I just had a quick look at who were in prominent positions for the 3 parties in 2008, which many said at the time were at best some combination of competent but nasty f##kers and lightweights / inexperienced / chinless wonders....compare to now, they aren't looking too bad at all.
Will people who might hire him in future love that kind of corporate decision making?
I still don't understand the security argument for new oil and gas licenses.
The market price of that extracted, whether for pharmaceuticals or otherwise, will still be subject to global markets, right? So if Russia/Saudi etc do something crazy, the relatively tiny amount extracted from the North Sea won't mitigate the effect on people in the UK.
Indeed, by exposing more of our domestic economy to inputs largely governed by our adversaries, aren't we weakening our position? The only way in which it might help would be if used it as a store to mitigate such a crisis. But, AFAIK, that isn't the plan.
That would be like writing during Covid I still don't understand the security argument for vaccine production ...
The UK is going to need oil and gas into the future, it is the fundamental building block of most pharmaceuticals, plastics etc - and are a critical part of the supply chain to most of our largest export markets and will be even post-Net Zero.
Medicines and pharmaceuticals, not oil and gas, is our third largest export good in the country, as well as being fairly fundamental for our health and well-being.
And you question why we might want to have security in controlling our own input for it during a crisis rather than leave it in the hand of hostile states?
We don't need to store oil and gas in order to mitigate a crisis, we need to generate enough that we don't rely upon imports during a crisis.
Unless you want to terminate our pharmaceutical sector, which means we won't need as much petrochemicals in the future, as well as plastics and everything else that depends upon it, petrochemicals are going to be an input into our economy. If we make our own production of them, then we have reduced the amount that's governed by our adversaries, since we can use our own production. If we don't, then we hand control of a critical input of national security to our adversaries.
But none of Rosebank is for UK though, or haven’t you noticed?
If we were not so reliant on oil or gas at all we would surely be less reliant on oil and gas imports, so more secure. What part of that logic do you not understand?
Sold on the international markets != none is for the UK and != that the UK can't use it in an emergency.
Being less reliant on oil and gas is a good thing, but cutting UK production helps that ambition not a single iota. It doesn't lower global CO2 emissions whatsoever.
If you have policies to lower oil and gas demand in this country then fantastic, lets hear them and if they're sensible roll them out. But cutting oil and gas production in this country? Doesn't achieve a single damned thing.
LE 23 rough tally for Kingswood gives Labour about an 1100 lead in Kingswood and when you factor in that they didn't stand in Longwell Green ward, that probably puts the lead nearer to 2000 - about 8% is on a typical council turnout.
I still don't understand the security argument for new oil and gas licenses.
The market price of that extracted, whether for pharmaceuticals or otherwise, will still be subject to global markets, right? So if Russia/Saudi etc do something crazy, the relatively tiny amount extracted from the North Sea won't mitigate the effect on people in the UK.
Indeed, by exposing more of our domestic economy to inputs largely governed by our adversaries, aren't we weakening our position? The only way in which it might help would be if used it as a store to mitigate such a crisis. But, AFAIK, that isn't the plan.
That would be like writing during Covid I still don't understand the security argument for vaccine production ...
The UK is going to need oil and gas into the future, it is the fundamental building block of most pharmaceuticals, plastics etc - and are a critical part of the supply chain to most of our largest export markets and will be even post-Net Zero.
Medicines and pharmaceuticals, not oil and gas, is our third largest export good in the country, as well as being fairly fundamental for our health and well-being.
And you question why we might want to have security in controlling our own input for it during a crisis rather than leave it in the hand of hostile states?
We don't need to store oil and gas in order to mitigate a crisis, we need to generate enough that we don't rely upon imports during a crisis.
Unless you want to terminate our pharmaceutical sector, which means we won't need as much petrochemicals in the future, as well as plastics and everything else that depends upon it, petrochemicals are going to be an input into our economy. If we make our own production of them, then we have reduced the amount that's governed by our adversaries, since we can use our own production. If we don't, then we hand control of a critical input of national security to our adversaries.
But none of Rosebank is for UK though, or haven’t you noticed?
If we were not so reliant on oil or gas at all we would surely be less reliant on oil and gas imports, so more secure. What part of that logic do you not understand?
This is confusing different arguments. Yes we need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels (and we are, spectacularly) but we still need large quantities of petroleum and diesel and will do for the next decade at least on a diminishing scale and then more for plastics, pharma etc. How do we meet that need? By producing our own as much as we can or by importing it all.
The choice has a major impact on the wealth of this country and our standard of living but no impact at all on world demand for oil or gas.
Producing oil does not mean that we don’t seek to reduce our dependence upon it. That is the flaw in your logic.
I spent about seven hours of my thirteen hour shift out in the rain
When I finished at 9pm I was cold, wet, hungry, utterly exhausted and aching all over
To keep the post dry I have to hold it under my waterproof jacket, to keep it dry there I have to hunch over it
So I was cold, wet, hungry, tired, aching and a hunchback
Thank god I had today off
I did get a late twenty quid Christmas tip yesterday
I hope Anabob gives bottled tips
You have my sympathy. The weather has been atrocious since the beginning of November, quite incredibly wet. It must be a tough gig when it’s like that.
What did him in in the end (beyond The Pardon) was saying that Soviets did NOT dominate Poland.
Ironic in that events in following decades showed that Jerry actually DID have a point. Just didn't know how to convey it.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened with a Ford II 77-81. I have a vague impression of him as a decent man, which may just be me being naive. I really like Jimmy Carter (it's OK: everybody else hates me too) and I think the electorate made the right decision but I'm willing to hear counterargument.
Gerald Ford was a decent guy, mostly, though he was very conservative in a Midwest country club way, and subject to occasional fits of right-wing enthusiasm, for example as congressional leader of the "Impeach Earl Warren" campaign.
As longtime US Rep and GOP congressional leader, Ford would almost certainly had better relations with the then-Democratic-controlled Congress than did Jimmy Carter. Who began his term by insulting Speaker Tip O'Neill (presumably to burnish his DC Ousider credentials). Then worsened the relationship. Doubtful Jerry would have done that. Or rather impossible.
However, also think it likely that a 2nd-term President Jerry would have been confronted by the same massive (as per usual) economic challenges as the actual 1-term President Jimmy. AND also by Iranian Revolution and Hostage Crisis. And likely (IMHO) to have about as much success with all of the above.
Thus leaving a less-than-optimum launching pad for Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign against whomever won the Democratic nomination, almost certainly NOT Carter.
With result that after twelve years of Republican rule, the Democrats would be a very good bet to win the White House. And after weathering the Recession of early 1980s benefiting for the rest of the decade from recovery and prosperity - something approaching . . . wait for it . . . Morning in America . . .
Following on from a discussion yesterday with @SeaShantyIrish2 about Gerald Ford, here is a interview with him that YouTube suggested to me.
I still don't understand the security argument for new oil and gas licenses.
The market price of that extracted, whether for pharmaceuticals or otherwise, will still be subject to global markets, right? So if Russia/Saudi etc do something crazy, the relatively tiny amount extracted from the North Sea won't mitigate the effect on people in the UK.
Indeed, by exposing more of our domestic economy to inputs largely governed by our adversaries, aren't we weakening our position? The only way in which it might help would be if used it as a store to mitigate such a crisis. But, AFAIK, that isn't the plan.
That would be like writing during Covid I still don't understand the security argument for vaccine production ...
The UK is going to need oil and gas into the future, it is the fundamental building block of most pharmaceuticals, plastics etc - and are a critical part of the supply chain to most of our largest export markets and will be even post-Net Zero.
Medicines and pharmaceuticals, not oil and gas, is our third largest export good in the country, as well as being fairly fundamental for our health and well-being.
And you question why we might want to have security in controlling our own input for it during a crisis rather than leave it in the hand of hostile states?
We don't need to store oil and gas in order to mitigate a crisis, we need to generate enough that we don't rely upon imports during a crisis.
Unless you want to terminate our pharmaceutical sector, which means we won't need as much petrochemicals in the future, as well as plastics and everything else that depends upon it, petrochemicals are going to be an input into our economy. If we make our own production of them, then we have reduced the amount that's governed by our adversaries, since we can use our own production. If we don't, then we hand control of a critical input of national security to our adversaries.
But none of Rosebank is for UK though, or haven’t you noticed?
If we were not so reliant on oil or gas at all we would surely be less reliant on oil and gas imports, so more secure. What part of that logic do you not understand?
This is confusing different arguments. Yes we need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels (and we are, spectacularly) but we still need large quantities of petroleum and diesel and will do for the next decade at least on a diminishing scale and then more for plastics, pharma etc. How do we meet that need? By producing our own as much as we can or by importing it all.
The choice has a major impact on the wealth of this country and our standard of living but no impact at all on world demand for oil or gas.
Producing oil does not mean that we don’t seek to reduce our dependence upon it. That is the flaw in your logic.
Precisely.
This is the Something must be done, this is something, so this must be done fallacy.
Yes we need to tackle climate change. Yes we need to stop burning oil and gas. No we do not need to stop producing oil and gas.
I spent about seven hours of my thirteen hour shift out in the rain
When I finished at 9pm I was cold, wet, hungry, utterly exhausted and aching all over
To keep the post dry I have to hold it under my waterproof jacket, to keep it dry there I have to hunch over it
So I was cold, wet, hungry, tired, aching and a hunchback
Thank god I had today off
I did get a late twenty quid Christmas tip yesterday
I hope Anabob gives bottled tips
You have my sympathy. The weather has been atrocious since the beginning of November, quite incredibly wet. It must be a tough gig when it’s like that.
There’s a chance of a dusting of snow by Tuesday, particularly south of London
AP (via Seattle Times - The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, inserting the court squarely in the 2024 presidential campaign.
The justices acknowledged the need to reach a decision quickly, as voters will soon begin casting presidential primary ballots across the country. The court agreed to take up Trump’s appeal of a case from Colorado stemming from his role in the events that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Arguments will be held in early February.
The court will be considering for the first time the meaning and reach of a provision of the 14th Amendment barring some people who “engaged in insurrection” from holding public office. The amendment was adopted in 1868, following the Civil War. It has been so rarely used that the nation’s highest court had no previous occasion to interpret it.
Their mistake was electing him to anything more demanding than deputy chair of Henley Town Council in the first place.
It was the British people themselves who elected Boris to stay PM in 2019 with the biggest Tory majority since Thatcher in 1987
Oh, what about Northern Ireland? Plus a lot of people didn't or couldn't vote. And many of then didn't vote for Mr Johnson. In fact, *none at all except in Uxbridge*. And that last was for the constituency MP.
People as you well know vote mostly for the leader now more than their local MP
I know you have a strange concept of logic and numbner theory, but 43.6% of those who voted at all doesn't equate to "the British people" in ordinary human discourse or experience.
It does, the Tories won most votes and seats and if you don't vote that is your problem, you have no right to complain
The Tories and Boris's big mistake was letting victory go to their heads and assuming winning an election meant they spoke for far more than they did and that nothing could truly dent their popularity. One reason traditionally the Tory Party has been successful is a lack of complacency and sentimentality and a sometimes cynical knowledge of how to pry people away from the other lot.
A smart party would have been looking to address its weaknesses. How could it appeal to younger people and remainers? How could it mend the same divides it exploited to its advantage and prove to people that its critics were wrong? How could Boris go out of his way to prove he was trustworthy and serious?
That would have likely resulted in another decade of dominance. Because existing supporters would back it, while voters who might be opponents saw allies co-opted.
Instead it assumed that some of the biggest headbangers and oddballs on their own side 'spoke' for the British public and needed appeasing while insulting everyone else. When of course they did not, as if anything Britain leans small c conservative, rather than full fat Farage.
Yet apart from Brexit Boris didn't really do anything very rightwing. Taxes weren't cut, spending rose, immigration rose. the government was relatively socially liberal.
Both Truss and Sunak have run more rightwing governments than Boris did overall
It’s unfortunate for Boris that the pandemic began three months after he won that landslide; it meant any plans he had were shelved and he had to deal with something completely unexpected that probably didn’t play to his strengths
With respect to Th-Fronting, how long before Ron DeSantis denounces it on the campaign trail, promises immediate state action in Florida to ban it being taught (or whatever) to minors, and pledging that passage of Anti-Th-Fronting Amendment to US Constitution will be top priority for his First 100 Days as President.
Thlorida thurely.
Say THAT in Ron DeSantis's Tallahassee . . . and a squad of Florida State troopers will frog-march you to the Georgia line!
This IS the state, after all, where in his (winning) race for US Senator, a candidate denounced the incumbent as unfit for public office, because the opponent's sister was an accomplished thespian.
I spent about seven hours of my thirteen hour shift out in the rain
When I finished at 9pm I was cold, wet, hungry, utterly exhausted and aching all over
To keep the post dry I have to hold it under my waterproof jacket, to keep it dry there I have to hunch over it
So I was cold, wet, hungry, tired, aching and a hunchback
Thank god I had today off
I did get a late twenty quid Christmas tip yesterday
I hope Anabob gives bottled tips
You have my sympathy. The weather has been atrocious since the beginning of November, quite incredibly wet. It must be a tough gig when it’s like that.
There’s a chance of a dusting of snow by Tuesday, particularly south of London
Our pavements were turning distinctly icy when I was out for my walk tonight. Cars already covered in frost.
As it turns out the "breakthroughs" China said they had in semiconductors were likely bullshit. Huawei phone teardowns have revealed the 5nm "domestic" chip is actually made in a Taiwanese foundry, not in an SMIC foundry in China as had been implied by the CCP and Huawei.
Why is Farage being so quiet on the Post Office scandal? Whether you think he's sincere or a scoundrel surely this ought to be right up his street. He's usually pretty attuned to what has salience as well.
AP (via Seattle Times - The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, inserting the court squarely in the 2024 presidential campaign.
The justices acknowledged the need to reach a decision quickly, as voters will soon begin casting presidential primary ballots across the country. The court agreed to take up Trump’s appeal of a case from Colorado stemming from his role in the events that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Arguments will be held in early February.
The court will be considering for the first time the meaning and reach of a provision of the 14th Amendment barring some people who “engaged in insurrection” from holding public office. The amendment was adopted in 1868, following the Civil War. It has been so rarely used that the nation’s highest court had no previous occasion to interpret it.
With the current make up of the court I don’t think that there is a chance in hell that they are going to take Trump off the ballot. To be honest, much though I detest the man, I am not even sure that they should.
I have read a lot of arguments for and against and I have to admit - I’m genuinely torn on both the legal argument and the argument around what SCOTUS might do.
My current thinking is there’s a v strong argument he’s constitutionally barred, but I wonder if SCOTUS might find it legally and politically convenient to separate the ballot access question from the eligibility question - i.e come back if he wins the election and we’ll work out if he can take office. But this does come from not knowing anything about Colorado law and if lack of eligibility prevents ballot access.
AP (via Seattle Times - The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, inserting the court squarely in the 2024 presidential campaign.
The justices acknowledged the need to reach a decision quickly, as voters will soon begin casting presidential primary ballots across the country. The court agreed to take up Trump’s appeal of a case from Colorado stemming from his role in the events that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Arguments will be held in early February.
The court will be considering for the first time the meaning and reach of a provision of the 14th Amendment barring some people who “engaged in insurrection” from holding public office. The amendment was adopted in 1868, following the Civil War. It has been so rarely used that the nation’s highest court had no previous occasion to interpret it.
With the current make up of the court I don’t think that there is a chance in hell that they are going to take Trump off the ballot. To be honest, much though I detest the man, I am not even sure that they should.
Did he engage in insurrection? Does the 14th Amendment ban those who engaged insurrection?
Their mistake was electing him to anything more demanding than deputy chair of Henley Town Council in the first place.
It was the British people themselves who elected Boris to stay PM in 2019 with the biggest Tory majority since Thatcher in 1987
Oh, what about Northern Ireland? Plus a lot of people didn't or couldn't vote. And many of then didn't vote for Mr Johnson. In fact, *none at all except in Uxbridge*. And that last was for the constituency MP.
People as you well know vote mostly for the leader now more than their local MP
I know you have a strange concept of logic and numbner theory, but 43.6% of those who voted at all doesn't equate to "the British people" in ordinary human discourse or experience.
It does, the Tories won most votes and seats and if you don't vote that is your problem, you have no right to complain
The Tories and Boris's big mistake was letting victory go to their heads and assuming winning an election meant they spoke for far more than they did and that nothing could truly dent their popularity. One reason traditionally the Tory Party has been successful is a lack of complacency and sentimentality and a sometimes cynical knowledge of how to pry people away from the other lot.
A smart party would have been looking to address its weaknesses. How could it appeal to younger people and remainers? How could it mend the same divides it exploited to its advantage and prove to people that its critics were wrong? How could Boris go out of his way to prove he was trustworthy and serious?
That would have likely resulted in another decade of dominance. Because existing supporters would back it, while voters who might be opponents saw allies co-opted.
Instead it assumed that some of the biggest headbangers and oddballs on their own side 'spoke' for the British public and needed appeasing while insulting everyone else. When of course they did not, as if anything Britain leans small c conservative, rather than full fat Farage.
Yet apart from Brexit Boris didn't really do anything very rightwing. Taxes weren't cut, spending rose, immigration rose. the government was relatively socially liberal.
Both Truss and Sunak have run more rightwing governments than Boris did overall
Socially liberal up to a point, that point being when everyone had to stay within a few minutes of their homes and all the pubs were shut.
Their mistake was electing him to anything more demanding than deputy chair of Henley Town Council in the first place.
It was the British people themselves who elected Boris to stay PM in 2019 with the biggest Tory majority since Thatcher in 1987
Oh, what about Northern Ireland? Plus a lot of people didn't or couldn't vote. And many of then didn't vote for Mr Johnson. In fact, *none at all except in Uxbridge*. And that last was for the constituency MP.
People as you well know vote mostly for the leader now more than their local MP
I know you have a strange concept of logic and numbner theory, but 43.6% of those who voted at all doesn't equate to "the British people" in ordinary human discourse or experience.
It does, the Tories won most votes and seats and if you don't vote that is your problem, you have no right to complain
The Tories and Boris's big mistake was letting victory go to their heads and assuming winning an election meant they spoke for far more than they did and that nothing could truly dent their popularity. One reason traditionally the Tory Party has been successful is a lack of complacency and sentimentality and a sometimes cynical knowledge of how to pry people away from the other lot.
A smart party would have been looking to address its weaknesses. How could it appeal to younger people and remainers? How could it mend the same divides it exploited to its advantage and prove to people that its critics were wrong? How could Boris go out of his way to prove he was trustworthy and serious?
That would have likely resulted in another decade of dominance. Because existing supporters would back it, while voters who might be opponents saw allies co-opted.
Instead it assumed that some of the biggest headbangers and oddballs on their own side 'spoke' for the British public and needed appeasing while insulting everyone else. When of course they did not, as if anything Britain leans small c conservative, rather than full fat Farage.
Yet apart from Brexit Boris didn't really do anything very rightwing. Taxes weren't cut, spending rose, immigration rose. the government was relatively socially liberal.
Both Truss and Sunak have run more rightwing governments than Boris did overall
Boris ran a government? I always felt more like he stumbled through a government,
So held Uxbridge because of Net Zero (in Sunak's head anyway) and now lost Kingswood because of Net Zero.
Kingwood Not lost yet. As a political betting site are you tiipping Labour to win it in same way Uxbridge was a slam dunk? It’s the part of the world where former Labour voters now vote Green on mass, the UKs no 1 green stronghold, greens wouldn’t even need to bus in a ground force, their troops could catch local buses.
Their mistake was electing him to anything more demanding than deputy chair of Henley Town Council in the first place.
It was the British people themselves who elected Boris to stay PM in 2019 with the biggest Tory majority since Thatcher in 1987
Oh, what about Northern Ireland? Plus a lot of people didn't or couldn't vote. And many of then didn't vote for Mr Johnson. In fact, *none at all except in Uxbridge*. And that last was for the constituency MP.
People as you well know vote mostly for the leader now more than their local MP
I know you have a strange concept of logic and numbner theory, but 43.6% of those who voted at all doesn't equate to "the British people" in ordinary human discourse or experience.
It does, the Tories won most votes and seats and if you don't vote that is your problem, you have no right to complain
The Tories and Boris's big mistake was letting victory go to their heads and assuming winning an election meant they spoke for far more than they did and that nothing could truly dent their popularity. One reason traditionally the Tory Party has been successful is a lack of complacency and sentimentality and a sometimes cynical knowledge of how to pry people away from the other lot.
A smart party would have been looking to address its weaknesses. How could it appeal to younger people and remainers? How could it mend the same divides it exploited to its advantage and prove to people that its critics were wrong? How could Boris go out of his way to prove he was trustworthy and serious?
That would have likely resulted in another decade of dominance. Because existing supporters would back it, while voters who might be opponents saw allies co-opted.
Instead it assumed that some of the biggest headbangers and oddballs on their own side 'spoke' for the British public and needed appeasing while insulting everyone else. When of course they did not, as if anything Britain leans small c conservative, rather than full fat Farage.
Yet apart from Brexit Boris didn't really do anything very rightwing. Taxes weren't cut, spending rose, immigration rose. the government was relatively socially liberal.
Both Truss and Sunak have run more rightwing governments than Boris did overall
Boris ran a government? I always felt more like he stumbled through a government,
Even that feels generous.
Be fair.
You try running after that much alcohol has been consumed.
Their mistake was electing him to anything more demanding than deputy chair of Henley Town Council in the first place.
It was the British people themselves who elected Boris to stay PM in 2019 with the biggest Tory majority since Thatcher in 1987
Oh, what about Northern Ireland? Plus a lot of people didn't or couldn't vote. And many of then didn't vote for Mr Johnson. In fact, *none at all except in Uxbridge*. And that last was for the constituency MP.
People as you well know vote mostly for the leader now more than their local MP
I know you have a strange concept of logic and numbner theory, but 43.6% of those who voted at all doesn't equate to "the British people" in ordinary human discourse or experience.
It does, the Tories won most votes and seats and if you don't vote that is your problem, you have no right to complain
The Tories and Boris's big mistake was letting victory go to their heads and assuming winning an election meant they spoke for far more than they did and that nothing could truly dent their popularity. One reason traditionally the Tory Party has been successful is a lack of complacency and sentimentality and a sometimes cynical knowledge of how to pry people away from the other lot.
A smart party would have been looking to address its weaknesses. How could it appeal to younger people and remainers? How could it mend the same divides it exploited to its advantage and prove to people that its critics were wrong? How could Boris go out of his way to prove he was trustworthy and serious?
That would have likely resulted in another decade of dominance. Because existing supporters would back it, while voters who might be opponents saw allies co-opted.
Instead it assumed that some of the biggest headbangers and oddballs on their own side 'spoke' for the British public and needed appeasing while insulting everyone else. When of course they did not, as if anything Britain leans small c conservative, rather than full fat Farage.
Yet apart from Brexit Boris didn't really do anything very rightwing. Taxes weren't cut, spending rose, immigration rose. the government was relatively socially liberal.
Both Truss and Sunak have run more rightwing governments than Boris did overall
Socially liberal up to a point, that point being when everyone had to stay within a few minutes of their homes and all the pubs were shut.
Not everyone. Remember that the people working in number 10 (and Chequers, and... anywhere else Boris wandered around) were under exceptional pressure so had to have suit-cases full of booze, parties, no heed paid to the law those very same people had passed. That was all fair game.
I mean, unless you were poor. Then f*ck you. Fines or jail time.
I have read a lot of arguments for and against and I have to admit - I’m genuinely torn on both the legal argument and the argument around what SCOTUS might do.
My current thinking is there’s a v strong argument he’s constitutionally barred, but I wonder if SCOTUS might find it legally and politically convenient to separate the ballot access question from the eligibility question - i.e come back if he wins the election and we’ll work out if he can take office. But this does come from not knowing anything about Colorado law and if lack of eligibility prevents ballot access.
Politically keeping him off the ballot is pretty explosive (but then he already spurs his supporters to violence over baseless claims of cheating and tried to retain power when he lost, which is pretty explosive itself), and I cannot imagine for one second the Supreme Court want to be seen as the deciding voice in the election, even though they adore being the deciders on many political questions.
There have already been dissents to the decision to keep him off the ballot, I'm sure the Court can find a way to make their decision as narrow as possible and punt the larger questions until a time it won't matter, ie after the election, which would surely appeal to them.
Whether they can find a way to say he cannot be kept off, but that that section of the amendment can actually be enforced at least theoretically may be a bit harder to manage, since he really did try to prevent the transfer of power after all. But they are intelligent and creative people, it may not even be entirely along partisan lines if they craft it right.
Have we noted that the New York DA has put forward their requested penalties for the Frump Organisation's multi-year fraudulent business activities:
1 - Disgorgement of $370m to recover the money they have fraudulently gained. 2 - Lifetime ban on doing business in New York for Mr Frump and his primary operative. 3 - 5 year ban for Frump Junior 1 and Frump Junior 2.
It seems a modest request given what they *could* have gone for.
I still don't understand the security argument for new oil and gas licenses.
The market price of that extracted, whether for pharmaceuticals or otherwise, will still be subject to global markets, right? So if Russia/Saudi etc do something crazy, the relatively tiny amount extracted from the North Sea won't mitigate the effect on people in the UK.
Indeed, by exposing more of our domestic economy to inputs largely governed by our adversaries, aren't we weakening our position? The only way in which it might help would be if used it as a store to mitigate such a crisis. But, AFAIK, that isn't the plan.
That would be like writing during Covid I still don't understand the security argument for vaccine production ...
The UK is going to need oil and gas into the future, it is the fundamental building block of most pharmaceuticals, plastics etc - and are a critical part of the supply chain to most of our largest export markets and will be even post-Net Zero.
Medicines and pharmaceuticals, not oil and gas, is our third largest export good in the country, as well as being fairly fundamental for our health and well-being.
And you question why we might want to have security in controlling our own input for it during a crisis rather than leave it in the hand of hostile states?
We don't need to store oil and gas in order to mitigate a crisis, we need to generate enough that we don't rely upon imports during a crisis.
Unless you want to terminate our pharmaceutical sector, which means we won't need as much petrochemicals in the future, as well as plastics and everything else that depends upon it, petrochemicals are going to be an input into our economy. If we make our own production of them, then we have reduced the amount that's governed by our adversaries, since we can use our own production. If we don't, then we hand control of a critical input of national security to our adversaries.
I agree with all of that, except that it's impossible for us to produce our domestic consumption of oil and gas. So our pharmaceuticals and other industries will always be vulnerable to international markets.
Your security scenario is one where we are basically in WW3 and need to produce everything domestically. In that scenario, food is going to be our primary concern...
This is what makes betting on American elections so difficult. The country is bonkers that this man can draw an audience bigger than his cell mates, let alone be the favourite.
Have we noted that the New York DA has put forward their requested penalties for the Frump Organisation's multi-year fraudulent business activities:
1 - Disgorgement of $370m to recover the money they have fraudulently gained. 2 - Lifetime ban on doing business in New York for Mr Frump and his primary operative. 3 - 5 year ban for Frump Junior 1 and Frump Junior 2.
It seems a modest request given what they *could* have gone for.
He needs to run for President (and win) in order to stay out of prison (and could well manage it), but that case seems to make him the angriest of all, because it exposes his business dealings as at best a chaotic mess based on inflated assumptions (which he admits, but says that doesn't matter legally and no one was hurt by it), and at worse a house of cards built on fraud, so strikes at his self image directly.
I have read a lot of arguments for and against and I have to admit - I’m genuinely torn on both the legal argument and the argument around what SCOTUS might do.
My current thinking is there’s a v strong argument he’s constitutionally barred, but I wonder if SCOTUS might find it legally and politically convenient to separate the ballot access question from the eligibility question - i.e come back if he wins the election and we’ll work out if he can take office. But this does come from not knowing anything about Colorado law and if lack of eligibility prevents ballot access.
Doubt that Colorado (or Maine) state law will have anything to do with SCOTUS decision, as issue is fundamentally federal.
And a decision that says, good for now, but come back later? Like dumping dynamite in your rumpus room, and hoping it won't go BOOM!
I still don't understand the security argument for new oil and gas licenses.
The market price of that extracted, whether for pharmaceuticals or otherwise, will still be subject to global markets, right? So if Russia/Saudi etc do something crazy, the relatively tiny amount extracted from the North Sea won't mitigate the effect on people in the UK.
Indeed, by exposing more of our domestic economy to inputs largely governed by our adversaries, aren't we weakening our position? The only way in which it might help would be if used it as a store to mitigate such a crisis. But, AFAIK, that isn't the plan.
That would be like writing during Covid I still don't understand the security argument for vaccine production ...
The UK is going to need oil and gas into the future, it is the fundamental building block of most pharmaceuticals, plastics etc - and are a critical part of the supply chain to most of our largest export markets and will be even post-Net Zero.
Medicines and pharmaceuticals, not oil and gas, is our third largest export good in the country, as well as being fairly fundamental for our health and well-being.
And you question why we might want to have security in controlling our own input for it during a crisis rather than leave it in the hand of hostile states?
We don't need to store oil and gas in order to mitigate a crisis, we need to generate enough that we don't rely upon imports during a crisis.
Unless you want to terminate our pharmaceutical sector, which means we won't need as much petrochemicals in the future, as well as plastics and everything else that depends upon it, petrochemicals are going to be an input into our economy. If we make our own production of them, then we have reduced the amount that's governed by our adversaries, since we can use our own production. If we don't, then we hand control of a critical input of national security to our adversaries.
I agree with all of that, except that it's impossible for us to produce our domestic consumption of oil and gas. So our pharmaceuticals and other industries will always be vulnerable to international markets.
Your security scenario is one where we are basically in WW3 and need to produce everything domestically. In that scenario, food is going to be our primary concern...
And we do spend a fortune, in both actual money and opportunity cost, in ensuring we can and do produce our own food domestically for just that reason too.
Despite the fact we can import food but we can't import a roof over our heads, we dedicate a meagre 5% of the land in this country to housing and 70% of the land in this country to agriculture.
Like many things in life, its not either/or, we have good reason to ensure both.
I have read a lot of arguments for and against and I have to admit - I’m genuinely torn on both the legal argument and the argument around what SCOTUS might do.
My current thinking is there’s a v strong argument he’s constitutionally barred, but I wonder if SCOTUS might find it legally and politically convenient to separate the ballot access question from the eligibility question - i.e come back if he wins the election and we’ll work out if he can take office. But this does come from not knowing anything about Colorado law and if lack of eligibility prevents ballot access.
Politically keeping him off the ballot is pretty explosive (but then he already spurs his supporters to violence over baseless claims of cheating and tried to retain power when he lost, which is pretty explosive itself), and I cannot imagine for one second the Supreme Court want to be seen as the deciding voice in the election, even though they adore being the deciders on many political questions.
There have already been dissents to the decision to keep him off the ballot, I'm sure the Court can find a way to make their decision as narrow as possible and punt the larger questions until a time it won't matter, ie after the election, which would surely appeal to them.
Whether they can find a way to say he cannot be kept off, but that that section of the amendment can actually be enforced at least theoretically may be a bit harder to manage, since he really did try to prevent the transfer of power after all. But they are intelligent and creative people, it may not even be entirely along partisan lines if they craft it right.
I don’t think they get to punt the decision until after the election. I expect the majority to find a way to keep Trump on the ballot (though that’s not a foregone conclusion), but having taken the case, I don’t see how they defer a ruling.
‘Punting until after the election’ is in effect refusing to decide. It would be a complete abdication of a responsibility - to say what the constitution means - which is theirs alone.
It comes to them all in the end. They start off saying they will ignore the media and get on with the job. Then when nobody notices they decide to tell the media about the job. But then they get tetchy when the media ask difficult questions. So “aides” brief that if only their man could get out and meet every voter in person, shake them by the hand, the polls would turn.
They said this about Gordon Brown. At least until his encounter with Gillian Duffy. They said this about Ed Miliband. Until his encounter with a bacon sandwich.
And now they are saying it about Rishi Sunak, helicoptering between village halls, taking real questions from real people (who just happen to have come gileted-up like Tories and clap and bray when he enters a room). So far there has been no mention of a John Major-style soapbox, although it might help him to be seen by those at the back.
Speaking to a friend this evening, who says that Rishi and Agent Anderson turned up at a local Primary School this week. Seven year olds came home saying "Rishi Sunak visited us at school today" - it's actually very likely the Primary School attended by Lee Anderson, being very close to where he grew up.
Plus they were in Mansfield.
Probably because we are the highest points in Nottinghamshire, and therefore unlikely to be flooded.
I have read a lot of arguments for and against and I have to admit - I’m genuinely torn on both the legal argument and the argument around what SCOTUS might do.
My current thinking is there’s a v strong argument he’s constitutionally barred, but I wonder if SCOTUS might find it legally and politically convenient to separate the ballot access question from the eligibility question - i.e come back if he wins the election and we’ll work out if he can take office. But this does come from not knowing anything about Colorado law and if lack of eligibility prevents ballot access.
Politically keeping him off the ballot is pretty explosive (but then he already spurs his supporters to violence over baseless claims of cheating and tried to retain power when he lost, which is pretty explosive itself), and I cannot imagine for one second the Supreme Court want to be seen as the deciding voice in the election, even though they adore being the deciders on many political questions.
There have already been dissents to the decision to keep him off the ballot, I'm sure the Court can find a way to make their decision as narrow as possible and punt the larger questions until a time it won't matter, ie after the election, which would surely appeal to them.
Whether they can find a way to say he cannot be kept off, but that that section of the amendment can actually be enforced at least theoretically may be a bit harder to manage, since he really did try to prevent the transfer of power after all. But they are intelligent and creative people, it may not even be entirely along partisan lines if they craft it right.
I don’t think they get to punt the decision until after the election. I expect the majority to find a way to keep Trump on the ballot (though that’s not a foregone conclusion), but having taken the case, I don’t see how they defer a ruling.
‘Punting until after the election’ is in effect refusing to decide. It would be a complete abdication of a responsibility - to say what the constitution means - which is theirs alone.
Can they not say he should be on the ballot for reason X and leave it at that without addressing each and every potential reason he might not? Like deciding the President is not an Officer and so it doesn't apply, without needing to address whether he committed insurrection etc.
It surely would not be easy, but something very precise and technical and not getting into detail on other points as there is no need to address them.
I don't think abdication of responsibility will enter their thoughts at all - preservation of the instutution and its power, sure, which is one reason finding a clever legal dodge on larger questions would appeal to them.
I still don't understand the security argument for new oil and gas licenses.
The market price of that extracted, whether for pharmaceuticals or otherwise, will still be subject to global markets, right? So if Russia/Saudi etc do something crazy, the relatively tiny amount extracted from the North Sea won't mitigate the effect on people in the UK.
Indeed, by exposing more of our domestic economy to inputs largely governed by our adversaries, aren't we weakening our position? The only way in which it might help would be if used it as a store to mitigate such a crisis. But, AFAIK, that isn't the plan.
No. Just no. Domestic production will be sold at market prices but that means we don’t have to import it and that we can, in extremis, direct that it is available for domestic consumption. That means, for example, that we don’t need as much storage for gas with consequential savings. It means the likes of Grangemouth had a consistent and reliable supply which helped to ensure we had petrol and diesel. It kept skills and businesses in this country.
The idea that our self denial somehow impacts on world consumption or world prices for fuel is just bonkers. The idea we are setting some sort of example is pretentious and ridiculous. We might, I suppose, do something for the reputation of British humour but other than that there really is no upside.
I’m delighted that someone so deluded is leaving Parliament.
Your second point I agree with.
Your first - is that even possible? You would need to at least double gas production in the North Sea to achieve the kind of war-time sustainability you are envisioning.
Cheaper and easier to achieve energy security via renewables.
Speaking to a friend this evening, who says that Rishi and Agent Anderson turned up at a local Primary School this week. Seven year olds came home saying "Rishi Sunak visited us at school today" - it's actually very likely the Primary School attended by Lee Anderson, being very close to where he grew up.
Plus they were in Mansfield.
Probably because we are the highest points in Nottinghamshire, and therefore unlikely to be flooded.
Part of his new year tour of 'marginals that will be swept away'.
So held Uxbridge because of Net Zero (in Sunak's head anyway) and now lost Kingswood because of Net Zero.
Kingwood Not lost yet. As a political betting site are you tiipping Labour to win it in same way Uxbridge was a slam dunk? It’s the part of the world where former Labour voters now vote Green on mass, the UKs no 1 green stronghold, greens wouldn’t even need to bus in a ground force, their troops could catch local buses.
They'd cycle in surely?
Good point. But I went to this city last year to Snookie’s engagement party, and went on a bus that runs on poo. its green transport. It’s up to you punters whether to heed this warning, but all the labour voters in this city now vote green and ❤️ doing so, in Kingwood Greens and Labour fight for second, and it’s Con hold like Uxbridge would not be a shock result.
What we need on PB, to get seat betting right, is knowledge on the ground. We can’t just rely on swing calculators. From a distance, looking at 2019, Thangham Debenhams might not look beatable in Bristol Central, but we know from local sources that’s she’s clearly beaten already based on local ward voting in recent years.
I still don't understand the security argument for new oil and gas licenses.
The market price of that extracted, whether for pharmaceuticals or otherwise, will still be subject to global markets, right? So if Russia/Saudi etc do something crazy, the relatively tiny amount extracted from the North Sea won't mitigate the effect on people in the UK.
Indeed, by exposing more of our domestic economy to inputs largely governed by our adversaries, aren't we weakening our position? The only way in which it might help would be if used it as a store to mitigate such a crisis. But, AFAIK, that isn't the plan.
No. Just no. Domestic production will be sold at market prices but that means we don’t have to import it and that we can, in extremis, direct that it is available for domestic consumption. That means, for example, that we don’t need as much storage for gas with consequential savings. It means the likes of Grangemouth had a consistent and reliable supply which helped to ensure we had petrol and diesel. It kept skills and businesses in this country.
The idea that our self denial somehow impacts on world consumption or world prices for fuel is just bonkers. The idea we are setting some sort of example is pretentious and ridiculous. We might, I suppose, do something for the reputation of British humour but other than that there really is no upside.
I’m delighted that someone so deluded is leaving Parliament.
Your second point I agree with.
Your first - is that even possible? You would need to at least double gas production in the North Sea to achieve the kind of war-time sustainability you are envisioning.
Cheaper and easier to achieve energy security via renewables.
Its not either/or, its both.
Energy via renewables, petrochemicals domestically.
Abolish imports (net).
You seem to be missing, deliberately or accidentally, the point that all of us making this point from a climate-friendly perspective want us to stop simply burning oil and gas for energy. Doesn't mean we won't need it and shouldn't produce it though.
I still don't understand the security argument for new oil and gas licenses.
The market price of that extracted, whether for pharmaceuticals or otherwise, will still be subject to global markets, right? So if Russia/Saudi etc do something crazy, the relatively tiny amount extracted from the North Sea won't mitigate the effect on people in the UK.
Indeed, by exposing more of our domestic economy to inputs largely governed by our adversaries, aren't we weakening our position? The only way in which it might help would be if used it as a store to mitigate such a crisis. But, AFAIK, that isn't the plan.
That would be like writing during Covid I still don't understand the security argument for vaccine production ...
The UK is going to need oil and gas into the future, it is the fundamental building block of most pharmaceuticals, plastics etc - and are a critical part of the supply chain to most of our largest export markets and will be even post-Net Zero.
Medicines and pharmaceuticals, not oil and gas, is our third largest export good in the country, as well as being fairly fundamental for our health and well-being.
And you question why we might want to have security in controlling our own input for it during a crisis rather than leave it in the hand of hostile states?
We don't need to store oil and gas in order to mitigate a crisis, we need to generate enough that we don't rely upon imports during a crisis.
Unless you want to terminate our pharmaceutical sector, which means we won't need as much petrochemicals in the future, as well as plastics and everything else that depends upon it, petrochemicals are going to be an input into our economy. If we make our own production of them, then we have reduced the amount that's governed by our adversaries, since we can use our own production. If we don't, then we hand control of a critical input of national security to our adversaries.
I agree with all of that, except that it's impossible for us to produce our domestic consumption of oil and gas. So our pharmaceuticals and other industries will always be vulnerable to international markets.
Your security scenario is one where we are basically in WW3 and need to produce everything domestically. In that scenario, food is going to be our primary concern...
And we do spend a fortune, in both actual money and opportunity cost, in ensuring we can and do produce our own food domestically for just that reason too.
Despite the fact we can import food but we can't import a roof over our heads, we dedicate a meagre 5% of the land in this country to housing and 70% of the land in this country to agriculture.
Like many things in life, its not either/or, we have good reason to ensure both.
We would need to roughly double the amount of calories we produce. We'll starve before oil and gas becomes an issue.
I have read a lot of arguments for and against and I have to admit - I’m genuinely torn on both the legal argument and the argument around what SCOTUS might do.
My current thinking is there’s a v strong argument he’s constitutionally barred, but I wonder if SCOTUS might find it legally and politically convenient to separate the ballot access question from the eligibility question - i.e come back if he wins the election and we’ll work out if he can take office. But this does come from not knowing anything about Colorado law and if lack of eligibility prevents ballot access.
Doubt that Colorado (or Maine) state law will have anything to do with SCOTUS decision, as issue is fundamentally federal.
And a decision that says, good for now, but come back later? Like dumping dynamite in your rumpus room, and hoping it won't go BOOM!
Sounds very likely to happen in that case, based on the self destructive tendencies of the body politic at the moment.
The Court might be smarter than most of them about that, but they're not immune to it.
I still don't understand the security argument for new oil and gas licenses.
The market price of that extracted, whether for pharmaceuticals or otherwise, will still be subject to global markets, right? So if Russia/Saudi etc do something crazy, the relatively tiny amount extracted from the North Sea won't mitigate the effect on people in the UK.
Indeed, by exposing more of our domestic economy to inputs largely governed by our adversaries, aren't we weakening our position? The only way in which it might help would be if used it as a store to mitigate such a crisis. But, AFAIK, that isn't the plan.
That would be like writing during Covid I still don't understand the security argument for vaccine production ...
The UK is going to need oil and gas into the future, it is the fundamental building block of most pharmaceuticals, plastics etc - and are a critical part of the supply chain to most of our largest export markets and will be even post-Net Zero.
Medicines and pharmaceuticals, not oil and gas, is our third largest export good in the country, as well as being fairly fundamental for our health and well-being.
And you question why we might want to have security in controlling our own input for it during a crisis rather than leave it in the hand of hostile states?
We don't need to store oil and gas in order to mitigate a crisis, we need to generate enough that we don't rely upon imports during a crisis.
Unless you want to terminate our pharmaceutical sector, which means we won't need as much petrochemicals in the future, as well as plastics and everything else that depends upon it, petrochemicals are going to be an input into our economy. If we make our own production of them, then we have reduced the amount that's governed by our adversaries, since we can use our own production. If we don't, then we hand control of a critical input of national security to our adversaries.
I agree with all of that, except that it's impossible for us to produce our domestic consumption of oil and gas. So our pharmaceuticals and other industries will always be vulnerable to international markets.
Your security scenario is one where we are basically in WW3 and need to produce everything domestically. In that scenario, food is going to be our primary concern...
And we do spend a fortune, in both actual money and opportunity cost, in ensuring we can and do produce our own food domestically for just that reason too.
Despite the fact we can import food but we can't import a roof over our heads, we dedicate a meagre 5% of the land in this country to housing and 70% of the land in this country to agriculture.
Like many things in life, its not either/or, we have good reason to ensure both.
We would need to roughly double the amount of calories we produce. We'll starve before oil and gas becomes an issue.
Why would we?
In extremis we could start being more intensive, or cut our calories, or still have some imports, or a mixture of all of the above.
Our agricultural sector is remarkably inefficient and not very intensive, which is part of a reason farmers are terrified of free trade with the likes of Australia and New Zealand, let alone the likes of America, which can be far more intensive in their agriculture.
If there were an extreme event that made us rely upon domestic production its far easier to rapidly scale up production from 50% to 100% than it is from zero to 100%.
I have read a lot of arguments for and against and I have to admit - I’m genuinely torn on both the legal argument and the argument around what SCOTUS might do.
My current thinking is there’s a v strong argument he’s constitutionally barred, but I wonder if SCOTUS might find it legally and politically convenient to separate the ballot access question from the eligibility question - i.e come back if he wins the election and we’ll work out if he can take office. But this does come from not knowing anything about Colorado law and if lack of eligibility prevents ballot access.
Doubt that Colorado (or Maine) state law will have anything to do with SCOTUS decision, as issue is fundamentally federal.
And a decision that says, good for now, but come back later? Like dumping dynamite in your rumpus room, and hoping it won't go BOOM!
How dare the federal deep state in Washington dictate to us who we can and cannot exclude from our ballots 🤠
Biden aiming to frame the question for 2024 POTUS early on as all good strategists would advise.
Democracy on the ballot, your freedom at stake etc etc.
May well work especially if the voters finally wake up to how well the economy is doing by next summer and he can finish the campaign back on pocketbook stuff.
I still don't understand the security argument for new oil and gas licenses.
The market price of that extracted, whether for pharmaceuticals or otherwise, will still be subject to global markets, right? So if Russia/Saudi etc do something crazy, the relatively tiny amount extracted from the North Sea won't mitigate the effect on people in the UK.
Indeed, by exposing more of our domestic economy to inputs largely governed by our adversaries, aren't we weakening our position? The only way in which it might help would be if used it as a store to mitigate such a crisis. But, AFAIK, that isn't the plan.
No. Just no. Domestic production will be sold at market prices but that means we don’t have to import it and that we can, in extremis, direct that it is available for domestic consumption. That means, for example, that we don’t need as much storage for gas with consequential savings. It means the likes of Grangemouth had a consistent and reliable supply which helped to ensure we had petrol and diesel. It kept skills and businesses in this country.
The idea that our self denial somehow impacts on world consumption or world prices for fuel is just bonkers. The idea we are setting some sort of example is pretentious and ridiculous. We might, I suppose, do something for the reputation of British humour but other than that there really is no upside.
I’m delighted that someone so deluded is leaving Parliament.
Your second point I agree with.
Your first - is that even possible? You would need to at least double gas production in the North Sea to achieve the kind of war-time sustainability you are envisioning.
Cheaper and easier to achieve energy security via renewables.
Its not either/or, its both.
Energy via renewables, petrochemicals domestically.
Abolish imports (net).
You seem to be missing, deliberately or accidentally, the point that all of us making this point from a climate-friendly perspective want us to stop simply burning oil and gas for energy. Doesn't mean we won't need it and shouldn't produce it though.
I'm not at all. Your pharmaceuticals point is a good one. We already produce a very large proportion of our oil domestically so the smart thing would be to increase storage capacity and have a legal framework in place to secure domestic supply in a crisis, along with an agreement with Norway.
I still don't understand the security argument for new oil and gas licenses.
The market price of that extracted, whether for pharmaceuticals or otherwise, will still be subject to global markets, right? So if Russia/Saudi etc do something crazy, the relatively tiny amount extracted from the North Sea won't mitigate the effect on people in the UK.
Indeed, by exposing more of our domestic economy to inputs largely governed by our adversaries, aren't we weakening our position? The only way in which it might help would be if used it as a store to mitigate such a crisis. But, AFAIK, that isn't the plan.
That would be like writing during Covid I still don't understand the security argument for vaccine production ...
The UK is going to need oil and gas into the future, it is the fundamental building block of most pharmaceuticals, plastics etc - and are a critical part of the supply chain to most of our largest export markets and will be even post-Net Zero.
Medicines and pharmaceuticals, not oil and gas, is our third largest export good in the country, as well as being fairly fundamental for our health and well-being.
And you question why we might want to have security in controlling our own input for it during a crisis rather than leave it in the hand of hostile states?
We don't need to store oil and gas in order to mitigate a crisis, we need to generate enough that we don't rely upon imports during a crisis.
Unless you want to terminate our pharmaceutical sector, which means we won't need as much petrochemicals in the future, as well as plastics and everything else that depends upon it, petrochemicals are going to be an input into our economy. If we make our own production of them, then we have reduced the amount that's governed by our adversaries, since we can use our own production. If we don't, then we hand control of a critical input of national security to our adversaries.
I agree with all of that, except that it's impossible for us to produce our domestic consumption of oil and gas. So our pharmaceuticals and other industries will always be vulnerable to international markets.
Your security scenario is one where we are basically in WW3 and need to produce everything domestically. In that scenario, food is going to be our primary concern...
And we do spend a fortune, in both actual money and opportunity cost, in ensuring we can and do produce our own food domestically for just that reason too.
Despite the fact we can import food but we can't import a roof over our heads, we dedicate a meagre 5% of the land in this country to housing and 70% of the land in this country to agriculture.
Like many things in life, its not either/or, we have good reason to ensure both.
We would need to roughly double the amount of calories we produce. We'll starve before oil and gas becomes an issue.
Why would we?
In extremis we could start being more intensive, or cut our calories, or still have some imports, or a mixture of all of the above.
Our agricultural sector is remarkably inefficient and not very intensive, which is part of a reason farmers are terrified of free trade with the likes of Australia and New Zealand, let alone the likes of America, which can be far more intensive in their agriculture.
If there were an extreme event that made us rely upon domestic production its far easier to rapidly scale up production from 50% to 100% than it is from zero to 100%.
Sounds easy, just get Clarkson to put a bit more effort in.
Their mistake was electing him to anything more demanding than deputy chair of Henley Town Council in the first place.
It was the British people themselves who elected Boris to stay PM in 2019 with the biggest Tory majority since Thatcher in 1987
Oh, what about Northern Ireland? Plus a lot of people didn't or couldn't vote. And many of then didn't vote for Mr Johnson. In fact, *none at all except in Uxbridge*. And that last was for the constituency MP.
People as you well know vote mostly for the leader now more than their local MP
I know you have a strange concept of logic and numbner theory, but 43.6% of those who voted at all doesn't equate to "the British people" in ordinary human discourse or experience.
It does, the Tories won most votes and seats and if you don't vote that is your problem, you have no right to complain
The Tories and Boris's big mistake was letting victory go to their heads and assuming winning an election meant they spoke for far more than they did and that nothing could truly dent their popularity. One reason traditionally the Tory Party has been successful is a lack of complacency and sentimentality and a sometimes cynical knowledge of how to pry people away from the other lot.
A smart party would have been looking to address its weaknesses. How could it appeal to younger people and remainers? How could it mend the same divides it exploited to its advantage and prove to people that its critics were wrong? How could Boris go out of his way to prove he was trustworthy and serious?
That would have likely resulted in another decade of dominance. Because existing supporters would back it, while voters who might be opponents saw allies co-opted.
Instead it assumed that some of the biggest headbangers and oddballs on their own side 'spoke' for the British public and needed appeasing while insulting everyone else. When of course they did not, as if anything Britain leans small c conservative, rather than full fat Farage.
Yet apart from Brexit Boris didn't really do anything very rightwing. Taxes weren't cut, spending rose, immigration rose. the government was relatively socially liberal.
Both Truss and Sunak have run more rightwing governments than Boris did overall
Socially liberal up to a point, that point being when everyone had to stay within a few minutes of their homes and all the pubs were shut.
Though most self-described social liberals would have been much more restrictive on that. That's what happens when the government uses terror as a weapon to cow a populace.
Speaking to a friend this evening, who says that Rishi and Agent Anderson turned up at a local Primary School this week. Seven year olds came home saying "Rishi Sunak visited us at school today" - it's actually very likely the Primary School attended by Lee Anderson, being very close to where he grew up.
Plus they were in Mansfield.
Probably because we are the highest points in Nottinghamshire, and therefore unlikely to be flooded.
Part of his new year tour of 'marginals that will be swept away'.
I really can't call Ashfield.
- Conservatives we know. - Attractive to Reform, judging by all the goons on Anderson's Facebook page, though many maybe online refugees from Toryland Anywhere. - No Lib Dems - the Ashfield Lib Dems were such Dead Parrots that the branch was merged with Mansfield several years ago. - Ashfield Independents: 32 Council seats out of 35. Council Leader Zadrozny up before the Crown Court in 2025 on charges which could be years in prison. Nothing to stop him standing unless AI Councillors grow some balls. * - Labour? Just dunno - on the Council they now have ONE seat out of 35, having run it up until 2019 with 22 seats.
One possible scenario is a byelection in 2025 if Zadrozny stands and wins, and gets put behind bars. There's nothing to stop a local MP running a Council too - the Mansfield Tory MP is Leader of Notts County Council.
What odds are on offer for an Ashfield Byelection in 2025?
I still don't understand the security argument for new oil and gas licenses.
The market price of that extracted, whether for pharmaceuticals or otherwise, will still be subject to global markets, right? So if Russia/Saudi etc do something crazy, the relatively tiny amount extracted from the North Sea won't mitigate the effect on people in the UK.
Indeed, by exposing more of our domestic economy to inputs largely governed by our adversaries, aren't we weakening our position? The only way in which it might help would be if used it as a store to mitigate such a crisis. But, AFAIK, that isn't the plan.
No. Just no. Domestic production will be sold at market prices but that means we don’t have to import it and that we can, in extremis, direct that it is available for domestic consumption. That means, for example, that we don’t need as much storage for gas with consequential savings. It means the likes of Grangemouth had a consistent and reliable supply which helped to ensure we had petrol and diesel. It kept skills and businesses in this country.
The idea that our self denial somehow impacts on world consumption or world prices for fuel is just bonkers. The idea we are setting some sort of example is pretentious and ridiculous. We might, I suppose, do something for the reputation of British humour but other than that there really is no upside.
I’m delighted that someone so deluded is leaving Parliament.
Your second point I agree with.
Your first - is that even possible? You would need to at least double gas production in the North Sea to achieve the kind of war-time sustainability you are envisioning.
Cheaper and easier to achieve energy security via renewables.
Its not either/or, its both.
Energy via renewables, petrochemicals domestically.
Abolish imports (net).
You seem to be missing, deliberately or accidentally, the point that all of us making this point from a climate-friendly perspective want us to stop simply burning oil and gas for energy. Doesn't mean we won't need it and shouldn't produce it though.
I'm not at all. Your pharmaceuticals point is a good one. We already produce a very large proportion of our oil domestically so the smart thing would be to increase storage capacity and have a legal framework in place to secure domestic supply in a crisis, along with an agreement with Norway.
What's the purpose of storage? You need throughput not storage, as you don't know how long a crisis will last. It could be months, or it could be years, so how much storage are you recommending?
Storage only helps for variability, eg to get through a winter if you're burning it as energy, but if you're not using it as energy then that point becomes moot anyway.
Jan. 6 defendant tearfully tells judge: ‘You very likely saved my life’ https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/04/jan-6-defendant-judge-00133905 Jan. 6 defendant Christopher Worrell credited a federal judge with saving his life two years ago, when he freed the Florida Proud Boy from pretrial detention over concerns about his medical treatment.
“You very likely saved my life,” said Worrell, who has a rare form of chronic lymphoma, during tearful remarks at his sentencing hearing Thursday
US. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth sentenced Worrell to 10 years in prison for spraying pepper gel at a line of police officers on Jan. 6, when Worrell joined more than 100 Proud Boys on a march to the Capitol and witnessed some of the earliest violent clashes between the mob and Capitol Police.
But before he issued his sentence, Lamberth offered a kind word to Worrell, whose loud and early complaints about his medical treatment during his pretrial confinement led Lamberth to hold jail officials in contempt of court. The move prompted a series of inquiries that resulted in reforms and improvements in medical treatment for hundreds of inmates, he said...
I still don't understand the security argument for new oil and gas licenses.
The market price of that extracted, whether for pharmaceuticals or otherwise, will still be subject to global markets, right? So if Russia/Saudi etc do something crazy, the relatively tiny amount extracted from the North Sea won't mitigate the effect on people in the UK.
Indeed, by exposing more of our domestic economy to inputs largely governed by our adversaries, aren't we weakening our position? The only way in which it might help would be if used it as a store to mitigate such a crisis. But, AFAIK, that isn't the plan.
No. Just no. Domestic production will be sold at market prices but that means we don’t have to import it and that we can, in extremis, direct that it is available for domestic consumption. That means, for example, that we don’t need as much storage for gas with consequential savings. It means the likes of Grangemouth had a consistent and reliable supply which helped to ensure we had petrol and diesel. It kept skills and businesses in this country.
The idea that our self denial somehow impacts on world consumption or world prices for fuel is just bonkers. The idea we are setting some sort of example is pretentious and ridiculous. We might, I suppose, do something for the reputation of British humour but other than that there really is no upside.
I’m delighted that someone so deluded is leaving Parliament.
Your second point I agree with.
Your first - is that even possible? You would need to at least double gas production in the North Sea to achieve the kind of war-time sustainability you are envisioning.
Cheaper and easier to achieve energy security via renewables.
Its not either/or, its both.
Energy via renewables, petrochemicals domestically.
Abolish imports (net).
You seem to be missing, deliberately or accidentally, the point that all of us making this point from a climate-friendly perspective want us to stop simply burning oil and gas for energy. Doesn't mean we won't need it and shouldn't produce it though.
I'm not at all. Your pharmaceuticals point is a good one. We already produce a very large proportion of our oil domestically so the smart thing would be to increase storage capacity and have a legal framework in place to secure domestic supply in a crisis, along with an agreement with Norway.
What's the purpose of storage? You need throughput not storage, as you don't know how long a crisis will last. It could be months, or it could be years, so how much storage are you recommending?
Storage only helps for variability, eg to get through a winter if you're burning it as energy, but if you're not using it as energy then that point becomes moot anyway.
Exactly. Will help out domestic pharmaceutical industry through a period of market instability.
Chris Skidmore wrote a book about the death of Amy Robsart.
Does anyone know whether his departure from the HoC will leave no Tory MP in the chamber with a brain?
Oh, sorry - just read that he supported Truss for the leadership. His brain must have dropped out 2010x2022.
OK, an eccentric with principles.
The Tories should have stuck with Truss, her team and her agenda. It only became an issue becuase Sunak loving MPs rebelled against her Instantly.
Starmer is saying growth growth growth and build on green belts in exactly the same way, yet it’s popular when he says it?
They could have done but would be heading for less than 50 seats and maybe not even official opposition let alone holding power on her last polls as leader.
Starmer may want more development like Truss but is not proposing to slash the additional income tax rate, scrap corporation tax rises and end the cap on bankers' bonuses as she and Kwarteng were pushing. If he was I doubt he would last long as Labour leader
Isn't Starmer talking about re-enforcing the OBR, the exact opposite of what Truss did, part of what led her to lose all credibility with the markets.
Just to note that today's poll has the Cons holding less than 100 seats. No doubt an outlier and slightly better than under La Truss but its arguabe she would have performed that much of a 'dead cat bounce' herself!
Mr Sunak has to aim for the by-elections to be on local election day doesn't he? Better to take (and try to distract from) one bad day than to suffer death by a thousand cuts.
Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
Condemned prisoners don't ask for their execution to be brought forward.
The election will be as late as Sunak can get away with. If he thinks he can get away with January 2025, it'd be then, but even he won't be able to push it that late so October is more realistic.
Makes sense to me. But Sunak might not fancy campaigning over Christmas... if he gets it out the way in October he can be in California for the Winter.
November 14th would be a perfect compromise. Just saying.
One last Christmas at Chequers means January 2025. Does anyone keep track of whether the Sunaks spend their weekends at Chequers or prefer to stay in London?
Santa Monica preferably.
I believe Rishi was home alone at number 10 this yuletide.
I still don't understand the security argument for new oil and gas licenses.
The market price of that extracted, whether for pharmaceuticals or otherwise, will still be subject to global markets, right? So if Russia/Saudi etc do something crazy, the relatively tiny amount extracted from the North Sea won't mitigate the effect on people in the UK.
Indeed, by exposing more of our domestic economy to inputs largely governed by our adversaries, aren't we weakening our position? The only way in which it might help would be if used it as a store to mitigate such a crisis. But, AFAIK, that isn't the plan.
No. Just no. Domestic production will be sold at market prices but that means we don’t have to import it and that we can, in extremis, direct that it is available for domestic consumption. That means, for example, that we don’t need as much storage for gas with consequential savings. It means the likes of Grangemouth had a consistent and reliable supply which helped to ensure we had petrol and diesel. It kept skills and businesses in this country.
The idea that our self denial somehow impacts on world consumption or world prices for fuel is just bonkers. The idea we are setting some sort of example is pretentious and ridiculous. We might, I suppose, do something for the reputation of British humour but other than that there really is no upside.
I’m delighted that someone so deluded is leaving Parliament.
Your second point I agree with.
Your first - is that even possible? You would need to at least double gas production in the North Sea to achieve the kind of war-time sustainability you are envisioning.
Cheaper and easier to achieve energy security via renewables.
Its not either/or, its both.
Energy via renewables, petrochemicals domestically.
Abolish imports (net).
You seem to be missing, deliberately or accidentally, the point that all of us making this point from a climate-friendly perspective want us to stop simply burning oil and gas for energy. Doesn't mean we won't need it and shouldn't produce it though.
I'm not at all. Your pharmaceuticals point is a good one. We already produce a very large proportion of our oil domestically so the smart thing would be to increase storage capacity and have a legal framework in place to secure domestic supply in a crisis, along with an agreement with Norway.
What's the purpose of storage? You need throughput not storage, as you don't know how long a crisis will last. It could be months, or it could be years, so how much storage are you recommending?
Storage only helps for variability, eg to get through a winter if you're burning it as energy, but if you're not using it as energy then that point becomes moot anyway.
Exactly. Will help out domestic pharmaceutical industry through a period of market instability.
How long a period? 3 months? 6 months? 2 years? 6 years?
Alternatively have a reliable supply chain with domestic production and you can redirect that supply chain for as long as it takes, in extremis.
I still don't understand the security argument for new oil and gas licenses.
The market price of that extracted, whether for pharmaceuticals or otherwise, will still be subject to global markets, right? So if Russia/Saudi etc do something crazy, the relatively tiny amount extracted from the North Sea won't mitigate the effect on people in the UK.
Indeed, by exposing more of our domestic economy to inputs largely governed by our adversaries, aren't we weakening our position? The only way in which it might help would be if used it as a store to mitigate such a crisis. But, AFAIK, that isn't the plan.
No. Just no. Domestic production will be sold at market prices but that means we don’t have to import it and that we can, in extremis, direct that it is available for domestic consumption. That means, for example, that we don’t need as much storage for gas with consequential savings. It means the likes of Grangemouth had a consistent and reliable supply which helped to ensure we had petrol and diesel. It kept skills and businesses in this country.
The idea that our self denial somehow impacts on world consumption or world prices for fuel is just bonkers. The idea we are setting some sort of example is pretentious and ridiculous. We might, I suppose, do something for the reputation of British humour but other than that there really is no upside.
I’m delighted that someone so deluded is leaving Parliament.
Your second point I agree with.
Your first - is that even possible? You would need to at least double gas production in the North Sea to achieve the kind of war-time sustainability you are envisioning.
Cheaper and easier to achieve energy security via renewables.
Its not either/or, its both.
Energy via renewables, petrochemicals domestically.
Abolish imports (net).
You seem to be missing, deliberately or accidentally, the point that all of us making this point from a climate-friendly perspective want us to stop simply burning oil and gas for energy. Doesn't mean we won't need it and shouldn't produce it though.
I'm not at all. Your pharmaceuticals point is a good one. We already produce a very large proportion of our oil domestically so the smart thing would be to increase storage capacity and have a legal framework in place to secure domestic supply in a crisis, along with an agreement with Norway.
What's the purpose of storage? You need throughput not storage, as you don't know how long a crisis will last. It could be months, or it could be years, so how much storage are you recommending?
Storage only helps for variability, eg to get through a winter if you're burning it as energy, but if you're not using it as energy then that point becomes moot anyway.
Exactly. Will help out domestic pharmaceutical industry through a period of market instability.
How long a period? 3 months? 6 months? 2 years? 6 years?
Alternatively have a reliable supply chain with domestic production and you can redirect that supply chain for as long as it takes, in extremis.
Already got it for oil (as long as we remain on friendly terms with Norway)
I still don't understand the security argument for new oil and gas licenses.
The market price of that extracted, whether for pharmaceuticals or otherwise, will still be subject to global markets, right? So if Russia/Saudi etc do something crazy, the relatively tiny amount extracted from the North Sea won't mitigate the effect on people in the UK.
Indeed, by exposing more of our domestic economy to inputs largely governed by our adversaries, aren't we weakening our position? The only way in which it might help would be if used it as a store to mitigate such a crisis. But, AFAIK, that isn't the plan.
No. Just no. Domestic production will be sold at market prices but that means we don’t have to import it and that we can, in extremis, direct that it is available for domestic consumption. That means, for example, that we don’t need as much storage for gas with consequential savings. It means the likes of Grangemouth had a consistent and reliable supply which helped to ensure we had petrol and diesel. It kept skills and businesses in this country.
The idea that our self denial somehow impacts on world consumption or world prices for fuel is just bonkers. The idea we are setting some sort of example is pretentious and ridiculous. We might, I suppose, do something for the reputation of British humour but other than that there really is no upside.
I’m delighted that someone so deluded is leaving Parliament.
Your second point I agree with.
Your first - is that even possible? You would need to at least double gas production in the North Sea to achieve the kind of war-time sustainability you are envisioning.
Cheaper and easier to achieve energy security via renewables.
Its not either/or, its both.
Energy via renewables, petrochemicals domestically.
Abolish imports (net).
You seem to be missing, deliberately or accidentally, the point that all of us making this point from a climate-friendly perspective want us to stop simply burning oil and gas for energy. Doesn't mean we won't need it and shouldn't produce it though.
I'm not at all. Your pharmaceuticals point is a good one. We already produce a very large proportion of our oil domestically so the smart thing would be to increase storage capacity and have a legal framework in place to secure domestic supply in a crisis, along with an agreement with Norway.
What's the purpose of storage? You need throughput not storage, as you don't know how long a crisis will last. It could be months, or it could be years, so how much storage are you recommending?
Storage only helps for variability, eg to get through a winter if you're burning it as energy, but if you're not using it as energy then that point becomes moot anyway.
Exactly. Will help out domestic pharmaceutical industry through a period of market instability.
How long a period? 3 months? 6 months? 2 years? 6 years?
Alternatively have a reliable supply chain with domestic production and you can redirect that supply chain for as long as it takes, in extremis.
Already got it for oil (as long as we remain on friendly terms with Norway)
Norway is friendly with the whole of Europe, not just us. Norway have decent production, but not that good.
And why is it desirable for us to shut down our own production, but not desirable for Norway (or for that matter Russia, Saudi or Qatar) to shut down theirs?
Chris Skidmore wrote a book about the death of Amy Robsart.
Does anyone know whether his departure from the HoC will leave no Tory MP in the chamber with a brain?
Oh, sorry - just read that he supported Truss for the leadership. His brain must have dropped out 2010x2022.
OK, an eccentric with principles.
The Tories should have stuck with Truss, her team and her agenda. It only became an issue becuase Sunak loving MPs rebelled against her Instantly.
Starmer is saying growth growth growth and build on green belts in exactly the same way, yet it’s popular when he says it?
They could have done but would be heading for less than 50 seats and maybe not even official opposition let alone holding power on her last polls as leader.
Starmer may want more development like Truss but is not proposing to slash the additional income tax rate, scrap corporation tax rises and end the cap on bankers' bonuses as she and Kwarteng were pushing. If he was I doubt he would last long as Labour leader
No. That’s political gibberish. Because you can’t read all that into just 50 days. Given 200 days her agenda may have become successful and popular. We suspect as much because of everything she gets blame for that we know now for fact was not her fault.
1. High mortgage rates nothing to do with Truss, they were caused by high inflation that was itself caused by UK exposure to gas import prices.
2. Run on pound nothing to do with Truss, that was strength of dollar that month.
3. Bailing out pensions market nothing to do with Truss, that was all Sunak’s fault as chancellor presiding over the problem building up.
4. Sudden Tory poll collapse was not Truss fault, it was caused by a rebellion of Tory’s who immediately undermined her to install Sunak.
The Truss agenda of growth engineering tax cuts, cutting red tape, building more housing would currently have the Tories far better off than they are currently under Sunak.
Slashing taxes but not cutting spending and crashing the markets and sterling and leading to surging interest and mortgage rates was very much the fault of Truss and Kwarteng however
Which taxes did she slash? The growth budget only gave away £13B net after fiscal drag. The tax she cut at the top was a) the second half of same tax George Osborne previously cut half of b) didn’t exist till 2010 when Labour introduced it in their last budget - in other words they never had it in place during their 13 years, only sneaked it on as challenge to Tories to cut it. Osborne did first. You should support Truss removing the second half if you are a true Tory.
If she was going to cut it she needed to cut spending too, she didn't and the markets crashed as a result
Which markets crashed? See? You are Struggling to name them in your attempt to rewrite British political history.
It was a Net £13B giveaway budget. It stood on the side of enterprise and aspiration. It removed what was left of Labours last minute anti enterprise tax they never even used in their own 13 years, and which Osborne never had the chance to finish off himself, though he already cut half of it.
The only reason the budget was unacceptable with so many Tory’s was it wasn’t PM Rishi Sunak behind it - and it’s all that blue on blue in this parliament, and myth of Tory budget crashing economy that has left Tory polling in a mess.
As you keep repeating this myth, you have PB Labour giving you likes. They are mugging you off.
Chris Skidmore wrote a book about the death of Amy Robsart.
Does anyone know whether his departure from the HoC will leave no Tory MP in the chamber with a brain?
Oh, sorry - just read that he supported Truss for the leadership. His brain must have dropped out 2010x2022.
OK, an eccentric with principles.
The Tories should have stuck with Truss, her team and her agenda. It only became an issue becuase Sunak loving MPs rebelled against her Instantly.
Starmer is saying growth growth growth and build on green belts in exactly the same way, yet it’s popular when he says it?
They could have done but would be heading for less than 50 seats and maybe not even official opposition let alone holding power on her last polls as leader.
Starmer may want more development like Truss but is not proposing to slash the additional income tax rate, scrap corporation tax rises and end the cap on bankers' bonuses as she and Kwarteng were pushing. If he was I doubt he would last long as Labour leader
No. That’s political gibberish. Because you can’t read all that into just 50 days. Given 200 days her agenda may have become successful and popular. We suspect as much because of everything she gets blame for that we know now for fact was not her fault.
1. High mortgage rates nothing to do with Truss, they were caused by high inflation that was itself caused by UK exposure to gas import prices.
2. Run on pound nothing to do with Truss, that was strength of dollar that month.
3. Bailing out pensions market nothing to do with Truss, that was all Sunak’s fault as chancellor presiding over the problem building up.
4. Sudden Tory poll collapse was not Truss fault, it was caused by a rebellion of Tory’s who immediately undermined her to install Sunak.
The Truss agenda of growth engineering tax cuts, cutting red tape, building more housing would currently have the Tories far better off than they are currently under Sunak.
Slashing taxes but not cutting spending and crashing the markets and sterling and leading to surging interest and mortgage rates was very much the fault of Truss and Kwarteng however
Which taxes did she slash? The growth budget only gave away £13B net after fiscal drag. The tax she cut at the top was a) the second half of same tax George Osborne previously cut half of b) didn’t exist till 2010 when Labour introduced it in their last budget - in other words they never had it in place during their 13 years, only sneaked it on as challenge to Tories to cut it. Osborne did first. You should support Truss removing the second half if you are a true Tory.
If she was going to cut it she needed to cut spending too, she didn't and the markets crashed as a result
Which markets crashed? See? You are Struggling to name them in your attempt to rewrite British political history.
It was a Net £13B giveaway budget. It stood on the side of enterprise and aspiration. It removed what was left of Labours last minute anti enterprise tax they never even used in their own 13 years, and which Osborne never had the chance to finish off himself, though he already cut half of it.
The only reason the budget was unacceptable with so many Tory’s was it wasn’t PM Rishi Sunak behind it - and it’s all that blue on blue in this parliament, and myth of Tory budget crashing economy that has left Tory polling in a mess.
As you keep repeating this myth, you have PB Labour giving you likes. They are mugging you off.
Her sums did not make sense
Hence she cut out the OBR as she knew they'd never sign off the economic suicide
I still don't understand the security argument for new oil and gas licenses.
The market price of that extracted, whether for pharmaceuticals or otherwise, will still be subject to global markets, right? So if Russia/Saudi etc do something crazy, the relatively tiny amount extracted from the North Sea won't mitigate the effect on people in the UK.
Indeed, by exposing more of our domestic economy to inputs largely governed by our adversaries, aren't we weakening our position? The only way in which it might help would be if used it as a store to mitigate such a crisis. But, AFAIK, that isn't the plan.
No. Just no. Domestic production will be sold at market prices but that means we don’t have to import it and that we can, in extremis, direct that it is available for domestic consumption. That means, for example, that we don’t need as much storage for gas with consequential savings. It means the likes of Grangemouth had a consistent and reliable supply which helped to ensure we had petrol and diesel. It kept skills and businesses in this country.
The idea that our self denial somehow impacts on world consumption or world prices for fuel is just bonkers. The idea we are setting some sort of example is pretentious and ridiculous. We might, I suppose, do something for the reputation of British humour but other than that there really is no upside.
I’m delighted that someone so deluded is leaving Parliament.
Your second point I agree with.
Your first - is that even possible? You would need to at least double gas production in the North Sea to achieve the kind of war-time sustainability you are envisioning.
Cheaper and easier to achieve energy security via renewables.
Its not either/or, its both.
Energy via renewables, petrochemicals domestically.
Abolish imports (net).
You seem to be missing, deliberately or accidentally, the point that all of us making this point from a climate-friendly perspective want us to stop simply burning oil and gas for energy. Doesn't mean we won't need it and shouldn't produce it though.
I'm not at all. Your pharmaceuticals point is a good one. We already produce a very large proportion of our oil domestically so the smart thing would be to increase storage capacity and have a legal framework in place to secure domestic supply in a crisis, along with an agreement with Norway.
What's the purpose of storage? You need throughput not storage, as you don't know how long a crisis will last. It could be months, or it could be years, so how much storage are you recommending?
Storage only helps for variability, eg to get through a winter if you're burning it as energy, but if you're not using it as energy then that point becomes moot anyway.
Exactly. Will help out domestic pharmaceutical industry through a period of market instability.
S Korea, which has next to no oil production, exports at least four times more refined petroleum products than does the U.K. I don’t think domestic production of natural resources has much relation to successful manufacturing these days - unless, like the US or Saudi Arabia, you have a massive production cost advantage in oil and gas. Which we don’t.
Chris Skidmore wrote a book about the death of Amy Robsart.
Does anyone know whether his departure from the HoC will leave no Tory MP in the chamber with a brain?
Oh, sorry - just read that he supported Truss for the leadership. His brain must have dropped out 2010x2022.
OK, an eccentric with principles.
The Tories should have stuck with Truss, her team and her agenda. It only became an issue becuase Sunak loving MPs rebelled against her Instantly.
Starmer is saying growth growth growth and build on green belts in exactly the same way, yet it’s popular when he says it?
They could have done but would be heading for less than 50 seats and maybe not even official opposition let alone holding power on her last polls as leader.
Starmer may want more development like Truss but is not proposing to slash the additional income tax rate, scrap corporation tax rises and end the cap on bankers' bonuses as she and Kwarteng were pushing. If he was I doubt he would last long as Labour leader
No. That’s political gibberish. Because you can’t read all that into just 50 days. Given 200 days her agenda may have become successful and popular. We suspect as much because of everything she gets blame for that we know now for fact was not her fault.
1. High mortgage rates nothing to do with Truss, they were caused by high inflation that was itself caused by UK exposure to gas import prices.
2. Run on pound nothing to do with Truss, that was strength of dollar that month.
3. Bailing out pensions market nothing to do with Truss, that was all Sunak’s fault as chancellor presiding over the problem building up.
4. Sudden Tory poll collapse was not Truss fault, it was caused by a rebellion of Tory’s who immediately undermined her to install Sunak.
The Truss agenda of growth engineering tax cuts, cutting red tape, building more housing would currently have the Tories far better off than they are currently under Sunak.
Slashing taxes but not cutting spending and crashing the markets and sterling and leading to surging interest and mortgage rates was very much the fault of Truss and Kwarteng however
Which taxes did she slash? The growth budget only gave away £13B net after fiscal drag. The tax she cut at the top was a) the second half of same tax George Osborne previously cut half of b) didn’t exist till 2010 when Labour introduced it in their last budget - in other words they never had it in place during their 13 years, only sneaked it on as challenge to Tories to cut it. Osborne did first. You should support Truss removing the second half if you are a true Tory.
If she was going to cut it she needed to cut spending too, she didn't and the markets crashed as a result
Which markets crashed? See? You are Struggling to name them in your attempt to rewrite British political history.
It was a Net £13B giveaway budget. It stood on the side of enterprise and aspiration. It removed what was left of Labours last minute anti enterprise tax they never even used in their own 13 years, and which Osborne never had the chance to finish off himself, though he already cut half of it.
The only reason the budget was unacceptable with so many Tory’s was it wasn’t PM Rishi Sunak behind it - and it’s all that blue on blue in this parliament, and myth of Tory budget crashing economy that has left Tory polling in a mess.
As you keep repeating this myth, you have PB Labour giving you likes. They are mugging you off.
Sterling collapsed to its lowest level in modern times after the Kwarteng budget and the UK's borrowing costs to their highest levels since 2008 for starters
I still don't understand the security argument for new oil and gas licenses.
The market price of that extracted, whether for pharmaceuticals or otherwise, will still be subject to global markets, right? So if Russia/Saudi etc do something crazy, the relatively tiny amount extracted from the North Sea won't mitigate the effect on people in the UK.
Indeed, by exposing more of our domestic economy to inputs largely governed by our adversaries, aren't we weakening our position? The only way in which it might help would be if used it as a store to mitigate such a crisis. But, AFAIK, that isn't the plan.
No. Just no. Domestic production will be sold at market prices but that means we don’t have to import it and that we can, in extremis, direct that it is available for domestic consumption. That means, for example, that we don’t need as much storage for gas with consequential savings. It means the likes of Grangemouth had a consistent and reliable supply which helped to ensure we had petrol and diesel. It kept skills and businesses in this country.
The idea that our self denial somehow impacts on world consumption or world prices for fuel is just bonkers. The idea we are setting some sort of example is pretentious and ridiculous. We might, I suppose, do something for the reputation of British humour but other than that there really is no upside.
I’m delighted that someone so deluded is leaving Parliament.
Your second point I agree with.
Your first - is that even possible? You would need to at least double gas production in the North Sea to achieve the kind of war-time sustainability you are envisioning.
Cheaper and easier to achieve energy security via renewables.
Its not either/or, its both.
Energy via renewables, petrochemicals domestically.
Abolish imports (net).
You seem to be missing, deliberately or accidentally, the point that all of us making this point from a climate-friendly perspective want us to stop simply burning oil and gas for energy. Doesn't mean we won't need it and shouldn't produce it though.
I'm not at all. Your pharmaceuticals point is a good one. We already produce a very large proportion of our oil domestically so the smart thing would be to increase storage capacity and have a legal framework in place to secure domestic supply in a crisis, along with an agreement with Norway.
What's the purpose of storage? You need throughput not storage, as you don't know how long a crisis will last. It could be months, or it could be years, so how much storage are you recommending?
Storage only helps for variability, eg to get through a winter if you're burning it as energy, but if you're not using it as energy then that point becomes moot anyway.
Exactly. Will help out domestic pharmaceutical industry through a period of market instability.
How long a period? 3 months? 6 months? 2 years? 6 years?
Alternatively have a reliable supply chain with domestic production and you can redirect that supply chain for as long as it takes, in extremis.
Already got it for oil (as long as we remain on friendly terms with Norway)
Norway is friendly with the whole of Europe, not just us. Norway have decent production, but not that good.
And why is it desirable for us to shut down our own production, but not desirable for Norway (or for that matter Russia, Saudi or Qatar) to shut down theirs?
His focus is containing Xi rather than Putin. '..Nobody in either political party is talking about it, and that is why I will end the Ukraine War on terms that require Vladimir Putin to exit his military alliance with China. This is a reverse move of what Nixon did. Putin is the new Mao, and while we have a foreign policy establishment in both parties, including Biden, who tries to supplicate to China to get Xi Jinping to drop Vladimir Putin, what we really need to be doing is getting Vladimir Putin to drop Xi Jinping.
And so, what I’ve said is that, you know what? In any good deal, I know this from the business world, it’s not that different in foreign policy, everybody has to get something out of the deal. That is realism. That is the truth of how a good deal gets done. The deal I will do with Vladimir Putin is simple. We will freeze the current lines of control. We will further make a hard commitment that NATO will never admit Ukraine to NATO. But in return for that, that’s a big win for Putin. I’ll admit that you’re not supposed to say you give Putin big wins. That’s a big win for Putin. But there’s a bigger win for us.
The bigger win for us is I will require that Russia exit its military alliance with China. I will require that Russia remove its nuclear weapons from Kaliningrad, the strip of Russia that borders Poland. And I will require, pursuant to my modern Monroe Doctrine, that Russia remove its military presence in the Western Hemisphere. Not in Cuba, not in Venezuela, not in Nicaragua, you’re out. And in return, we will reopen economic relations with Russia, just as Nixon did with China. To recognize that do we trust Vladimir Putin? No, we don’t. Does Putin trust us? No, he does not.' https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2023/08/vivek-ramaswamy-at-the-nixon-library/
Another hugely consequential case the Supreme Coirt just agreed to take up (while in the meantime allowing emergency room surgeons to let women who require life saving abortion procedures die. if they so choose).
Bonus 60: EMTALA, Abortion, and the Court The justices will soon have to resolve if (and when) federal law allows emergency room doctors to perform otherwise unlawful abortions—with implications that could go well beyond reproductive rights https://stevevladeck.substack.com/p/bonus-60-emtala-abortion-and-the
His focus is containing Xi rather than Putin. '..Nobody in either political party is talking about it, and that is why I will end the Ukraine War on terms that require Vladimir Putin to exit his military alliance with China...
As it turns out the "breakthroughs" China said they had in semiconductors were likely bullshit. Huawei phone teardowns have revealed the 5nm "domestic" chip is actually made in a Taiwanese foundry, not in an SMIC foundry in China as had been implied by the CCP and Huawei.
There was a comic story a few years back about tractor production on Russia. Yes, tractors. Stop laughing at the back.
Putin demanded tractor production in Russia. Tractor production was announced. Published. Lauded.
Turned out to be final assembly of sub sections made in the Czech Republic IIRC. Not just parts but major assemblies. Basically no Russian content or work.
I still don't understand the security argument for new oil and gas licenses.
The market price of that extracted, whether for pharmaceuticals or otherwise, will still be subject to global markets, right? So if Russia/Saudi etc do something crazy, the relatively tiny amount extracted from the North Sea won't mitigate the effect on people in the UK.
Indeed, by exposing more of our domestic economy to inputs largely governed by our adversaries, aren't we weakening our position? The only way in which it might help would be if used it as a store to mitigate such a crisis. But, AFAIK, that isn't the plan.
No. Just no. Domestic production will be sold at market prices but that means we don’t have to import it and that we can, in extremis, direct that it is available for domestic consumption. That means, for example, that we don’t need as much storage for gas with consequential savings. It means the likes of Grangemouth had a consistent and reliable supply which helped to ensure we had petrol and diesel. It kept skills and businesses in this country.
The idea that our self denial somehow impacts on world consumption or world prices for fuel is just bonkers. The idea we are setting some sort of example is pretentious and ridiculous. We might, I suppose, do something for the reputation of British humour but other than that there really is no upside.
I’m delighted that someone so deluded is leaving Parliament.
Your second point I agree with.
Your first - is that even possible? You would need to at least double gas production in the North Sea to achieve the kind of war-time sustainability you are envisioning.
Cheaper and easier to achieve energy security via renewables.
Its not either/or, its both.
Energy via renewables, petrochemicals domestically.
Abolish imports (net).
You seem to be missing, deliberately or accidentally, the point that all of us making this point from a climate-friendly perspective want us to stop simply burning oil and gas for energy. Doesn't mean we won't need it and shouldn't produce it though.
I'm not at all. Your pharmaceuticals point is a good one. We already produce a very large proportion of our oil domestically so the smart thing would be to increase storage capacity and have a legal framework in place to secure domestic supply in a crisis, along with an agreement with Norway.
What's the purpose of storage? You need throughput not storage, as you don't know how long a crisis will last. It could be months, or it could be years, so how much storage are you recommending?
Storage only helps for variability, eg to get through a winter if you're burning it as energy, but if you're not using it as energy then that point becomes moot anyway.
Exactly. Will help out domestic pharmaceutical industry through a period of market instability.
How long a period? 3 months? 6 months? 2 years? 6 years?
Alternatively have a reliable supply chain with domestic production and you can redirect that supply chain for as long as it takes, in extremis.
Already got it for oil (as long as we remain on friendly terms with Norway)
Norway is friendly with the whole of Europe, not just us. Norway have decent production, but not that good.
And why is it desirable for us to shut down our own production, but not desirable for Norway (or for that matter Russia, Saudi or Qatar) to shut down theirs?
Who is a suggesting shutting down production?
Not granting licenses is ending production in the moderately near future.
Speaking to a friend this evening, who says that Rishi and Agent Anderson turned up at a local Primary School this week. Seven year olds came home saying "Rishi Sunak visited us at school today" - it's actually very likely the Primary School attended by Lee Anderson, being very close to where he grew up.
Plus they were in Mansfield.
Probably because we are the highest points in Nottinghamshire, and therefore unlikely to be flooded.
Part of his new year tour of 'marginals that will be swept away'.
I really can't call Ashfield.
- Conservatives we know. - Attractive to Reform, judging by all the goons on Anderson's Facebook page, though many maybe online refugees from Toryland Anywhere. - No Lib Dems - the Ashfield Lib Dems were such Dead Parrots that the branch was merged with Mansfield several years ago. - Ashfield Independents: 32 Council seats out of 35. Council Leader Zadrozny up before the Crown Court in 2025 on charges which could be years in prison. Nothing to stop him standing unless AI Councillors grow some balls. * - Labour? Just dunno - on the Council they now have ONE seat out of 35, having run it up until 2019 with 22 seats.
One possible scenario is a byelection in 2025 if Zadrozny stands and wins, and gets put behind bars. There's nothing to stop a local MP running a Council too - the Mansfield Tory MP is Leader of Notts County Council.
What odds are on offer for an Ashfield Byelection in 2025?
( * Had not noticed that "AI" before - hmmm.)
You can't be a UK councillor at any level, Parish, Town, District or County if sentenced to a jail term of 3 months or more, actual or suspended, in the last 5 years. Nor can you be a UK MP if in jail for a term of a year or more.
You can be President of the USA and the most powerful man in the world if in jail of course, even if you can't be a Parish councillor in your local village. Clearly you are still suitable to have your finger on the nuclear button, even if not to decide the precise details of next summer's village fete.
(Though the SC may yet decide the 14th amendment prevents Trump being on the ballot, at present he can still run and be elected and serve as POTUS from jail)
Speaking to a friend this evening, who says that Rishi and Agent Anderson turned up at a local Primary School this week. Seven year olds came home saying "Rishi Sunak visited us at school today" - it's actually very likely the Primary School attended by Lee Anderson, being very close to where he grew up.
Plus they were in Mansfield.
Probably because we are the highest points in Nottinghamshire, and therefore unlikely to be flooded.
Part of his new year tour of 'marginals that will be swept away'.
I really can't call Ashfield.
- Conservatives we know. - Attractive to Reform, judging by all the goons on Anderson's Facebook page, though many maybe online refugees from Toryland Anywhere. - No Lib Dems - the Ashfield Lib Dems were such Dead Parrots that the branch was merged with Mansfield several years ago. - Ashfield Independents: 32 Council seats out of 35. Council Leader Zadrozny up before the Crown Court in 2025 on charges which could be years in prison. Nothing to stop him standing unless AI Councillors grow some balls. * - Labour? Just dunno - on the Council they now have ONE seat out of 35, having run it up until 2019 with 22 seats.
One possible scenario is a byelection in 2025 if Zadrozny stands and wins, and gets put behind bars. There's nothing to stop a local MP running a Council too - the Mansfield Tory MP is Leader of Notts County Council.
What odds are on offer for an Ashfield Byelection in 2025?
( * Had not noticed that "AI" before - hmmm.)
You can't be a UK councillor at any level, Parish, Town, District or County if sentenced to a jail term of 3 months or more, actual or suspended, in the last 5 years. Nor can you be a UK MP if in jail for a term of a year or more.
You can be President of the USA and the most powerful man in the world if in jail of course, even if you can't be a Parish councillor in your local village. Clearly you are still suitable to have your finger on the nuclear button, even if not to decide the precise details of next summer's village fete.
(Though the SC may yet decide the 14th amendment prevents Trump being on the ballot, at present he can still run and be elected and serve as POTUS from jail)
Indeed.
Court Hearing scheduled for 2025, the first available date in Northampton, so who will stop Zadrozny standing in 2024?
Agent Anderson probably now wishes that the Government had addressed the Court backlog 2 years ago when they already knew about it.
Chris Skidmore wrote a book about the death of Amy Robsart.
Does anyone know whether his departure from the HoC will leave no Tory MP in the chamber with a brain?
Oh, sorry - just read that he supported Truss for the leadership. His brain must have dropped out 2010x2022.
OK, an eccentric with principles.
The Tories should have stuck with Truss, her team and her agenda. It only became an issue becuase Sunak loving MPs rebelled against her Instantly.
Starmer is saying growth growth growth and build on green belts in exactly the same way, yet it’s popular when he says it?
They could have done but would be heading for less than 50 seats and maybe not even official opposition let alone holding power on her last polls as leader.
Starmer may want more development like Truss but is not proposing to slash the additional income tax rate, scrap corporation tax rises and end the cap on bankers' bonuses as she and Kwarteng were pushing. If he was I doubt he would last long as Labour leader
No. That’s political gibberish. Because you can’t read all that into just 50 days. Given 200 days her agenda may have become successful and popular. We suspect as much because of everything she gets blame for that we know now for fact was not her fault.
1. High mortgage rates nothing to do with Truss, they were caused by high inflation that was itself caused by UK exposure to gas import prices.
2. Run on pound nothing to do with Truss, that was strength of dollar that month.
3. Bailing out pensions market nothing to do with Truss, that was all Sunak’s fault as chancellor presiding over the problem building up.
4. Sudden Tory poll collapse was not Truss fault, it was caused by a rebellion of Tory’s who immediately undermined her to install Sunak.
The Truss agenda of growth engineering tax cuts, cutting red tape, building more housing would currently have the Tories far better off than they are currently under Sunak.
Slashing taxes but not cutting spending and crashing the markets and sterling and leading to surging interest and mortgage rates was very much the fault of Truss and Kwarteng however
Which taxes did she slash? The growth budget only gave away £13B net after fiscal drag. The tax she cut at the top was a) the second half of same tax George Osborne previously cut half of b) didn’t exist till 2010 when Labour introduced it in their last budget - in other words they never had it in place during their 13 years, only sneaked it on as challenge to Tories to cut it. Osborne did first. You should support Truss removing the second half if you are a true Tory.
If she was going to cut it she needed to cut spending too, she didn't and the markets crashed as a result
Which markets crashed? See? You are Struggling to name them in your attempt to rewrite British political history.
It was a Net £13B giveaway budget. It stood on the side of enterprise and aspiration. It removed what was left of Labours last minute anti enterprise tax they never even used in their own 13 years, and which Osborne never had the chance to finish off himself, though he already cut half of it.
The only reason the budget was unacceptable with so many Tory’s was it wasn’t PM Rishi Sunak behind it - and it’s all that blue on blue in this parliament, and myth of Tory budget crashing economy that has left Tory polling in a mess.
As you keep repeating this myth, you have PB Labour giving you likes. They are mugging you off.
Sterling collapsed to its lowest level in modern times after the Kwarteng budget and the UK's borrowing costs to their highest levels since 2008 for starters
As starters, sterling pressure that was pressure from the US dollar, it did the same to all currencies at the same time you failed to notice. (Or failed to be told by UK media) Borrowing costs were already on the up under Johnson, as they were for many countries not just UK, and the level under Truss now already exceeded under Sunak. It smoked out some bad hedging in pensions that was from Sunak’s time as chancellor.
What else you got?
What part of the budget are you saying was thrown in the volcano to quell all markets angry at Truss?
I still don't understand the security argument for new oil and gas licenses.
The market price of that extracted, whether for pharmaceuticals or otherwise, will still be subject to global markets, right? So if Russia/Saudi etc do something crazy, the relatively tiny amount extracted from the North Sea won't mitigate the effect on people in the UK.
Indeed, by exposing more of our domestic economy to inputs largely governed by our adversaries, aren't we weakening our position? The only way in which it might help would be if used it as a store to mitigate such a crisis. But, AFAIK, that isn't the plan.
No. Just no. Domestic production will be sold at market prices but that means we don’t have to import it and that we can, in extremis, direct that it is available for domestic consumption. That means, for example, that we don’t need as much storage for gas with consequential savings. It means the likes of Grangemouth had a consistent and reliable supply which helped to ensure we had petrol and diesel. It kept skills and businesses in this country.
The idea that our self denial somehow impacts on world consumption or world prices for fuel is just bonkers. The idea we are setting some sort of example is pretentious and ridiculous. We might, I suppose, do something for the reputation of British humour but other than that there really is no upside.
I’m delighted that someone so deluded is leaving Parliament.
Your second point I agree with.
Your first - is that even possible? You would need to at least double gas production in the North Sea to achieve the kind of war-time sustainability you are envisioning.
Cheaper and easier to achieve energy security via renewables.
Its not either/or, its both.
Energy via renewables, petrochemicals domestically.
Abolish imports (net).
You seem to be missing, deliberately or accidentally, the point that all of us making this point from a climate-friendly perspective want us to stop simply burning oil and gas for energy. Doesn't mean we won't need it and shouldn't produce it though.
I'm not at all. Your pharmaceuticals point is a good one. We already produce a very large proportion of our oil domestically so the smart thing would be to increase storage capacity and have a legal framework in place to secure domestic supply in a crisis, along with an agreement with Norway.
What's the purpose of storage? You need throughput not storage, as you don't know how long a crisis will last. It could be months, or it could be years, so how much storage are you recommending?
Storage only helps for variability, eg to get through a winter if you're burning it as energy, but if you're not using it as energy then that point becomes moot anyway.
Exactly. Will help out domestic pharmaceutical industry through a period of market instability.
How long a period? 3 months? 6 months? 2 years? 6 years?
Alternatively have a reliable supply chain with domestic production and you can redirect that supply chain for as long as it takes, in extremis.
Already got it for oil (as long as we remain on friendly terms with Norway)
Norway is friendly with the whole of Europe, not just us. Norway have decent production, but not that good.
And why is it desirable for us to shut down our own production, but not desirable for Norway (or for that matter Russia, Saudi or Qatar) to shut down theirs?
Who is a suggesting shutting down production?
Not granting licenses is ending production in the moderately near future.
Good point. But I went to this city last year to Snookie’s engagement party, and went on a bus that runs on poo.
What's the driver supposed to do when the low fuel light comes on...?
Good point.
Don’t ignore my politicalbetting tips of the strength of greens in these contstituencys, but do ignore everything about poo buses. I was told by a friend when on a bus that it’s a poo fuelled bus, but I can Google no evidence it was - or what they do when low fuel light is on. How can a bus run on human poo? It was likely a food waste bus instead.
Chris Skidmore wrote a book about the death of Amy Robsart.
Does anyone know whether his departure from the HoC will leave no Tory MP in the chamber with a brain?
Oh, sorry - just read that he supported Truss for the leadership. His brain must have dropped out 2010x2022.
OK, an eccentric with principles.
The Tories should have stuck with Truss, her team and her agenda. It only became an issue becuase Sunak loving MPs rebelled against her Instantly.
Starmer is saying growth growth growth and build on green belts in exactly the same way, yet it’s popular when he says it?
They could have done but would be heading for less than 50 seats and maybe not even official opposition let alone holding power on her last polls as leader.
Starmer may want more development like Truss but is not proposing to slash the additional income tax rate, scrap corporation tax rises and end the cap on bankers' bonuses as she and Kwarteng were pushing. If he was I doubt he would last long as Labour leader
No. That’s political gibberish. Because you can’t read all that into just 50 days. Given 200 days her agenda may have become successful and popular. We suspect as much because of everything she gets blame for that we know now for fact was not her fault.
1. High mortgage rates nothing to do with Truss, they were caused by high inflation that was itself caused by UK exposure to gas import prices.
2. Run on pound nothing to do with Truss, that was strength of dollar that month.
3. Bailing out pensions market nothing to do with Truss, that was all Sunak’s fault as chancellor presiding over the problem building up.
4. Sudden Tory poll collapse was not Truss fault, it was caused by a rebellion of Tory’s who immediately undermined her to install Sunak.
The Truss agenda of growth engineering tax cuts, cutting red tape, building more housing would currently have the Tories far better off than they are currently under Sunak.
Slashing taxes but not cutting spending and crashing the markets and sterling and leading to surging interest and mortgage rates was very much the fault of Truss and Kwarteng however
Which taxes did she slash? The growth budget only gave away £13B net after fiscal drag. The tax she cut at the top was a) the second half of same tax George Osborne previously cut half of b) didn’t exist till 2010 when Labour introduced it in their last budget - in other words they never had it in place during their 13 years, only sneaked it on as challenge to Tories to cut it. Osborne did first. You should support Truss removing the second half if you are a true Tory.
If she was going to cut it she needed to cut spending too, she didn't and the markets crashed as a result
Which markets crashed? See? You are Struggling to name them in your attempt to rewrite British political history.
It was a Net £13B giveaway budget. It stood on the side of enterprise and aspiration. It removed what was left of Labours last minute anti enterprise tax they never even used in their own 13 years, and which Osborne never had the chance to finish off himself, though he already cut half of it.
The only reason the budget was unacceptable with so many Tory’s was it wasn’t PM Rishi Sunak behind it - and it’s all that blue on blue in this parliament, and myth of Tory budget crashing economy that has left Tory polling in a mess.
As you keep repeating this myth, you have PB Labour giving you likes. They are mugging you off.
Sterling collapsed to its lowest level in modern times after the Kwarteng budget and the UK's borrowing costs to their highest levels since 2008 for starters
As starters, sterling pressure that was pressure from the US dollar, it did the same to all currencies at the same time you failed to notice. (Or failed to be told by UK media) Borrowing costs were already on the up under Johnson, as they were for many countries not just UK, and the level under Truss now already exceeded under Sunak. It smoked out some bad hedging in pensions that was from Sunak’s time as chancellor.
What else you got?
What part of the budget are you saying was thrown in the volcano to quell all markets angry at Truss?
I still don't understand the security argument for new oil and gas licenses.
The market price of that extracted, whether for pharmaceuticals or otherwise, will still be subject to global markets, right? So if Russia/Saudi etc do something crazy, the relatively tiny amount extracted from the North Sea won't mitigate the effect on people in the UK.
Indeed, by exposing more of our domestic economy to inputs largely governed by our adversaries, aren't we weakening our position? The only way in which it might help would be if used it as a store to mitigate such a crisis. But, AFAIK, that isn't the plan.
No. Just no. Domestic production will be sold at market prices but that means we don’t have to import it and that we can, in extremis, direct that it is available for domestic consumption. That means, for example, that we don’t need as much storage for gas with consequential savings. It means the likes of Grangemouth had a consistent and reliable supply which helped to ensure we had petrol and diesel. It kept skills and businesses in this country.
The idea that our self denial somehow impacts on world consumption or world prices for fuel is just bonkers. The idea we are setting some sort of example is pretentious and ridiculous. We might, I suppose, do something for the reputation of British humour but other than that there really is no upside.
I’m delighted that someone so deluded is leaving Parliament.
Your second point I agree with.
Your first - is that even possible? You would need to at least double gas production in the North Sea to achieve the kind of war-time sustainability you are envisioning.
Cheaper and easier to achieve energy security via renewables.
Its not either/or, its both.
Energy via renewables, petrochemicals domestically.
Abolish imports (net).
You seem to be missing, deliberately or accidentally, the point that all of us making this point from a climate-friendly perspective want us to stop simply burning oil and gas for energy. Doesn't mean we won't need it and shouldn't produce it though.
I'm not at all. Your pharmaceuticals point is a good one. We already produce a very large proportion of our oil domestically so the smart thing would be to increase storage capacity and have a legal framework in place to secure domestic supply in a crisis, along with an agreement with Norway.
What's the purpose of storage? You need throughput not storage, as you don't know how long a crisis will last. It could be months, or it could be years, so how much storage are you recommending?
Storage only helps for variability, eg to get through a winter if you're burning it as energy, but if you're not using it as energy then that point becomes moot anyway.
Exactly. Will help out domestic pharmaceutical industry through a period of market instability.
How long a period? 3 months? 6 months? 2 years? 6 years?
Alternatively have a reliable supply chain with domestic production and you can redirect that supply chain for as long as it takes, in extremis.
Already got it for oil (as long as we remain on friendly terms with Norway)
Norway is friendly with the whole of Europe, not just us. Norway have decent production, but not that good.
And why is it desirable for us to shut down our own production, but not desirable for Norway (or for that matter Russia, Saudi or Qatar) to shut down theirs?
Who is a suggesting shutting down production?
Not granting licenses is ending production in the moderately near future.
Chris Skidmore wrote a book about the death of Amy Robsart.
Does anyone know whether his departure from the HoC will leave no Tory MP in the chamber with a brain?
Oh, sorry - just read that he supported Truss for the leadership. His brain must have dropped out 2010x2022.
OK, an eccentric with principles.
The Tories should have stuck with Truss, her team and her agenda. It only became an issue becuase Sunak loving MPs rebelled against her Instantly.
Starmer is saying growth growth growth and build on green belts in exactly the same way, yet it’s popular when he says it?
They could have done but would be heading for less than 50 seats and maybe not even official opposition let alone holding power on her last polls as leader.
Starmer may want more development like Truss but is not proposing to slash the additional income tax rate, scrap corporation tax rises and end the cap on bankers' bonuses as she and Kwarteng were pushing. If he was I doubt he would last long as Labour leader
No. That’s political gibberish. Because you can’t read all that into just 50 days. Given 200 days her agenda may have become successful and popular. We suspect as much because of everything she gets blame for that we know now for fact was not her fault.
1. High mortgage rates nothing to do with Truss, they were caused by high inflation that was itself caused by UK exposure to gas import prices.
2. Run on pound nothing to do with Truss, that was strength of dollar that month.
3. Bailing out pensions market nothing to do with Truss, that was all Sunak’s fault as chancellor presiding over the problem building up.
4. Sudden Tory poll collapse was not Truss fault, it was caused by a rebellion of Tory’s who immediately undermined her to install Sunak.
The Truss agenda of growth engineering tax cuts, cutting red tape, building more housing would currently have the Tories far better off than they are currently under Sunak.
Slashing taxes but not cutting spending and crashing the markets and sterling and leading to surging interest and mortgage rates was very much the fault of Truss and Kwarteng however
Which taxes did she slash? The growth budget only gave away £13B net after fiscal drag. The tax she cut at the top was a) the second half of same tax George Osborne previously cut half of b) didn’t exist till 2010 when Labour introduced it in their last budget - in other words they never had it in place during their 13 years, only sneaked it on as challenge to Tories to cut it. Osborne did first. You should support Truss removing the second half if you are a true Tory.
If she was going to cut it she needed to cut spending too, she didn't and the markets crashed as a result
Which markets crashed? See? You are Struggling to name them in your attempt to rewrite British political history.
It was a Net £13B giveaway budget. It stood on the side of enterprise and aspiration. It removed what was left of Labours last minute anti enterprise tax they never even used in their own 13 years, and which Osborne never had the chance to finish off himself, though he already cut half of it.
The only reason the budget was unacceptable with so many Tory’s was it wasn’t PM Rishi Sunak behind it - and it’s all that blue on blue in this parliament, and myth of Tory budget crashing economy that has left Tory polling in a mess.
As you keep repeating this myth, you have PB Labour giving you likes. They are mugging you off.
Sterling collapsed to its lowest level in modern times after the Kwarteng budget and the UK's borrowing costs to their highest levels since 2008 for starters
As starters, sterling pressure that was pressure from the US dollar, it did the same to all currencies at the same time you failed to notice. (Or failed to be told by UK media) Borrowing costs were already on the up under Johnson, as they were for many countries not just UK, and the level under Truss now already exceeded under Sunak. It smoked out some bad hedging in pensions that was from Sunak’s time as chancellor.
What else you got?
What part of the budget are you saying was thrown in the volcano to quell all markets angry at Truss?
Truss and her chancellor. Seemed to do the trick.
Their mistake was mistaking the sizzle for the steak?
Chris Skidmore wrote a book about the death of Amy Robsart.
Does anyone know whether his departure from the HoC will leave no Tory MP in the chamber with a brain?
Oh, sorry - just read that he supported Truss for the leadership. His brain must have dropped out 2010x2022.
OK, an eccentric with principles.
The Tories should have stuck with Truss, her team and her agenda. It only became an issue becuase Sunak loving MPs rebelled against her Instantly.
Starmer is saying growth growth growth and build on green belts in exactly the same way, yet it’s popular when he says it?
They could have done but would be heading for less than 50 seats and maybe not even official opposition let alone holding power on her last polls as leader.
Starmer may want more development like Truss but is not proposing to slash the additional income tax rate, scrap corporation tax rises and end the cap on bankers' bonuses as she and Kwarteng were pushing. If he was I doubt he would last long as Labour leader
No. That’s political gibberish. Because you can’t read all that into just 50 days. Given 200 days her agenda may have become successful and popular. We suspect as much because of everything she gets blame for that we know now for fact was not her fault.
1. High mortgage rates nothing to do with Truss, they were caused by high inflation that was itself caused by UK exposure to gas import prices.
2. Run on pound nothing to do with Truss, that was strength of dollar that month.
3. Bailing out pensions market nothing to do with Truss, that was all Sunak’s fault as chancellor presiding over the problem building up.
4. Sudden Tory poll collapse was not Truss fault, it was caused by a rebellion of Tory’s who immediately undermined her to install Sunak.
The Truss agenda of growth engineering tax cuts, cutting red tape, building more housing would currently have the Tories far better off than they are currently under Sunak.
Slashing taxes but not cutting spending and crashing the markets and sterling and leading to surging interest and mortgage rates was very much the fault of Truss and Kwarteng however
Which taxes did she slash? The growth budget only gave away £13B net after fiscal drag. The tax she cut at the top was a) the second half of same tax George Osborne previously cut half of b) didn’t exist till 2010 when Labour introduced it in their last budget - in other words they never had it in place during their 13 years, only sneaked it on as challenge to Tories to cut it. Osborne did first. You should support Truss removing the second half if you are a true Tory.
If she was going to cut it she needed to cut spending too, she didn't and the markets crashed as a result
Which markets crashed? See? You are Struggling to name them in your attempt to rewrite British political history.
It was a Net £13B giveaway budget. It stood on the side of enterprise and aspiration. It removed what was left of Labours last minute anti enterprise tax they never even used in their own 13 years, and which Osborne never had the chance to finish off himself, though he already cut half of it.
The only reason the budget was unacceptable with so many Tory’s was it wasn’t PM Rishi Sunak behind it - and it’s all that blue on blue in this parliament, and myth of Tory budget crashing economy that has left Tory polling in a mess.
As you keep repeating this myth, you have PB Labour giving you likes. They are mugging you off.
Sterling collapsed to its lowest level in modern times after the Kwarteng budget and the UK's borrowing costs to their highest levels since 2008 for starters
As starters, sterling pressure that was pressure from the US dollar, it did the same to all currencies at the same time you failed to notice. (Or failed to be told by UK media) Borrowing costs were already on the up under Johnson, as they were for many countries not just UK, and the level under Truss now already exceeded under Sunak. It smoked out some bad hedging in pensions that was from Sunak’s time as chancellor.
What else you got?
What part of the budget are you saying was thrown in the volcano to quell all markets angry at Truss?
Truss and her chancellor. Seemed to do the trick.
You are not playing fair. The game is to satisfy ourselves in agreement of what exactly they did do wrong.
We can rule out cutting what was left or Browns 2010 anti enterprise tax, because there was nothing wrong with cutting that. Borrowing costs were already trending historically up and not just in UK, and those costs under Truss already now exceeded by Sunak, so Truss can’t get any blame for those. The Sterling run came from Dollar strength and did not just scare UK those weeks so not 100% Truss budget fault. The budget itself, once fiscal drag properly worked put was only £13B net in giveaways, so couldn’t the scare the markets.
That Truss crashed anything is myth created by Labour and LibDem lies aided and abetted by Tory infighting and Sunak loyalists.
Ironically, the more Sunak loyalists repeat the myth the worse result Sunak gets at his general election.
The Republican senators who voted to acquit Trump at his second impeachment trial will have a lot to be blamed for if this deranged man who makes Mussolini look sane does manage to unleash the nukes, or start a civil war, or, à la Turner diaries, does both. The scary thing is he is still in the running at such a late hour. A line could have been ruled under him three years ago.
To judge from that video, he thinks the film of him pushing the Montenegrin PM out of the way and then jutting his chin makes him look good. First time I've heard about him delivering his own grandchild.
I still don't understand the security argument for new oil and gas licenses.
The market price of that extracted, whether for pharmaceuticals or otherwise, will still be subject to global markets, right? So if Russia/Saudi etc do something crazy, the relatively tiny amount extracted from the North Sea won't mitigate the effect on people in the UK.
Indeed, by exposing more of our domestic economy to inputs largely governed by our adversaries, aren't we weakening our position? The only way in which it might help would be if used it as a store to mitigate such a crisis. But, AFAIK, that isn't the plan.
That would be like writing during Covid I still don't understand the security argument for vaccine production ...
The UK is going to need oil and gas into the future, it is the fundamental building block of most pharmaceuticals, plastics etc - and are a critical part of the supply chain to most of our largest export markets and will be even post-Net Zero.
Medicines and pharmaceuticals, not oil and gas, is our third largest export good in the country, as well as being fairly fundamental for our health and well-being.
And you question why we might want to have security in controlling our own input for it during a crisis rather than leave it in the hand of hostile states?
We don't need to store oil and gas in order to mitigate a crisis, we need to generate enough that we don't rely upon imports during a crisis.
Unless you want to terminate our pharmaceutical sector, which means we won't need as much petrochemicals in the future, as well as plastics and everything else that depends upon it, petrochemicals are going to be an input into our economy. If we make our own production of them, then we have reduced the amount that's governed by our adversaries, since we can use our own production. If we don't, then we hand control of a critical input of national security to our adversaries.
But none of Rosebank is for UK though, or haven’t you noticed?
If we were not so reliant on oil or gas at all we would surely be less reliant on oil and gas imports, so more secure. What part of that logic do you not understand?
Sold on the international markets != none is for the UK and != that the UK can't use it in an emergency.
Being less reliant on oil and gas is a good thing, but cutting UK production helps that ambition not a single iota. It doesn't lower global CO2 emissions whatsoever.
If you have policies to lower oil and gas demand in this country then fantastic, lets hear them and if they're sensible roll them out. But cutting oil and gas production in this country? Doesn't achieve a single damned thing.
At the margin less oil produced global by us (and others) increases the relative price of oil (supply and demand) so makes cleaner energies more attractive
But it’s a marginal benefit and not sufficient to offset the security benefits in my view
Biden aiming to frame the question for 2024 POTUS early on as all good strategists would advise.
Democracy on the ballot, your freedom at stake etc etc.
May well work especially if the voters finally wake up to how well the economy is doing by next summer and he can finish the campaign back on pocketbook stuff.
Viewcode's dictum: the economy doesn't vote.
People feel better or worse depending on a range of factors. GDP is not necessarily one of them and it is entirely possible for people to feel worse even if the GDP rises. I'd argue that Net Household Income is more important and that is the metric we should be tracking, not GDP.
Their mistake was electing him to anything more demanding than deputy chair of Henley Town Council in the first place.
It was the British people themselves who elected Boris to stay PM in 2019 with the biggest Tory majority since Thatcher in 1987
Oh, what about Northern Ireland? Plus a lot of people didn't or couldn't vote. And many of then didn't vote for Mr Johnson. In fact, *none at all except in Uxbridge*. And that last was for the constituency MP.
People as you well know vote mostly for the leader now more than their local MP
I know you have a strange concept of logic and numbner theory, but 43.6% of those who voted at all doesn't equate to "the British people" in ordinary human discourse or experience.
It does, the Tories won most votes and seats and if you don't vote that is your problem, you have no right to complain
The Tories and Boris's big mistake was letting victory go to their heads and assuming winning an election meant they spoke for far more than they did and that nothing could truly dent their popularity. One reason traditionally the Tory Party has been successful is a lack of complacency and sentimentality and a sometimes cynical knowledge of how to pry people away from the other lot.
A smart party would have been looking to address its weaknesses. How could it appeal to younger people and remainers? How could it mend the same divides it exploited to its advantage and prove to people that its critics were wrong? How could Boris go out of his way to prove he was trustworthy and serious?
That would have likely resulted in another decade of dominance. Because existing supporters would back it, while voters who might be opponents saw allies co-opted.
Instead it assumed that some of the biggest headbangers and oddballs on their own side 'spoke' for the British public and needed appeasing while insulting everyone else. When of course they did not, as if anything Britain leans small c conservative, rather than full fat Farage.
Yet apart from Brexit Boris didn't really do anything very rightwing. Taxes weren't cut, spending rose, immigration rose. the government was relatively socially liberal.
Both Truss and Sunak have run more rightwing governments than Boris did overall
It’s unfortunate for Boris that the pandemic began three months after he won that landslide; it meant any plans he had were shelved and he had to deal with something completely unexpected that probably didn’t play to his strengths
Being Prime Minister didn’t play to his strengths.
I still don't understand the security argument for new oil and gas licenses.
The market price of that extracted, whether for pharmaceuticals or otherwise, will still be subject to global markets, right? So if Russia/Saudi etc do something crazy, the relatively tiny amount extracted from the North Sea won't mitigate the effect on people in the UK.
Indeed, by exposing more of our domestic economy to inputs largely governed by our adversaries, aren't we weakening our position? The only way in which it might help would be if used it as a store to mitigate such a crisis. But, AFAIK, that isn't the plan.
That would be like writing during Covid I still don't understand the security argument for vaccine production ...
The UK is going to need oil and gas into the future, it is the fundamental building block of most pharmaceuticals, plastics etc - and are a critical part of the supply chain to most of our largest export markets and will be even post-Net Zero.
Medicines and pharmaceuticals, not oil and gas, is our third largest export good in the country, as well as being fairly fundamental for our health and well-being.
And you question why we might want to have security in controlling our own input for it during a crisis rather than leave it in the hand of hostile states?
We don't need to store oil and gas in order to mitigate a crisis, we need to generate enough that we don't rely upon imports during a crisis.
Unless you want to terminate our pharmaceutical sector, which means we won't need as much petrochemicals in the future, as well as plastics and everything else that depends upon it, petrochemicals are going to be an input into our economy. If we make our own production of them, then we have reduced the amount that's governed by our adversaries, since we can use our own production. If we don't, then we hand control of a critical input of national security to our adversaries.
But none of Rosebank is for UK though, or haven’t you noticed?
If we were not so reliant on oil or gas at all we would surely be less reliant on oil and gas imports, so more secure. What part of that logic do you not understand?
Sold on the international markets != none is for the UK and != that the UK can't use it in an emergency.
Being less reliant on oil and gas is a good thing, but cutting UK production helps that ambition not a single iota. It doesn't lower global CO2 emissions whatsoever.
If you have policies to lower oil and gas demand in this country then fantastic, lets hear them and if they're sensible roll them out. But cutting oil and gas production in this country? Doesn't achieve a single damned thing.
At the margin less oil produced global by us (and others) increases the relative price of oil (supply and demand) so makes cleaner energies more attractive
But it’s a marginal benefit and not sufficient to offset the security benefits in my view
I still don't understand the security argument for new oil and gas licenses.
The market price of that extracted, whether for pharmaceuticals or otherwise, will still be subject to global markets, right? So if Russia/Saudi etc do something crazy, the relatively tiny amount extracted from the North Sea won't mitigate the effect on people in the UK.
Indeed, by exposing more of our domestic economy to inputs largely governed by our adversaries, aren't we weakening our position? The only way in which it might help would be if used it as a store to mitigate such a crisis. But, AFAIK, that isn't the plan.
That would be like writing during Covid I still don't understand the security argument for vaccine production ...
The UK is going to need oil and gas into the future, it is the fundamental building block of most pharmaceuticals, plastics etc - and are a critical part of the supply chain to most of our largest export markets and will be even post-Net Zero.
Medicines and pharmaceuticals, not oil and gas, is our third largest export good in the country, as well as being fairly fundamental for our health and well-being.
And you question why we might want to have security in controlling our own input for it during a crisis rather than leave it in the hand of hostile states?
We don't need to store oil and gas in order to mitigate a crisis, we need to generate enough that we don't rely upon imports during a crisis.
Unless you want to terminate our pharmaceutical sector, which means we won't need as much petrochemicals in the future, as well as plastics and everything else that depends upon it, petrochemicals are going to be an input into our economy. If we make our own production of them, then we have reduced the amount that's governed by our adversaries, since we can use our own production. If we don't, then we hand control of a critical input of national security to our adversaries.
But none of Rosebank is for UK though, or haven’t you noticed?
If we were not so reliant on oil or gas at all we would surely be less reliant on oil and gas imports, so more secure. What part of that logic do you not understand?
Sold on the international markets != none is for the UK and != that the UK can't use it in an emergency.
Being less reliant on oil and gas is a good thing, but cutting UK production helps that ambition not a single iota. It doesn't lower global CO2 emissions whatsoever.
If you have policies to lower oil and gas demand in this country then fantastic, lets hear them and if they're sensible roll them out. But cutting oil and gas production in this country? Doesn't achieve a single damned thing.
At the margin less oil produced global by us (and others) increases the relative price of oil (supply and demand) so makes cleaner energies more attractive
But it’s a marginal benefit and not sufficient to offset the security benefits in my view
I still don't understand the security argument for new oil and gas licenses.
The market price of that extracted, whether for pharmaceuticals or otherwise, will still be subject to global markets, right? So if Russia/Saudi etc do something crazy, the relatively tiny amount extracted from the North Sea won't mitigate the effect on people in the UK.
Indeed, by exposing more of our domestic economy to inputs largely governed by our adversaries, aren't we weakening our position? The only way in which it might help would be if used it as a store to mitigate such a crisis. But, AFAIK, that isn't the plan.
That would be like writing during Covid I still don't understand the security argument for vaccine production ...
The UK is going to need oil and gas into the future, it is the fundamental building block of most pharmaceuticals, plastics etc - and are a critical part of the supply chain to most of our largest export markets and will be even post-Net Zero.
Medicines and pharmaceuticals, not oil and gas, is our third largest export good in the country, as well as being fairly fundamental for our health and well-being.
And you question why we might want to have security in controlling our own input for it during a crisis rather than leave it in the hand of hostile states?
We don't need to store oil and gas in order to mitigate a crisis, we need to generate enough that we don't rely upon imports during a crisis.
Unless you want to terminate our pharmaceutical sector, which means we won't need as much petrochemicals in the future, as well as plastics and everything else that depends upon it, petrochemicals are going to be an input into our economy. If we make our own production of them, then we have reduced the amount that's governed by our adversaries, since we can use our own production. If we don't, then we hand control of a critical input of national security to our adversaries.
But none of Rosebank is for UK though, or haven’t you noticed?
If we were not so reliant on oil or gas at all we would surely be less reliant on oil and gas imports, so more secure. What part of that logic do you not understand?
Sold on the international markets != none is for the UK and != that the UK can't use it in an emergency.
Being less reliant on oil and gas is a good thing, but cutting UK production helps that ambition not a single iota. It doesn't lower global CO2 emissions whatsoever.
If you have policies to lower oil and gas demand in this country then fantastic, lets hear them and if they're sensible roll them out. But cutting oil and gas production in this country? Doesn't achieve a single damned thing.
At the margin less oil produced global by us (and others) increases the relative price of oil (supply and demand) so makes cleaner energies more attractive
But it’s a marginal benefit and not sufficient to offset the security benefits in my view
"Let's force people to go Green by making the alternatives really expensive"
I still don't understand the security argument for new oil and gas licenses.
The market price of that extracted, whether for pharmaceuticals or otherwise, will still be subject to global markets, right? So if Russia/Saudi etc do something crazy, the relatively tiny amount extracted from the North Sea won't mitigate the effect on people in the UK.
Indeed, by exposing more of our domestic economy to inputs largely governed by our adversaries, aren't we weakening our position? The only way in which it might help would be if used it as a store to mitigate such a crisis. But, AFAIK, that isn't the plan.
That would be like writing during Covid I still don't understand the security argument for vaccine production ...
The UK is going to need oil and gas into the future, it is the fundamental building block of most pharmaceuticals, plastics etc - and are a critical part of the supply chain to most of our largest export markets and will be even post-Net Zero.
Medicines and pharmaceuticals, not oil and gas, is our third largest export good in the country, as well as being fairly fundamental for our health and well-being.
And you question why we might want to have security in controlling our own input for it during a crisis rather than leave it in the hand of hostile states?
We don't need to store oil and gas in order to mitigate a crisis, we need to generate enough that we don't rely upon imports during a crisis.
Unless you want to terminate our pharmaceutical sector, which means we won't need as much petrochemicals in the future, as well as plastics and everything else that depends upon it, petrochemicals are going to be an input into our economy. If we make our own production of them, then we have reduced the amount that's governed by our adversaries, since we can use our own production. If we don't, then we hand control of a critical input of national security to our adversaries.
But none of Rosebank is for UK though, or haven’t you noticed?
If we were not so reliant on oil or gas at all we would surely be less reliant on oil and gas imports, so more secure. What part of that logic do you not understand?
Sold on the international markets != none is for the UK and != that the UK can't use it in an emergency.
Being less reliant on oil and gas is a good thing, but cutting UK production helps that ambition not a single iota. It doesn't lower global CO2 emissions whatsoever.
If you have policies to lower oil and gas demand in this country then fantastic, lets hear them and if they're sensible roll them out. But cutting oil and gas production in this country? Doesn't achieve a single damned thing.
At the margin less oil produced global by us (and others) increases the relative price of oil (supply and demand) so makes cleaner energies more attractive
But it’s a marginal benefit and not sufficient to offset the security benefits in my view
"Let's force people to go Green by making the alternatives really expensive"
Comments
Being less reliant on oil and gas is a good thing, but cutting UK production helps that ambition not a single iota. It doesn't lower global CO2 emissions whatsoever.
If you have policies to lower oil and gas demand in this country then fantastic, lets hear them and if they're sensible roll them out. But cutting oil and gas production in this country? Doesn't achieve a single damned thing.
I'll tally properly in the next day or two.
The choice has a major impact on the wealth of this country and our standard of living but no impact at all on world demand for oil or gas.
Producing oil does not mean that we don’t seek to reduce our dependence upon it. That is the flaw in your logic.
America is profoundly weird.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H4hgZOS-zU
This is the Something must be done, this is something, so this must be done fallacy.
Yes we need to tackle climate change.
Yes we need to stop burning oil and gas.
No we do not need to stop producing oil and gas.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, inserting the court squarely in the 2024 presidential campaign.
The justices acknowledged the need to reach a decision quickly, as voters will soon begin casting presidential primary ballots across the country. The court agreed to take up Trump’s appeal of a case from Colorado stemming from his role in the events that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Arguments will be held in early February.
The court will be considering for the first time the meaning and reach of a provision of the 14th Amendment barring some people who “engaged in insurrection” from holding public office. The amendment was adopted in 1868, following the Civil War. It has been so rarely used that the nation’s highest court had no previous occasion to interpret it.
My current thinking is there’s a v strong argument he’s constitutionally barred, but I wonder if SCOTUS might find it legally and politically convenient to separate the ballot access question from the eligibility question - i.e come back if he wins the election and we’ll work out if he can take office. But this does come from not knowing anything about Colorado law and if lack of eligibility prevents ballot access.
Does the 14th Amendment ban those who engaged insurrection?
Yes and yes.
Seems pretty clear they should to me.
Even that feels generous.
You try running after that much alcohol has been consumed.
On the other hand Biden's speech is well worth a watch.
https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1743384856002748782?t=MkI2nL2Aunbt4rpcsYRm4A&s=19
(Biden, today.)
I mean, unless you were poor. Then f*ck you. Fines or jail time.
Losers.
There have already been dissents to the decision to keep him off the ballot, I'm sure the Court can find a way to make their decision as narrow as possible and punt the larger questions until a time it won't matter, ie after the election, which would surely appeal to them.
Whether they can find a way to say he cannot be kept off, but that that section of the amendment can actually be enforced at least theoretically may be a bit harder to manage, since he really did try to prevent the transfer of power after all. But they are intelligent and creative people, it may not even be entirely along partisan lines if they craft it right.
https://twitter.com/BidenHQ/status/1743404326658437557
1 - Disgorgement of $370m to recover the money they have fraudulently gained.
2 - Lifetime ban on doing business in New York for Mr Frump and his primary operative.
3 - 5 year ban for Frump Junior 1 and Frump Junior 2.
It seems a modest request given what they *could* have gone for.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-new-york-ag-submit-briefs-ahead-closing/story?id=106131956
Your security scenario is one where we are basically in WW3 and need to produce everything domestically. In that scenario, food is going to be our primary concern...
And a decision that says, good for now, but come back later? Like dumping dynamite in your rumpus room, and hoping it won't go BOOM!
Despite the fact we can import food but we can't import a roof over our heads, we dedicate a meagre 5% of the land in this country to housing and 70% of the land in this country to agriculture.
Like many things in life, its not either/or, we have good reason to ensure both.
I expect the majority to find a way to keep Trump on the ballot (though that’s not a foregone conclusion), but having taken the case, I don’t see how they defer a ruling.
‘Punting until after the election’ is in effect refusing to decide. It would be a complete abdication of a responsibility - to say what the constitution means - which is theirs alone.
Plus they were in Mansfield.
Probably because we are the highest points in Nottinghamshire, and therefore unlikely to be flooded.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/jan/05/glynis-johns-obituary
PBers of a certain age will better know her as Mrs Banks in Mary Poppins.
“Votes for Women !”
It surely would not be easy, but something very precise and technical and not getting into detail on other points as there is no need to address them.
I don't think abdication of responsibility will enter their thoughts at all - preservation of the instutution and its power, sure, which is one reason finding a clever legal dodge on larger questions would appeal to them.
Your first - is that even possible? You would need to at least double gas production in the North Sea to achieve the kind of war-time sustainability you are envisioning.
Cheaper and easier to achieve energy security via renewables.
What we need on PB, to get seat betting right, is knowledge on the ground. We can’t just rely on swing calculators. From a distance, looking at 2019, Thangham Debenhams might not look beatable in Bristol Central, but we know from local sources that’s she’s clearly beaten already based on local ward voting in recent years.
Energy via renewables, petrochemicals domestically.
Abolish imports (net).
You seem to be missing, deliberately or accidentally, the point that all of us making this point from a climate-friendly perspective want us to stop simply burning oil and gas for energy. Doesn't mean we won't need it and shouldn't produce it though.
The Court might be smarter than most of them about that, but they're not immune to it.
https://x.com/nazirafzal/status/1743414842885644684?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
In extremis we could start being more intensive, or cut our calories, or still have some imports, or a mixture of all of the above.
Our agricultural sector is remarkably inefficient and not very intensive, which is part of a reason farmers are terrified of free trade with the likes of Australia and New Zealand, let alone the likes of America, which can be far more intensive in their agriculture.
If there were an extreme event that made us rely upon domestic production its far easier to rapidly scale up production from 50% to 100% than it is from zero to 100%.
Democracy on the ballot, your freedom at stake etc etc.
May well work especially if the voters finally wake up to how well the economy is doing by next summer and he can finish the campaign back on pocketbook stuff.
- Conservatives we know.
- Attractive to Reform, judging by all the goons on Anderson's Facebook page, though many maybe online refugees from Toryland Anywhere.
- No Lib Dems - the Ashfield Lib Dems were such Dead Parrots that the branch was merged with Mansfield several years ago.
- Ashfield Independents: 32 Council seats out of 35. Council Leader Zadrozny up before the Crown Court in 2025 on charges which could be years in prison. Nothing to stop him standing unless AI Councillors grow some balls. *
- Labour? Just dunno - on the Council they now have ONE seat out of 35, having run it up until 2019 with 22 seats.
One possible scenario is a byelection in 2025 if Zadrozny stands and wins, and gets put behind bars. There's nothing to stop a local MP running a Council too - the Mansfield Tory MP is Leader of Notts County Council.
What odds are on offer for an Ashfield Byelection in 2025?
( * Had not noticed that "AI" before - hmmm.)
Storage only helps for variability, eg to get through a winter if you're burning it as energy, but if you're not using it as energy then that point becomes moot anyway.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/05/ramaswamy-wants-the-us-out-of-nato-00134068
Sooner he drops out of the race, the better.
Forget about Lincoln, Reagan would be turning in his grave to see what's happened to his party.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9oTBA-MvZk
Jan. 6 defendant tearfully tells judge: ‘You very likely saved my life’
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/04/jan-6-defendant-judge-00133905
Jan. 6 defendant Christopher Worrell credited a federal judge with saving his life two years ago, when he freed the Florida Proud Boy from pretrial detention over concerns about his medical treatment.
“You very likely saved my life,” said Worrell, who has a rare form of chronic lymphoma, during tearful remarks at his sentencing hearing Thursday
US. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth sentenced Worrell to 10 years in prison for spraying pepper gel at a line of police officers on Jan. 6, when Worrell joined more than 100 Proud Boys on a march to the Capitol and witnessed some of the earliest violent clashes between the mob and Capitol Police.
But before he issued his sentence, Lamberth offered a kind word to Worrell, whose loud and early complaints about his medical treatment during his pretrial confinement led Lamberth to hold jail officials in contempt of court. The move prompted a series of inquiries that resulted in reforms and improvements in medical treatment for hundreds of inmates, he said...
Somehow it reminds me of the Muppet Show. Who is the Turkey?
https://youtu.be/B-OFXUaMIv8?t=15
Alternatively have a reliable supply chain with domestic production and you can redirect that supply chain for as long as it takes, in extremis.
And why is it desirable for us to shut down our own production, but not desirable for Norway (or for that matter Russia, Saudi or Qatar) to shut down theirs?
It was a Net £13B giveaway budget. It stood on the side of enterprise and aspiration. It removed what was left of Labours last minute anti enterprise tax they never even used in their own 13 years, and which Osborne never had the chance to finish off himself, though he already cut half of it.
The only reason the budget was unacceptable with so many Tory’s was it wasn’t PM Rishi Sunak behind it - and it’s all that blue on blue in this parliament, and myth of Tory budget crashing economy that has left Tory polling in a mess.
As you keep repeating this myth, you have PB Labour giving you likes. They are mugging you off.
Hence she cut out the OBR as she knew they'd never sign off the economic suicide
Hence the markets reacted as they did
I don’t think domestic production of natural resources has much relation to successful manufacturing these days - unless, like the US or Saudi Arabia, you have a massive production cost advantage in oil and gas. Which we don’t.
And so, what I’ve said is that, you know what? In any good deal, I know this from the business world, it’s not that different in foreign policy, everybody has to get something out of the deal. That is realism. That is the truth of how a good deal gets done. The deal I will do with Vladimir Putin is simple. We will freeze the current lines of control. We will further make a hard commitment that NATO will never admit Ukraine to NATO. But in return for that, that’s a big win for Putin. I’ll admit that you’re not supposed to say you give Putin big wins. That’s a big win for Putin. But there’s a bigger win for us.
The bigger win for us is I will require that Russia exit its military alliance with China. I will require that Russia remove its nuclear weapons from Kaliningrad, the strip of Russia that borders Poland. And I will require, pursuant to my modern Monroe Doctrine, that Russia remove its military presence in the Western Hemisphere. Not in Cuba, not in Venezuela, not in Nicaragua, you’re out. And in return, we will reopen economic relations with Russia, just as Nixon did with China. To recognize that do we trust Vladimir Putin? No, we don’t. Does Putin trust us? No, he does not.'
https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2023/08/vivek-ramaswamy-at-the-nixon-library/
Bonus 60: EMTALA, Abortion, and the Court
The justices will soon have to resolve if (and when) federal law allows emergency room doctors to perform otherwise unlawful abortions—with implications that could go well beyond reproductive rights
https://stevevladeck.substack.com/p/bonus-60-emtala-abortion-and-the
Putin demanded tractor production in Russia. Tractor production was announced. Published. Lauded.
Turned out to be final assembly of sub sections made in the Czech Republic IIRC. Not just parts but major assemblies. Basically no Russian content or work.
A few were made and then the project vanished.
You can be President of the USA and the most powerful man in the world if in jail of course, even if you can't be a Parish councillor in your local village. Clearly you are still suitable to have your finger on the nuclear button, even if not to decide the precise details of next summer's village fete.
(Though the SC may yet decide the 14th amendment prevents Trump being on the ballot, at present he can still run and be elected and serve as POTUS from jail)
@lawfare's Section 3 tracker has been updated.
Read the complaint and check the status of other Section 3 cases on our site:
https://twitter.com/AnnaBower/status/1743388892315754720
Court Hearing scheduled for 2025, the first available date in Northampton, so who will stop Zadrozny standing in 2024?
Agent Anderson probably now wishes that the Government had addressed the Court backlog 2 years ago when they already knew about it.
What else you got?
What part of the budget are you saying was thrown in the volcano to quell all markets angry at Truss?
Don’t ignore my politicalbetting tips of the strength of greens in these contstituencys, but do ignore everything about poo buses. I was told by a friend when on a bus that it’s a poo fuelled bus, but I can Google no evidence it was - or what they do when low fuel light is on. How can a bus run on human poo? It was likely a food waste bus instead.
https://resource.co/article/bio-methane-buses-rolled-out-across-bristol
Seemed to do the trick.
PLATO’S CAVE REGRETS TO INFORM YOU IT WILL BE RAISING ITS RENT
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/platos-cave-regrets-to-inform-you-it-will-be-raising-its-rent
We can rule out cutting what was left or Browns 2010 anti enterprise tax, because there was nothing wrong with cutting that. Borrowing costs were already trending historically up and not just in UK, and those costs under Truss already now exceeded by Sunak, so Truss can’t get any blame for those. The Sterling run came from Dollar strength and did not just scare UK those weeks so not 100% Truss budget fault. The budget itself, once fiscal drag properly worked put was only £13B net in giveaways, so couldn’t the scare the markets.
That Truss crashed anything is myth created by Labour and LibDem lies aided and abetted by Tory infighting and Sunak loyalists.
Ironically, the more Sunak loyalists repeat the myth the worse result Sunak gets at his general election.
To judge from that video, he thinks the film of him pushing the Montenegrin PM out of the way and then jutting his chin makes him look good. First time I've heard about him delivering his own grandchild.
Is that AOC in the Exorcist-like flash at 1:43?
But it’s a marginal benefit and not sufficient to offset the security benefits in my view
People feel better or worse depending on a range of factors. GDP is not necessarily one of them and it is entirely possible for people to feel worse even if the GDP rises. I'd argue that Net Household Income is more important and that is the metric we should be tracking, not GDP.