The Purge: Election Year – politicalbetting.com

System · May 29

The Purge: Election Year – politicalbetting.com

Is the Labour party right or wrong to ban Diane Abbott from standing as a candidate for the party?All BritonsRight: 37%Wrong: 21%2019 Labour votersRight: 28%Wrong: 36%https://t.co/GnvhNj9eVC pic.twitter.com/jLEOiMIRIJ

Read the full story here

Benpointer · May 29

First, like Labour

Benpointer · May 29

And second like the LibDems

BatteryCorrectHorse · May 29

PB wrong again. My instinct was that this would go down well.

SKS has played a blinder.

Benpointer · May 29

Benpointer said:
And second like the LibDems

Well, you never know - everyone has to have a dream.

ydoethur · May 29

It's not so much what he's doing. It's the way it's coming across that worries me. He seems to be rather confused and there's more than a whiff of conspiracy around both.

Does this matter in the case of Abbott or Russell Moyle? Probably not.

Does it leave question marks over Starmer's judgment? I would say it does.

Hopefully it will be nothing serious. But I'm also thinking a bit about that first crop of shadow ministers he appointed. That didn't display great judgement either.

And the first sign that Sunak wasn't all he was cracked up to be was his lousy cabinet appointments.

Scott_xP · May 29

@DeltapollUK

In our latest campaign update, @MatthewPrice01 argues that we should not expect the polls to narrow as a result of Rishi Sunak's announcement of the "Triple Lock Plus".

"Even among pensioners, pensions are not the priority."

https://x.com/DeltapollUK/status/1795912530721648715

kle4 · May 29

She's not really very popular, she's a holdover politician from a different age, and the public probably don't care about internal party ructions until it causes them problems. So really right or wrong a big shrug always seemed like the most likely reaction.

dixiedean · May 29

Nice adaptation of the Vince Cable (?) quote.

ThomasNashe · May 29

Starmer really is a total bastard, and I have to say I approve.

BatteryCorrectHorse · May 29

ydoethur said:
It's not so much what he's doing. It's the way it's coming across that worries me. He seems to be rather confused and there's more than a whiff of conspiracy around both.

Does this matter in the case of Abbott or Russell Moyle? Probably not.

Does it leave question marks over Starmer's judgment? I would say it does.

Hopefully it will be nothing serious. But I'm also thinking a bit about that first crop of shadow ministers he appointed. That didn't display great judgement either.

And the first sign that Sunak wasn't all he was cracked up to be was his lousy cabinet appointments.

What judgment? Would you have preferred him to act earlier, not act at all? What is the issue, I am a bit baffled?

Scott_xP · May 29

@siennamarla

Latest Labour selections confirmed tonight include lobby journalist Paul Waugh, Rachel Reeves aide Heather Iqbal, Labour Together director Josh Simons, Camden council leader Georgia Gould

Graham Jones is out, Sarah Smith in Hyndburn

@DPJHodges

“Barzini is dead. So is Phillip Tattaglia. Moe Greene. Stracci. Cuneo. Today I settled all family business…”

TheScreamingEagles · May 29

dixiedean said:
Nice adaptation of the Vince Cable (?) quote.

Yup it was Sir Vince.

dixiedean · May 29

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
PB wrong again. My instinct was that this would go down well.

SKS has played a blinder.

It's a bit like the National Service though.
It isn't gonna switch many votes amongst those who agree a little bit.
It will lose a fair few from those who feel very strongly about it.
However, this one probably won't be in many places which make a difference.

wooliedyed · May 29

@benpointer from previous re Sidmouth and Honiton
It's not as safe as the notionals (34th or so) as they include 11% for Claire Wright the Indy who is not standing (and backs LDs). If we redistribute her votes evenly it's about 100th safest. Still a very safe seat relatively speaking

Chameleon · May 29

Turns out purges can be both fun and useful when it's done against people you don't like. Good to see Labour taking out the rubbish.

Leon · May 29

Fpt because it’s important people like @bondegezou and @EPG aren’t allowed to get away with brazen lies about Covid origins

****

Completely wrong. The Wuhan CDC - which also housed bats as part of the overall experimentation - is just 3 minutes from the market. I have posted the map a trillion times. I’m not allowed to post it again because of the rules. Ask @rcs1000 - he disputed this and I showed him.

Try this tweet

“One of the earliest papers on Covid-19 out of China pointed out the Wuhan CDC was 911 feet from the market and right across the street from the hospital where many healthcare workers fell ill”

https://x.com/0ddette/status/1793652838641422672?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

Or try this. Look at the locations

https://x.com/ayjchan/status/1654218534640300032?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

https://x.com/scottburke777/status/1493682712510615552?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

The CDC was notoriously low level BSL2. It spent two years 2017-2019 moving to its new location right by the market. Ideal circs for a spillage

It kept bats

“The Wuhan CDC collected and housed many bats in collaboration with the WIV. It issued a contract for the disposal of 2 tons of hazardous medical waste generated in its labs in June 2019. This waste ‘has not been effectively treated from 1994 to 2019’, the announcement conceded.”

https://x.com/mattwridley/status/1630863112411783170?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

You’ve lost the argument. Its done. Yet you’re still trotting out these pathetic lies like no one can read or look at a map. It came from the lab

wooliedyed · May 29

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
PB wrong again. My instinct was that this would go down well.

SKS has played a blinder.

Not with Labour voters. Which is what matters . Nor remainers.
More popular with people who aren't voting Labour

Luckyguy1983 · May 29

BartholomewRoberts said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

theProle said:
I saw some posts this morning about the cost of electricity, and some people were trying to tell us that net zero was going to make electricity cheaper.

Co-incidentally, I spent a chunk of this afternoon trying to sort out the electricity contract for work this afternoon. Business electricity is not subject to price caps, so reflects the real costs (unlike domestic pricing). Our site uses about 92,000kwh a year. The electric unit price is similar to current domestic pricing - we're being offered day rates of about 23p/unit. However the standing charge for our site has gone from about £5/a day 5 years ago, and £20/day two years ago to £29/day now.
By the time you add the various other charges (eg 11p/kva capacity per day), the full cost for our site is about 35p/unit.

Where is all this extra money going one might ask? Basically businesses like us are funding all the net zero infrastructure costs.

I did the rough sums, if we bought a big diesel generator, binned off our electric connection and went "off-grid", we would save about £5k a year. Generating electricity with a piston engined diesel generator is a terribly inefficient way of producing electricity - if that's cheaper than supplying fairly large amounts of it to one physical location via an existing grid connection, whoever's running the grid have got it very, very wrong.

Now it may be that net zero is worth this expense; that's a political question, although dumping the costs on industry in such a way as to destroy our industrial base seems a particularly dumb way to fund it. But anybody who tells you renewable energy is cheap (i.e. our whole political class) is lying to you. Whilst the sun and wind are free, unfortunately the infrastructure to collect this "free" energy is very expensive.
An excellent post, and one that @BartholomewRoberts should read carefully before claiming to be a supporter both of the current direction of travel in the energy market and of free market principles.

I don't even support Net Zero, but the scenario that @Pagan2 is highly unlikely to be true, because diesel generators come with a massive bunch of compromises.

Firstly, does the generator support the peak load? It's easy to get one that will support your average electricity usage (and that's how people calculate things). But your average load might well be 30% of your maximum load. So to get it working, you may need to spend a lot, lot more than you thought on a generator.

Secondly, at a basic efficiency level, diesel generators are - what - c. 35% efficient. But when under load, that can easily drop to 25%. And then there's maintenance. There's regular thermal expansion and contraction, and there's going to be a lot of wear and tear.

Thirdly, there's hassle. You need to get the diesel to you, and you need to store it. And that is going to cost you both time and money.

If you assume that your only costs are fuel, and that your generator runs at optimal efficiency all the time, you *might* get to £5k/annual saving. But even that is slightly bullshit, because domestic electricity prices lag wholesale ones, while the cost of diesel moves very quickly in line with the world market. And that's before capital cost and maintenance. And you don't even get hot water as a byproduct.

Anyone who thinks they are going to save money by going off grid with a diesel generator is incapable of basic mathematics.
Well said, you responded to @Luckyguy1983 garbage I was tagged in before I had the chance to do so.

There is a reason that free market businesses around the country are going for electricity supplied to them rather than using diesel generators and its not a belief in net zero.

RCS picking holes in TheProle's argument that he could heat his workplace cheaper with a diesel generator misses the point of the argument. His point (and mine earlier today) is that forced decarbonisation and our current renewables are adding massively to the cost of energy, whilst its supporters are flapping their gums about how 'cheap' and even 'free' it is. How many other cheap and free things cost more than the expensive alternative?

ydoethur · May 29

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:
It's not so much what he's doing. It's the way it's coming across that worries me. He seems to be rather confused and there's more than a whiff of conspiracy around both.

Does this matter in the case of Abbott or Russell Moyle? Probably not.

Does it leave question marks over Starmer's judgment? I would say it does.

Hopefully it will be nothing serious. But I'm also thinking a bit about that first crop of shadow ministers he appointed. That didn't display great judgement either.

And the first sign that Sunak wasn't all he was cracked up to be was his lousy cabinet appointments.
What judgment? Would you have preferred him to act earlier, not act at all? What is the issue, I am a bit baffled?

If he's sitting on a report for six months, only to come to a decision now, which he botches, that's not great, is it?

In the case of Lloyd Russell Moyle, yes I can see why this has happened but we now have somebody forced out of a job because of an unproven allegation. I don't think you have to be an admirer of LRM to find that a bit worrying. There should have been workarounds otherwise it's an open invitation to vexatious complaints.

Remember, it's not how things look when they happen to people you dislike that's important - it's how they could be applied to anyone. Without wishing to be all Kantian about this, the implications of these sort of procedures applied across a governing party disturb me.

Benpointer · May 29

wooliedyed said:
@benpointer from previous re Sidmouth and Honiton
It's not as safe as the notionals (34th or so) as they include 11% for Claire Wright the Indy who is not standing (and backs LDs). If we redistribute her votes evenly it's about 100th safest. Still a very safe seat relatively speaking

Fair enough. It's Tory No1 on this list: https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/orderedseats.html

Luckyguy1983 · May 29

kle4 said:
She's not really very popular, she's a holdover politician from a different age, and the public probably don't care about internal party ructions until it causes them problems. So really right or wrong a big shrug always seemed like the most likely reaction.

I'm quite surprised so many have heard of her.

megasaur · May 29

ydoethur said:
It's not so much what he's doing. It's the way it's coming across that worries me. He seems to be rather confused and there's more than a whiff of conspiracy around both.

Does this matter in the case of Abbott or Russell Moyle? Probably not.

Does it leave question marks over Starmer's judgment? I would say it does.

Hopefully it will be nothing serious. But I'm also thinking a bit about that first crop of shadow ministers he appointed. That didn't display great judgement either.

And the first sign that Sunak wasn't all he was cracked up to be was his lousy cabinet appointments.

Starmer is a careerist pig. No question. His all singing all dancing prosecution reveal party about Huhne was entirely against the spirit, and very possibly letter, of criminal justice. But it raised his profile so that's fine.

Carnyx · May 29

Chameleon said:
Turns out purges can be both fun and useful when it's done against people you don't like. Good to see Labour taking out the rubbish.

Speaking more generally and not about you: striking that PBTories all of a sudden worried about Ms Abbott while regurgitating the old nonsense about Ms Rayner. When they've been badmouthing both of them for as long as these ladies have been in post.

Leon · May 29

Nighty night PB. Don’t let the bat soup bite

BatteryCorrectHorse · May 29

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:
It's not so much what he's doing. It's the way it's coming across that worries me. He seems to be rather confused and there's more than a whiff of conspiracy around both.

Does this matter in the case of Abbott or Russell Moyle? Probably not.

Does it leave question marks over Starmer's judgment? I would say it does.

Hopefully it will be nothing serious. But I'm also thinking a bit about that first crop of shadow ministers he appointed. That didn't display great judgement either.

And the first sign that Sunak wasn't all he was cracked up to be was his lousy cabinet appointments.
What judgment? Would you have preferred him to act earlier, not act at all? What is the issue, I am a bit baffled?
If he's sitting on a report for six months, only to come to a decision now, which he botches, that's not great, is it?

In the case of Lloyd Russell Moyle, yes I can see why this has happened but we now have somebody forced out of a job because of an allegation. I don't think you have to be an admirer of LRM to find that a bit worrying. There should have been workarounds otherwise it's an open invitation to vexatious complaints.

Remember, it's not how things look when they happen to people you dislike that's important - it's how they could be applied to anyone. Without wishing to be all Kantian about this, the implications of these sort of procedures applied across a governing party disturb me.

I believe in the case of Russel-Moyale, an allegation has been made and he's been suspended as a result. The same happened to a moderate MP in 2019. Personally I think it stinks - but the reality is that Labour has been doing this sort of factional behaviour for a while.

On Abbott, she should have been allowed to retire in peace and I am not totally clear why she hasn't been. But I do support her not being allowed to stand again because she is racist.

Benpointer · May 29

wooliedyed said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
PB wrong again. My instinct was that this would go down well.

SKS has played a blinder.
Not with Labour voters. Which is what matters . Nor remainers.
More popular with people who aren't voting Labour

You think? It's the PBTories who seem to be most agitated about it. Amazing how many have discovered a secret admiration for Abbott.

Andy_JS · May 29

Very confusing headlines.

https://www.itv.com/news

"Abbott: I won't be 'intimidated' after being 'banned from running'
Sir Keir Starmer has said Diane Abbott has not been barred from standing as a Labour MP at the General Election."

BatteryCorrectHorse · May 29

I genuinely think I was one of the only Abbott fans on here, until I did a bit of reading into what she's said where I concluded she's a racist and/or quite possibly has dementia.

wooliedyed · May 29

Benpointer said:

wooliedyed said:
@benpointer from previous re Sidmouth and Honiton
It's not as safe as the notionals (34th or so) as they include 11% for Claire Wright the Indy who is not standing (and backs LDs). If we redistribute her votes evenly it's about 100th safest. Still a very safe seat relatively speaking
Fair enough. It's Tory No1 on this list: https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/orderedseats.html

That list I think is ordered gap between Con Lab or vice versa, this seat is a Con LD fight

Benpointer · May 29

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:
It's not so much what he's doing. It's the way it's coming across that worries me. He seems to be rather confused and there's more than a whiff of conspiracy around both.

Does this matter in the case of Abbott or Russell Moyle? Probably not.

Does it leave question marks over Starmer's judgment? I would say it does.

Hopefully it will be nothing serious. But I'm also thinking a bit about that first crop of shadow ministers he appointed. That didn't display great judgement either.

And the first sign that Sunak wasn't all he was cracked up to be was his lousy cabinet appointments.
What judgment? Would you have preferred him to act earlier, not act at all? What is the issue, I am a bit baffled?
If he's sitting on a report for six months, only to come to a decision now, which he botches, that's not great, is it?

In the case of Lloyd Russell Moyle, yes I can see why this has happened but we now have somebody forced out of a job because of an allegation. I don't think you have to be an admirer of LRM to find that a bit worrying. There should have been workarounds otherwise it's an open invitation to vexatious complaints.

Remember, it's not how things look when they happen to people you dislike that's important - it's how they could be applied to anyone. Without wishing to be all Kantian about this, the implications of these sort of procedures applied across a governing party disturb me.
I believe in the case of Russel-Moyale, an allegation has been made and he's been suspended as a result. The same happened to a moderate MP in 2019. Personally I think it stinks - but the reality is that Labour has been doing this sort of factional behaviour for a while.

On Abbott, she should have been allowed to retire in peace and I am not totally clear why she hasn't been. But I do support her not being allowed to stand again because she is racist.

For Abbott to retire in peace, she'd need to agree to it. I suspect therein lies the reason why it's not happened.

Carnyx · May 29

Benpointer said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:
It's not so much what he's doing. It's the way it's coming across that worries me. He seems to be rather confused and there's more than a whiff of conspiracy around both.

Does this matter in the case of Abbott or Russell Moyle? Probably not.

Does it leave question marks over Starmer's judgment? I would say it does.

Hopefully it will be nothing serious. But I'm also thinking a bit about that first crop of shadow ministers he appointed. That didn't display great judgement either.

And the first sign that Sunak wasn't all he was cracked up to be was his lousy cabinet appointments.
What judgment? Would you have preferred him to act earlier, not act at all? What is the issue, I am a bit baffled?
If he's sitting on a report for six months, only to come to a decision now, which he botches, that's not great, is it?

In the case of Lloyd Russell Moyle, yes I can see why this has happened but we now have somebody forced out of a job because of an allegation. I don't think you have to be an admirer of LRM to find that a bit worrying. There should have been workarounds otherwise it's an open invitation to vexatious complaints.

Remember, it's not how things look when they happen to people you dislike that's important - it's how they could be applied to anyone. Without wishing to be all Kantian about this, the implications of these sort of procedures applied across a governing party disturb me.
I believe in the case of Russel-Moyale, an allegation has been made and he's been suspended as a result. The same happened to a moderate MP in 2019. Personally I think it stinks - but the reality is that Labour has been doing this sort of factional behaviour for a while.

On Abbott, she should have been allowed to retire in peace and I am not totally clear why she hasn't been. But I do support her not being allowed to stand again because she is racist.
For Abbott to retire in peace, she'd need to agree to it. I suspect therein lies the reason why it's not happened.

Nobody seems to have considered whether a place in the HoL is\ even in accord with her principles.

Chameleon · May 29

Carnyx said:

Chameleon said:
Turns out purges can be both fun and useful when it's done against people you don't like. Good to see Labour taking out the rubbish.
And PBTories all of a sudden worried about Ms Abbott while regurgitating the old nonsense about Ms Rayner. When they've been badmouthing both of them for as long as these ladies have been in post.

It's all a bit silly. She was a trailblazer, now she's a massive crank and a bigger liability. Gettign rid is the right move.

ydoethur · May 29

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:
It's not so much what he's doing. It's the way it's coming across that worries me. He seems to be rather confused and there's more than a whiff of conspiracy around both.

Does this matter in the case of Abbott or Russell Moyle? Probably not.

Does it leave question marks over Starmer's judgment? I would say it does.

Hopefully it will be nothing serious. But I'm also thinking a bit about that first crop of shadow ministers he appointed. That didn't display great judgement either.

And the first sign that Sunak wasn't all he was cracked up to be was his lousy cabinet appointments.
What judgment? Would you have preferred him to act earlier, not act at all? What is the issue, I am a bit baffled?
If he's sitting on a report for six months, only to come to a decision now, which he botches, that's not great, is it?

In the case of Lloyd Russell Moyle, yes I can see why this has happened but we now have somebody forced out of a job because of an allegation. I don't think you have to be an admirer of LRM to find that a bit worrying. There should have been workarounds otherwise it's an open invitation to vexatious complaints.

Remember, it's not how things look when they happen to people you dislike that's important - it's how they could be applied to anyone. Without wishing to be all Kantian about this, the implications of these sort of procedures applied across a governing party disturb me.
I believe in the case of Russel-Moyale, an allegation has been made and he's been suspended as a result. The same happened to a moderate MP in 2019. Personally I think it stinks - but the reality is that Labour has been doing this sort of factional behaviour for a while.

On Abbott, she should have been allowed to retire in peace and I am not totally clear why she hasn't been. But I do support her not being allowed to stand again because she is racist.

'It has happened before' isn't a great defence. In fact, arguably it makes it worse because that should have been flagged up as an issue and procedures changed as a result.

I doubt if it will make the slightest political difference but like VAT on private school fees (which is also unlikely to make any difference) it does for me raise some questions that I'm not liking the possible answers to.

Andy_JS · May 29

"Evening Standard to drop daily edition in favour of weekly newspaper

The publication said it has been making ‘substantial losses’ with its current operation, which has prompted the need for a change of direction."

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/business-news/evening-standard-to-drop-daily-edition-in-favour-of-weekly-newspaper-b1160845.html

BartholomewRoberts · May 29

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

theProle said:
I saw some posts this morning about the cost of electricity, and some people were trying to tell us that net zero was going to make electricity cheaper.

Co-incidentally, I spent a chunk of this afternoon trying to sort out the electricity contract for work this afternoon. Business electricity is not subject to price caps, so reflects the real costs (unlike domestic pricing). Our site uses about 92,000kwh a year. The electric unit price is similar to current domestic pricing - we're being offered day rates of about 23p/unit. However the standing charge for our site has gone from about £5/a day 5 years ago, and £20/day two years ago to £29/day now.
By the time you add the various other charges (eg 11p/kva capacity per day), the full cost for our site is about 35p/unit.

Where is all this extra money going one might ask? Basically businesses like us are funding all the net zero infrastructure costs.

I did the rough sums, if we bought a big diesel generator, binned off our electric connection and went "off-grid", we would save about £5k a year. Generating electricity with a piston engined diesel generator is a terribly inefficient way of producing electricity - if that's cheaper than supplying fairly large amounts of it to one physical location via an existing grid connection, whoever's running the grid have got it very, very wrong.

Now it may be that net zero is worth this expense; that's a political question, although dumping the costs on industry in such a way as to destroy our industrial base seems a particularly dumb way to fund it. But anybody who tells you renewable energy is cheap (i.e. our whole political class) is lying to you. Whilst the sun and wind are free, unfortunately the infrastructure to collect this "free" energy is very expensive.
An excellent post, and one that @BartholomewRoberts should read carefully before claiming to be a supporter both of the current direction of travel in the energy market and of free market principles.

I don't even support Net Zero, but the scenario that @Pagan2 is highly unlikely to be true, because diesel generators come with a massive bunch of compromises.

Firstly, does the generator support the peak load? It's easy to get one that will support your average electricity usage (and that's how people calculate things). But your average load might well be 30% of your maximum load. So to get it working, you may need to spend a lot, lot more than you thought on a generator.

Secondly, at a basic efficiency level, diesel generators are - what - c. 35% efficient. But when under load, that can easily drop to 25%. And then there's maintenance. There's regular thermal expansion and contraction, and there's going to be a lot of wear and tear.

Thirdly, there's hassle. You need to get the diesel to you, and you need to store it. And that is going to cost you both time and money.

If you assume that your only costs are fuel, and that your generator runs at optimal efficiency all the time, you *might* get to £5k/annual saving. But even that is slightly bullshit, because domestic electricity prices lag wholesale ones, while the cost of diesel moves very quickly in line with the world market. And that's before capital cost and maintenance. And you don't even get hot water as a byproduct.

Anyone who thinks they are going to save money by going off grid with a diesel generator is incapable of basic mathematics.
Well said, you responded to @Luckyguy1983 garbage I was tagged in before I had the chance to do so.

There is a reason that free market businesses around the country are going for electricity supplied to them rather than using diesel generators and its not a belief in net zero.
RCS picking holes in TheProle's argument that he could heat his workplace cheaper with a diesel generator misses the point of the argument. His point (and mine earlier today) is that forced decarbonisation and our current renewables are adding massively to the cost of energy, whilst its supporters are flapping their gums about how 'cheap' and even 'free' it is. How many other cheap and free things cost more than the expensive alternative?

Way to miss the wood for the trees.

The price has gone up because the price of gas has gone up, not because of decarbonisation.

If we hadn't decarbonised as much as we had, we'd be paying even more for gas now.

If we had decarbonised fully, we wouldn't be paying for gas at all.

wooliedyed · May 29

Luke Akehurst gets the gig in Pidcocks old haunt
Could not be more different

Carnyx · May 29

Chameleon said:

Carnyx said:

Chameleon said:
Turns out purges can be both fun and useful when it's done against people you don't like. Good to see Labour taking out the rubbish.
And PBTories all of a sudden worried about Ms Abbott while regurgitating the old nonsense about Ms Rayner. When they've been badmouthing both of them for as long as these ladies have been in post.
I haven't said anything about Rayner afaik! And given how I'm voting it'd be hard to describe me as a PB Tory - I'm 4 and a half years clean!

Not aimed at you at all, sorry - just a general remark about the situation, and the reaction to it. Apologies.

Edit: original post amended.

BatteryCorrectHorse · May 29

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:
It's not so much what he's doing. It's the way it's coming across that worries me. He seems to be rather confused and there's more than a whiff of conspiracy around both.

Does this matter in the case of Abbott or Russell Moyle? Probably not.

Does it leave question marks over Starmer's judgment? I would say it does.

Hopefully it will be nothing serious. But I'm also thinking a bit about that first crop of shadow ministers he appointed. That didn't display great judgement either.

And the first sign that Sunak wasn't all he was cracked up to be was his lousy cabinet appointments.
What judgment? Would you have preferred him to act earlier, not act at all? What is the issue, I am a bit baffled?
If he's sitting on a report for six months, only to come to a decision now, which he botches, that's not great, is it?

In the case of Lloyd Russell Moyle, yes I can see why this has happened but we now have somebody forced out of a job because of an allegation. I don't think you have to be an admirer of LRM to find that a bit worrying. There should have been workarounds otherwise it's an open invitation to vexatious complaints.

Remember, it's not how things look when they happen to people you dislike that's important - it's how they could be applied to anyone. Without wishing to be all Kantian about this, the implications of these sort of procedures applied across a governing party disturb me.
I believe in the case of Russel-Moyale, an allegation has been made and he's been suspended as a result. The same happened to a moderate MP in 2019. Personally I think it stinks - but the reality is that Labour has been doing this sort of factional behaviour for a while.

On Abbott, she should have been allowed to retire in peace and I am not totally clear why she hasn't been. But I do support her not being allowed to stand again because she is racist.
'It has happened before' isn't a great defence. In fact, arguably it makes it worse because that should have been flagged up as an issue and procedures changed as a result.

I doubt if it will make the slightest political difference but like VAT on private school fees (which is also unlikely to make any difference) it does for me raise some questions that I'm not liking the possible answers to.

I am not defending it, I think it's just as wrong as it was to the moderate MP in 2019. It happens to be good for Labour that Russel-Moyle is going because he's a nutjob. But I agree it's wrong he is.

wooliedyed · May 29

Benpointer said:

wooliedyed said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
PB wrong again. My instinct was that this would go down well.

SKS has played a blinder.
Not with Labour voters. Which is what matters . Nor remainers.
More popular with people who aren't voting Labour
You think? It's the PBTories who seem to be most agitated about it. Amazing how many have discovered a secret admiration for Abbott.

I'm referring to the results of the poll

rottenborough · May 29

@Tomorrow'sMPs
@tomorrowsmps
·
39m
🔴 NORTH DURHAM: Luke Akehurst picked as Lanour candidate.

ydoethur · May 29

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
I genuinely think I was one of the only Abbott fans on here, until I did a bit of reading into what she's said where I concluded she's a racist and/or quite possibly has dementia.

She is a diabetic who for various reasons has trouble controlling the condition leading to a number of episodes where she gets confused. That is not the same as dementia.

Of course she's a racist, and a hypocrite, and a horrible human being, but that isn't the point. The point is the whole affair has been bungled. It's ended up pissing off all sides, which is poor management.

I do not care about Diane Abbott, per se. I do care about whether my Prime Minister is a muppet. We've had three of those in the last five years and I was hoping for a change.

BatteryCorrectHorse · May 29

Chameleon said:

Carnyx said:

Chameleon said:
Turns out purges can be both fun and useful when it's done against people you don't like. Good to see Labour taking out the rubbish.
And PBTories all of a sudden worried about Ms Abbott while regurgitating the old nonsense about Ms Rayner. When they've been badmouthing both of them for as long as these ladies have been in post.
It's all a bit silly. She was a trailblazer, now she's a massive crank and a bigger liability. Gettign rid is the right move.

I do recall distinctly when some of us had posted before about her achievements and were told she was the reason so many were put off voting Labour. "She will destroy the Home Office", I can recall.

LostPassword · May 29

Benpointer said:

wooliedyed said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
PB wrong again. My instinct was that this would go down well.

SKS has played a blinder.
Not with Labour voters. Which is what matters . Nor remainers.
More popular with people who aren't voting Labour
You think? It's the PBTories who seem to be most agitated about it. Amazing how many have discovered a secret admiration for Abbott.

Obvs the PB Tories will prefer to talk about something negative for Labour, but if this had been handled better then they wouldn't have had any material to work with.

Same argument as applied to people complaining about the Tories sudden strong interest in combating anti-Semitism as a way of attacking Corbyn. They wouldn't have been able to do it if he hadn't provided them with the material.

BatteryCorrectHorse · May 29

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
I genuinely think I was one of the only Abbott fans on here, until I did a bit of reading into what she's said where I concluded she's a racist and/or quite possibly has dementia.
She is a diabetic who for various reasons has trouble controlling the condition leading to a number of episodes where she gets confused. That is not the same as dementia.

Of course she's a racist, and a hypocrite, and a horrible human being, but that isn't the point. The point is the whole affair has been bungled. It's ended up pissing off all sides, which is poor management.

I do not care about Diane Abbott, per se. I do care about whether my Prime Minister is a muppet. We've had three of those in the last five years and I was hoping for a change.

Again, I think the way they've handled it is wrong. She should have been sacked months ago for her behaviour. But as it is, they should have let her retire in peace.

BartholomewRoberts · May 29

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

theProle said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

theProle said:
I saw some posts this morning about the cost of electricity, and some people were trying to tell us that net zero was going to make electricity cheaper.

Co-incidentally, I spent a chunk of this afternoon trying to sort out the electricity contract for work this afternoon. Business electricity is not subject to price caps, so reflects the real costs (unlike domestic pricing). Our site uses about 92,000kwh a year. The electric unit price is similar to current domestic pricing - we're being offered day rates of about 23p/unit. However the standing charge for our site has gone from about £5/a day 5 years ago, and £20/day two years ago to £29/day now.
By the time you add the various other charges (eg 11p/kva capacity per day), the full cost for our site is about 35p/unit.

Where is all this extra money going one might ask? Basically businesses like us are funding all the net zero infrastructure costs.

I did the rough sums, if we bought a big diesel generator, binned off our electric connection and went "off-grid", we would save about £5k a year. Generating electricity with a piston engined diesel generator is a terribly inefficient way of producing electricity - if that's cheaper than supplying fairly large amounts of it to one physical location via an existing grid connection, whoever's running the grid have got it very, very wrong.

Now it may be that net zero is worth this expense; that's a political question, although dumping the costs on industry in such a way as to destroy our industrial base seems a particularly dumb way to fund it. But anybody who tells you renewable energy is cheap (i.e. our whole political class) is lying to you. Whilst the sun and wind are free, unfortunately the infrastructure to collect this "free" energy is very expensive.
An excellent post, and one that @BartholomewRoberts should read carefully before claiming to be a supporter both of the current direction of travel in the energy market and of free market principles.

I don't even support Net Zero, but the scenario that @Pagan2 is highly unlikely to be true, because diesel generators come with a massive bunch of compromises.

Firstly, does the generator support the peak load? It's easy to get one that will support your average electricity usage (and that's how people calculate things). But your average load might well be 30% of your maximum load. So to get it working, you may need to spend a lot, lot more than you thought on a generator.

Secondly, at a basic efficiency level, diesel generators are - what - c. 35% efficient. But when under load, that can easily drop to 25%. And then there's maintenance. There's regular thermal expansion and contraction, and there's going to be a lot of wear and tear.

Thirdly, there's hassle. You need to get the diesel to you, and you need to store it. And that is going to cost you both time and money.

If you assume that your only costs are fuel, and that your generator runs at optimal efficiency all the time, you *might* get to £5k/annual saving. But even that is slightly bullshit, because domestic electricity prices lag wholesale ones, while the cost of diesel moves very quickly in line with the world market. And that's before capital cost and maintenance. And you don't even get hot water as a byproduct.

Anyone who thinks they are going to save money by going off grid with a diesel generator is incapable of basic mathematics.
I wasn't suggesting I would actually go and buy us a diesel generator; as you point out, there are various irritations like having to take it offline to service it, and also a bit of capex cost (although tbh, I could find one secondhand that would do our peak load for about £10k - servicing would be under £1k/year, so we'd be ahead by year 3). I sadly don't have any real use for several megawatts worth of hot water a year (you do get free heat out of a diesel, exactly the same as a gas engine, just stick a flat plate heat exchanger in the coolant return between the engine and the cooler group, and help yourself), if I did it would be quite economic!

My point was more that there should be massive economies of scale in generating electricity at grid level and supplying it to industry as required. Apart from anything else, powerstation gas turbines are a lot more efficient than relatively small diesel piston engines.

10 years ago, I'm fairly confident that running my own genset would have been significantly more expensive than a mains electric connection. The fact that it's now even remotely competitive is a massive red flag that our net zero policies are costing us an awful lot of money, mostly by slight of hand, and proof that all the politicians lining up to say that renewables are saving us money are lying to us.
The fact that its even remotely competitive is because gas prices have shot up and we're using gas so that's what you're paying for. Its got nothing to do with net zero policies.

Had we got a net zero power supply before this crisis began then our prices would have remained stable rather than shooting up when gas became expensive.
I know of a manufacturing company with a bit of a problem expanding because the grid is at capacity on the edge of the small city where they're located. The company has recently invested in solar panels for the roofs of its factories, but it's own diesel generation is not even on the radar.

Yes, completely understandable.

Any party that is serious about improving our energy situation, improving the grid must be pretty close to the top of the priority list.

BatteryCorrectHorse · May 29

“It’s a true honour to have been selected as Labour’s Parliamentary candidate for my home town.

"Rochdale desperately needs a Labour government and a Labour MP to end 14 years of Tory chaos and decline.

"We need an MP who can unite the town, and who reflects the basic decency and local pride that all us Rochdalians share.

"Labour is back in the service of working people. And I'll do everything in my power to ensure that Rochdale gets an NHS back on its feet and the economic renewal its residents deserve.”

https://x.com/paulwaugh/status/1795890996791693398

Benpointer · May 29

Carnyx said:

Benpointer said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:
It's not so much what he's doing. It's the way it's coming across that worries me. He seems to be rather confused and there's more than a whiff of conspiracy around both.

Does this matter in the case of Abbott or Russell Moyle? Probably not.

Does it leave question marks over Starmer's judgment? I would say it does.

Hopefully it will be nothing serious. But I'm also thinking a bit about that first crop of shadow ministers he appointed. That didn't display great judgement either.

And the first sign that Sunak wasn't all he was cracked up to be was his lousy cabinet appointments.
What judgment? Would you have preferred him to act earlier, not act at all? What is the issue, I am a bit baffled?
If he's sitting on a report for six months, only to come to a decision now, which he botches, that's not great, is it?

In the case of Lloyd Russell Moyle, yes I can see why this has happened but we now have somebody forced out of a job because of an allegation. I don't think you have to be an admirer of LRM to find that a bit worrying. There should have been workarounds otherwise it's an open invitation to vexatious complaints.

Remember, it's not how things look when they happen to people you dislike that's important - it's how they could be applied to anyone. Without wishing to be all Kantian about this, the implications of these sort of procedures applied across a governing party disturb me.
I believe in the case of Russel-Moyale, an allegation has been made and he's been suspended as a result. The same happened to a moderate MP in 2019. Personally I think it stinks - but the reality is that Labour has been doing this sort of factional behaviour for a while.

On Abbott, she should have been allowed to retire in peace and I am not totally clear why she hasn't been. But I do support her not being allowed to stand again because she is racist.
For Abbott to retire in peace, she'd need to agree to it. I suspect therein lies the reason why it's not happened.
Nobody seems to have considered whether a place in the HoL is\ even in accord with her principles.

It is possible to retire without a place in the HoL. I know, I've done it.

geoffw · May 29

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:
It's not so much what he's doing. It's the way it's coming across that worries me. He seems to be rather confused and there's more than a whiff of conspiracy around both.

Does this matter in the case of Abbott or Russell Moyle? Probably not.

Does it leave question marks over Starmer's judgment? I would say it does.

Hopefully it will be nothing serious. But I'm also thinking a bit about that first crop of shadow ministers he appointed. That didn't display great judgement either.

And the first sign that Sunak wasn't all he was cracked up to be was his lousy cabinet appointments.
What judgment? Would you have preferred him to act earlier, not act at all? What is the issue, I am a bit baffled?
If he's sitting on a report for six months, only to come to a decision now, which he botches, that's not great, is it?

In the case of Lloyd Russell Moyle, yes I can see why this has happened but we now have somebody forced out of a job because of an allegation. I don't think you have to be an admirer of LRM to find that a bit worrying. There should have been workarounds otherwise it's an open invitation to vexatious complaints.

Remember, it's not how things look when they happen to people you dislike that's important - it's how they could be applied to anyone. Without wishing to be all Kantian about this, the implications of these sort of procedures applied across a governing party disturb me.
I believe in the case of Russel-Moyale, an allegation has been made and he's been suspended as a result. The same happened to a moderate MP in 2019. Personally I think it stinks - but the reality is that Labour has been doing this sort of factional behaviour for a while.

On Abbott, she should have been allowed to retire in peace and I am not totally clear why she hasn't been. But I do support her not being allowed to stand again because she is racist.
'It has happened before' isn't a great defence. In fact, arguably it makes it worse because that should have been flagged up as an issue and procedures changed as a result.

I doubt if it will make the slightest political difference but like VAT on private school fees (which is also unlikely to make any difference) it does for me raise some questions that I'm not liking the possible answers to.
I am not defending it, I think it's just as wrong as it was to the moderate MP in 2019. It happens to be good for Labour that Russel-Moyle is going because he's a nutjob. But I agree it's wrong he is.

Was the "allegation" kept for 8 months for an opportune moment? And if so, by whom?

rcs1000 · May 29

Leon said:

geoffw said:

Leon said:

rfry said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

bondegezou said:

rcs1000 said:

bondegezou said:

DM_Andy said:

bondegezou said:

DM_Andy said:

bondegezou said:

Sandpit said:

Gardenwalker said:

Sandpit said:

DM_Andy said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

Taz said:

williamglenn said:
Jess Phillips calls for Truss to be deselected.

https://x.com/jessphillips/status/1795744506664689920
File under "who gives a shit"
Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.

Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.

It seems pretty reasonable to me that Jess Phillips should have strong opinions about a senior politician who hangs out with someone who has repeatedly talked about raping her.

From the quote in the latter, it appears that the gentleman in question was talking about not raping her.
I'll quote the double down.
“There’s been an awful lot of talk about whether I would or wouldn’t rape Jess Phillips. I suppose with enough pressure I might cave, but let’s be honest nobody’s got that much beer.”

And really if anyone's going to be talking about attractiveness, it's not like Carl Benjamin is an Adonis.

It’s a joke, not a rape threat. That was my point. Perhaps in poor taste, but a joke nonetheless.

Also, as I suspected, the quotes were from several years ago and not recent. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ukip-mep-candidate-says-carl-benjamin-jokes-about-raping-mp-jess-philips-were-risque-155248927.html

Truss is out to get Reform supporters voting Conservitive in the “Red Wall” seats, so why wouldn’t she appear on a podcast with 400k Youtube subscribers? It’s only the left who have this obsession with “sharing a platform”.
By all means Truss is free to share a platform with various alt-right figures who joke about raping MPs.

And we are free to form an opinion of what kind of person that makes her.
The quotes where from 2018, and as I said above, 2018 “Sargon of Akkad” is a very different person from 2022 Carl Benjamin, who’s no more controversial today than GB News, and has 400k followers on Youtube.

Should people not be allowed to be rehabilitated into society?
From Wikipedia: “In February 2020, Benjamin launched the group Hearts of Oak with British far-right activist Tommy Robinson”.

The Hearts of Oak website still includes him: https://heartsofoak.org/guests/carl-benjamin/

Here he is a few months ago at a Hearts of Oak event with another conspiracy theorist, Andrew Bridgen: https://youtu.be/SsRayGgi_4Y

Why, Sandpit, are you watching the output of far right conspiracy theorists?
I listen to his videos sometimes, usually at double speed because he takes forever to get to his point. That's why I know that Carl now is the same guy as Carl in 2019. I listen to The Quartering and Knights Watch too but mainly for unintended entertainment.
Why? Do you agree with Tommy Robinson and Andrew Bridgen as well?
No but I don't think that jamming my fingers into my ears helps my understanding of the world. Speaking of Bridgen, there is a funny one on Bridgen and his list of 'world experts' https://youtu.be/U1mHK7gBryM
You yourself said that “180 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube every minute.” But you have gone out of your way to listen to his videos. That’s not not jamming your fingers in your ears.

Unless you are specifically doing a study of far right social media figures, I do not understand what you get out of listening to far right conspiracy theorists.
If you want to understand why people think a certain way, it helps to understand them, don't you think?
Yes, it does. I have found, personally, that it doesn’t take very long to get the measure of far right conspiracy theorists, and they’re all much of a muchness. I’ve also found that you don’t need to wade through the sewage they spew to understand them: you can read the analysis of those who have done that previously. It’s quicker and less unpleasant.

I have, however, for the purposes of research on this topic, just listened to a very recent 11-minute video by Carl Benjamin on Twitter where he outlines his political agenda. It’s full of talk of people of “foreign stock”, and the value of “traditional roles” for men and women. He explains how, “An evil will has taken control of the educational system”. His Twitter feed also had lots of retweets of Tommy Robinson as they’re at an event in London together in a few days time. It all confirms to me that he is a far right conspiracy theorist.
So, you did indeed benefit from watching it, as you are now rather better informed. (Of his views, obviously.)

I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I've never heard of him.

I dislike the phrase conspiracy theorist. It's for dullards. Conspiracies happen sometimes. One assumes people who like to call other people conspiracy theorist don't actually deny the notion of conspiracy itself. Therefore 'conspiracy theorist' as a value judgement makes no sense. It's like insulting someone by calling them 'a person who thinks it's another person's birthday'. A birthday believer. Or a person who thinks it's Friday. A friday freak. Sometimes it is Friday. Sometimes it's someone else's birthday.
Indeed the covid lab leak theory was initially denounced as a conspiracy theory.
Not just that. The lab leak hypothesis was a “racist conspiracy theory” and the scientific powers-that-be managed to silence it for a year on TwiX and Facebook. You literally weren’t allowed to talk about it, like we were all Galileo trying to push heliocentrism
Does anyone nowadays not think it came from the lab?

@bondegezou and maybe @turbotubbs (tho the latter at least admits doubts)

Otherwise no. No one on earth now believes it came from the market. That includes the US government (democrats as well as republicans) who are now firmly gunning for Ecohealth and Peter Daszak who likely made the virus in the Wuhan lab with US money

I believe it came from the market.

It just probably came from the lab to the market. Perhaps some janitor on 50cents an hour grabbed some bats to sell at the wet market.

Or perhaps it was another animal in a container on the plane next to a bat that was being sent to Wuhan. The bat went to the Wuhan institute of virology, while the armadillo (or whatever) ended up at the wet market.

Or perhaps a lab worker got bit by a bat, developed a snuffle, and then did his evening's shopping at the market.

The idea that the two theories are mutually incompatible exists only in the mind of the mentally subnormal.

bondegezou · May 29

BartholomewRoberts said:

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

theProle said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

theProle said:
I saw some posts this morning about the cost of electricity, and some people were trying to tell us that net zero was going to make electricity cheaper.

Co-incidentally, I spent a chunk of this afternoon trying to sort out the electricity contract for work this afternoon. Business electricity is not subject to price caps, so reflects the real costs (unlike domestic pricing). Our site uses about 92,000kwh a year. The electric unit price is similar to current domestic pricing - we're being offered day rates of about 23p/unit. However the standing charge for our site has gone from about £5/a day 5 years ago, and £20/day two years ago to £29/day now.
By the time you add the various other charges (eg 11p/kva capacity per day), the full cost for our site is about 35p/unit.

Where is all this extra money going one might ask? Basically businesses like us are funding all the net zero infrastructure costs.

I did the rough sums, if we bought a big diesel generator, binned off our electric connection and went "off-grid", we would save about £5k a year. Generating electricity with a piston engined diesel generator is a terribly inefficient way of producing electricity - if that's cheaper than supplying fairly large amounts of it to one physical location via an existing grid connection, whoever's running the grid have got it very, very wrong.

Now it may be that net zero is worth this expense; that's a political question, although dumping the costs on industry in such a way as to destroy our industrial base seems a particularly dumb way to fund it. But anybody who tells you renewable energy is cheap (i.e. our whole political class) is lying to you. Whilst the sun and wind are free, unfortunately the infrastructure to collect this "free" energy is very expensive.
An excellent post, and one that @BartholomewRoberts should read carefully before claiming to be a supporter both of the current direction of travel in the energy market and of free market principles.

I don't even support Net Zero, but the scenario that @Pagan2 is highly unlikely to be true, because diesel generators come with a massive bunch of compromises.

Firstly, does the generator support the peak load? It's easy to get one that will support your average electricity usage (and that's how people calculate things). But your average load might well be 30% of your maximum load. So to get it working, you may need to spend a lot, lot more than you thought on a generator.

Secondly, at a basic efficiency level, diesel generators are - what - c. 35% efficient. But when under load, that can easily drop to 25%. And then there's maintenance. There's regular thermal expansion and contraction, and there's going to be a lot of wear and tear.

Thirdly, there's hassle. You need to get the diesel to you, and you need to store it. And that is going to cost you both time and money.

If you assume that your only costs are fuel, and that your generator runs at optimal efficiency all the time, you *might* get to £5k/annual saving. But even that is slightly bullshit, because domestic electricity prices lag wholesale ones, while the cost of diesel moves very quickly in line with the world market. And that's before capital cost and maintenance. And you don't even get hot water as a byproduct.

Anyone who thinks they are going to save money by going off grid with a diesel generator is incapable of basic mathematics.
I wasn't suggesting I would actually go and buy us a diesel generator; as you point out, there are various irritations like having to take it offline to service it, and also a bit of capex cost (although tbh, I could find one secondhand that would do our peak load for about £10k - servicing would be under £1k/year, so we'd be ahead by year 3). I sadly don't have any real use for several megawatts worth of hot water a year (you do get free heat out of a diesel, exactly the same as a gas engine, just stick a flat plate heat exchanger in the coolant return between the engine and the cooler group, and help yourself), if I did it would be quite economic!

My point was more that there should be massive economies of scale in generating electricity at grid level and supplying it to industry as required. Apart from anything else, powerstation gas turbines are a lot more efficient than relatively small diesel piston engines.

10 years ago, I'm fairly confident that running my own genset would have been significantly more expensive than a mains electric connection. The fact that it's now even remotely competitive is a massive red flag that our net zero policies are costing us an awful lot of money, mostly by slight of hand, and proof that all the politicians lining up to say that renewables are saving us money are lying to us.
The fact that its even remotely competitive is because gas prices have shot up and we're using gas so that's what you're paying for. Its got nothing to do with net zero policies.

Had we got a net zero power supply before this crisis began then our prices would have remained stable rather than shooting up when gas became expensive.
I know of a manufacturing company with a bit of a problem expanding because the grid is at capacity on the edge of the small city where they're located. The company has recently invested in solar panels for the roofs of its factories, but it's own diesel generation is not even on the radar.
Yes, completely understandable.

Any party that is serious about improving our energy situation, improving the grid must be pretty close to the top of the priority list.

Invest in infrastructure? In this country?

EPG · May 29

Leon said:
Fpt because it’s important people like @bondegezou and @EPG aren’t allowed to get away with brazen lies about Covid origins

****

Completely wrong. The Wuhan CDC - which also housed bats as part of the overall experimentation - is just 3 minutes from the market. I have posted the map a trillion times. I’m not allowed to post it again because of the rules. Ask @rcs1000 - he disputed this and I showed him.

Try this tweet

“One of the earliest papers on Covid-19 out of China pointed out the Wuhan CDC was 911 feet from the market and right across the street from the hospital where many healthcare workers fell ill”

https://x.com/0ddette/status/1793652838641422672?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

Or try this. Look at the locations

https://x.com/ayjchan/status/1654218534640300032?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

https://x.com/scottburke777/status/1493682712510615552?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

The CDC was notoriously low level BSL2. It spent two years 2017-2019 moving to its new location right by the market. Ideal circs for a spillage

It kept bats

“The Wuhan CDC collected and housed many bats in collaboration with the WIV. It issued a contract for the disposal of 2 tons of hazardous medical waste generated in its labs in June 2019. This waste ‘has not been effectively treated from 1994 to 2019’, the announcement conceded.”

https://x.com/mattwridley/status/1630863112411783170?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

You’ve lost the argument. Its done. Yet you’re still trotting out these pathetic lies like no one can read or look at a map. It came from the lab

You've been triggered enough to drag it fpt and flounce?

The scenario is now: (a) they designed it in lab 1, and destroyed all evidence; (b) they moved the gain-of-function virus to lab 2, which didn't do gain of function research, and also destroyed all evidence; (c) it leaked to and only to the wet market, where it spread in a manner consistent with animal-to-human transmission. The evidence is also not offered that Wuhan CDC housed bats or 1994-2019 medical waste in its new location, which it finally moved to in December 2019.

ydoethur · May 29

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
I genuinely think I was one of the only Abbott fans on here, until I did a bit of reading into what she's said where I concluded she's a racist and/or quite possibly has dementia.
She is a diabetic who for various reasons has trouble controlling the condition leading to a number of episodes where she gets confused. That is not the same as dementia.

Of course she's a racist, and a hypocrite, and a horrible human being, but that isn't the point. The point is the whole affair has been bungled. It's ended up pissing off all sides, which is poor management.

I do not care about Diane Abbott, per se. I do care about whether my Prime Minister is a muppet. We've had three of those in the last five years and I was hoping for a change.
Again, I think the way they've handled it is wrong. She should have been sacked months ago for her behaviour. But as it is, they should have let her retire in peace.

It sounds as though you and I are in agreement that this has been bungled, but we're drawing different conclusions from it.

You think it's bad but not important because only dud MPs are affected.

I think it's bad and possibly important because of the query it raises over Starmer's leadership skills.

Carnyx · May 29

BartholomewRoberts said:

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

theProle said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

theProle said:
I saw some posts this morning about the cost of electricity, and some people were trying to tell us that net zero was going to make electricity cheaper.

Co-incidentally, I spent a chunk of this afternoon trying to sort out the electricity contract for work this afternoon. Business electricity is not subject to price caps, so reflects the real costs (unlike domestic pricing). Our site uses about 92,000kwh a year. The electric unit price is similar to current domestic pricing - we're being offered day rates of about 23p/unit. However the standing charge for our site has gone from about £5/a day 5 years ago, and £20/day two years ago to £29/day now.
By the time you add the various other charges (eg 11p/kva capacity per day), the full cost for our site is about 35p/unit.

Where is all this extra money going one might ask? Basically businesses like us are funding all the net zero infrastructure costs.

I did the rough sums, if we bought a big diesel generator, binned off our electric connection and went "off-grid", we would save about £5k a year. Generating electricity with a piston engined diesel generator is a terribly inefficient way of producing electricity - if that's cheaper than supplying fairly large amounts of it to one physical location via an existing grid connection, whoever's running the grid have got it very, very wrong.

Now it may be that net zero is worth this expense; that's a political question, although dumping the costs on industry in such a way as to destroy our industrial base seems a particularly dumb way to fund it. But anybody who tells you renewable energy is cheap (i.e. our whole political class) is lying to you. Whilst the sun and wind are free, unfortunately the infrastructure to collect this "free" energy is very expensive.
An excellent post, and one that @BartholomewRoberts should read carefully before claiming to be a supporter both of the current direction of travel in the energy market and of free market principles.

I don't even support Net Zero, but the scenario that @Pagan2 is highly unlikely to be true, because diesel generators come with a massive bunch of compromises.

Firstly, does the generator support the peak load? It's easy to get one that will support your average electricity usage (and that's how people calculate things). But your average load might well be 30% of your maximum load. So to get it working, you may need to spend a lot, lot more than you thought on a generator.

Secondly, at a basic efficiency level, diesel generators are - what - c. 35% efficient. But when under load, that can easily drop to 25%. And then there's maintenance. There's regular thermal expansion and contraction, and there's going to be a lot of wear and tear.

Thirdly, there's hassle. You need to get the diesel to you, and you need to store it. And that is going to cost you both time and money.

If you assume that your only costs are fuel, and that your generator runs at optimal efficiency all the time, you *might* get to £5k/annual saving. But even that is slightly bullshit, because domestic electricity prices lag wholesale ones, while the cost of diesel moves very quickly in line with the world market. And that's before capital cost and maintenance. And you don't even get hot water as a byproduct.

Anyone who thinks they are going to save money by going off grid with a diesel generator is incapable of basic mathematics.
I wasn't suggesting I would actually go and buy us a diesel generator; as you point out, there are various irritations like having to take it offline to service it, and also a bit of capex cost (although tbh, I could find one secondhand that would do our peak load for about £10k - servicing would be under £1k/year, so we'd be ahead by year 3). I sadly don't have any real use for several megawatts worth of hot water a year (you do get free heat out of a diesel, exactly the same as a gas engine, just stick a flat plate heat exchanger in the coolant return between the engine and the cooler group, and help yourself), if I did it would be quite economic!

My point was more that there should be massive economies of scale in generating electricity at grid level and supplying it to industry as required. Apart from anything else, powerstation gas turbines are a lot more efficient than relatively small diesel piston engines.

10 years ago, I'm fairly confident that running my own genset would have been significantly more expensive than a mains electric connection. The fact that it's now even remotely competitive is a massive red flag that our net zero policies are costing us an awful lot of money, mostly by slight of hand, and proof that all the politicians lining up to say that renewables are saving us money are lying to us.
The fact that its even remotely competitive is because gas prices have shot up and we're using gas so that's what you're paying for. Its got nothing to do with net zero policies.

Had we got a net zero power supply before this crisis began then our prices would have remained stable rather than shooting up when gas became expensive.
I know of a manufacturing company with a bit of a problem expanding because the grid is at capacity on the edge of the small city where they're located. The company has recently invested in solar panels for the roofs of its factories, but it's own diesel generation is not even on the radar.
Yes, completely understandable.

Any party that is serious about improving our energy situation, improving the grid must be pretty close to the top of the priority list.

I see that National Grid has put out a share offer to shareholders to raise capital for investment in such things as the new north-south linky things.

eek · May 29

geoffw said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:
It's not so much what he's doing. It's the way it's coming across that worries me. He seems to be rather confused and there's more than a whiff of conspiracy around both.

Does this matter in the case of Abbott or Russell Moyle? Probably not.

Does it leave question marks over Starmer's judgment? I would say it does.

Hopefully it will be nothing serious. But I'm also thinking a bit about that first crop of shadow ministers he appointed. That didn't display great judgement either.

And the first sign that Sunak wasn't all he was cracked up to be was his lousy cabinet appointments.
What judgment? Would you have preferred him to act earlier, not act at all? What is the issue, I am a bit baffled?
If he's sitting on a report for six months, only to come to a decision now, which he botches, that's not great, is it?

In the case of Lloyd Russell Moyle, yes I can see why this has happened but we now have somebody forced out of a job because of an allegation. I don't think you have to be an admirer of LRM to find that a bit worrying. There should have been workarounds otherwise it's an open invitation to vexatious complaints.

Remember, it's not how things look when they happen to people you dislike that's important - it's how they could be applied to anyone. Without wishing to be all Kantian about this, the implications of these sort of procedures applied across a governing party disturb me.
I believe in the case of Russel-Moyale, an allegation has been made and he's been suspended as a result. The same happened to a moderate MP in 2019. Personally I think it stinks - but the reality is that Labour has been doing this sort of factional behaviour for a while.

On Abbott, she should have been allowed to retire in peace and I am not totally clear why she hasn't been. But I do support her not being allowed to stand again because she is racist.
'It has happened before' isn't a great defence. In fact, arguably it makes it worse because that should have been flagged up as an issue and procedures changed as a result.

I doubt if it will make the slightest political difference but like VAT on private school fees (which is also unlikely to make any difference) it does for me raise some questions that I'm not liking the possible answers to.
I am not defending it, I think it's just as wrong as it was to the moderate MP in 2019. It happens to be good for Labour that Russel-Moyle is going because he's a nutjob. But I agree it's wrong he is.
Was the "allegation" kept for 8 months for an opportune moment? And if so, by whom?

8 years not 8 months...

megasaur · May 29

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
I genuinely think I was one of the only Abbott fans on here, until I did a bit of reading into what she's said where I concluded she's a racist and/or quite possibly has dementia.
She is a diabetic who for various reasons has trouble controlling the condition leading to a number of episodes where she gets confused. That is not the same as dementia.

Of course she's a racist, and a hypocrite, and a horrible human being, but that isn't the point. The point is the whole affair has been bungled. It's ended up pissing off all sides, which is poor management.

I do not care about Diane Abbott, per se. I do care about whether my Prime Minister is a muppet. We've had three of those in the last five years and I was hoping for a change.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8901060/labour-diane-abbott-drinking-on-train-illegal/

I am an enthusiastic supporter of the brewing, distilling and vintner industries but even I don't drink tinned cocktails on the tube at lunch time

AramintaMoonbeamQC · May 29

wooliedyed said:
Luke Akehurst gets the gig in Pidcocks old haunt
Could not be more different

That is extremely amusing.

Chameleon · May 29

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
I genuinely think I was one of the only Abbott fans on here, until I did a bit of reading into what she's said where I concluded she's a racist and/or quite possibly has dementia.
She is a diabetic who for various reasons has trouble controlling the condition leading to a number of episodes where she gets confused. That is not the same as dementia.

Of course she's a racist, and a hypocrite, and a horrible human being, but that isn't the point. The point is the whole affair has been bungled. It's ended up pissing off all sides, which is poor management.

I do not care about Diane Abbott, per se. I do care about whether my Prime Minister is a muppet. We've had three of those in the last five years and I was hoping for a change.
Again, I think the way they've handled it is wrong. She should have been sacked months ago for her behaviour. But as it is, they should have let her retire in peace.

The real issue is the 22 year olds in LotOs office have to tell their rah mates from Eton & Winchers all the big goss asap. It seems like the plan was to re-admit her and let her announce that she was standing down before it immediately got leaked.

BatteryCorrectHorse · May 29

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
I genuinely think I was one of the only Abbott fans on here, until I did a bit of reading into what she's said where I concluded she's a racist and/or quite possibly has dementia.
She is a diabetic who for various reasons has trouble controlling the condition leading to a number of episodes where she gets confused. That is not the same as dementia.

Of course she's a racist, and a hypocrite, and a horrible human being, but that isn't the point. The point is the whole affair has been bungled. It's ended up pissing off all sides, which is poor management.

I do not care about Diane Abbott, per se. I do care about whether my Prime Minister is a muppet. We've had three of those in the last five years and I was hoping for a change.
Again, I think the way they've handled it is wrong. She should have been sacked months ago for her behaviour. But as it is, they should have let her retire in peace.
It sounds as though you and I are in agreement that this has been bungled, but we're drawing different conclusions from it.

You think it's bad but not important because only dud MPs are affected.

I think it's bad and possibly important because of the query it raises over Starmer's leadership skills.

I think it's bad because it's bad. I don't think Starmer has bungled it, I think he's been quite deliberate in sitting on it to have Abbott removed, which to me is ruthless but I also don't agree with it. As I said, I'd just have let her retire in peace.

I don't like factionalism in Labour.

wooliedyed · May 29

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Chameleon said:

Carnyx said:

Chameleon said:
Turns out purges can be both fun and useful when it's done against people you don't like. Good to see Labour taking out the rubbish.
And PBTories all of a sudden worried about Ms Abbott while regurgitating the old nonsense about Ms Rayner. When they've been badmouthing both of them for as long as these ladies have been in post.
It's all a bit silly. She was a trailblazer, now she's a massive crank and a bigger liability. Gettign rid is the right move.
I do recall distinctly when some of us had posted before about her achievements and were told she was the reason so many were put off voting Labour. "She will destroy the Home Office", I can recall.

I think the difference is now not that people have discovered an admiration for her but some (I am one of those) thoroughly enjoy things that make life more difficult for Labour. I also enjoy Sunaks desperare comedy policy blitzes, Ed Daveys Norman Wisdom tribute act and Farage being an objectionable arsehole.
UK politics is in the toilet, may they all suffer humiliation

Carnyx · May 29

Farooq said:

Carnyx said:

Benpointer said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:
It's not so much what he's doing. It's the way it's coming across that worries me. He seems to be rather confused and there's more than a whiff of conspiracy around both.

Does this matter in the case of Abbott or Russell Moyle? Probably not.

Does it leave question marks over Starmer's judgment? I would say it does.

Hopefully it will be nothing serious. But I'm also thinking a bit about that first crop of shadow ministers he appointed. That didn't display great judgement either.

And the first sign that Sunak wasn't all he was cracked up to be was his lousy cabinet appointments.
What judgment? Would you have preferred him to act earlier, not act at all? What is the issue, I am a bit baffled?
If he's sitting on a report for six months, only to come to a decision now, which he botches, that's not great, is it?

In the case of Lloyd Russell Moyle, yes I can see why this has happened but we now have somebody forced out of a job because of an allegation. I don't think you have to be an admirer of LRM to find that a bit worrying. There should have been workarounds otherwise it's an open invitation to vexatious complaints.

Remember, it's not how things look when they happen to people you dislike that's important - it's how they could be applied to anyone. Without wishing to be all Kantian about this, the implications of these sort of procedures applied across a governing party disturb me.
I believe in the case of Russel-Moyale, an allegation has been made and he's been suspended as a result. The same happened to a moderate MP in 2019. Personally I think it stinks - but the reality is that Labour has been doing this sort of factional behaviour for a while.

On Abbott, she should have been allowed to retire in peace and I am not totally clear why she hasn't been. But I do support her not being allowed to stand again because she is racist.
For Abbott to retire in peace, she'd need to agree to it. I suspect therein lies the reason why it's not happened.
Nobody seems to have considered whether a place in the HoL is\ even in accord with her principles.
It crossed my mind, but I didn't mention it because it's tricky with the Labour types. They can be dead against it but then one day they feel the soft brush of ermine on their skin and oops I'm suddenly Lord thing or Lady that

It's also tricky with the PBTory types, too. One never knows if it's good or bad that Labour folk are following Tory models.

rottenborough · May 29

wooliedyed said:
Luke Akehurst gets the gig in Pidcocks old haunt
Could not be more different

Old Momentum crowd taking it well...

Aaron Bastani
@AaronBastani
·
40m
Labour’s NEC aren’t just imposing candidates. Labour’s NEC ARE the candidates.

In this case, this man - Luke Akehurst - a person whose job is to lobby and represent the interests of a foreign power.

Aaron Bastani
@AaronBastani
·
37m
These people are absolutely going to take us into another mad war, by the way.

https://x.com/AaronBastani/status/1795907878340952282

BatteryCorrectHorse · May 29

wooliedyed said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Chameleon said:

Carnyx said:

Chameleon said:
Turns out purges can be both fun and useful when it's done against people you don't like. Good to see Labour taking out the rubbish.
And PBTories all of a sudden worried about Ms Abbott while regurgitating the old nonsense about Ms Rayner. When they've been badmouthing both of them for as long as these ladies have been in post.
It's all a bit silly. She was a trailblazer, now she's a massive crank and a bigger liability. Gettign rid is the right move.
I do recall distinctly when some of us had posted before about her achievements and were told she was the reason so many were put off voting Labour. "She will destroy the Home Office", I can recall.
I think the difference is now not that people have discovered an admiration for her but some (I am one of those) thoroughly enjoy things that make life more difficult for Labour. I also enjoy Sunaks desperare comedy policy blitzes, Ed Daveys Norman Wisdom tribute act and Farage being an objectionable arsehole.
UK politics is in the toilet, may they all suffer humiliation

What "admiration" have people discovered? Might it be because she doesn't like SKS, might be a touch factional?

I admire her being the first black MP. But she's a racist and well past her sell by date.

EPG · May 29

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

geoffw said:

Leon said:

rfry said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

bondegezou said:

rcs1000 said:

bondegezou said:

DM_Andy said:

bondegezou said:

DM_Andy said:

bondegezou said:

Sandpit said:

Gardenwalker said:

Sandpit said:

DM_Andy said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

Taz said:

williamglenn said:
Jess Phillips calls for Truss to be deselected.

https://x.com/jessphillips/status/1795744506664689920
File under "who gives a shit"
Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.

Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.

It seems pretty reasonable to me that Jess Phillips should have strong opinions about a senior politician who hangs out with someone who has repeatedly talked about raping her.

From the quote in the latter, it appears that the gentleman in question was talking about not raping her.
I'll quote the double down.
“There’s been an awful lot of talk about whether I would or wouldn’t rape Jess Phillips. I suppose with enough pressure I might cave, but let’s be honest nobody’s got that much beer.”

And really if anyone's going to be talking about attractiveness, it's not like Carl Benjamin is an Adonis.

It’s a joke, not a rape threat. That was my point. Perhaps in poor taste, but a joke nonetheless.

Also, as I suspected, the quotes were from several years ago and not recent. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ukip-mep-candidate-says-carl-benjamin-jokes-about-raping-mp-jess-philips-were-risque-155248927.html

Truss is out to get Reform supporters voting Conservitive in the “Red Wall” seats, so why wouldn’t she appear on a podcast with 400k Youtube subscribers? It’s only the left who have this obsession with “sharing a platform”.
By all means Truss is free to share a platform with various alt-right figures who joke about raping MPs.

And we are free to form an opinion of what kind of person that makes her.
The quotes where from 2018, and as I said above, 2018 “Sargon of Akkad” is a very different person from 2022 Carl Benjamin, who’s no more controversial today than GB News, and has 400k followers on Youtube.

Should people not be allowed to be rehabilitated into society?
From Wikipedia: “In February 2020, Benjamin launched the group Hearts of Oak with British far-right activist Tommy Robinson”.

The Hearts of Oak website still includes him: https://heartsofoak.org/guests/carl-benjamin/

Here he is a few months ago at a Hearts of Oak event with another conspiracy theorist, Andrew Bridgen: https://youtu.be/SsRayGgi_4Y

Why, Sandpit, are you watching the output of far right conspiracy theorists?
I listen to his videos sometimes, usually at double speed because he takes forever to get to his point. That's why I know that Carl now is the same guy as Carl in 2019. I listen to The Quartering and Knights Watch too but mainly for unintended entertainment.
Why? Do you agree with Tommy Robinson and Andrew Bridgen as well?
No but I don't think that jamming my fingers into my ears helps my understanding of the world. Speaking of Bridgen, there is a funny one on Bridgen and his list of 'world experts' https://youtu.be/U1mHK7gBryM
You yourself said that “180 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube every minute.” But you have gone out of your way to listen to his videos. That’s not not jamming your fingers in your ears.

Unless you are specifically doing a study of far right social media figures, I do not understand what you get out of listening to far right conspiracy theorists.
If you want to understand why people think a certain way, it helps to understand them, don't you think?
Yes, it does. I have found, personally, that it doesn’t take very long to get the measure of far right conspiracy theorists, and they’re all much of a muchness. I’ve also found that you don’t need to wade through the sewage they spew to understand them: you can read the analysis of those who have done that previously. It’s quicker and less unpleasant.

I have, however, for the purposes of research on this topic, just listened to a very recent 11-minute video by Carl Benjamin on Twitter where he outlines his political agenda. It’s full of talk of people of “foreign stock”, and the value of “traditional roles” for men and women. He explains how, “An evil will has taken control of the educational system”. His Twitter feed also had lots of retweets of Tommy Robinson as they’re at an event in London together in a few days time. It all confirms to me that he is a far right conspiracy theorist.
So, you did indeed benefit from watching it, as you are now rather better informed. (Of his views, obviously.)

I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I've never heard of him.

I dislike the phrase conspiracy theorist. It's for dullards. Conspiracies happen sometimes. One assumes people who like to call other people conspiracy theorist don't actually deny the notion of conspiracy itself. Therefore 'conspiracy theorist' as a value judgement makes no sense. It's like insulting someone by calling them 'a person who thinks it's another person's birthday'. A birthday believer. Or a person who thinks it's Friday. A friday freak. Sometimes it is Friday. Sometimes it's someone else's birthday.
Indeed the covid lab leak theory was initially denounced as a conspiracy theory.
Not just that. The lab leak hypothesis was a “racist conspiracy theory” and the scientific powers-that-be managed to silence it for a year on TwiX and Facebook. You literally weren’t allowed to talk about it, like we were all Galileo trying to push heliocentrism
Does anyone nowadays not think it came from the lab?

@bondegezou and maybe @turbotubbs (tho the latter at least admits doubts)

Otherwise no. No one on earth now believes it came from the market. That includes the US government (democrats as well as republicans) who are now firmly gunning for Ecohealth and Peter Daszak who likely made the virus in the Wuhan lab with US money
I believe it came from the market.

It just probably came from the lab to the market. Perhaps some janitor on 50cents an hour grabbed some bats to sell at the wet market.

Or perhaps it was another animal in a container on the plane next to a bat that was being sent to Wuhan. The bat went to the Wuhan institute of virology, while the armadillo (or whatever) ended up at the wet market.

Or perhaps a lab worker got bit by a bat, developed a snuffle, and then did his evening's shopping at the market.

The idea that the two theories are mutually incompatible exists only in the mind of the mentally subnormal.

There is a challenge for theory #3 that the transmissibility of Covid from the lab worker to everyone else outside the market would have had to have been very small. We know that Covid is pretty transmissible. So the first two theories are in fact more plausible even though they sound less medical-ly.

wooliedyed · May 29

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
“It’s a true honour to have been selected as Labour’s Parliamentary candidate for my home town.

"Rochdale desperately needs a Labour government and a Labour MP to end 14 years of Tory chaos and decline.

"We need an MP who can unite the town, and who reflects the basic decency and local pride that all us Rochdalians share.

"Labour is back in the service of working people. And I'll do everything in my power to ensure that Rochdale gets an NHS back on its feet and the economic renewal its residents deserve.”

https://x.com/paulwaugh/status/1795890996791693398

STOP THE WAUGH!

IanB2 · May 29

FPT: being proved wrong can’t be a “reputational blow” to someone who is reputed for always being wrong.

theProle · May 29

BartholomewRoberts said:

theProle said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

theProle said:
I saw some posts this morning about the cost of electricity, and some people were trying to tell us that net zero was going to make electricity cheaper.

Co-incidentally, I spent a chunk of this afternoon trying to sort out the electricity contract for work this afternoon. Business electricity is not subject to price caps, so reflects the real costs (unlike domestic pricing). Our site uses about 92,000kwh a year. The electric unit price is similar to current domestic pricing - we're being offered day rates of about 23p/unit. However the standing charge for our site has gone from about £5/a day 5 years ago, and £20/day two years ago to £29/day now.
By the time you add the various other charges (eg 11p/kva capacity per day), the full cost for our site is about 35p/unit.

Where is all this extra money going one might ask? Basically businesses like us are funding all the net zero infrastructure costs.

I did the rough sums, if we bought a big diesel generator, binned off our electric connection and went "off-grid", we would save about £5k a year. Generating electricity with a piston engined diesel generator is a terribly inefficient way of producing electricity - if that's cheaper than supplying fairly large amounts of it to one physical location via an existing grid connection, whoever's running the grid have got it very, very wrong.

Now it may be that net zero is worth this expense; that's a political question, although dumping the costs on industry in such a way as to destroy our industrial base seems a particularly dumb way to fund it. But anybody who tells you renewable energy is cheap (i.e. our whole political class) is lying to you. Whilst the sun and wind are free, unfortunately the infrastructure to collect this "free" energy is very expensive.
An excellent post, and one that @BartholomewRoberts should read carefully before claiming to be a supporter both of the current direction of travel in the energy market and of free market principles.

I don't even support Net Zero, but the scenario that @Pagan2 is highly unlikely to be true, because diesel generators come with a massive bunch of compromises.

Firstly, does the generator support the peak load? It's easy to get one that will support your average electricity usage (and that's how people calculate things). But your average load might well be 30% of your maximum load. So to get it working, you may need to spend a lot, lot more than you thought on a generator.

Secondly, at a basic efficiency level, diesel generators are - what - c. 35% efficient. But when under load, that can easily drop to 25%. And then there's maintenance. There's regular thermal expansion and contraction, and there's going to be a lot of wear and tear.

Thirdly, there's hassle. You need to get the diesel to you, and you need to store it. And that is going to cost you both time and money.

If you assume that your only costs are fuel, and that your generator runs at optimal efficiency all the time, you *might* get to £5k/annual saving. But even that is slightly bullshit, because domestic electricity prices lag wholesale ones, while the cost of diesel moves very quickly in line with the world market. And that's before capital cost and maintenance. And you don't even get hot water as a byproduct.

Anyone who thinks they are going to save money by going off grid with a diesel generator is incapable of basic mathematics.
I wasn't suggesting I would actually go and buy us a diesel generator; as you point out, there are various irritations like having to take it offline to service it, and also a bit of capex cost (although tbh, I could find one secondhand that would do our peak load for about £10k - servicing would be under £1k/year, so we'd be ahead by year 3). I sadly don't have any real use for several megawatts worth of hot water a year (you do get free heat out of a diesel, exactly the same as a gas engine, just stick a flat plate heat exchanger in the coolant return between the engine and the cooler group, and help yourself), if I did it would be quite economic!

My point was more that there should be massive economies of scale in generating electricity at grid level and supplying it to industry as required. Apart from anything else, powerstation gas turbines are a lot more efficient than relatively small diesel piston engines.

10 years ago, I'm fairly confident that running my own genset would have been significantly more expensive than a mains electric connection. The fact that it's now even remotely competitive is a massive red flag that our net zero policies are costing us an awful lot of money, mostly by slight of hand, and proof that all the politicians lining up to say that renewables are saving us money are lying to us.
The fact that its even remotely competitive is because gas prices have shot up and we're using gas so that's what you're paying for. Its got nothing to do with net zero policies.

Had we got a net zero power supply before this crisis began then our prices would have remained stable rather than shooting up when gas became expensive.

So explain to me, for I am clearly simple minded, why has the cost of actual electricity per unit (thus linked to gas prices) has merely doubled in five years, but the network costs (standing charge, capacity charges etc) become 6x what it was 5 years ago?

For our site at it's current usage, for every 23p we pay in unit costs for electricity, we pay another 12p in network costs.

It's the additional network cost that's crippling, rather than the increase in unit cost (unit cost is down from 30.9p, two and a half years ago however all the savings are swallowed by the increases in the standing charge) and that increased network cost is basically all thanks to net zero.

Incidentally, our business uses literally tons of LPG gas - the price of which has only gone up 50% since the energy crisis started, and maybe 60% over 5 years, unlike our electricity bill which is 300% up over 5 years.

There is something making UK electricity terribly expensive compared to other sources of energy, and it's not increases in the cost of fuel.

rcs1000 · May 29

theProle said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

theProle said:
I saw some posts this morning about the cost of electricity, and some people were trying to tell us that net zero was going to make electricity cheaper.

Co-incidentally, I spent a chunk of this afternoon trying to sort out the electricity contract for work this afternoon. Business electricity is not subject to price caps, so reflects the real costs (unlike domestic pricing). Our site uses about 92,000kwh a year. The electric unit price is similar to current domestic pricing - we're being offered day rates of about 23p/unit. However the standing charge for our site has gone from about £5/a day 5 years ago, and £20/day two years ago to £29/day now.
By the time you add the various other charges (eg 11p/kva capacity per day), the full cost for our site is about 35p/unit.

Where is all this extra money going one might ask? Basically businesses like us are funding all the net zero infrastructure costs.

I did the rough sums, if we bought a big diesel generator, binned off our electric connection and went "off-grid", we would save about £5k a year. Generating electricity with a piston engined diesel generator is a terribly inefficient way of producing electricity - if that's cheaper than supplying fairly large amounts of it to one physical location via an existing grid connection, whoever's running the grid have got it very, very wrong.

Now it may be that net zero is worth this expense; that's a political question, although dumping the costs on industry in such a way as to destroy our industrial base seems a particularly dumb way to fund it. But anybody who tells you renewable energy is cheap (i.e. our whole political class) is lying to you. Whilst the sun and wind are free, unfortunately the infrastructure to collect this "free" energy is very expensive.
An excellent post, and one that @BartholomewRoberts should read carefully before claiming to be a supporter both of the current direction of travel in the energy market and of free market principles.

I don't even support Net Zero, but the scenario that @Pagan2 is highly unlikely to be true, because diesel generators come with a massive bunch of compromises.

Firstly, does the generator support the peak load? It's easy to get one that will support your average electricity usage (and that's how people calculate things). But your average load might well be 30% of your maximum load. So to get it working, you may need to spend a lot, lot more than you thought on a generator.

Secondly, at a basic efficiency level, diesel generators are - what - c. 35% efficient. But when under load, that can easily drop to 25%. And then there's maintenance. There's regular thermal expansion and contraction, and there's going to be a lot of wear and tear.

Thirdly, there's hassle. You need to get the diesel to you, and you need to store it. And that is going to cost you both time and money.

If you assume that your only costs are fuel, and that your generator runs at optimal efficiency all the time, you *might* get to £5k/annual saving. But even that is slightly bullshit, because domestic electricity prices lag wholesale ones, while the cost of diesel moves very quickly in line with the world market. And that's before capital cost and maintenance. And you don't even get hot water as a byproduct.

Anyone who thinks they are going to save money by going off grid with a diesel generator is incapable of basic mathematics.
I wasn't suggesting I would actually go and buy us a diesel generator; as you point out, there are various irritations like having to take it offline to service it, and also a bit of capex cost (although tbh, I could find one secondhand that would do our peak load for about £10k - servicing would be under £1k/year, so we'd be ahead by year 3). I sadly don't have any real use for several megawatts worth of hot water a year (you do get free heat out of a diesel, exactly the same as a gas engine, just stick a flat plate heat exchanger in the coolant return between the engine and the cooler group, and help yourself), if I did it would be quite economic!

My point was more that there should be massive economies of scale in generating electricity at grid level and supplying it to industry as required. Apart from anything else, powerstation gas turbines are a lot more efficient than relatively small diesel piston engines.

10 years ago, I'm fairly confident that running my own genset would have been significantly more expensive than a mains electric connection. The fact that it's now even remotely competitive is a massive red flag that our net zero policies are costing us an awful lot of money, mostly by slight of hand, and proof that all the politicians lining up to say that renewables are saving us money are lying to us.

But what you're mostly describing is the time lag between wholesale energy prices and retail:

The price of wholesale electricity has dropped massively since its peak, but because of government measures that suppressed the peak (i.e, the cap), the distribution companies are all still clawing back what they lost. That will change.

geoffw · May 29

eek said:

geoffw said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:
It's not so much what he's doing. It's the way it's coming across that worries me. He seems to be rather confused and there's more than a whiff of conspiracy around both.

Does this matter in the case of Abbott or Russell Moyle? Probably not.

Does it leave question marks over Starmer's judgment? I would say it does.

Hopefully it will be nothing serious. But I'm also thinking a bit about that first crop of shadow ministers he appointed. That didn't display great judgement either.

And the first sign that Sunak wasn't all he was cracked up to be was his lousy cabinet appointments.
What judgment? Would you have preferred him to act earlier, not act at all? What is the issue, I am a bit baffled?
If he's sitting on a report for six months, only to come to a decision now, which he botches, that's not great, is it?

In the case of Lloyd Russell Moyle, yes I can see why this has happened but we now have somebody forced out of a job because of an allegation. I don't think you have to be an admirer of LRM to find that a bit worrying. There should have been workarounds otherwise it's an open invitation to vexatious complaints.

Remember, it's not how things look when they happen to people you dislike that's important - it's how they could be applied to anyone. Without wishing to be all Kantian about this, the implications of these sort of procedures applied across a governing party disturb me.
I believe in the case of Russel-Moyale, an allegation has been made and he's been suspended as a result. The same happened to a moderate MP in 2019. Personally I think it stinks - but the reality is that Labour has been doing this sort of factional behaviour for a while.

On Abbott, she should have been allowed to retire in peace and I am not totally clear why she hasn't been. But I do support her not being allowed to stand again because she is racist.
'It has happened before' isn't a great defence. In fact, arguably it makes it worse because that should have been flagged up as an issue and procedures changed as a result.

I doubt if it will make the slightest political difference but like VAT on private school fees (which is also unlikely to make any difference) it does for me raise some questions that I'm not liking the possible answers to.
I am not defending it, I think it's just as wrong as it was to the moderate MP in 2019. It happens to be good for Labour that Russel-Moyle is going because he's a nutjob. But I agree it's wrong he is.
Was the "allegation" kept for 8 months for an opportune moment? And if so, by whom?

8 years not 8 months...

Yep. Even more so …

bondegezou · May 29

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

geoffw said:

Leon said:

rfry said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

bondegezou said:

rcs1000 said:

bondegezou said:

DM_Andy said:

bondegezou said:

DM_Andy said:

bondegezou said:

Sandpit said:

Gardenwalker said:

Sandpit said:

DM_Andy said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

Taz said:

williamglenn said:
Jess Phillips calls for Truss to be deselected.

https://x.com/jessphillips/status/1795744506664689920
File under "who gives a shit"
Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.

Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.

It seems pretty reasonable to me that Jess Phillips should have strong opinions about a senior politician who hangs out with someone who has repeatedly talked about raping her.

From the quote in the latter, it appears that the gentleman in question was talking about not raping her.
I'll quote the double down.
“There’s been an awful lot of talk about whether I would or wouldn’t rape Jess Phillips. I suppose with enough pressure I might cave, but let’s be honest nobody’s got that much beer.”

And really if anyone's going to be talking about attractiveness, it's not like Carl Benjamin is an Adonis.

It’s a joke, not a rape threat. That was my point. Perhaps in poor taste, but a joke nonetheless.

Also, as I suspected, the quotes were from several years ago and not recent. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ukip-mep-candidate-says-carl-benjamin-jokes-about-raping-mp-jess-philips-were-risque-155248927.html

Truss is out to get Reform supporters voting Conservitive in the “Red Wall” seats, so why wouldn’t she appear on a podcast with 400k Youtube subscribers? It’s only the left who have this obsession with “sharing a platform”.
By all means Truss is free to share a platform with various alt-right figures who joke about raping MPs.

And we are free to form an opinion of what kind of person that makes her.
The quotes where from 2018, and as I said above, 2018 “Sargon of Akkad” is a very different person from 2022 Carl Benjamin, who’s no more controversial today than GB News, and has 400k followers on Youtube.

Should people not be allowed to be rehabilitated into society?
From Wikipedia: “In February 2020, Benjamin launched the group Hearts of Oak with British far-right activist Tommy Robinson”.

The Hearts of Oak website still includes him: https://heartsofoak.org/guests/carl-benjamin/

Here he is a few months ago at a Hearts of Oak event with another conspiracy theorist, Andrew Bridgen: https://youtu.be/SsRayGgi_4Y

Why, Sandpit, are you watching the output of far right conspiracy theorists?
I listen to his videos sometimes, usually at double speed because he takes forever to get to his point. That's why I know that Carl now is the same guy as Carl in 2019. I listen to The Quartering and Knights Watch too but mainly for unintended entertainment.
Why? Do you agree with Tommy Robinson and Andrew Bridgen as well?
No but I don't think that jamming my fingers into my ears helps my understanding of the world. Speaking of Bridgen, there is a funny one on Bridgen and his list of 'world experts' https://youtu.be/U1mHK7gBryM
You yourself said that “180 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube every minute.” But you have gone out of your way to listen to his videos. That’s not not jamming your fingers in your ears.

Unless you are specifically doing a study of far right social media figures, I do not understand what you get out of listening to far right conspiracy theorists.
If you want to understand why people think a certain way, it helps to understand them, don't you think?
Yes, it does. I have found, personally, that it doesn’t take very long to get the measure of far right conspiracy theorists, and they’re all much of a muchness. I’ve also found that you don’t need to wade through the sewage they spew to understand them: you can read the analysis of those who have done that previously. It’s quicker and less unpleasant.

I have, however, for the purposes of research on this topic, just listened to a very recent 11-minute video by Carl Benjamin on Twitter where he outlines his political agenda. It’s full of talk of people of “foreign stock”, and the value of “traditional roles” for men and women. He explains how, “An evil will has taken control of the educational system”. His Twitter feed also had lots of retweets of Tommy Robinson as they’re at an event in London together in a few days time. It all confirms to me that he is a far right conspiracy theorist.
So, you did indeed benefit from watching it, as you are now rather better informed. (Of his views, obviously.)

I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I've never heard of him.

I dislike the phrase conspiracy theorist. It's for dullards. Conspiracies happen sometimes. One assumes people who like to call other people conspiracy theorist don't actually deny the notion of conspiracy itself. Therefore 'conspiracy theorist' as a value judgement makes no sense. It's like insulting someone by calling them 'a person who thinks it's another person's birthday'. A birthday believer. Or a person who thinks it's Friday. A friday freak. Sometimes it is Friday. Sometimes it's someone else's birthday.
Indeed the covid lab leak theory was initially denounced as a conspiracy theory.
Not just that. The lab leak hypothesis was a “racist conspiracy theory” and the scientific powers-that-be managed to silence it for a year on TwiX and Facebook. You literally weren’t allowed to talk about it, like we were all Galileo trying to push heliocentrism
Does anyone nowadays not think it came from the lab?

@bondegezou and maybe @turbotubbs (tho the latter at least admits doubts)

Otherwise no. No one on earth now believes it came from the market. That includes the US government (democrats as well as republicans) who are now firmly gunning for Ecohealth and Peter Daszak who likely made the virus in the Wuhan lab with US money
I believe it came from the market.

It just probably came from the lab to the market. Perhaps some janitor on 50cents an hour grabbed some bats to sell at the wet market.

Or perhaps it was another animal in a container on the plane next to a bat that was being sent to Wuhan. The bat went to the Wuhan institute of virology, while the armadillo (or whatever) ended up at the wet market.

Or perhaps a lab worker got bit by a bat, developed a snuffle, and then did his evening's shopping at the market.

The idea that the two theories are mutually incompatible exists only in the mind of the mentally subnormal.

The market is a 40 minute drive and on the other side of a major river to the lab. Why did this janitor go all the way there, without transmitting the disease to anyone else along the way or to anyone else subsequently?

Generally samples were taken to the lab, not live animals. They weren't transported along side animals for the wet market. Armadillos are an American group: you're thinking of pangolins.

If the bat was being sent to the WIV and infected a pangolin, or whatever, then that's not a lab leak. That's a zoonotic event from a wild animal, as most scientists understand to be the cause of the pandemic.

All of your other scenarios add complications and coincidences. Occam's razor suggests they all fail against the simple theory of zoonosis via the market.

BatteryCorrectHorse · May 29

I think there are two separate issues.

Has Labour been factional, sat on Abbott's case for months to try and get rid of her. Absolutely yes and that's wrong.

Should Abbott be allowed to stand for Labour again. In my view, no she shouldn't. Are people saying she should be allowed to stand again?

BatteryCorrectHorse · May 29

What do people mean by 8 years? Wasn't it what Abbott wrote where she said Jewish people don't experience racism all their lives?

rcs1000 · May 29

Leon said:
Fpt because it’s important people like @bondegezou and @EPG aren’t allowed to get away with brazen lies about Covid origins

****

Completely wrong. The Wuhan CDC - which also housed bats as part of the overall experimentation - is just 3 minutes from the market. I have posted the map a trillion times. I’m not allowed to post it again because of the rules. Ask @rcs1000 - he disputed this and I showed him.

Try this tweet

“One of the earliest papers on Covid-19 out of China pointed out the Wuhan CDC was 911 feet from the market and right across the street from the hospital where many healthcare workers fell ill”

https://x.com/0ddette/status/1793652838641422672?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

Or try this. Look at the locations

https://x.com/ayjchan/status/1654218534640300032?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

https://x.com/scottburke777/status/1493682712510615552?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

The CDC was notoriously low level BSL2. It spent two years 2017-2019 moving to its new location right by the market. Ideal circs for a spillage

It kept bats

“The Wuhan CDC collected and housed many bats in collaboration with the WIV. It issued a contract for the disposal of 2 tons of hazardous medical waste generated in its labs in June 2019. This waste ‘has not been effectively treated from 1994 to 2019’, the announcement conceded.”

https://x.com/mattwridley/status/1630863112411783170?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

You’ve lost the argument. Its done. Yet you’re still trotting out these pathetic lies like no one can read or look at a map. It came from the lab

Unmmm... I don't think it was proved that the Wuhan CDC had hosted bats in the period prior to the leak. Indeed, I think they'd moved onto other things. The bat research was still in the same city, but was at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

wooliedyed · May 29

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

wooliedyed said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Chameleon said:

Carnyx said:

Chameleon said:
Turns out purges can be both fun and useful when it's done against people you don't like. Good to see Labour taking out the rubbish.
And PBTories all of a sudden worried about Ms Abbott while regurgitating the old nonsense about Ms Rayner. When they've been badmouthing both of them for as long as these ladies have been in post.
It's all a bit silly. She was a trailblazer, now she's a massive crank and a bigger liability. Gettign rid is the right move.
I do recall distinctly when some of us had posted before about her achievements and were told she was the reason so many were put off voting Labour. "She will destroy the Home Office", I can recall.
I think the difference is now not that people have discovered an admiration for her but some (I am one of those) thoroughly enjoy things that make life more difficult for Labour. I also enjoy Sunaks desperare comedy policy blitzes, Ed Daveys Norman Wisdom tribute act and Farage being an objectionable arsehole.
UK politics is in the toilet, may they all suffer humiliation
What "admiration" have people discovered? Might it be because she doesn't like SKS, might be a touch factional?

I admire her being the first black MP. But she's a racist and well past her sell by date.

No idea, I'm just enjoying Labour making a pigs ear of it.
Whether its Abbott or a Starmerbot that takes Hackney its a loss for everyone but that's their choice

Carnyx · May 29

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
What do people mean by 8 years? Wasn't it what Abbott wrote where she said Jewish people don't experience racism all their lives?

Other Labour MP.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5114q1x09eo

BatteryCorrectHorse · May 29

Carnyx said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
What do people mean by 8 years? Wasn't it what Abbott wrote where she said Jewish people don't experience racism all their lives?
Other Labour MP.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5114q1x09eo

Okay what the fuck.

ydoethur · May 29

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Carnyx said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
What do people mean by 8 years? Wasn't it what Abbott wrote where she said Jewish people don't experience racism all their lives?
Other Labour MP.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5114q1x09eo
Okay what the fuck.

Er, hum. Can we be a bit more cautious with the language in case there's a particular form to this allegation?

rcs1000 · May 29

bondegezou said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

geoffw said:

Leon said:

rfry said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

bondegezou said:

rcs1000 said:

bondegezou said:

DM_Andy said:

bondegezou said:

DM_Andy said:

bondegezou said:

Sandpit said:

Gardenwalker said:

Sandpit said:

DM_Andy said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

Taz said:

williamglenn said:
Jess Phillips calls for Truss to be deselected.

https://x.com/jessphillips/status/1795744506664689920
File under "who gives a shit"
Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.

Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.

It seems pretty reasonable to me that Jess Phillips should have strong opinions about a senior politician who hangs out with someone who has repeatedly talked about raping her.

From the quote in the latter, it appears that the gentleman in question was talking about not raping her.
I'll quote the double down.
“There’s been an awful lot of talk about whether I would or wouldn’t rape Jess Phillips. I suppose with enough pressure I might cave, but let’s be honest nobody’s got that much beer.”

And really if anyone's going to be talking about attractiveness, it's not like Carl Benjamin is an Adonis.

It’s a joke, not a rape threat. That was my point. Perhaps in poor taste, but a joke nonetheless.

Also, as I suspected, the quotes were from several years ago and not recent. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ukip-mep-candidate-says-carl-benjamin-jokes-about-raping-mp-jess-philips-were-risque-155248927.html

Truss is out to get Reform supporters voting Conservitive in the “Red Wall” seats, so why wouldn’t she appear on a podcast with 400k Youtube subscribers? It’s only the left who have this obsession with “sharing a platform”.
By all means Truss is free to share a platform with various alt-right figures who joke about raping MPs.

And we are free to form an opinion of what kind of person that makes her.
The quotes where from 2018, and as I said above, 2018 “Sargon of Akkad” is a very different person from 2022 Carl Benjamin, who’s no more controversial today than GB News, and has 400k followers on Youtube.

Should people not be allowed to be rehabilitated into society?
From Wikipedia: “In February 2020, Benjamin launched the group Hearts of Oak with British far-right activist Tommy Robinson”.

The Hearts of Oak website still includes him: https://heartsofoak.org/guests/carl-benjamin/

Here he is a few months ago at a Hearts of Oak event with another conspiracy theorist, Andrew Bridgen: https://youtu.be/SsRayGgi_4Y

Why, Sandpit, are you watching the output of far right conspiracy theorists?
I listen to his videos sometimes, usually at double speed because he takes forever to get to his point. That's why I know that Carl now is the same guy as Carl in 2019. I listen to The Quartering and Knights Watch too but mainly for unintended entertainment.
Why? Do you agree with Tommy Robinson and Andrew Bridgen as well?
No but I don't think that jamming my fingers into my ears helps my understanding of the world. Speaking of Bridgen, there is a funny one on Bridgen and his list of 'world experts' https://youtu.be/U1mHK7gBryM
You yourself said that “180 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube every minute.” But you have gone out of your way to listen to his videos. That’s not not jamming your fingers in your ears.

Unless you are specifically doing a study of far right social media figures, I do not understand what you get out of listening to far right conspiracy theorists.
If you want to understand why people think a certain way, it helps to understand them, don't you think?
Yes, it does. I have found, personally, that it doesn’t take very long to get the measure of far right conspiracy theorists, and they’re all much of a muchness. I’ve also found that you don’t need to wade through the sewage they spew to understand them: you can read the analysis of those who have done that previously. It’s quicker and less unpleasant.

I have, however, for the purposes of research on this topic, just listened to a very recent 11-minute video by Carl Benjamin on Twitter where he outlines his political agenda. It’s full of talk of people of “foreign stock”, and the value of “traditional roles” for men and women. He explains how, “An evil will has taken control of the educational system”. His Twitter feed also had lots of retweets of Tommy Robinson as they’re at an event in London together in a few days time. It all confirms to me that he is a far right conspiracy theorist.
So, you did indeed benefit from watching it, as you are now rather better informed. (Of his views, obviously.)

I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I've never heard of him.

I dislike the phrase conspiracy theorist. It's for dullards. Conspiracies happen sometimes. One assumes people who like to call other people conspiracy theorist don't actually deny the notion of conspiracy itself. Therefore 'conspiracy theorist' as a value judgement makes no sense. It's like insulting someone by calling them 'a person who thinks it's another person's birthday'. A birthday believer. Or a person who thinks it's Friday. A friday freak. Sometimes it is Friday. Sometimes it's someone else's birthday.
Indeed the covid lab leak theory was initially denounced as a conspiracy theory.
Not just that. The lab leak hypothesis was a “racist conspiracy theory” and the scientific powers-that-be managed to silence it for a year on TwiX and Facebook. You literally weren’t allowed to talk about it, like we were all Galileo trying to push heliocentrism
Does anyone nowadays not think it came from the lab?

@bondegezou and maybe @turbotubbs (tho the latter at least admits doubts)

Otherwise no. No one on earth now believes it came from the market. That includes the US government (democrats as well as republicans) who are now firmly gunning for Ecohealth and Peter Daszak who likely made the virus in the Wuhan lab with US money
I believe it came from the market.

It just probably came from the lab to the market. Perhaps some janitor on 50cents an hour grabbed some bats to sell at the wet market.

Or perhaps it was another animal in a container on the plane next to a bat that was being sent to Wuhan. The bat went to the Wuhan institute of virology, while the armadillo (or whatever) ended up at the wet market.

Or perhaps a lab worker got bit by a bat, developed a snuffle, and then did his evening's shopping at the market.

The idea that the two theories are mutually incompatible exists only in the mind of the mentally subnormal.
The market is a 40 minute drive and on the other side of a major river to the lab. Why did this janitor go all the way there, without transmitting the disease to anyone else along the way or to anyone else subsequently?

Generally samples were taken to the lab, not live animals. They weren't transported along side animals for the wet market. Armadillos are an American group: you're thinking of pangolins.

If the bat was being sent to the WIV and infected a pangolin, or whatever, then that's not a lab leak. That's a zoonotic event from a wild animal, as most scientists understand to be the cause of the pandemic.

All of your other scenarios add complications and coincidences. Occam's razor suggests they all fail against the simple theory of zoonosis via the market.

"If the bat was being sent to the WIV and infected a pangolin, or whatever, then that's not a lab leak. That's a zoonotic event from a wild animal, as most scientists understand to be the cause of the pandemic."

Here's why I hate the phrase "lab leak". Some will read it as "they were experimenting with gain of function viruses and one got loose", when that is only one of a gazillion ways that a virus can escape as a result of bat virus research.

Casino_Royale · May 29

Question: did Labour come from the lab, or the wet market?

BatteryCorrectHorse · May 29

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Carnyx said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
What do people mean by 8 years? Wasn't it what Abbott wrote where she said Jewish people don't experience racism all their lives?
Other Labour MP.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5114q1x09eo
Okay what the fuck.
Er, hum. Can we be a bit more cautious with the language in case there's a particular form to this allegation?

Okay then, what the fuck is going on?

rottenborough · May 29

Isabel Oakeshott
@IsabelOakeshott
·
25m
Richard Tice is Leader of
@reformparty_uk and there won’t be any deals with the Tory party. End of.

https://x.com/IsabelOakeshott

ydoethur · May 29

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Carnyx said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
What do people mean by 8 years? Wasn't it what Abbott wrote where she said Jewish people don't experience racism all their lives?
Other Labour MP.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5114q1x09eo
Okay what the fuck.
Er, hum. Can we be a bit more cautious with the language in case there's a particular form to this allegation?
Okay then, what the fuck is going on?

Not much better...

RobD · May 29

rottenborough said:

Isabel Oakeshott
@IsabelOakeshott
·
25m
Richard Tice is Leader of
@reformparty_uk and there won’t be any deals with the Tory party. End of.

https://x.com/IsabelOakeshott

I thought Farage was the owner of the party?

BatteryCorrectHorse · May 29

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Carnyx said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
What do people mean by 8 years? Wasn't it what Abbott wrote where she said Jewish people don't experience racism all their lives?
Other Labour MP.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5114q1x09eo
Okay what the fuck.
Er, hum. Can we be a bit more cautious with the language in case there's a particular form to this allegation?
Okay then, what the fuck is going on?
Not much better...

I have no idea what you're going on about to be honest.

AlsoLei · May 29

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

theProle said:
I saw some posts this morning about the cost of electricity, and some people were trying to tell us that net zero was going to make electricity cheaper.

Co-incidentally, I spent a chunk of this afternoon trying to sort out the electricity contract for work this afternoon. Business electricity is not subject to price caps, so reflects the real costs (unlike domestic pricing). Our site uses about 92,000kwh a year. The electric unit price is similar to current domestic pricing - we're being offered day rates of about 23p/unit. However the standing charge for our site has gone from about £5/a day 5 years ago, and £20/day two years ago to £29/day now.
By the time you add the various other charges (eg 11p/kva capacity per day), the full cost for our site is about 35p/unit.

Where is all this extra money going one might ask? Basically businesses like us are funding all the net zero infrastructure costs.

I did the rough sums, if we bought a big diesel generator, binned off our electric connection and went "off-grid", we would save about £5k a year. Generating electricity with a piston engined diesel generator is a terribly inefficient way of producing electricity - if that's cheaper than supplying fairly large amounts of it to one physical location via an existing grid connection, whoever's running the grid have got it very, very wrong.

Now it may be that net zero is worth this expense; that's a political question, although dumping the costs on industry in such a way as to destroy our industrial base seems a particularly dumb way to fund it. But anybody who tells you renewable energy is cheap (i.e. our whole political class) is lying to you. Whilst the sun and wind are free, unfortunately the infrastructure to collect this "free" energy is very expensive.
An excellent post, and one that @BartholomewRoberts should read carefully before claiming to be a supporter both of the current direction of travel in the energy market and of free market principles.

I don't even support Net Zero, but the scenario that @Pagan2 is highly unlikely to be true, because diesel generators come with a massive bunch of compromises.

Firstly, does the generator support the peak load? It's easy to get one that will support your average electricity usage (and that's how people calculate things). But your average load might well be 30% of your maximum load. So to get it working, you may need to spend a lot, lot more than you thought on a generator.

Secondly, at a basic efficiency level, diesel generators are - what - c. 35% efficient. But when under load, that can easily drop to 25%. And then there's maintenance. There's regular thermal expansion and contraction, and there's going to be a lot of wear and tear.

Thirdly, there's hassle. You need to get the diesel to you, and you need to store it. And that is going to cost you both time and money.

If you assume that your only costs are fuel, and that your generator runs at optimal efficiency all the time, you *might* get to £5k/annual saving. But even that is slightly bullshit, because domestic electricity prices lag wholesale ones, while the cost of diesel moves very quickly in line with the world market. And that's before capital cost and maintenance. And you don't even get hot water as a byproduct.

Anyone who thinks they are going to save money by going off grid with a diesel generator is incapable of basic mathematics.
Well said, you responded to @Luckyguy1983 garbage I was tagged in before I had the chance to do so.

There is a reason that free market businesses around the country are going for electricity supplied to them rather than using diesel generators and its not a belief in net zero.
RCS picking holes in TheProle's argument that he could heat his workplace cheaper with a diesel generator misses the point of the argument. His point (and mine earlier today) is that forced decarbonisation and our current renewables are adding massively to the cost of energy, whilst its supporters are flapping their gums about how 'cheap' and even 'free' it is. How many other cheap and free things cost more than the expensive alternative?

TheProle's complaint was about increased standing charges, and those have been driven by the cost of the Supplier of Last Resort system - ie. electricity suppliers who failed as a result of the sudden increases in the price of gas in the first half of 2022.

EPG · May 29

Casino_Royale said:
Question: did Labour come from the lab, or the wet market?

It's not called Wet marketour.

megasaur · May 29

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

wooliedyed said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Chameleon said:

Carnyx said:

Chameleon said:
Turns out purges can be both fun and useful when it's done against people you don't like. Good to see Labour taking out the rubbish.
And PBTories all of a sudden worried about Ms Abbott while regurgitating the old nonsense about Ms Rayner. When they've been badmouthing both of them for as long as these ladies have been in post.
It's all a bit silly. She was a trailblazer, now she's a massive crank and a bigger liability. Gettign rid is the right move.
I do recall distinctly when some of us had posted before about her achievements and were told she was the reason so many were put off voting Labour. "She will destroy the Home Office", I can recall.
I think the difference is now not that people have discovered an admiration for her but some (I am one of those) thoroughly enjoy things that make life more difficult for Labour. I also enjoy Sunaks desperare comedy policy blitzes, Ed Daveys Norman Wisdom tribute act and Farage being an objectionable arsehole.
UK politics is in the toilet, may they all suffer humiliation
What "admiration" have people discovered? Might it be because she doesn't like SKS, might be a touch factional?

I admire her being the first black MP. But she's a racist and well past her sell by date.

It's very tiresome this Ooooh suddenly you care about Diane Abbott argument. You are allowed to focus on contemporary injustice without having a lifetime track record of interest in the victim. This is a Godwin, but it's nonetheless true that if someone pointed out in 1945 that there was something less than Ideal about Auschwitz Birkenau it's a pretty pathetic comeback to say Well I don't remember you saying anything about the rights of German Jews in the 1920s.

rcs1000 · May 29

theProle said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

theProle said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

theProle said:
I saw some posts this morning about the cost of electricity, and some people were trying to tell us that net zero was going to make electricity cheaper.

Co-incidentally, I spent a chunk of this afternoon trying to sort out the electricity contract for work this afternoon. Business electricity is not subject to price caps, so reflects the real costs (unlike domestic pricing). Our site uses about 92,000kwh a year. The electric unit price is similar to current domestic pricing - we're being offered day rates of about 23p/unit. However the standing charge for our site has gone from about £5/a day 5 years ago, and £20/day two years ago to £29/day now.
By the time you add the various other charges (eg 11p/kva capacity per day), the full cost for our site is about 35p/unit.

Where is all this extra money going one might ask? Basically businesses like us are funding all the net zero infrastructure costs.

I did the rough sums, if we bought a big diesel generator, binned off our electric connection and went "off-grid", we would save about £5k a year. Generating electricity with a piston engined diesel generator is a terribly inefficient way of producing electricity - if that's cheaper than supplying fairly large amounts of it to one physical location via an existing grid connection, whoever's running the grid have got it very, very wrong.

Now it may be that net zero is worth this expense; that's a political question, although dumping the costs on industry in such a way as to destroy our industrial base seems a particularly dumb way to fund it. But anybody who tells you renewable energy is cheap (i.e. our whole political class) is lying to you. Whilst the sun and wind are free, unfortunately the infrastructure to collect this "free" energy is very expensive.
An excellent post, and one that @BartholomewRoberts should read carefully before claiming to be a supporter both of the current direction of travel in the energy market and of free market principles.

I don't even support Net Zero, but the scenario that @Pagan2 is highly unlikely to be true, because diesel generators come with a massive bunch of compromises.

Firstly, does the generator support the peak load? It's easy to get one that will support your average electricity usage (and that's how people calculate things). But your average load might well be 30% of your maximum load. So to get it working, you may need to spend a lot, lot more than you thought on a generator.

Secondly, at a basic efficiency level, diesel generators are - what - c. 35% efficient. But when under load, that can easily drop to 25%. And then there's maintenance. There's regular thermal expansion and contraction, and there's going to be a lot of wear and tear.

Thirdly, there's hassle. You need to get the diesel to you, and you need to store it. And that is going to cost you both time and money.

If you assume that your only costs are fuel, and that your generator runs at optimal efficiency all the time, you *might* get to £5k/annual saving. But even that is slightly bullshit, because domestic electricity prices lag wholesale ones, while the cost of diesel moves very quickly in line with the world market. And that's before capital cost and maintenance. And you don't even get hot water as a byproduct.

Anyone who thinks they are going to save money by going off grid with a diesel generator is incapable of basic mathematics.
I wasn't suggesting I would actually go and buy us a diesel generator; as you point out, there are various irritations like having to take it offline to service it, and also a bit of capex cost (although tbh, I could find one secondhand that would do our peak load for about £10k - servicing would be under £1k/year, so we'd be ahead by year 3). I sadly don't have any real use for several megawatts worth of hot water a year (you do get free heat out of a diesel, exactly the same as a gas engine, just stick a flat plate heat exchanger in the coolant return between the engine and the cooler group, and help yourself), if I did it would be quite economic!

My point was more that there should be massive economies of scale in generating electricity at grid level and supplying it to industry as required. Apart from anything else, powerstation gas turbines are a lot more efficient than relatively small diesel piston engines.

10 years ago, I'm fairly confident that running my own genset would have been significantly more expensive than a mains electric connection. The fact that it's now even remotely competitive is a massive red flag that our net zero policies are costing us an awful lot of money, mostly by slight of hand, and proof that all the politicians lining up to say that renewables are saving us money are lying to us.
The fact that its even remotely competitive is because gas prices have shot up and we're using gas so that's what you're paying for. Its got nothing to do with net zero policies.

Had we got a net zero power supply before this crisis began then our prices would have remained stable rather than shooting up when gas became expensive.
So explain to me, for I am clearly simple minded, why has the cost of actual electricity per unit (thus linked to gas prices) has merely doubled in five years, but the network costs (standing charge, capacity charges etc) become 6x what it was 5 years ago?

For our site at it's current usage, for every 23p we pay in unit costs for electricity, we pay another 12p in network costs.

It's the additional network cost that's crippling, rather than the increase in unit cost (unit cost is down from 30.9p, two and a half years ago however all the savings are swallowed by the increases in the standing charge) and that increased network cost is basically all thanks to net zero.

Incidentally, our business uses literally tons of LPG gas - the price of which has only gone up 50% since the energy crisis started, and maybe 60% over 5 years, unlike our electricity bill which is 300% up over 5 years.

There is something making UK electricity terribly expensive compared to other sources of energy, and it's not increases in the cost of fuel.

Turning it around: the four countries in Europe with the highest proportion of renewables in the mix - Portugal, Denmark, Norway and Switzerland - had by far the smallest rises in electricity prices.

wooliedyed · May 29

RobD said:

rottenborough said:

Isabel Oakeshott
@IsabelOakeshott
·
25m
Richard Tice is Leader of
@reformparty_uk and there won’t be any deals with the Tory party. End of.

https://x.com/IsabelOakeshott
I thought Farage was the owner of the party?

Trouble at mill

Carnyx · May 29

RobD said:

rottenborough said:

Isabel Oakeshott
@IsabelOakeshott
·
25m
Richard Tice is Leader of
@reformparty_uk and there won’t be any deals with the Tory party. End of.

https://x.com/IsabelOakeshott
I thought Farage was the owner of the party?

I believe Mr Tice is sort of Managing Director?

ToryJim · May 29

Totally O/T but this is the ultimate in instant karma.

https://x.com/cbsnews/status/1795874128387334418?s=46

ydoethur · May 29

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Carnyx said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
What do people mean by 8 years? Wasn't it what Abbott wrote where she said Jewish people don't experience racism all their lives?
Other Labour MP.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5114q1x09eo
Okay what the fuck.
Er, hum. Can we be a bit more cautious with the language in case there's a particular form to this allegation?
Okay then, what the fuck is going on?
Not much better...
I have no idea what you're going on about to be honest.

Let's say, I don't think we want to link an unspecified allegation to fucking.

kle4 · May 29

rottenborough said:

wooliedyed said:
Luke Akehurst gets the gig in Pidcocks old haunt
Could not be more different
Old Momentum crowd taking it well...

Aaron Bastani
@AaronBastani
·
40m
Labour’s NEC aren’t just imposing candidates. Labour’s NEC ARE the candidates.

In this case, this man - Luke Akehurst - a person whose job is to lobby and represent the interests of a foreign power.

Aaron Bastani
@AaronBastani
·
37m
These people are absolutely going to take us into another mad war, by the way.

https://x.com/AaronBastani/status/1795907878340952282

What does 'represent the interests of a foreign power' mean in this case? I assume that is not in the chap's formal job description.

rottenborough · May 29

wooliedyed said:

RobD said:

rottenborough said:

Isabel Oakeshott
@IsabelOakeshott
·
25m
Richard Tice is Leader of
@reformparty_uk and there won’t be any deals with the Tory party. End of.

https://x.com/IsabelOakeshott
I thought Farage was the owner of the party?
Trouble at mill

Could be really important for the betting. If Reform fold - make a difference in some Tory defending seats.

bondegezou · May 29

rcs1000 said:

bondegezou said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

geoffw said:

Leon said:

rfry said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

bondegezou said:

rcs1000 said:

bondegezou said:

DM_Andy said:

bondegezou said:

DM_Andy said:

bondegezou said:

Sandpit said:

Gardenwalker said:

Sandpit said:

DM_Andy said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

Taz said:

williamglenn said:
Jess Phillips calls for Truss to be deselected.

https://x.com/jessphillips/status/1795744506664689920
File under "who gives a shit"
Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.

Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.

It seems pretty reasonable to me that Jess Phillips should have strong opinions about a senior politician who hangs out with someone who has repeatedly talked about raping her.

From the quote in the latter, it appears that the gentleman in question was talking about not raping her.
I'll quote the double down.
“There’s been an awful lot of talk about whether I would or wouldn’t rape Jess Phillips. I suppose with enough pressure I might cave, but let’s be honest nobody’s got that much beer.”

And really if anyone's going to be talking about attractiveness, it's not like Carl Benjamin is an Adonis.

It’s a joke, not a rape threat. That was my point. Perhaps in poor taste, but a joke nonetheless.

Also, as I suspected, the quotes were from several years ago and not recent. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ukip-mep-candidate-says-carl-benjamin-jokes-about-raping-mp-jess-philips-were-risque-155248927.html

Truss is out to get Reform supporters voting Conservitive in the “Red Wall” seats, so why wouldn’t she appear on a podcast with 400k Youtube subscribers? It’s only the left who have this obsession with “sharing a platform”.
By all means Truss is free to share a platform with various alt-right figures who joke about raping MPs.

And we are free to form an opinion of what kind of person that makes her.
The quotes where from 2018, and as I said above, 2018 “Sargon of Akkad” is a very different person from 2022 Carl Benjamin, who’s no more controversial today than GB News, and has 400k followers on Youtube.

Should people not be allowed to be rehabilitated into society?
From Wikipedia: “In February 2020, Benjamin launched the group Hearts of Oak with British far-right activist Tommy Robinson”.

The Hearts of Oak website still includes him: https://heartsofoak.org/guests/carl-benjamin/

Here he is a few months ago at a Hearts of Oak event with another conspiracy theorist, Andrew Bridgen: https://youtu.be/SsRayGgi_4Y

Why, Sandpit, are you watching the output of far right conspiracy theorists?
I listen to his videos sometimes, usually at double speed because he takes forever to get to his point. That's why I know that Carl now is the same guy as Carl in 2019. I listen to The Quartering and Knights Watch too but mainly for unintended entertainment.
Why? Do you agree with Tommy Robinson and Andrew Bridgen as well?
No but I don't think that jamming my fingers into my ears helps my understanding of the world. Speaking of Bridgen, there is a funny one on Bridgen and his list of 'world experts' https://youtu.be/U1mHK7gBryM
You yourself said that “180 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube every minute.” But you have gone out of your way to listen to his videos. That’s not not jamming your fingers in your ears.

Unless you are specifically doing a study of far right social media figures, I do not understand what you get out of listening to far right conspiracy theorists.
If you want to understand why people think a certain way, it helps to understand them, don't you think?
Yes, it does. I have found, personally, that it doesn’t take very long to get the measure of far right conspiracy theorists, and they’re all much of a muchness. I’ve also found that you don’t need to wade through the sewage they spew to understand them: you can read the analysis of those who have done that previously. It’s quicker and less unpleasant.

I have, however, for the purposes of research on this topic, just listened to a very recent 11-minute video by Carl Benjamin on Twitter where he outlines his political agenda. It’s full of talk of people of “foreign stock”, and the value of “traditional roles” for men and women. He explains how, “An evil will has taken control of the educational system”. His Twitter feed also had lots of retweets of Tommy Robinson as they’re at an event in London together in a few days time. It all confirms to me that he is a far right conspiracy theorist.
So, you did indeed benefit from watching it, as you are now rather better informed. (Of his views, obviously.)

I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I've never heard of him.

I dislike the phrase conspiracy theorist. It's for dullards. Conspiracies happen sometimes. One assumes people who like to call other people conspiracy theorist don't actually deny the notion of conspiracy itself. Therefore 'conspiracy theorist' as a value judgement makes no sense. It's like insulting someone by calling them 'a person who thinks it's another person's birthday'. A birthday believer. Or a person who thinks it's Friday. A friday freak. Sometimes it is Friday. Sometimes it's someone else's birthday.
Indeed the covid lab leak theory was initially denounced as a conspiracy theory.
Not just that. The lab leak hypothesis was a “racist conspiracy theory” and the scientific powers-that-be managed to silence it for a year on TwiX and Facebook. You literally weren’t allowed to talk about it, like we were all Galileo trying to push heliocentrism
Does anyone nowadays not think it came from the lab?

@bondegezou and maybe @turbotubbs (tho the latter at least admits doubts)

Otherwise no. No one on earth now believes it came from the market. That includes the US government (democrats as well as republicans) who are now firmly gunning for Ecohealth and Peter Daszak who likely made the virus in the Wuhan lab with US money
I believe it came from the market.

It just probably came from the lab to the market. Perhaps some janitor on 50cents an hour grabbed some bats to sell at the wet market.

Or perhaps it was another animal in a container on the plane next to a bat that was being sent to Wuhan. The bat went to the Wuhan institute of virology, while the armadillo (or whatever) ended up at the wet market.

Or perhaps a lab worker got bit by a bat, developed a snuffle, and then did his evening's shopping at the market.

The idea that the two theories are mutually incompatible exists only in the mind of the mentally subnormal.
The market is a 40 minute drive and on the other side of a major river to the lab. Why did this janitor go all the way there, without transmitting the disease to anyone else along the way or to anyone else subsequently?

Generally samples were taken to the lab, not live animals. They weren't transported along side animals for the wet market. Armadillos are an American group: you're thinking of pangolins.

If the bat was being sent to the WIV and infected a pangolin, or whatever, then that's not a lab leak. That's a zoonotic event from a wild animal, as most scientists understand to be the cause of the pandemic.

All of your other scenarios add complications and coincidences. Occam's razor suggests they all fail against the simple theory of zoonosis via the market.
"If the bat was being sent to the WIV and infected a pangolin, or whatever, then that's not a lab leak. That's a zoonotic event from a wild animal, as most scientists understand to be the cause of the pandemic."

Here's why I hate the phrase "lab leak". Some will read it as "they were experimenting with gain of function viruses and one got loose", when that is only one of a gazillion ways that a virus can escape as a result of bat virus research.

There are lots of possible things, but where's the evidence? Russell's teapot applies.

An animal going to the market caught it from an animal collected for research, even though animals for a research institute and animals for a wet market are not transported together, and even though there was no record of this bat ever arriving at the research institute. It's not compelling.

kle4 · May 29

RobD said:

rottenborough said:

Isabel Oakeshott
@IsabelOakeshott
·
25m
Richard Tice is Leader of
@reformparty_uk and there won’t be any deals with the Tory party. End of.

https://x.com/IsabelOakeshott
I thought Farage was the owner of the party?

Trouble in paradise between the owner, who is doing his own thing, and the figurehead Leader who would like ot be more substantial than he is?

BatteryCorrectHorse · May 29

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

ydoethur said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Carnyx said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:
What do people mean by 8 years? Wasn't it what Abbott wrote where she said Jewish people don't experience racism all their lives?
Other Labour MP.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5114q1x09eo
Okay what the fuck.
Er, hum. Can we be a bit more cautious with the language in case there's a particular form to this allegation?
Okay then, what the fuck is going on?
Not much better...
I have no idea what you're going on about to be honest.
Let's say, I don't think we want to link an unspecified allegation to fucking.

Eh? I wasn't.

bondegezou · May 29

EPG said:

Casino_Royale said:
Question: did Labour come from the lab, or the wet market?
It's not called Wet marketour.

You win today's PB.

maxh · May 29

rcs1000 said:

bondegezou said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

geoffw said:

Leon said:

rfry said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

bondegezou said:

rcs1000 said:

bondegezou said:

DM_Andy said:

bondegezou said:

DM_Andy said:

bondegezou said:

Sandpit said:

Gardenwalker said:

Sandpit said:

DM_Andy said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

Taz said:

williamglenn said:
Jess Phillips calls for Truss to be deselected.

https://x.com/jessphillips/status/1795744506664689920
File under "who gives a shit"
Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.

Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.

It seems pretty reasonable to me that Jess Phillips should have strong opinions about a senior politician who hangs out with someone who has repeatedly talked about raping her.

From the quote in the latter, it appears that the gentleman in question was talking about not raping her.
I'll quote the double down.
“There’s been an awful lot of talk about whether I would or wouldn’t rape Jess Phillips. I suppose with enough pressure I might cave, but let’s be honest nobody’s got that much beer.”

And really if anyone's going to be talking about attractiveness, it's not like Carl Benjamin is an Adonis.

It’s a joke, not a rape threat. That was my point. Perhaps in poor taste, but a joke nonetheless.

Also, as I suspected, the quotes were from several years ago and not recent. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ukip-mep-candidate-says-carl-benjamin-jokes-about-raping-mp-jess-philips-were-risque-155248927.html

Truss is out to get Reform supporters voting Conservitive in the “Red Wall” seats, so why wouldn’t she appear on a podcast with 400k Youtube subscribers? It’s only the left who have this obsession with “sharing a platform”.
By all means Truss is free to share a platform with various alt-right figures who joke about raping MPs.

And we are free to form an opinion of what kind of person that makes her.
The quotes where from 2018, and as I said above, 2018 “Sargon of Akkad” is a very different person from 2022 Carl Benjamin, who’s no more controversial today than GB News, and has 400k followers on Youtube.

Should people not be allowed to be rehabilitated into society?
From Wikipedia: “In February 2020, Benjamin launched the group Hearts of Oak with British far-right activist Tommy Robinson”.

The Hearts of Oak website still includes him: https://heartsofoak.org/guests/carl-benjamin/

Here he is a few months ago at a Hearts of Oak event with another conspiracy theorist, Andrew Bridgen: https://youtu.be/SsRayGgi_4Y

Why, Sandpit, are you watching the output of far right conspiracy theorists?
I listen to his videos sometimes, usually at double speed because he takes forever to get to his point. That's why I know that Carl now is the same guy as Carl in 2019. I listen to The Quartering and Knights Watch too but mainly for unintended entertainment.
Why? Do you agree with Tommy Robinson and Andrew Bridgen as well?
No but I don't think that jamming my fingers into my ears helps my understanding of the world. Speaking of Bridgen, there is a funny one on Bridgen and his list of 'world experts' https://youtu.be/U1mHK7gBryM
You yourself said that “180 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube every minute.” But you have gone out of your way to listen to his videos. That’s not not jamming your fingers in your ears.

Unless you are specifically doing a study of far right social media figures, I do not understand what you get out of listening to far right conspiracy theorists.
If you want to understand why people think a certain way, it helps to understand them, don't you think?
Yes, it does. I have found, personally, that it doesn’t take very long to get the measure of far right conspiracy theorists, and they’re all much of a muchness. I’ve also found that you don’t need to wade through the sewage they spew to understand them: you can read the analysis of those who have done that previously. It’s quicker and less unpleasant.

I have, however, for the purposes of research on this topic, just listened to a very recent 11-minute video by Carl Benjamin on Twitter where he outlines his political agenda. It’s full of talk of people of “foreign stock”, and the value of “traditional roles” for men and women. He explains how, “An evil will has taken control of the educational system”. His Twitter feed also had lots of retweets of Tommy Robinson as they’re at an event in London together in a few days time. It all confirms to me that he is a far right conspiracy theorist.
So, you did indeed benefit from watching it, as you are now rather better informed. (Of his views, obviously.)

I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I've never heard of him.

I dislike the phrase conspiracy theorist. It's for dullards. Conspiracies happen sometimes. One assumes people who like to call other people conspiracy theorist don't actually deny the notion of conspiracy itself. Therefore 'conspiracy theorist' as a value judgement makes no sense. It's like insulting someone by calling them 'a person who thinks it's another person's birthday'. A birthday believer. Or a person who thinks it's Friday. A friday freak. Sometimes it is Friday. Sometimes it's someone else's birthday.
Indeed the covid lab leak theory was initially denounced as a conspiracy theory.
Not just that. The lab leak hypothesis was a “racist conspiracy theory” and the scientific powers-that-be managed to silence it for a year on TwiX and Facebook. You literally weren’t allowed to talk about it, like we were all Galileo trying to push heliocentrism
Does anyone nowadays not think it came from the lab?

@bondegezou and maybe @turbotubbs (tho the latter at least admits doubts)

Otherwise no. No one on earth now believes it came from the market. That includes the US government (democrats as well as republicans) who are now firmly gunning for Ecohealth and Peter Daszak who likely made the virus in the Wuhan lab with US money
I believe it came from the market.

It just probably came from the lab to the market. Perhaps some janitor on 50cents an hour grabbed some bats to sell at the wet market.

Or perhaps it was another animal in a container on the plane next to a bat that was being sent to Wuhan. The bat went to the Wuhan institute of virology, while the armadillo (or whatever) ended up at the wet market.

Or perhaps a lab worker got bit by a bat, developed a snuffle, and then did his evening's shopping at the market.

The idea that the two theories are mutually incompatible exists only in the mind of the mentally subnormal.
The market is a 40 minute drive and on the other side of a major river to the lab. Why did this janitor go all the way there, without transmitting the disease to anyone else along the way or to anyone else subsequently?

Generally samples were taken to the lab, not live animals. They weren't transported along side animals for the wet market. Armadillos are an American group: you're thinking of pangolins.

If the bat was being sent to the WIV and infected a pangolin, or whatever, then that's not a lab leak. That's a zoonotic event from a wild animal, as most scientists understand to be the cause of the pandemic.

All of your other scenarios add complications and coincidences. Occam's razor suggests they all fail against the simple theory of zoonosis via the market.
"If the bat was being sent to the WIV and infected a pangolin, or whatever, then that's not a lab leak. That's a zoonotic event from a wild animal, as most scientists understand to be the cause of the pandemic."

Here's why I hate the phrase "lab leak". Some will read it as "they were experimenting with gain of function viruses and one got loose", when that is only one of a gazillion ways that a virus can escape as a result of bat virus research.

I learn a lot from PB.

Turns out I can read loads of posts about the origins of covid-19 on here and learn precisely nothing.

(Not a dig at you in any way Robert, I just find the back and forth so amusingly opaque.)

numbertwelve · May 29

On Diane Abbot, I can respect her accomplishments and contribution whilst also disagreeing fundamentally with most of her views and thinking she shouldn’t have been let anywhere near the Home Office. If she is barred from standing I think it’s a sad end to her political career.

kle4 · May 29

maxh said:

rcs1000 said:

bondegezou said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

geoffw said:

Leon said:

rfry said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

bondegezou said:

rcs1000 said:

bondegezou said:

DM_Andy said:

bondegezou said:

DM_Andy said:

bondegezou said:

Sandpit said:

Gardenwalker said:

Sandpit said:

DM_Andy said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

Taz said:

williamglenn said:
Jess Phillips calls for Truss to be deselected.

https://x.com/jessphillips/status/1795744506664689920
File under "who gives a shit"
Voters who don’t think someone should lose their job for appearing on a podcast of someone whom others find objectionable. They give a sh!t.

Jess Philips, the queen of cancel culture, and a great example of the attitude a Labour government will have towards freedom of speech.

It seems pretty reasonable to me that Jess Phillips should have strong opinions about a senior politician who hangs out with someone who has repeatedly talked about raping her.

From the quote in the latter, it appears that the gentleman in question was talking about not raping her.
I'll quote the double down.
“There’s been an awful lot of talk about whether I would or wouldn’t rape Jess Phillips. I suppose with enough pressure I might cave, but let’s be honest nobody’s got that much beer.”

And really if anyone's going to be talking about attractiveness, it's not like Carl Benjamin is an Adonis.

It’s a joke, not a rape threat. That was my point. Perhaps in poor taste, but a joke nonetheless.

Also, as I suspected, the quotes were from several years ago and not recent. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ukip-mep-candidate-says-carl-benjamin-jokes-about-raping-mp-jess-philips-were-risque-155248927.html

Truss is out to get Reform supporters voting Conservitive in the “Red Wall” seats, so why wouldn’t she appear on a podcast with 400k Youtube subscribers? It’s only the left who have this obsession with “sharing a platform”.
By all means Truss is free to share a platform with various alt-right figures who joke about raping MPs.

And we are free to form an opinion of what kind of person that makes her.
The quotes where from 2018, and as I said above, 2018 “Sargon of Akkad” is a very different person from 2022 Carl Benjamin, who’s no more controversial today than GB News, and has 400k followers on Youtube.

Should people not be allowed to be rehabilitated into society?
From Wikipedia: “In February 2020, Benjamin launched the group Hearts of Oak with British far-right activist Tommy Robinson”.

The Hearts of Oak website still includes him: https://heartsofoak.org/guests/carl-benjamin/

Here he is a few months ago at a Hearts of Oak event with another conspiracy theorist, Andrew Bridgen: https://youtu.be/SsRayGgi_4Y

Why, Sandpit, are you watching the output of far right conspiracy theorists?
I listen to his videos sometimes, usually at double speed because he takes forever to get to his point. That's why I know that Carl now is the same guy as Carl in 2019. I listen to The Quartering and Knights Watch too but mainly for unintended entertainment.
Why? Do you agree with Tommy Robinson and Andrew Bridgen as well?
No but I don't think that jamming my fingers into my ears helps my understanding of the world. Speaking of Bridgen, there is a funny one on Bridgen and his list of 'world experts' https://youtu.be/U1mHK7gBryM
You yourself said that “180 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube every minute.” But you have gone out of your way to listen to his videos. That’s not not jamming your fingers in your ears.

Unless you are specifically doing a study of far right social media figures, I do not understand what you get out of listening to far right conspiracy theorists.
If you want to understand why people think a certain way, it helps to understand them, don't you think?
Yes, it does. I have found, personally, that it doesn’t take very long to get the measure of far right conspiracy theorists, and they’re all much of a muchness. I’ve also found that you don’t need to wade through the sewage they spew to understand them: you can read the analysis of those who have done that previously. It’s quicker and less unpleasant.

I have, however, for the purposes of research on this topic, just listened to a very recent 11-minute video by Carl Benjamin on Twitter where he outlines his political agenda. It’s full of talk of people of “foreign stock”, and the value of “traditional roles” for men and women. He explains how, “An evil will has taken control of the educational system”. His Twitter feed also had lots of retweets of Tommy Robinson as they’re at an event in London together in a few days time. It all confirms to me that he is a far right conspiracy theorist.
So, you did indeed benefit from watching it, as you are now rather better informed. (Of his views, obviously.)

I'm glad we've cleared that up.
I've never heard of him.

I dislike the phrase conspiracy theorist. It's for dullards. Conspiracies happen sometimes. One assumes people who like to call other people conspiracy theorist don't actually deny the notion of conspiracy itself. Therefore 'conspiracy theorist' as a value judgement makes no sense. It's like insulting someone by calling them 'a person who thinks it's another person's birthday'. A birthday believer. Or a person who thinks it's Friday. A friday freak. Sometimes it is Friday. Sometimes it's someone else's birthday.
Indeed the covid lab leak theory was initially denounced as a conspiracy theory.
Not just that. The lab leak hypothesis was a “racist conspiracy theory” and the scientific powers-that-be managed to silence it for a year on TwiX and Facebook. You literally weren’t allowed to talk about it, like we were all Galileo trying to push heliocentrism
Does anyone nowadays not think it came from the lab?

@bondegezou and maybe @turbotubbs (tho the latter at least admits doubts)

Otherwise no. No one on earth now believes it came from the market. That includes the US government (democrats as well as republicans) who are now firmly gunning for Ecohealth and Peter Daszak who likely made the virus in the Wuhan lab with US money
I believe it came from the market.

It just probably came from the lab to the market. Perhaps some janitor on 50cents an hour grabbed some bats to sell at the wet market.

Or perhaps it was another animal in a container on the plane next to a bat that was being sent to Wuhan. The bat went to the Wuhan institute of virology, while the armadillo (or whatever) ended up at the wet market.

Or perhaps a lab worker got bit by a bat, developed a snuffle, and then did his evening's shopping at the market.

The idea that the two theories are mutually incompatible exists only in the mind of the mentally subnormal.
The market is a 40 minute drive and on the other side of a major river to the lab. Why did this janitor go all the way there, without transmitting the disease to anyone else along the way or to anyone else subsequently?

Generally samples were taken to the lab, not live animals. They weren't transported along side animals for the wet market. Armadillos are an American group: you're thinking of pangolins.

If the bat was being sent to the WIV and infected a pangolin, or whatever, then that's not a lab leak. That's a zoonotic event from a wild animal, as most scientists understand to be the cause of the pandemic.

All of your other scenarios add complications and coincidences. Occam's razor suggests they all fail against the simple theory of zoonosis via the market.
"If the bat was being sent to the WIV and infected a pangolin, or whatever, then that's not a lab leak. That's a zoonotic event from a wild animal, as most scientists understand to be the cause of the pandemic."

Here's why I hate the phrase "lab leak". Some will read it as "they were experimenting with gain of function viruses and one got loose", when that is only one of a gazillion ways that a virus can escape as a result of bat virus research.
I learn a lot from PB.

Turns out I can read loads of posts about the origins of covid-19 on here and learn precisely nothing.

(Not a dig at you in any way Robert, I just find the back and forth so amusingly opaque.)

I've not learned anything in 20 years, it's done me no harm.

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

The Purge: Election Year – politicalbetting.com

Comments