is pointless.
If we generate our own oil and gas then we have the option of preventing its export in extremis. One of the reasons we did not need the same storage facilities as those on the continent is that we had a (diminishing) reserve in the north sea.
We have also seen the catastrophic closure of Grangemouth which is being denied its feedstock which it was built to process. So the issues are: (a) our balance of payments (b) the knock on consequences for industry and employment, specifically in Scotland. (c) the reduction in our energy security.
I completely agree that we need to reduce our consumption of carbon based fuels. We want to cut these back as fast as we can. Until we achieve that I would much rather use our own fuel from the north sea than pretty much any supplier of carbon based fuels on the planet.
Thanks, makes more sense than Mercer did.
First paragraph is interesting. In your view would much larger storage facilities for imported gas provide a similar energy security function?
I buy the balance of payments and industry/employment arguments though feel (in abstract) that we are better to embrace the future than to try to preserve the past in this instance ie achieving similar BoP benefits from exporting clean tech, if possible, is far preferable than hanging on to obsolete tech.
Agreed on your last paragraph - any reduction in use of carbon-based fuels clearly needs to be driven by a relative lack of demand for them due to price and availability of renewables. (Though I’d argue the system has feedbacks within it so eg providing a clear and consistent investment environment for renewables is crucial).
I do think Monboit’s point, that he has been banging on about for years, is pretty irrefutable: unless we leave the stuff in the ground we will use it. But that’s clearly a global argument not a national one.
In any case, thanks, I knew I’d get a thoughtful answer from you.
The offshore wind auction failure and the delay of the 2030 phasing out of ICE is important context though.
I remain optimistic because after Ukraine, people associate fossil fuels with energy insecurity. If we'd managed to get more wind going before 2022 we would have weathered the energy crisis much better. The crisis DavidL describes (where the UK is entirely isolated from the world energy markets) seems very unlikely - pretty much WW3.
Leith echoes to the sound of the piling for the new renewables facilities.
I’ve been arguing for many years that Ending Oil would pay for itself in not having recessions every time some nutter gets the hiccups… In not sending container ship loads of cash to people who are quite upfront about hating us.
Slowing Global Warming to a stop is a free extra.
Happy to be proven wrong on this by people who know more, but...
The energy security argument for offshore wind has always seemed a bit barmy to me. One quick snip of the cable via undersea sub and the lights go out. Surely a distributed onshore wind / solar / nuclear mix makes more sense from an energy perspective. Plus a bit of tidal.
I think we need a distinction between the two types of security:
1) Exposure to Putin/MBS etc various nonsense 2) WAR
One of the things I find quite extraordinary (and wonderful) about the Ukraine war is how they've managed to keep the lights on (and perhaps more importantly, the heating on).
If I were Putin, which thankfully I'm not, I'd aim every missile salvo at power generation and distribution points and plunge Ukraine into frozen darkness. Sod lobbing the occasional V-rocket at a tower block or shopping centre. Just take out the heating and the lights. Given the centralisation of electricity distribution you'd assume it would be fairly easy to do.
It would mean attacking nuclear powerplants.
There would be - fallout. Of various different sorts.
He has obviously considered it and then backed off. I am assuming that the Chinese and the Americans have separately indicated to him that they have Views on the subject of using nuclear power plants as targets in wartime
Tory MPs are convinced they're facing oblivion. And some now believe a "Dream Ticket" of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage represents their final chance > Mail On Sunday >
For starters, neither is an MP. Farage has shown he is impossible to get elected into Westminster. He has proved to be the very essence of oblivion with the voters.
And if by some weird political miracle Boris and Farage both got elected, it would be minutes before they were literally at each others throats. "Like fire and powder which as they kiss, consume...."
Then what is your plan F, fuckwit MPs?
If I was a Tory MP, I might want to resurrect this idea:
This may help to make the story a little sexier for those that can't cope with the tedious facts of the Post Office scandal.
It's got to be the most boring political scandal of all time, fusing the unholy trifecta of tedium: lawyers, IT wankers and the type of people who want to measure out the precious days of their mortal span running a sub post office in Jaywick.
It isn't 'political' in the Party Political sense, which is part of the problem. The three leading Parties all come out of it badly, so there is no major Party trying to milk it for votes. What's more, it will be very difficult and expensive for the Government to settle, when the time comes, so nobody is creating any hostages to fortune.
There are other problems. As one of the actors in the series said, you just can't believe how bad it is until you start getting into the detail and most people, understandably enough, don't want to do that. When you do start to get into it, you can hardly believe people actually did this. It truly beggars belief, which is a problem in itself.
The main problem though, as you kind of suggest, is that a topic like this requires an audience with an attention span greater than the average gnat.
Rishi Sunak is the most politically inept PM I think we have ever had. He seems to have a unique ability to make every call wrong and to dig himself further and further into a hole. It is actually quite extraordinary to watch.
Of course, this was plainly obvious during his "eat out to spread COVID about" phase but people seemed to think he was some kind of amazing politician for no apparent reason.
Welcome
1) What is an average mark on Ninja Studies? 2) A plane crashes on the Ukrainian/Republic Of China border. Which side do you bury the survivors?
WTF is the border the between the Ukraine and China?
The border between Green Ukraine and Manchuria from 1917 to 1922 ran from Blagoveshchensk to Vladivostok along the Amur River.
The only SNP figure that I have seen acknowledge this is Kate Forbes who, of course, had to deal with this in detail during her period as Finance Minister. She is also the only one who seems to acknowledge the implications: if Scotland wants to be an independent country with its current, let alone improved, standard of living the absolute priority is the growth of the Scottish economy.
This was going to be challenging enough because growth policies tend to run contrary to the policies that the SNP have followed over the last 15 years with its emphasis on "free" stuff, higher taxes, its hostility towards the private sector which constantly needs ever more regulation and supervision by well paid civil servants, the declining contribution of the North Sea (despite better figures in 2022 and probably this year given high oil prices), the massive clean up costs that are coming from that and, dare I mention it once again, the catastrophe of Grangemouth which will knock 5% off our industrial production on its own.
The irony of a growth driven agenda by the likes of Forbes is that it would be highly attractive to the likes of me and many Tories who would find common ground, as many Tartan Tories did with Salmond. The problem with this delusion, constantly supported by the likes of Sturgeon and now her successor, is that they simply do not see the need to make Scotland an attractive place to do business in.
How strongly were you tempted to vote for Salmond’s ‘growth driven agenda’ on a percentage scale? Anything above a fraction of 1%?
Perhaps he was tempted for a time? Say, 0.68 seconds?
No, not Jacob Rees-Mogg, and anyway he's Somerset.
Did we miss the news this week that his investment firm is closing after losing its biggest clients?
I think you are being mean. According to Lord (Dominic) Johnson’s government bio, Somerset isn’t an emerging market hedge fund it’s “an employee-owned democratic partnership, focussing on pension fund management in developing countries.
Tory MPs are convinced they're facing oblivion. And some now believe a "Dream Ticket" of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage represents their final chance > Mail On Sunday >
Given Sunak's CCHQ will block Johnson and Farage from getting on the Tory parlamentary candidates list even if they wanted to run, that looks more like the Reform 'dream ticket' than Tory one
The article suggests the “plan” is to put Farage in the Lords as HS and install Patel as a caretaker while Johnson runs in a safe seat at the next GE as leader. It contains the immortal line “there’s no rule that says the PM has to be an MP”. It makes my predictions of a Truss return seem earnest and grounded in reality.
@Luckyguy1983@DavidL (I think!) and others who are in favour of new extraction licenses for oil and gas from the North Sea…
Can you give a better answer than Mercer’s woeful attempt on QT as to why the extracted fossil fuels won’t simply be sold to the highest bidder and do nothing for energy security (nor anything meaningful on the cost of living). Link here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001t4t5 (46 mins in)
Genuine question - this is an area where my instincts lie with Monbiot and on the face of it it looks like a simple case of the Tory party being captured by business interests that conflict with humanity’s interests. However I am also open to the idea that it is a nuanced question without simple answers. I’d appreciate an answer that avoids the canard that because we are small anything we do is pointless.
If we generate our own oil and gas then we have the option of preventing its export in extremis. One of the reasons we did not need the same storage facilities as those on the continent is that we had a (diminishing) reserve in the north sea.
We have also seen the catastrophic closure of Grangemouth which is being denied its feedstock which it was built to process. So the issues are: (a) our balance of payments (b) the knock on consequences for industry and employment, specifically in Scotland. (c) the reduction in our energy security.
I completely agree that we need to reduce our consumption of carbon based fuels. We want to cut these back as fast as we can. Until we achieve that I would much rather use our own fuel from the north sea than pretty much any supplier of carbon based fuels on the planet.
Thanks, makes more sense than Mercer did.
First paragraph is interesting. In your view would much larger storage facilities for imported gas provide a similar energy security function?
I buy the balance of payments and industry/employment arguments though feel (in abstract) that we are better to embrace the future than to try to preserve the past in this instance ie achieving similar BoP benefits from exporting clean tech, if possible, is far preferable than hanging on to obsolete tech.
Agreed on your last paragraph - any reduction in use of carbon-based fuels clearly needs to be driven by a relative lack of demand for them due to price and availability of renewables. (Though I’d argue the system has feedbacks within it so eg providing a clear and consistent investment environment for renewables is crucial).
I do think Monboit’s point, that he has been banging on about for years, is pretty irrefutable: unless we leave the stuff in the ground we will use it. But that’s clearly a global argument not a national one.
In any case, thanks, I knew I’d get a thoughtful answer from you.
The offshore wind auction failure and the delay of the 2030 phasing out of ICE is important context though.
I remain optimistic because after Ukraine, people associate fossil fuels with energy insecurity. If we'd managed to get more wind going before 2022 we would have weathered the energy crisis much better. The crisis DavidL describes (where the UK is entirely isolated from the world energy markets) seems very unlikely - pretty much WW3.
Leith echoes to the sound of the piling for the new renewables facilities.
I’ve been arguing for many years that Ending Oil would pay for itself in not having recessions every time some nutter gets the hiccups… In not sending container ship loads of cash to people who are quite upfront about hating us.
Slowing Global Warming to a stop is a free extra.
Happy to be proven wrong on this by people who know more, but...
The energy security argument for offshore wind has always seemed a bit barmy to me. One quick snip of the cable via undersea sub and the lights go out. Surely a distributed onshore wind / solar / nuclear mix makes more sense from an energy perspective. Plus a bit of tidal.
I think we need a distinction between the two types of security:
1) Exposure to Putin/MBS etc various nonsense 2) WAR
One of the things I find quite extraordinary (and wonderful) about the Ukraine war is how they've managed to keep the lights on (and perhaps more importantly, the heating on).
If I were Putin, which thankfully I'm not, I'd aim every missile salvo at power generation and distribution points and plunge Ukraine into frozen darkness. Sod lobbing the occasional V-rocket at a tower block or shopping centre. Just take out the heating and the lights. Given the centralisation of electricity distribution you'd assume it would be fairly easy to do.
Putin has run out of the most accurate, powerful Big Weapons.
This is because he has run through the stockpile of modern weapons, and through most of the stockpile of older, less accurate weapons.
The production rate of new missiles is low, due to the collapsed state of Russian industry and its reliance on foreign equipment and technology.
So he is reduced to occasionally lobbing the saved up production of missiles, but mostly he uses the Iranian drones. Which are, essentially, really big model aircraft - slow, with no defensive or evasion capability.
Ancient gun based AA systems, such as Gepard, find the Iranian drones easy targets.
This may help to make the story a little sexier for those that can't cope with the tedious facts of the Post Office scandal.
Mm, was wondering about the often-stated impact of 'Cathy Come Home' on the BBC as regarded the homelessness issue (was too youing or not interested at the time so can't speak from first person).
Though as we still have homelessness perhaps it's not such a happy precedent!
A better example might be the film Scum, which made Ray Winstone a star, but equally importantly led to a huge improvement in the treatment of young offenders.
@Luckyguy1983@DavidL (I think!) and others who are in favour of new extraction licenses for oil and gas from the North Sea…
Can you give a better answer than Mercer’s woeful attempt on QT as to why the extracted fossil fuels won’t simply be sold to the highest bidder and do nothing for energy security (nor anything meaningful on the cost of living). Link here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001t4t5 (46 mins in)
Genuine question - this is an area where my instincts lie with Monbiot and on the face of it it looks like a simple case of the Tory party being captured by business interests that conflict with humanity’s interests. However I am also open to the idea that it is a nuanced question without simple answers. I’d appreciate an answer that avoids the canard that because we are small anything we do is pointless.
If we generate our own oil and gas then we have the option of preventing its export in extremis. One of the reasons we did not need the same storage facilities as those on the continent is that we had a (diminishing) reserve in the north sea.
We have also seen the catastrophic closure of Grangemouth which is being denied its feedstock which it was built to process. So the issues are: (a) our balance of payments (b) the knock on consequences for industry and employment, specifically in Scotland. (c) the reduction in our energy security.
I completely agree that we need to reduce our consumption of carbon based fuels. We want to cut these back as fast as we can. Until we achieve that I would much rather use our own fuel from the north sea than pretty much any supplier of carbon based fuels on the planet.
Thanks, makes more sense than Mercer did.
First paragraph is interesting. In your view would much larger storage facilities for imported gas provide a similar energy security function?
I buy the balance of payments and industry/employment arguments though feel (in abstract) that we are better to embrace the future than to try to preserve the past in this instance ie achieving similar BoP benefits from exporting clean tech, if possible, is far preferable than hanging on to obsolete tech.
Agreed on your last paragraph - any reduction in use of carbon-based fuels clearly needs to be driven by a relative lack of demand for them due to price and availability of renewables. (Though I’d argue the system has feedbacks within it so eg providing a clear and consistent investment environment for renewables is crucial).
I do think Monboit’s point, that he has been banging on about for years, is pretty irrefutable: unless we leave the stuff in the ground we will use it. But that’s clearly a global argument not a national one.
In any case, thanks, I knew I’d get a thoughtful answer from you.
The offshore wind auction failure and the delay of the 2030 phasing out of ICE is important context though.
I remain optimistic because after Ukraine, people associate fossil fuels with energy insecurity. If we'd managed to get more wind going before 2022 we would have weathered the energy crisis much better. The crisis DavidL describes (where the UK is entirely isolated from the world energy markets) seems very unlikely - pretty much WW3.
Leith echoes to the sound of the piling for the new renewables facilities.
I’ve been arguing for many years that Ending Oil would pay for itself in not having recessions every time some nutter gets the hiccups… In not sending container ship loads of cash to people who are quite upfront about hating us.
Slowing Global Warming to a stop is a free extra.
Happy to be proven wrong on this by people who know more, but...
The energy security argument for offshore wind has always seemed a bit barmy to me. One quick snip of the cable via undersea sub and the lights go out. Surely a distributed onshore wind / solar / nuclear mix makes more sense from an energy perspective. Plus a bit of tidal.
Offshore wind is distributed over areas of many miles. The water is too shallow for major subs to operate. Mini subs can only crawl around at 2-3 knots.
Tidal makes sense, most, from the grid stabilisation and storage potential.
Ever hear of a guy named Rod Rainey? Was involved in Pelamis, came up with a cost-effective water wheel design for a Severn barrage.
Seen as a crank by the establishment, but I've run the numbers on his ideas and they seem to check out based on my limited, amateurish knowledge. It seems like a no-brainer to me compared to, say, Hinckley Point C.
No. My first thought is - why water wheels?
Turbines are far more efficient.
Pelton Wheels were often installed at old water mills as the last stage of their operation - often achieving massive increases in power.
I found one in the garden of a French Chateau - looked like it had been used to provide power to the house in the early days of electricity.
@Luckyguy1983@DavidL (I think!) and others who are in favour of new extraction licenses for oil and gas from the North Sea…
Can you give a better answer than Mercer’s woeful attempt on QT as to why the extracted fossil fuels won’t simply be sold to the highest bidder and do nothing for energy security (nor anything meaningful on the cost of living). Link here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001t4t5 (46 mins in)
Genuine question - this is an area where my instincts lie with Monbiot and on the face of it it looks like a simple case of the Tory party being captured by business interests that conflict with humanity’s interests. However I am also open to the idea that it is a nuanced question without simple answers. I’d appreciate an answer that avoids the canard that because we are small anything we do is pointless.
If we generate our own oil and gas then we have the option of preventing its export in extremis. One of the reasons we did not need the same storage facilities as those on the continent is that we had a (diminishing) reserve in the north sea.
We have also seen the catastrophic closure of Grangemouth which is being denied its feedstock which it was built to process. So the issues are: (a) our balance of payments (b) the knock on consequences for industry and employment, specifically in Scotland. (c) the reduction in our energy security.
I completely agree that we need to reduce our consumption of carbon based fuels. We want to cut these back as fast as we can. Until we achieve that I would much rather use our own fuel from the north sea than pretty much any supplier of carbon based fuels on the planet.
Thanks, makes more sense than Mercer did.
First paragraph is interesting. In your view would much larger storage facilities for imported gas provide a similar energy security function?
I buy the balance of payments and industry/employment arguments though feel (in abstract) that we are better to embrace the future than to try to preserve the past in this instance ie achieving similar BoP benefits from exporting clean tech, if possible, is far preferable than hanging on to obsolete tech.
Agreed on your last paragraph - any reduction in use of carbon-based fuels clearly needs to be driven by a relative lack of demand for them due to price and availability of renewables. (Though I’d argue the system has feedbacks within it so eg providing a clear and consistent investment environment for renewables is crucial).
I do think Monboit’s point, that he has been banging on about for years, is pretty irrefutable: unless we leave the stuff in the ground we will use it. But that’s clearly a global argument not a national one.
In any case, thanks, I knew I’d get a thoughtful answer from you.
The offshore wind auction failure and the delay of the 2030 phasing out of ICE is important context though.
I remain optimistic because after Ukraine, people associate fossil fuels with energy insecurity. If we'd managed to get more wind going before 2022 we would have weathered the energy crisis much better. The crisis DavidL describes (where the UK is entirely isolated from the world energy markets) seems very unlikely - pretty much WW3.
Leith echoes to the sound of the piling for the new renewables facilities.
I’ve been arguing for many years that Ending Oil would pay for itself in not having recessions every time some nutter gets the hiccups… In not sending container ship loads of cash to people who are quite upfront about hating us.
Slowing Global Warming to a stop is a free extra.
Happy to be proven wrong on this by people who know more, but...
The energy security argument for offshore wind has always seemed a bit barmy to me. One quick snip of the cable via undersea sub and the lights go out. Surely a distributed onshore wind / solar / nuclear mix makes more sense from an energy perspective. Plus a bit of tidal.
I think we need a distinction between the two types of security:
1) Exposure to Putin/MBS etc various nonsense 2) WAR
One of the things I find quite extraordinary (and wonderful) about the Ukraine war is how they've managed to keep the lights on (and perhaps more importantly, the heating on).
If I were Putin, which thankfully I'm not, I'd aim every missile salvo at power generation and distribution points and plunge Ukraine into frozen darkness. Sod lobbing the occasional V-rocket at a tower block or shopping centre. Just take out the heating and the lights. Given the centralisation of electricity distribution you'd assume it would be fairly easy to do.
It would mean attacking nuclear powerplants.
There would be - fallout. Of various different sorts.
He has obviously considered it and then backed off. I am assuming that the Chinese and the Americans have separately indicated to him that they have Views on the subject of using nuclear power plants as targets in wartime
Makes sense. But IIRC you go for the power substations rather than the generators. Which if anything like the UK, are dotted around in towns rather than being near fissile material.
I'm just impressed at the logistics operation that kept the lights on.
I suspect given the fools in power in the UK, in a hot war, assuming it doesn't go nuclear, we'd all be sitting in the darkness huddling round a single candle for warmth.
This may help to make the story a little sexier for those that can't cope with the tedious facts of the Post Office scandal.
Mm, was wondering about the often-stated impact of 'Cathy Come Home' on the BBC as regarded the homelessness issue (was too youing or not interested at the time so can't speak from first person).
Though as we still have homelessness perhaps it's not such a happy precedent!
A better example might be the film Scum, which made Ray Winstone a star, but equally importantly led to a huge improvement in the treatment of young offenders.
“Good sir, may I ask whereof is your tool?”
“Of what tool do you speak, sir?
“By George sir, THIS tool!”
Think that’s how it went anyway.
There's a nice story about Winstone's Mum and Auntie ordering the video so that they could watch young Ray in his first leading role. He tried to dissuade them but they insisted they were grown-up enough.
@Luckyguy1983@DavidL (I think!) and others who are in favour of new extraction licenses for oil and gas from the North Sea…
Can you give a better answer than Mercer’s woeful attempt on QT as to why the extracted fossil fuels won’t simply be sold to the highest bidder and do nothing for energy security (nor anything meaningful on the cost of living). Link here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001t4t5 (46 mins in)
Genuine question - this is an area where my instincts lie with Monbiot and on the face of it it looks like a simple case of the Tory party being captured by business interests that conflict with humanity’s interests. However I am also open to the idea that it is a nuanced question without simple answers. I’d appreciate an answer that avoids the canard that because we are small anything we do is pointless.
If we generate our own oil and gas then we have the option of preventing its export in extremis. One of the reasons we did not need the same storage facilities as those on the continent is that we had a (diminishing) reserve in the north sea.
We have also seen the catastrophic closure of Grangemouth which is being denied its feedstock which it was built to process. So the issues are: (a) our balance of payments (b) the knock on consequences for industry and employment, specifically in Scotland. (c) the reduction in our energy security.
I completely agree that we need to reduce our consumption of carbon based fuels. We want to cut these back as fast as we can. Until we achieve that I would much rather use our own fuel from the north sea than pretty much any supplier of carbon based fuels on the planet.
Thanks, makes more sense than Mercer did.
First paragraph is interesting. In your view would much larger storage facilities for imported gas provide a similar energy security function?
I buy the balance of payments and industry/employment arguments though feel (in abstract) that we are better to embrace the future than to try to preserve the past in this instance ie achieving similar BoP benefits from exporting clean tech, if possible, is far preferable than hanging on to obsolete tech.
Agreed on your last paragraph - any reduction in use of carbon-based fuels clearly needs to be driven by a relative lack of demand for them due to price and availability of renewables. (Though I’d argue the system has feedbacks within it so eg providing a clear and consistent investment environment for renewables is crucial).
I do think Monboit’s point, that he has been banging on about for years, is pretty irrefutable: unless we leave the stuff in the ground we will use it. But that’s clearly a global argument not a national one.
In any case, thanks, I knew I’d get a thoughtful answer from you.
The offshore wind auction failure and the delay of the 2030 phasing out of ICE is important context though.
I remain optimistic because after Ukraine, people associate fossil fuels with energy insecurity. If we'd managed to get more wind going before 2022 we would have weathered the energy crisis much better. The crisis DavidL describes (where the UK is entirely isolated from the world energy markets) seems very unlikely - pretty much WW3.
Leith echoes to the sound of the piling for the new renewables facilities.
I’ve been arguing for many years that Ending Oil would pay for itself in not having recessions every time some nutter gets the hiccups… In not sending container ship loads of cash to people who are quite upfront about hating us.
Slowing Global Warming to a stop is a free extra.
Happy to be proven wrong on this by people who know more, but...
The energy security argument for offshore wind has always seemed a bit barmy to me. One quick snip of the cable via undersea sub and the lights go out. Surely a distributed onshore wind / solar / nuclear mix makes more sense from an energy perspective. Plus a bit of tidal.
I think we need a distinction between the two types of security:
1) Exposure to Putin/MBS etc various nonsense 2) WAR
One of the things I find quite extraordinary (and wonderful) about the Ukraine war is how they've managed to keep the lights on (and perhaps more importantly, the heating on).
If I were Putin, which thankfully I'm not, I'd aim every missile salvo at power generation and distribution points and plunge Ukraine into frozen darkness. Sod lobbing the occasional V-rocket at a tower block or shopping centre. Just take out the heating and the lights. Given the centralisation of electricity distribution you'd assume it would be fairly easy to do.
It would mean attacking nuclear powerplants.
There would be - fallout. Of various different sorts.
He has obviously considered it and then backed off. I am assuming that the Chinese and the Americans have separately indicated to him that they have Views on the subject of using nuclear power plants as targets in wartime
Makes sense. But IIRC you go for the power substations rather than the generators. Which if anything like the UK, are dotted around in towns rather than being near fissile material.
I'm just impressed at the logistics operation that kept the lights on.
I suspect given the fools in power in the UK, in a hot war, assuming it doesn't go nuclear, we'd all be sitting in the darkness huddling round a single candle for warmth.
I don't think we'll need a hot war for that, we'll be experiencing it anyway unless somebody gets a grip on the crisis in our ageing power grid soon...
@Luckyguy1983@DavidL (I think!) and others who are in favour of new extraction licenses for oil and gas from the North Sea…
Can you give a better answer than Mercer’s woeful attempt on QT as to why the extracted fossil fuels won’t simply be sold to the highest bidder and do nothing for energy security (nor anything meaningful on the cost of living). Link here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001t4t5 (46 mins in)
Genuine question - this is an area where my instincts lie with Monbiot and on the face of it it looks like a simple case of the Tory party being captured by business interests that conflict with humanity’s interests. However I am also open to the idea that it is a nuanced question without simple answers. I’d appreciate an answer that avoids the canard that because we are small anything we do is pointless.
If we generate our own oil and gas then we have the option of preventing its export in extremis. One of the reasons we did not need the same storage facilities as those on the continent is that we had a (diminishing) reserve in the north sea.
We have also seen the catastrophic closure of Grangemouth which is being denied its feedstock which it was built to process. So the issues are: (a) our balance of payments (b) the knock on consequences for industry and employment, specifically in Scotland. (c) the reduction in our energy security.
I completely agree that we need to reduce our consumption of carbon based fuels. We want to cut these back as fast as we can. Until we achieve that I would much rather use our own fuel from the north sea than pretty much any supplier of carbon based fuels on the planet.
Thanks, makes more sense than Mercer did.
First paragraph is interesting. In your view would much larger storage facilities for imported gas provide a similar energy security function?
I buy the balance of payments and industry/employment arguments though feel (in abstract) that we are better to embrace the future than to try to preserve the past in this instance ie achieving similar BoP benefits from exporting clean tech, if possible, is far preferable than hanging on to obsolete tech.
Agreed on your last paragraph - any reduction in use of carbon-based fuels clearly needs to be driven by a relative lack of demand for them due to price and availability of renewables. (Though I’d argue the system has feedbacks within it so eg providing a clear and consistent investment environment for renewables is crucial).
I do think Monboit’s point, that he has been banging on about for years, is pretty irrefutable: unless we leave the stuff in the ground we will use it. But that’s clearly a global argument not a national one.
In any case, thanks, I knew I’d get a thoughtful answer from you.
The offshore wind auction failure and the delay of the 2030 phasing out of ICE is important context though.
I remain optimistic because after Ukraine, people associate fossil fuels with energy insecurity. If we'd managed to get more wind going before 2022 we would have weathered the energy crisis much better. The crisis DavidL describes (where the UK is entirely isolated from the world energy markets) seems very unlikely - pretty much WW3.
Leith echoes to the sound of the piling for the new renewables facilities.
I’ve been arguing for many years that Ending Oil would pay for itself in not having recessions every time some nutter gets the hiccups… In not sending container ship loads of cash to people who are quite upfront about hating us.
Slowing Global Warming to a stop is a free extra.
Happy to be proven wrong on this by people who know more, but...
The energy security argument for offshore wind has always seemed a bit barmy to me. One quick snip of the cable via undersea sub and the lights go out. Surely a distributed onshore wind / solar / nuclear mix makes more sense from an energy perspective. Plus a bit of tidal.
Offshore wind is distributed over areas of many miles. The water is too shallow for major subs to operate. Mini subs can only crawl around at 2-3 knots.
Tidal makes sense, most, from the grid stabilisation and storage potential.
Ever hear of a guy named Rod Rainey? Was involved in Pelamis, came up with a cost-effective water wheel design for a Severn barrage.
Seen as a crank by the establishment, but I've run the numbers on his ideas and they seem to check out based on my limited, amateurish knowledge. It seems like a no-brainer to me compared to, say, Hinckley Point C.
No. My first thought is - why water wheels?
Turbines are far more efficient.
Pelton Wheels were often installed at old water mills as the last stage of their operation - often achieving massive increases in power.
I found one in the garden of a French Chateau - looked like it had been used to provide power to the house in the early days of electricity.
The back-of-a-napkin calculations look like it generates electricity for half the price of Hinckley Point, and that's if you include the cost of creating a reservoir for pumped storage.
Yet as I say he's seen as a bit of a fringe nutter for some reason. His ideas and sums seem to check out, so I figure the PB brains trust could probably tell me why his ideas don't work.
Tory MPs are convinced they're facing oblivion. And some now believe a "Dream Ticket" of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage represents their final chance > Mail On Sunday >
Given Sunak's CCHQ will block Johnson and Farage from getting on the Tory parlamentary candidates list even if they wanted to run, that looks more like the Reform 'dream ticket' than Tory one
The article suggests the “plan” is to put Farage in the Lords as HS and install Patel as a caretaker while Johnson runs in a safe seat at the next GE as leader. It contains the immortal line “there’s no rule that says the PM has to be an MP”. It makes my predictions of a Truss return seem earnest and grounded in reality.
Lady Haldane determined that Alister Jack (who he?) could overturn the decision of parliament arrived at democratically with cross party support "just because". Haldane knows her law obviously. I'm not sure it's a great constitutional outcome, which is why no-one has triggered a Section 35 before.
You’re quite wrong
It’s a great constitutional outcome - it creates clarity. The Scottish parliament was always intended to be junior to the Westminster parliament and couldn’t pass legislation that impacts on the rights of people outside of Scotland.
As to whether that is good or not, YMMV, but at least there is clarity and that is undoubtedly a great thing
Tory MPs are convinced they're facing oblivion. And some now believe a "Dream Ticket" of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage represents their final chance > Mail On Sunday >
Given Sunak's CCHQ will block Johnson and Farage from getting on the Tory parlamentary candidates list even if they wanted to run, that looks more like the Reform 'dream ticket' than Tory one
The article suggests the “plan” is to put Farage in the Lords as HS and install Patel as a caretaker while Johnson runs in a safe seat at the next GE as leader. It contains the immortal line “there’s no rule that says the PM has to be an MP”. It makes my predictions of a Truss return seem earnest and grounded in reality.
Blimey.
I hope the Drugs Squad are paying attention and bringing all sniffer dogs to standby.
We need to discover this stuff, quick sharp, in case it spreads any further.
The only SNP figure that I have seen acknowledge this is Kate Forbes who, of course, had to deal with this in detail during her period as Finance Minister. She is also the only one who seems to acknowledge the implications: if Scotland wants to be an independent country with its current, let alone improved, standard of living the absolute priority is the growth of the Scottish economy.
This was going to be challenging enough because growth policies tend to run contrary to the policies that the SNP have followed over the last 15 years with its emphasis on "free" stuff, higher taxes, its hostility towards the private sector which constantly needs ever more regulation and supervision by well paid civil servants, the declining contribution of the North Sea (despite better figures in 2022 and probably this year given high oil prices), the massive clean up costs that are coming from that and, dare I mention it once again, the catastrophe of Grangemouth which will knock 5% off our industrial production on its own.
The irony of a growth driven agenda by the likes of Forbes is that it would be highly attractive to the likes of me and many Tories who would find common ground, as many Tartan Tories did with Salmond. The problem with this delusion, constantly supported by the likes of Sturgeon and now her successor, is that they simply do not see the need to make Scotland an attractive place to do business in.
How strongly were you tempted to vote for Salmond’s ‘growth driven agenda’ on a percentage scale? Anything above a fraction of 1%?
I want Scotland to thrive. A party that was seriously offering that would attract me. Of course, I would remain a Unionist but in Scotland, tactically, I could see myself voting for that. My major concern with the Scottish Tories is that they have made pitiful attempts to develop any policies beyond the word "no". It is not an agenda for running the country.
Sam Friedman has listed his top ten books on British politics. You will have to read his substack for the list with his comments, reasons, and to see he cheats like mad with supplementary and multi-volume entries but the bare list is:-
Gladstone by Roy Jenkins
The Five Giants by Nick Timmins
A Different Kind of Weather by William Waldegrave
Tales of a New Jerusalem series by David Kynaston
Diaries 1964-1976 by Barbara Castle
The Anatomy of Thatcherism by Shirley Robin Letwin
The unutterable tedium of that list says quite a lot, none of it good, about British politics
He has also managed to miss out the one of the vanishingly few entertaining books about British politics. Viz: Alastair Campbell’s Diaries.
Campbell the man is a cad and a bounder, but he writes well and the Dairies are compulsively readable. Unlike any of these worthy tomes
Terry Major-Ball's book, a memoir of John Major, 'Major Major' is pure Pooter and even funnier because it is not meant to be.
Dr Abdullah Abdullah in the first post-Taliban Afghan government.
It would be bitterly disappointing if, in the long, distinguished history of England's public schools, there was not a single instance of two brothers known as Major Major and Major Minor.
Or Morris...
There could also be Minor Major and Minor Minor.
If the Major brothers went into the Army one may have been Major Major Major, and if the Minor brothers decided to follow a gold rush one of them may have been Miner Minor Minor!
And if the brothers who went on the gold rush took a certain type of caged bird with them, then you could call it the Miner Minor Minor's Mynah...
Tory MPs are convinced they're facing oblivion. And some now believe a "Dream Ticket" of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage represents their final chance > Mail On Sunday >
Given Sunak's CCHQ will block Johnson and Farage from getting on the Tory parlamentary candidates list even if they wanted to run, that looks more like the Reform 'dream ticket' than Tory one
The article suggests the “plan” is to put Farage in the Lords as HS and install Patel as a caretaker while Johnson runs in a safe seat at the next GE as leader. It contains the immortal line “there’s no rule that says the PM has to be an MP”. It makes my predictions of a Truss return seem earnest and grounded in reality.
Indeed and there is zero chance a majority of Tory MPs will vote to replace Sunak with the deeply unpopular Patel as PM
There is nothing obscure about it. As you acknowledged it is an essential part of the set up.
Otherwise I agree. The strongest point that the Lord Advocate made was that there was no attempt to engage with this legislation during its passage which, at the least, raises question marks about the motivation for the use of s35.
If the UK government had tried to “engage” with the legislation during its passage wouldnt the SNP have just accused them of “interfering”
I would still like to know what deal Starmer signed with Satan.
The Tories have gone in less than two years from increasing their majority to complete implosion.
The SNP are weirdly obsessed with trans rights, are clearly clueless and hopelessly confused on their main selling point, their two former leaders arrested and their current one so incompetent even his own colleagues criticise him (even discounting current rumours).
Welsh Labour are completely hopeless to the extent Drakeford endorses criminal behaviour by motorcyclists while cutting speed limits more or less randomly for everyone else, but few people care.
Khan is inept but somehow the Tories have selected a candidate who would make Trump look mainstream to challenge him.
And while doing absolutely nothing except crack the odd joke and have a couple of curries, suddenly Starmer's dominating politics.
Whatever deal he signed, Satan must feel swindled. I'd like Starmer drawing up my next contract, that's for sure.
When does your current contract with Satan expire?
I would still like to know what deal Starmer signed with Satan.
The Tories have gone in less than two years from increasing their majority to complete implosion.
The SNP are weirdly obsessed with trans rights, are clearly clueless and hopelessly confused on their main selling point, their two former leaders arrested and their current one so incompetent even his own colleagues criticise him (even discounting current rumours).
Welsh Labour are completely hopeless to the extent Drakeford endorses criminal behaviour by motorcyclists while cutting speed limits more or less randomly for everyone else, but few people care.
Khan is inept but somehow the Tories have selected a candidate who would make Trump look mainstream to challenge him.
And while doing absolutely nothing except crack the odd joke and have a couple of curries, suddenly Starmer's dominating politics.
Whatever deal he signed, Satan must feel swindled. I'd like Starmer drawing up my next contract, that's for sure.
When does your current contract with Satan expire?
When David Perdue drinks neat horse piss next...
Edit - you just had to toss that remark about organs out there, didn't you?
I would still like to know what deal Starmer signed with Satan.
The Tories have gone in less than two years from increasing their majority to complete implosion.
The SNP are weirdly obsessed with trans rights, are clearly clueless and hopelessly confused on their main selling point, their two former leaders arrested and their current one so incompetent even his own colleagues criticise him (even discounting current rumours).
Welsh Labour are completely hopeless to the extent Drakeford endorses criminal behaviour by motorcyclists while cutting speed limits more or less randomly for everyone else, but few people care.
Khan is inept but somehow the Tories have selected a candidate who would make Trump look mainstream to challenge him.
And while doing absolutely nothing except crack the odd joke and have a couple of curries, suddenly Starmer's dominating politics.
Whatever deal he signed, Satan must feel swindled. I'd like Starmer drawing up my next contract, that's for sure.
When does your current contract with Satan expire?
When David Perdue drinks neat horse piss next...
Edit - you just had to toss that remark about organs out there, didn't you?
This is a government that isn’t just fiscally challenged but intellectually, it’s in a stupor. It has run out of ideas, resources, and even ministers really worth their salt.
And if all you have left in your armoury is to blame Westminster for all your woes, then it is time to step aside because what good are you making of devolution?
This failing SNP government has been in power for 16 of devolution’s 25 years and has made life for many considerably worse.
Lady Haldane determined that Alister Jack (who he?) could overturn the decision of parliament arrived at democratically with cross party support "just because". Haldane knows her law obviously. I'm not sure it's a great constitutional outcome, which is why no-one has triggered a Section 35 before.
The problem with different Parliaments within the same country being able to legislate is fairly obvious and s35 is the answer to it. Ultimately, one Parliament has to have the final say and that is always going to be the Parliament that set up the Scottish Parliament in the first place. The reasons given by the Secretary of State was that the legislation had an effect on UK legislation which the Scottish Parliament is not entitled to do, specifically the Equality Act. Lady Haldane agreed, as she was inevitably going to after her own earlier decision on the effect of a GRC, as argued for by, err, the Scottish government.
The utter incoherence of the Scottish government's position arguing completely contradictory positions in respect of the same legislation simply highlights the dishonesty and evasion that underlies this legislation. Given the substantial effect that a GRC has (Lady Haldane held that it meant the person was a woman "for all purposes", as per the 2004 Act) safeguards are essential. You simply cannot sweep them away.
There's no constitutional injustice, here. All federal systems reserve certain powers to the national government, and in this case, equality law was one of them.
There is nothing obscure about it. As you acknowledged it is an essential part of the set up.
Otherwise I agree. The strongest point that the Lord Advocate made was that there was no attempt to engage with this legislation during its passage which, at the least, raises question marks about the motivation for the use of s35.
If the UK government had tried to “engage” with the legislation during its passage wouldnt the SNP have just accused them of “interfering”
Possibly. Or being bigoted or whatever. But then they would not have had that argument.
@Luckyguy1983@DavidL (I think!) and others who are in favour of new extraction licenses for oil and gas from the North Sea…
Can you give a better answer than Mercer’s woeful attempt on QT as to why the extracted fossil fuels won’t simply be sold to the highest bidder and do nothing for energy security (nor anything meaningful on the cost of living). Link here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001t4t5 (46 mins in)
Genuine question - this is an area where my instincts lie with Monbiot and on the face of it it looks like a simple case of the Tory party being captured by business interests that conflict with humanity’s interests. However I am also open to the idea that it is a nuanced question without simple answers. I’d appreciate an answer that avoids the canard that because we are small anything we do is pointless.
Because if the government had to intervene to force a sale to British interests they could do so if the plant and equipment is UK based
I would still like to know what deal Starmer signed with Satan.
The Tories have gone in less than two years from increasing their majority to complete implosion.
The SNP are weirdly obsessed with trans rights, are clearly clueless and hopelessly confused on their main selling point, their two former leaders arrested and their current one so incompetent even his own colleagues criticise him (even discounting current rumours).
Welsh Labour are completely hopeless to the extent Drakeford endorses criminal behaviour by motorcyclists while cutting speed limits more or less randomly for everyone else, but few people care.
Khan is inept but somehow the Tories have selected a candidate who would make Trump look mainstream to challenge him.
And while doing absolutely nothing except crack the odd joke and have a couple of curries, suddenly Starmer's dominating politics.
Whatever deal he signed, Satan must feel swindled. I'd like Starmer drawing up my next contract, that's for sure.
When does your current contract with Satan expire?
(And does he know about the organ playing?)
The determination of the Conservatives and SNP to leave no stone unturned in their determination to lose to Labour, has indeed been a wonder to behold.
As to the Satanic bargain "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? " I think a lot people would take that deal.
Tory MPs are convinced they're facing oblivion. And some now believe a "Dream Ticket" of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage represents their final chance > Mail On Sunday >
Given Sunak's CCHQ will block Johnson and Farage from getting on the Tory parlamentary candidates list even if they wanted to run, that looks more like the Reform 'dream ticket' than Tory one
The article suggests the “plan” is to put Farage in the Lords as HS and install Patel as a caretaker while Johnson runs in a safe seat at the next GE as leader. It contains the immortal line “there’s no rule that says the PM has to be an MP”. It makes my predictions of a Truss return seem earnest and grounded in reality.
Utter fantasy!! I mean. A Tory safe seat???
Well even if the Tory vote falls to 15% a couple of seats remain Tory. The problem is I can't see any MP being willing to give up their very safe seat for Bozo the clown...
The Tories are in an absolute mess. And a lot of this is down to Sunak, to be frank.
The smart thing to do would have been to react to the court's decision by pushing this beyond the next GE. He didn't, and he decided to take on a fight he wasn't going to win.
What is worse, when taking that path (which already was sub-optimal), he didn't choose the next best option (knowing that his party is hopelessly divided on this) - and call a GE to "get Rwanda done". Instead, he published legislation which unsurprisingly has pleased none of his party and will now get tied up in parliament and mean he cannot resolve this before the next GE.
Because Sunak has been weak and indecisive, and tried unsuccessfully to triangulate, there is now no exit route. If they force him out, the Tories will need to choose between a moderate which will cause the ERG/wannabe Reform wing to up and leave, and if they go for a hardliner it will be the same result for the moderate wing of the party.
It is absolutely amazing just how poor a political strategist Sunak is. I honestly can't see a way out for the Tories now that doesn't cause an almighty civil war. The only way forward is either (a) sticking with Sunak as the ship continues to sink or (b) hit the nuclear button and install new leader who immediately calls a GE (at which a good chunk of the party could up and leave).
Tory MPs are convinced they're facing oblivion. And some now believe a "Dream Ticket" of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage represents their final chance > Mail On Sunday >
Given Sunak's CCHQ will block Johnson and Farage from getting on the Tory parlamentary candidates list even if they wanted to run, that looks more like the Reform 'dream ticket' than Tory one
The article suggests the “plan” is to put Farage in the Lords as HS and install Patel as a caretaker while Johnson runs in a safe seat at the next GE as leader. It contains the immortal line “there’s no rule that says the PM has to be an MP”. It makes my predictions of a Truss return seem earnest and grounded in reality.
"Reform Party officials said their aim was to kill off the Conservatives. One told The Mail on Sunday: 'When Nigel gets back [from the ITV reality show] he's going to start dominating the agenda. Within about six to eight weeks we'll be polling in the high teens, and the Tories will start to slip below 20 per cent.
'At that point between five and ten MPs will realise the game's up, and defect to us. Then it's game over. We're looking at the last majority Tory administration of our lifetime. We're going to destroy them.' "
To quote Thatcha! after Skinner said she should be governor of the ECB: "What a Good Idea"
The only SNP figure that I have seen acknowledge this is Kate Forbes who, of course, had to deal with this in detail during her period as Finance Minister. She is also the only one who seems to acknowledge the implications: if Scotland wants to be an independent country with its current, let alone improved, standard of living the absolute priority is the growth of the Scottish economy.
This was going to be challenging enough because growth policies tend to run contrary to the policies that the SNP have followed over the last 15 years with its emphasis on "free" stuff, higher taxes, its hostility towards the private sector which constantly needs ever more regulation and supervision by well paid civil servants, the declining contribution of the North Sea (despite better figures in 2022 and probably this year given high oil prices), the massive clean up costs that are coming from that and, dare I mention it once again, the catastrophe of Grangemouth which will knock 5% off our industrial production on its own.
The irony of a growth driven agenda by the likes of Forbes is that it would be highly attractive to the likes of me and many Tories who would find common ground, as many Tartan Tories did with Salmond. The problem with this delusion, constantly supported by the likes of Sturgeon and now her successor, is that they simply do not see the need to make Scotland an attractive place to do business in.
How strongly were you tempted to vote for Salmond’s ‘growth driven agenda’ on a percentage scale? Anything above a fraction of 1%?
I want Scotland to thrive. A party that was seriously offering that would attract me. Of course, I would remain a Unionist but in Scotland, tactically, I could see myself voting for that. My major concern with the Scottish Tories is that they have made pitiful attempts to develop any policies beyond the word "no". It is not an agenda for running the country.
Fair enough, though I suspect the threat to the Union would diminish any attractions that a Forbes led SNP might hold for your average Unionist. I mean if she’s as good as all those Yoons say, surely Indyref II would be a shoo in?
I would still like to know what deal Starmer signed with Satan.
The Tories have gone in less than two years from increasing their majority to complete implosion.
The SNP are weirdly obsessed with trans rights, are clearly clueless and hopelessly confused on their main selling point, their two former leaders arrested and their current one so incompetent even his own colleagues criticise him (even discounting current rumours).
Welsh Labour are completely hopeless to the extent Drakeford endorses criminal behaviour by motorcyclists while cutting speed limits more or less randomly for everyone else, but few people care.
Khan is inept but somehow the Tories have selected a candidate who would make Trump look mainstream to challenge him.
And while doing absolutely nothing except crack the odd joke and have a couple of curries, suddenly Starmer's dominating politics.
Whatever deal he signed, Satan must feel swindled. I'd like Starmer drawing up my next contract, that's for sure.
When does your current contract with Satan expire?
When David Perdue drinks neat horse piss next...
Edit - you just had to toss that remark about organs out there, didn't you?
I would still like to know what deal Starmer signed with Satan.
The Tories have gone in less than two years from increasing their majority to complete implosion.
The SNP are weirdly obsessed with trans rights, are clearly clueless and hopelessly confused on their main selling point, their two former leaders arrested and their current one so incompetent even his own colleagues criticise him (even discounting current rumours).
Welsh Labour are completely hopeless to the extent Drakeford endorses criminal behaviour by motorcyclists while cutting speed limits more or less randomly for everyone else, but few people care.
Khan is inept but somehow the Tories have selected a candidate who would make Trump look mainstream to challenge him.
And while doing absolutely nothing except crack the odd joke and have a couple of curries, suddenly Starmer's dominating politics.
Whatever deal he signed, Satan must feel swindled. I'd like Starmer drawing up my next contract, that's for sure.
When does your current contract with Satan expire?
(And does he know about the organ playing?)
The determination of the Conservatives and SNP to leave no stone unturned in their determination to lose to Labour, has indeed been a wonder to behold.
As to the Satanic bargain "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? " I think a lot people would take that deal.
Its even more confusing when he already has Wales.
To me the piece is in part a normal Sunday Times Sunday Morning hatchet job, with some claims deserving more attention - like Dr Dixon, a mixture of light and shade. I think the piece overemphasises the role of complementary medicine in his work, confuses some categories, and dramatises particular single anecdotes. They also get a free hit on the monarchy.
The alleged cv exaggerations wrt University Positions seem to me to be correct claims.
He has controversial elements, and also some interesting things that are more creative and useful. His work promoting "social prescribing" is interesting, using extra-medical ideas to address patient problems - afaik an example would be recommending dog walking or joining a rambling group to prevent a prediabetic person continue the trend and become Type II.
The only SNP figure that I have seen acknowledge this is Kate Forbes who, of course, had to deal with this in detail during her period as Finance Minister. She is also the only one who seems to acknowledge the implications: if Scotland wants to be an independent country with its current, let alone improved, standard of living the absolute priority is the growth of the Scottish economy.
This was going to be challenging enough because growth policies tend to run contrary to the policies that the SNP have followed over the last 15 years with its emphasis on "free" stuff, higher taxes, its hostility towards the private sector which constantly needs ever more regulation and supervision by well paid civil servants, the declining contribution of the North Sea (despite better figures in 2022 and probably this year given high oil prices), the massive clean up costs that are coming from that and, dare I mention it once again, the catastrophe of Grangemouth which will knock 5% off our industrial production on its own.
The irony of a growth driven agenda by the likes of Forbes is that it would be highly attractive to the likes of me and many Tories who would find common ground, as many Tartan Tories did with Salmond. The problem with this delusion, constantly supported by the likes of Sturgeon and now her successor, is that they simply do not see the need to make Scotland an attractive place to do business in.
How strongly were you tempted to vote for Salmond’s ‘growth driven agenda’ on a percentage scale? Anything above a fraction of 1%?
I want Scotland to thrive. A party that was seriously offering that would attract me. Of course, I would remain a Unionist but in Scotland, tactically, I could see myself voting for that. My major concern with the Scottish Tories is that they have made pitiful attempts to develop any policies beyond the word "no". It is not an agenda for running the country.
Fair enough, though I suspect the threat to the Union would diminish any attractions that a Forbes led SNP might hold for your average Unionist. I mean if she’s as good as all those Yoons say, surely Indyref II would be a shoo in?
"Good" is relative. Is there another leading politician in any political party in Scotland who expresses more than a passing interest in how tax is generated as opposed to spent? That is what she is up against.
Tory MPs are convinced they're facing oblivion. And some now believe a "Dream Ticket" of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage represents their final chance > Mail On Sunday >
Given Sunak's CCHQ will block Johnson and Farage from getting on the Tory parlamentary candidates list even if they wanted to run, that looks more like the Reform 'dream ticket' than Tory one
The article suggests the “plan” is to put Farage in the Lords as HS and install Patel as a caretaker while Johnson runs in a safe seat at the next GE as leader. It contains the immortal line “there’s no rule that says the PM has to be an MP”. It makes my predictions of a Truss return seem earnest and grounded in reality.
The reason I find this implausible isn't because it seems far fetched as a concept (because since the Brexit and Truss melodrama I have decided that nothing in British politics is particularly far fetched anymore) but because of the personalities involved - I strongly doubt there is a majority in the Tory parliamentary Party as currently constituted for parachuting Farage into frontbench Tory politics.
In opposition? Possibly. Right now, not happening.
Tory MPs are convinced they're facing oblivion. And some now believe a "Dream Ticket" of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage represents their final chance > Mail On Sunday >
Given Sunak's CCHQ will block Johnson and Farage from getting on the Tory parlamentary candidates list even if they wanted to run, that looks more like the Reform 'dream ticket' than Tory one
The article suggests the “plan” is to put Farage in the Lords as HS and install Patel as a caretaker while Johnson runs in a safe seat at the next GE as leader. It contains the immortal line “there’s no rule that says the PM has to be an MP”. It makes my predictions of a Truss return seem earnest and grounded in reality.
"Reform Party officials said their aim was to kill off the Conservatives. One told The Mail on Sunday: 'When Nigel gets back [from the ITV reality show] he's going to start dominating the agenda. Within about six to eight weeks we'll be polling in the high teens, and the Tories will start to slip below 20 per cent.
'At that point between five and ten MPs will realise the game's up, and defect to us. Then it's game over. We're looking at the last majority Tory administration of our lifetime. We're going to destroy them.' "
To quote Thatcha! after Skinner said she should be governor of the ECB: "What a Good Idea"
I get the first point - there may be voters who aren't saying they will vote Reform who may change their mind (I don't believe there is but hey stranger things have happened).
What I don't get is the idea that Reform will win any seats at the next election so why on earth would any MP switch party to one even less likely to win than the Tories...
Tory MPs are convinced they're facing oblivion. And some now believe a "Dream Ticket" of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage represents their final chance > Mail On Sunday >
Given Sunak's CCHQ will block Johnson and Farage from getting on the Tory parlamentary candidates list even if they wanted to run, that looks more like the Reform 'dream ticket' than Tory one
The article suggests the “plan” is to put Farage in the Lords as HS and install Patel as a caretaker while Johnson runs in a safe seat at the next GE as leader. It contains the immortal line “there’s no rule that says the PM has to be an MP”. It makes my predictions of a Truss return seem earnest and grounded in reality.
Utter fantasy!! I mean. A Tory safe seat???
Well even if the Tory vote falls to 15% a couple of seats remain Tory. The problem is I can't see any MP being willing to give up their very safe seat for Bozo the clown...
I wonder how he'd play in Ashfield or Mansfield or Bolsover, or Richmond?
Sam Friedman has listed his top ten books on British politics. You will have to read his substack for the list with his comments, reasons, and to see he cheats like mad with supplementary and multi-volume entries but the bare list is:-
Gladstone by Roy Jenkins
The Five Giants by Nick Timmins
A Different Kind of Weather by William Waldegrave
Tales of a New Jerusalem series by David Kynaston
Diaries 1964-1976 by Barbara Castle
The Anatomy of Thatcherism by Shirley Robin Letwin
The unutterable tedium of that list says quite a lot, none of it good, about British politics
He has also managed to miss out the one of the vanishingly few entertaining books about British politics. Viz: Alastair Campbell’s Diaries.
Campbell the man is a cad and a bounder, but he writes well and the Dairies are compulsively readable. Unlike any of these worthy tomes
Yes Minister and YPM are both good reads.
In fact, you could make a case that they were better than the TV series, and that's not to say the TV series wasn't very good as well.
I find the TV series vastly overrated. Middlebrow radio 4 chortling, always slightly forced, like the laughter you so often get at Shakespeare comedies on stage
I automatically mistrust anyone who likes Yes PM or who quotes it on here
"Middlebrow"
You demur? You find it lowbrow? Highbrow?!
In-jokes.
Some of the events in the series are thinly-disguised vignettes that happened in real life (for example the one where Humphrey gets caught out by the differences in Scottish law), although the events are from the 50s, 60s or 70s: the show was dated from day one. It's very stagey and did deteriorate into Humphrey-reels-out-long-sentence-Jim-looks-askance, although there were reasons for that. It evolved from incident-of-the-week in the first series to a broad arc in YPM, a fact made explicit in the books.
It's an interesting series when you know the background. Paul Eddington was badly ill in the later years, which is why his latter scenes are him sitting down and short sentences. Since this fitted both actors' style, it worked well, but when you know why it stands out.
As for "middlebrow"? I dunno. The term is usually(?) reserved for nondescript writers churning out books to be bought instead of read (see the modern equivalent, "content"). The background, performances, scripts and references I think make it better than that.
Thats not my definition of middlebrow, nor one that I remotely recognise
Here's a different definition off Google:
"The goal of middlebrow culture was to introduce unevenly educated adults to somewhat diluted versions of high culture in accessible, engaging and unthreatening ways."
I'd say that exactly nails the appeal of Yes Minister
If that's the definition of "middlebrow" (and how can Google possibly be in error) than you are right. But that also moves it from an insult to a compliment.
It can be insult, compliment, or completely neutral and a mere descriptor
I was using it insultingly
"The goal of middlebrow culture was to introduce unevenly educated adults to somewhat diluted versions of high culture in accessible, engaging and unthreatening ways."
Outrage as female prisons used as a 'laboratory to prepare dangerous men to live as women'
@scottishprisons wins the prize for the worst possible policy....
Kate Coleman said: "I am horrified at the suggestion that male prisoners who even the SPS deem to be unsafe for the female estate should nevertheless be able to access activities in women's prisons for reasons that include being able to practice being a woman. This is an outrage. I am disgusted that this policy, as inadequate to ensure the safety of women as it is, appears to be hiding a reality that is far more sinister in the danger that it presents to female offenders."
Tory MPs are convinced they're facing oblivion. And some now believe a "Dream Ticket" of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage represents their final chance > Mail On Sunday >
Given Sunak's CCHQ will block Johnson and Farage from getting on the Tory parlamentary candidates list even if they wanted to run, that looks more like the Reform 'dream ticket' than Tory one
The article suggests the “plan” is to put Farage in the Lords as HS and install Patel as a caretaker while Johnson runs in a safe seat at the next GE as leader. It contains the immortal line “there’s no rule that says the PM has to be an MP”. It makes my predictions of a Truss return seem earnest and grounded in reality.
The reason I find this implausible isn't because it seems far fetched as a concept (because since the Brexit and Truss melodrama I have decided that nothing in British politics is particularly far fetched anymore) but because of the personalities involved - I strongly doubt there is a majority in the Tory parliamentary Party as currently constituted for parachuting Farage into frontbench Tory politics.
In opposition? Possibly. Right now, not happening.
Agreed, and would Boris either want or be the right person to lead the Tories for five years [at least] in opposition?
So, why is Labour polling so well? Starmer’s work in rehabilitating Labour’s image has had a big impact. But more widely, as our new report shows, people are simply ready for a change. Over 80% of voters say the government looks tired and more than 60% say it is time for new leadership in Downing Street.
Much of the party’s success is down to the unpopularity of their rivals. Numerous scandals – from partygate to the mini-budget to a series of parliamentary resignations over misconduct – have led to a large drop in support for the Conservatives over the last 18 months. As it stands, six in ten voters do not think the Conservatives deserve to be re-elected at the next election.
I would still like to know what deal Starmer signed with Satan.
The Tories have gone in less than two years from increasing their majority to complete implosion.
The SNP are weirdly obsessed with trans rights, are clearly clueless and hopelessly confused on their main selling point, their two former leaders arrested and their current one so incompetent even his own colleagues criticise him (even discounting current rumours).
Welsh Labour are completely hopeless to the extent Drakeford endorses criminal behaviour by motorcyclists while cutting speed limits more or less randomly for everyone else, but few people care.
Khan is inept but somehow the Tories have selected a candidate who would make Trump look mainstream to challenge him.
And while doing absolutely nothing except crack the odd joke and have a couple of curries, suddenly Starmer's dominating politics.
Whatever deal he signed, Satan must feel swindled. I'd like Starmer drawing up my next contract, that's for sure.
When does your current contract with Satan expire?
(And does he know about the organ playing?)
The determination of the Conservatives and SNP to leave no stone unturned in their determination to lose to Labour, has indeed been a wonder to behold.
As to the Satanic bargain "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? " I think a lot people would take that deal.
Because the spineless gimp needed Bravermans support he agreed to keep the Rwanda plan .
The chickens are coming home to roost now .
He should make the vote on Tuesday a confidence vote and find some backbone . If he starts changing the bill to appease the right wing nutjobs he risks losing moderates and I can’t see the HOL passing legislation that breaks international law .
There’s also of course the Rwandan government. Are they serious about withdrawing if no 10 breaks international law .
Washington Post (via Seattle Times) - Iowa GOP says only residents can caucus after Casey DeSantis urges others to ‘participate’
SIOUX CITY, Iowa – The Republican Party of Iowa on Friday clarified that out-of-state residents cannot take part in its presidential nominating contest after Florida first lady Casey DeSantis – the wife of candidate Ron DeSantis – urged mothers and grandmothers from around the country to “descend upon the state of Iowa to be a part of the caucus,” and added, “you do not have to be a resident of Iowa to be able to participate in the caucus.”
Casey DeSantis, who often joins her husband on the campaign trail, has been promoting a “Mamas for DeSantis” 2024 coalition. She said on Fox News that “we’re asking all of these moms and grandmoms to come, from wherever it might be – North Carolina, South Carolina – and to descend upon the state of Iowa to be a part of the caucus.”
With Ron DeSantis sitting silently beside her, Casey DeSantis added, “Because you do not have to be a resident of Iowa to be able to participate in the caucus.” She said that people should come “let their voice be heard in support of Ron DeSantis,” the Republican governor of Florida.
The Florida first lady later clarified in a post on X, the social media site, that “voting in the Iowa caucuses is limited to registered voters in Iowa.” And her husband addressed the confusion with reporters, saying of non-Iowa voters: “Obviously, you can’t vote in the caucus, but you can help with it. They even let people go and speak on behalf of candidates.”
Still, Casey DeSantis’s comments spawned enough confusion that the Iowa GOP posted its own guidance on X late Friday afternoon. “Remember: you must be a legal resident of Iowa and the precinct you live in and bring photo ID with you to participate in the #iacaucus!” the organization wrote.
The incident even caught the attention of Nebraska voters who showed up to a Sioux City, Iowa, event for rival GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley on Friday evening. Attendee Deb Pieper brought it up unprompted.
“I am from Nebraska, but I understand that I am able to caucus in Iowa,” Pieper said as she waited for Haley to arrive. “I just heard that. Ron DeSantis’s wife just said that. On the news. On Fox News tonight.”
But she said she had just asked some other people about the matter, and they cleared things up: She can’t vote, though she can “have an influence.” . . . .
Trump and his allies also pounced, suggesting Casey DeSantis’ comments would contribute to voter fraud – an issue that Trump has falsely cast as widespread and blamed for his 2020 election loss. . . .
SSI - Sounds a bit similar to 2004 Howard Dean campaign for Democratic nomination, when Joe Trippi urged hordes of Deaniacs to descend upon New Hampshire in the final days of that primary campaign.
Lady Haldane determined that Alister Jack (who he?) could overturn the decision of parliament arrived at democratically with cross party support "just because". Haldane knows her law obviously. I'm not sure it's a great constitutional outcome, which is why no-one has triggered a Section 35 before.
Not sure about great constitutional outcome is a meaningful description either way. The ability to do this was left in deliberately and thereforr part of the intended constitutional settlement. Obviously it was felt it should be rarely used hence it not being done up to this point, and like or dislike the law in question people may have mixed feelings about using s.35.
But it is a part of the devolution arrangements even if not used before so really we've not really progressed or regressed at all, it's just the same arguments about whether there should still be that ability or not, since if in the same country of course something like this exists, which the Scottish public remains stubbornly split on.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dixon_(doctor)
1) Exposure to Putin/MBS etc various nonsense
2) WAR
And the only jobs I'd accept from that lot right now are Chief of OFSTED or PUS at the DfE.
I actually think in moderation, narcissism and machaiavellianism for example are probably healthy personality traits. How many of history's great leaders would be diagnosed thusly? Napoleon for sure, Alexander the Great... heck, add Elon Musk to the mix - who I see as a classic narcissist, not an autist.
The problem today is we try to pathologise and medicate what are seen as "extreme" ends of the personality trait spectrum. We're *all* a bit narcissistic, but only the top 1%ish qualify for NPD. Yet we don't do the same, for say, intelligence. Was Einsten suffering from Too-brainy-for-his-boots-disorder, being in the top 1% of intelligences? I'm sure modern psychiatry would say so.
Tidal makes sense, most, from the grid stabilisation and storage potential.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general-election-trump-vs-biden-7383.html
So Trump actually gets a higher voteshare than Haley (but still only roughly what he got in 2016 and 2020) just Biden also does better against Trump than Haley. Plus a lot of undecideds.
Factor in Trump almost certainly going Independent if not nominee and on the ballot in many swing states then Biden could beat Haley even with just the 40% of the vote he is now on
1) What is an average mark on Ninja Studies?
2) A plane crashes on the Ukrainian/Republic Of China border. Which side do you bury the survivors?
https://x.com/michellemone/status/1733594436851085420?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Your successor would reinstate them all.
Having a job for one day and not achieving much sounds like a waste.
This was going to be challenging enough because growth policies tend to run contrary to the policies that the SNP have followed over the last 15 years with its emphasis on "free" stuff, higher taxes, its hostility towards the private sector which constantly needs ever more regulation and supervision by well paid civil servants, the declining contribution of the North Sea (despite better figures in 2022 and probably this year given high oil prices), the massive clean up costs that are coming from that and, dare I mention it once again, the catastrophe of Grangemouth which will knock 5% off our industrial production on its own.
The irony of a growth driven agenda by the likes of Forbes is that it would be highly attractive to the likes of me and many Tories who would find common ground, as many Tartan Tories did with Salmond. The problem with this delusion, constantly supported by the likes of Sturgeon and now her successor, is that they simply do not see the need to make Scotland an attractive place to do business in.
If I were Putin, which thankfully I'm not, I'd aim every missile salvo at power generation and distribution points and plunge Ukraine into frozen darkness. Sod lobbing the occasional V-rocket at a tower block or shopping centre. Just take out the heating and the lights. Given the centralisation of electricity distribution you'd assume it would be fairly easy to do.
From Poland to the Taiwan Straits…
Makes From The River To The Sea seem so unambiguous.
But I would not need a day. Two hours would be enough. Just to tell them what I REALLY think of them...
Although also according to Nad, "the movement" had to dissuade Rishi from resigning over his Partygate FPN because that would precipitate Boris's own departure.
It's like 3d-chess. I can't wait to see how it ends.
Seen as a crank by the establishment, but I've run the numbers on his ideas and they seem to check out based on my limited, amateurish knowledge. It seems like a no-brainer to me compared to, say, Hinckley Point C.
There would be - fallout. Of various different sorts.
He has obviously considered it and then backed off. I am assuming that the Chinese and the Americans have separately indicated to him that they have Views on the subject of using nuclear power plants as targets in wartime
There are other problems. As one of the actors in the series said, you just can't believe how bad it is until you start getting into the detail and most people, understandably enough, don't want to do that. When you do start to get into it, you can hardly believe people actually did this. It truly beggars belief, which is a problem in itself.
The main problem though, as you kind of suggest, is that a topic like this requires an audience with an attention span greater than the average gnat.
😂
This is because he has run through the stockpile of modern weapons, and through most of the stockpile of older, less accurate weapons.
The production rate of new missiles is low, due to the collapsed state of Russian industry and its reliance on foreign equipment and technology.
So he is reduced to occasionally lobbing the saved up production of missiles, but mostly he uses the Iranian drones. Which are, essentially, really big model aircraft - slow, with no defensive or evasion capability.
Ancient gun based AA systems, such as Gepard, find the Iranian drones easy targets.
“Of what tool do you speak, sir?
“By George sir, THIS tool!”
Think that’s how it went anyway.
Turbines are far more efficient.
Pelton Wheels were often installed at old water mills as the last stage of their operation - often achieving massive increases in power.
I found one in the garden of a French Chateau - looked like it had been used to provide power to the house in the early days of electricity.
As I understand it, this was a strategy for a while and Ukraine resorted to using local diesel generators - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-12/
I'm just impressed at the logistics operation that kept the lights on.
I suspect given the fools in power in the UK, in a hot war, assuming it doesn't go nuclear, we'd all be sitting in the darkness huddling round a single candle for warmth.
Apparently they really liked it.
Covered by the Economist so not exactly a completely fringe, lunatic idea - https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/02/03/an-idea-from-the-past-may-make-a-severn-barrage-practical
The back-of-a-napkin calculations look like it generates electricity for half the price of Hinckley Point, and that's if you include the cost of creating a reservoir for pumped storage.
Yet as I say he's seen as a bit of a fringe nutter for some reason. His ideas and sums seem to check out, so I figure the PB brains trust could probably tell me why his ideas don't work.
I mean. A Tory safe seat???
It’s a great constitutional outcome - it creates clarity. The Scottish parliament was always intended to be junior to the Westminster parliament and couldn’t pass legislation that impacts on the rights of people outside of Scotland.
As to whether that is good or not, YMMV, but at least there is clarity and that is undoubtedly a great thing
I hope the Drugs Squad are paying attention and bringing all sniffer dogs to standby.
We need to discover this stuff, quick sharp, in case it spreads any further.
(And does he know about the organ playing?)
Edit - you just had to toss that remark about organs out there, didn't you?
And if all you have left in your armoury is to blame Westminster for all your woes, then it is time to step aside because what good are you making of devolution?
This failing SNP government has been in power for 16 of devolution’s 25 years and has made life for many considerably worse.
https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,if-all-you-have-is-to-blame-westminster-then-its-time-to-step-aside
I guess one advantage of BREXIT is the similarly useless shower in Westminster can no longer blame the EU.
As to the Satanic bargain "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? " I think a lot people would take that deal.
The smart thing to do would have been to react to the court's decision by pushing this beyond the next GE. He didn't, and he decided to take on a fight he wasn't going to win.
What is worse, when taking that path (which already was sub-optimal), he didn't choose the next best option (knowing that his party is hopelessly divided on this) - and call a GE to "get Rwanda done". Instead, he published legislation which unsurprisingly has pleased none of his party and will now get tied up in parliament and mean he cannot resolve this before the next GE.
Because Sunak has been weak and indecisive, and tried unsuccessfully to triangulate, there is now no exit route. If they force him out, the Tories will need to choose between a moderate which will cause the ERG/wannabe Reform wing to up and leave, and if they go for a hardliner it will be the same result for the moderate wing of the party.
It is absolutely amazing just how poor a political strategist Sunak is. I honestly can't see a way out for the Tories now that doesn't cause an almighty civil war. The only way forward is either (a) sticking with Sunak as the ship continues to sink or (b) hit the nuclear button and install new leader who immediately calls a GE (at which a good chunk of the party could up and leave).
'At that point between five and ten MPs will realise the game's up, and defect to us. Then it's game over. We're looking at the last majority Tory administration of our lifetime. We're going to destroy them.' "
To quote Thatcha! after Skinner said she should be governor of the ECB: "What a Good Idea"
The alleged cv exaggerations wrt University Positions seem to me to be correct claims.
He has controversial elements, and also some interesting things that are more creative and useful. His work promoting "social prescribing" is interesting, using extra-medical ideas to address patient problems - afaik an example would be recommending dog walking or joining a rambling group to prevent a prediabetic person continue the trend and become Type II.
I wonder what @Foxy thinks?
The full Times article is here:
https://archive.ph/ftr5S
In opposition? Possibly. Right now, not happening.
What I don't get is the idea that Reform will win any seats at the next election so why on earth would any MP switch party to one even less likely to win than the Tories...
The Spectator is middlebrow for the wealthy ?
@scottishprisons wins the prize for the worst possible policy....
Kate Coleman said: "I am horrified at the suggestion that male prisoners who even the SPS deem to be unsafe for the female estate should nevertheless be able to access activities in women's prisons for reasons that include being able to practice being a woman. This is an outrage. I am disgusted that this policy, as inadequate to ensure the safety of women as it is, appears to be hiding a reality that is far more sinister in the danger that it presents to female offenders."
https://x.com/NoXYinXXprisons/status/1733796808294367369?s=20
NEW THREAD
Much of the party’s success is down to the unpopularity of their rivals. Numerous scandals – from partygate to the mini-budget to a series of parliamentary resignations over misconduct – have led to a large drop in support for the Conservatives over the last 18 months. As it stands, six in ten voters do not think the Conservatives deserve to be re-elected at the next election.
https://labourlist.org/2023/12/uk-opinion-polls-labour-conservative-party/
The chickens are coming home to roost now .
He should make the vote on Tuesday a confidence vote and find some backbone . If he starts changing the bill to appease the right wing nutjobs he risks losing moderates and I can’t see the HOL passing legislation that breaks international law .
There’s also of course the Rwandan government. Are they serious about withdrawing if no 10 breaks international law .
SIOUX CITY, Iowa – The Republican Party of Iowa on Friday clarified that out-of-state residents cannot take part in its presidential nominating contest after Florida first lady Casey DeSantis – the wife of candidate Ron DeSantis – urged mothers and grandmothers from around the country to “descend upon the state of Iowa to be a part of the caucus,” and added, “you do not have to be a resident of Iowa to be able to participate in the caucus.”
Casey DeSantis, who often joins her husband on the campaign trail, has been promoting a “Mamas for DeSantis” 2024 coalition. She said on Fox News that “we’re asking all of these moms and grandmoms to come, from wherever it might be – North Carolina, South Carolina – and to descend upon the state of Iowa to be a part of the caucus.”
With Ron DeSantis sitting silently beside her, Casey DeSantis added, “Because you do not have to be a resident of Iowa to be able to participate in the caucus.” She said that people should come “let their voice be heard in support of Ron DeSantis,” the Republican governor of Florida.
The Florida first lady later clarified in a post on X, the social media site, that “voting in the Iowa caucuses is limited to registered voters in Iowa.” And her husband addressed the confusion with reporters, saying of non-Iowa voters: “Obviously, you can’t vote in the caucus, but you can help with it. They even let people go and speak on behalf of candidates.”
Still, Casey DeSantis’s comments spawned enough confusion that the Iowa GOP posted its own guidance on X late Friday afternoon. “Remember: you must be a legal resident of Iowa and the precinct you live in and bring photo ID with you to participate in the #iacaucus!” the organization wrote.
The incident even caught the attention of Nebraska voters who showed up to a Sioux City, Iowa, event for rival GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley on Friday evening. Attendee Deb Pieper brought it up unprompted.
“I am from Nebraska, but I understand that I am able to caucus in Iowa,” Pieper said as she waited for Haley to arrive. “I just heard that. Ron DeSantis’s wife just said that. On the news. On Fox News tonight.”
But she said she had just asked some other people about the matter, and they cleared things up: She can’t vote, though she can “have an influence.” . . . .
Trump and his allies also pounced, suggesting Casey DeSantis’ comments would contribute to voter fraud – an issue that Trump has falsely cast as widespread and blamed for his 2020 election loss. . . .
SSI - Sounds a bit similar to 2004 Howard Dean campaign for Democratic nomination, when Joe Trippi urged hordes of Deaniacs to descend upon New Hampshire in the final days of that primary campaign.
But it is a part of the devolution arrangements even if not used before so really we've not really progressed or regressed at all, it's just the same arguments about whether there should still be that ability or not, since if in the same country of course something like this exists, which the Scottish public remains stubbornly split on.